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.

Joseph

The term that is transliterated as “Joseph” in English is translated in American Sign Language with a sign that relates to a) the coat he wore (see Gen 37:3), b) the holding of his clothes by Potiphar’s wife (see Gen 39:12), and c) the many times Joseph experienced grief. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“Joseph” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign that signifies “dream,” referring to Jacob’s dream at Bethel (see Genesis 28:10 and the following verses). (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Joseph” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Joseph .

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

complete verse (Joshua 17:1)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 17:1:

  • Kupsabiny: “The people of the clan of Manasse were also given land. Manasse was the firstborn son of Joseph. (The house of Machir had earlier been given Gilead and Bashan. Machir was the firstborn son of Manasse and the father of Gilead who liked fighting very much.)” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “When lots were cast, this share fell to the tribe of Joseph’s firstborn son, Manasseh. The firstborn son of Manasseh was Makir, the ancestor of Gileadites. Because the Makirites were well-trained soldiers, the land of Gilead and Bashan had already been given to them.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “There-was also land given for the half tribe of Manase the oldest child/(son) of Jose. Gilead and the Bashan to the east of the River of Jordan had- already -been-given to the family of Makir because he (was) a good soldier. (Makir the father of Gilead was the oldest child/(son) of Manase.)” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “This is a list of the land that was allotted to the tribe of Manasseh. Manasseh’s oldest son was Makir and his grandson was Gilead. Makir’s descendants were great warriors, so the lands in the Gilead and Bashan regions were allotted to their clan.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Joshua 17:1

Verses 1-6 explain why some of the descendants of Manasseh were given land on the east side of the Jordan (East Manasseh) while the rest were given land on the west side of the Jordan (West Manasseh).

A part of the land west of the Jordan was assigned to is more literally “Then allotment was made to” (Revised Standard Version). That is, the Hebrew text does not define as precisely as Good News Translation the location of the land assigned to the tribe of Manasseh. The meaning may be either what is represented in Good News Translation, or else the reference could be to the entire apportionment of land given the tribe of Manasseh. The alternative interpretation appears more likely, inasmuch as Gilead and Bashan, territories east of the Jordan, are mentioned in this verse. Following this interpretation one may translate “Joshua assigned the largest portion of land to the tribe of Manasseh, which was descended from Joseph’s older son Manasseh.” Or “… Manasseh. These were the descendants of Manasseh, who was Joseph’s older son.”

Manasseh’s oldest son Machir was assigned Gilead and Bashan, east of the Jordan (see 13.29-31). This second sentence of Good News Translation is difficult because it has two appositional modifiers (the father of Gilead and east of the Jordan), and the two subjects (Machir and Gilead and Bashan) are separated by the modifiers from their verbs (was and were assigned). If the sentence is broken into smaller units and restructured, it should become more readable:

• Machir was Manasseh’s oldest son, and he himself had a son named Gilead. Machir was a military hero, and Joshua had earlier assigned to him the territories of Gilead and Bashan, which were east of the Jordan River.

A military hero may be translated “a famous soldier” or “a brave soldier.” It is quite possible also that and a military hero, so Gilead and Bashan … were assigned to him may mean, “He was a great soldier and had conquered the territories of Gilead and Bashan.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .