tribe

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “tribe” in English when referring to the “12 tribes of Israel” is translated in some East African languages, including Taita and Pökoot, with the equivalent of “clan” instead.

Aloo Mojola explains (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 208ff. ) (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):

“A number of Bible translation teams in East Africa have been baffled and intrigued by the use of the term ‘tribe’ in the English translations of the Bible. The usage employed in these translations does not reflect any of the popular meanings associated with the term ‘tribe’ in present-day English. Neither does it reflect popular conceptions of the meaning of this term in East Africa or in other parts of Africa and elsewhere. This raises the question: is the term tribe the best translation of the Hebrew terms shebeth and matteh or the Greek term phyle? What is a tribe anyway? Are the twelve tribes of Israel tribes in the sense this term is currently understood? How can this term be translated in East African languages?

“It is easy to see that there is no consistent definition of the term tribe which applies exclusively and consistently to the communities to which it is currently applied. Why, for example, are the Somali or the Baganda called a tribe, but not the Irish or the Italians? Why do the Yoruba or Hausa qualify, but not the Portuguese or the Russians? Why the Bakongo and the Oromo, but not the Germans or the Scots? Why the Eritreans, but not the French or Dutch-speaking Belgians? Why the Zulu or the Xhosa, but not the South African Boers (Afrikaners) or the South African English? The reason for the current prejudices, it would seem, has nothing to do with language, physical type, common territory, common cultural values, type of political and social organization or even population size. Ingrained prejudices and preconceived ideas about so-called “primitive” peoples have everything to do with it.

“The term ‘tribe’ is used to refer to a universal and world-wide phenomenon of ethnic identification which may draw on any of the following bases: identification in terms of one’s first or dominant language of communication (linguistic), in terms of one’s place of origin (regional), in terms of one’s presumed racial, biological or genetic type (racial), or in terms of one’s ideological or political commitments (ideological), and so on. Communities may choose one or more of these bases as criteria for membership. Any of these may change over time. Moreover forms of ethnic identification are dynamic or in a state of flux, changing in response to new environments and circumstances. Essentially forms of ethnic association reflect a people’s struggle for survival through adaptation to changing times. This is inextricably intertwined with the production and distribution of vital resources, goods and services as well as the distribution of power, class and status in society.

“At the base of any ethnic group is the nuclear family which expands to include the extended family. The extended family consists of more than two families related vertically and horizontally: parents and their offspring, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, and others, extending to more than two generations. A lineage is usually a larger group than an extended family. It includes a number of such families who trace descent through the male or female line to a common ancestor. A clan may be equivalent to or larger than a lineage. Where it is larger than a lineage, it brings together several lineages which may or may not know the precise nature of their relationships, but which nevertheless claim descent from a common ancestor. A clan is best thought of as a kind of sub-ethnic unit whose members have some unifying symbol such as totem, label, or myth. In most cases the clan is used to determine correct marriage lines, but this is not universally so. Above the clan is the ethnic group, usually referred to inconsistently as the tribe. Members of an ethnic group share feelings of belonging to a common group. The basis of ethnic identity is not always derived from a common descent, real or fictional; it may draw on any of the bases mentioned above.

“The Israelites identified themselves as one people sharing a common descent, a common religious and cultural heritage, a common language and history. There is no doubt that they constitute what would nowadays be called an ethnic group, or by some people a tribe. The twelve subunits of the Israelite ethnic group or tribe, (Hebrew shebeth or matteh, or Greek phyle) are clearly equivalent to clans. In fact this is what seems to make sense to most African Bible translators in the light of their understanding of these terms and the biblical account. Referring to a shebeth as a tribe or an ethnic group and to Israel as a collection of twelve tribes creates unnecessary confusion. Translating each of the terms shebeth, matteh, and phyle as clan seems to solve this problem and to be consistent with current usage in African languages.”

See also family / clan / house.

altar

The Greek, Latin and Hebrew that is translated as “altar” in English is translated in a number of ways:

  • Obolo: ntook or “raised structure for keeping utensils (esp. sacrifice)” (source: Enene Enene)
  • Muna: medha kaefoampe’a or “offering table” (source: René van den Berg)
  • Luchazi: muytula or “the place where one sets the burden down”/”the place where the life is laid down” (source: E. Pearson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 160ff. )
  • Tzotzil: “where they place God’s gifts” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation, March 1965, p. 2ff.)
  • Tsafiki: “table for giving to God” (source: Bruce Moore in Notes on Translation 1/1992, p. 1ff.)
  • Noongar: karla-kooranyi or “sacred fire” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “offering-burning table” (source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “place for sacrificing” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “burning-place” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tibetan: mchod khri (མཆོད་​ཁྲི།) or “offering throne” (source: gSungrab website )
  • Bura-Pabir: “sacrifice mound” (source: Andy Warrren-Rothlin)
  • Kalanga: “fireplace of sacrifice” (source: project-specific notes in Paratext)
  • Cherokee: “fire nurturing place” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 26) (note that the Jewish priest is “fire feeder” in Cherokee
The Ignaciano translators decided to translate the difficult term in that language according to the focus of each New Testament passage in which the word appears (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Willis Ott (in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.) explains:

  • Matt. 5:23,24: “When you take your offering to God, and arriving, you remember…, do not offer your gift yet. First go to your brother…Then it is fitting to return and offer your offering to God.” (The focus is on improving relationships with people before attempting to improve a relationship with God, so the means of offering, the altar, is not focal.)
  • Matt. 23:18 (19,20): “You also teach erroneously: ‘If someone makes a promise, swearing by the offering-place/table, he is not guilty if he should break the promise. But if he swears by the gift that he put on the offering-place/table, he will be guilty if he breaks the promise.'”
  • Luke 1:11: “…to the right side of the table where they burn incense.”
  • Luke 11.51. “…the one they killed in front of the temple (or the temple enclosure).” (The focus is on location, with overtones on: “their crime was all the more heinous for killing him there”.)
  • Rom. 11:3: “Lord, they have killed all my fellow prophets that spoke for you. They do not want anyone to give offerings to you in worship.” (The focus is on the people’s rejection of religion, with God as the object of worship.)
  • 1Cor. 9:13 (10:18): “Remember that those that attend the temple have rights to eat the foods that people bring as offerings to God. They have rights to the meat that the people offer.” (The focus is on the right of priests to the offered food.)
  • Heb. 7:13: “This one of whom we are talking is from another clan. No one from that clan was ever a priest.” (The focus in on the legitimacy of this priest’s vocation.)
  • Jas. 2:21: “Remember our ancestor Abraham, when God tested him by asking him to give him his son by death. Abraham was to the point of stabbing/killing his son, thus proving his obedience.” (The focus is on the sacrifice as a demonstration of faith/obedience.)
  • Rev. 6:9 (8:3,5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7): “I saw the souls of them that…They were under the table that holds God’s fire/coals.” (This keeps the concepts of: furniture, receptacle for keeping fire, and location near God.)
  • Rev. 11:1: “Go to the temple, Measure the building and the inside enclosure (the outside is contrasted in v. 2). Measure the burning place for offered animals. Then count the people who are worshiping there.” (This altar is probably the brazen altar in a temple on earth, since people are worshiping there and since outside this area conquerors are allowed to subjugate for a certain time.)

See also altar (Acts 17:23).


In the Hebraic English translation of Everett Fox it is translated as slaughter-site and likewise in the German translation by Buber / Rosenzweig as Schlachtstatt.

serve

The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that is typically translated in English as “serve,” “minister,” “walk with,” or “service” is translated in Igede as myị ẹrụ or “agree with message (of the one you’re serving).” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

In Quetzaltepec Mixe, “serve” is translated as “obey.” (Source: Robert Bascom)

complete verse (Hebrews 7:13)

Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 7:13:

  • Uma: “What/Who is referred to here is our Lord. For we know that our Lord was born from the descendants of Yehuda, he was not from the descendants of Lewi. There has never yet been one of the family of Yehuda who was appointed [lit., lifted] to be/become a priest, for in the law of priests, Musa never once mentioned the family of Yehuda.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Our (incl.) Lord Isa Almasi hep is the one-taking-the-place in priesting but he is not a descendant of Libi. It is known that he is a descendant of Yuda and there has been no priest from the descendants of Yuda. Musa didn’t mention anything about the descendants of Yuda when he spoke about the priests.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “,” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “We know that these have already been replaced, because our Lord of whom this that God caused-to-be-written is speaking was not a descendant of Levi. We all know that Juda was the one who ancestored him, and there are absolutely no descendants of Juda who have served as priests in charge of what was offered to God. Neither is there anything that Moses said about a descendant of Juda who was a priest.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “The proof is, our Lord Jesus who is the one to whom I am referring here, he was not of the clan of the descendants of Levi from-which- the priests -were-chosen in the past. We all know that as for Jesus, (he was) of the clan of the descendants of Juda. As for this clan, it was not mentioned by Moises when he explained about whom it was possible to make a priest. There really is not even one who was priest from the clan of the descendants of Juda. The priesthood of Jesus, (it is) suitable/fitting for our needs, just like the priesthood of Melquisedec” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “This new priest which is spoken of in the Holy Book is Jesus Christ. But this Jesus is not of the root of Levi, rather he is of the root of Judah. And of this root of Judah, there never has been one to arise to be a priest.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Honorary "rare" construct denoting God ("belonging")

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme rare (られ) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, zokushiteo-rare-ru (属しておられる) or “belonging” is used.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Hebrews 7:13 – 7:14

These two verses contain four overlapping statements, two positive and two negative.

The repetition is probably for emphasis. It is the writer’s way of bringing home to his readers the fact that there comes a point at which they must choose between the Jewish tradition and the Christian faith (compare Mark 2.12-13; Gal 3.1-18). In some languages it may be more natural and effective to avoid the repetition by shortening or rearranging the text, and this may be possible without loss of meaning.

Our Lord is not expressed in the Greek until verse 14 but is added in verse 13 for clarity. Direct use of the name “Jesus” is avoided in the text, and it should be avoided in translation until it can come in at the climax of verse 21 or 22.

Of whom these things are said probably means “… said in the Old Testament” rather than “of whom we are speaking” (Barclay). This makes a much better parallel to Moses in verse 14. Jerusalem Bible even puts the verb into the past tense, “were said,” to make the Old Testament reference clear, but Hebrews often uses present tenses to show the permanent value of Scripture. Of whom these things are said may be rendered as “about whom there are words in the holy writings,” “about whom the holy writings speak,” or “the holy writings contain these words about him.”

Belonged to is literally “rose” (like the sun); in common language, “came from” (see Luke 1.78; Jer 23.5). Belonged to a different tribe may be rendered as “counted a different person as his forefather” or “did not belong to the people who looked to Levi as their forefather.”

Tribe and its equivalents in some other languages are unacceptable in many parts of the world for describing ethnic groups. Where this is so, some other expression must be found which (a) describes a large kinship group within a nation, (b) has no negative “colonial” overtones, and (c) is not, like “ethnic group,” a technical expression. The situation appears to be rather different in Africa and in some parts of Asia. In Africa, “tribe” and its equivalents in other European languages are widely rejected as implying a condescending attitude to African peoples (as do “native” and similar terms). In parts of Asia, however, members of a dominant ethnic or political group may freely refer, for example, to “hill tribes,” “tribal languages,” and the like. The translator needs to be sure that the expression he uses is fully acceptable to (other) native speakers, whatever their level of education; it is not enough that the term should be commonly applied to them by others. The translator should take into account, not only individual terms, but the way in which they are connected with other words; for example, the noun “a native,” “the natives,” usually has a derogatory meaning in modern English, but it is acceptable for someone to describe himself as “a native of Boston” or to speak of English as his “native language.” At such sensitive points, careful testing of draft translations is particularly important. In choosing a translation for tribe, translators should consider how they would translate the word in such Old Testament passages as Numbers 36.5-9 and Joshua 7.14-18. The expression chosen should refer to a group smaller than a people or nation, but larger than a clan or family.

No member of his tribe ever served as a priest may be expressed as “no one who belonged to the same tribe as our Lord ever served as a priest” or “… was ever a priest.”

It is well known, verse 14, may be expressed as “Everyone knows.”

That he was born a member of the tribe of Judah may be expressed as “our Lord descended from Judah” or “our Lord belonged to the group of people who descended from Judah.”

The importance which the writer gives to what Scripture does not say has already been noted in verse 3. Moses in verse 14 is equivalent to the Torah or Pentateuch. However, did not mention refers to a specific event, either the giving of the Law in general, as in 9.19, or perhaps specifically to the blessing of Levi in Deuteronomy 33.8-11.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .