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.

village

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “village” or “town” in English is translated in Noongar as karlamaya or “fire (used for “home“) + houses” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

In Elhomwe it is typically translated as “place.” “Here in Malawi, villages very small, so changed to ‘places,’ since not sure whether biblical reference just to small villages or also to bigger towns. (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

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 .

chariot

The Hebrew, Latin, Ge’ez, and Greek that is translated into English as “chariot” is translated into Anuak as “canoe pulled by horse.” “Canoe” is the general term for “vehicle” (source: Loren Bliese). Similarly it is translated in Lokạạ as ukwaa wạ nyanyang ntuuli or “canoe that is driven by horses.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
Other translations include:

  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “cart pulled by horses” (source: Larson 1998, p. 98)
  • Chichicapan Zapotec: “ox cart” (in Acts 8) (ox carts are common vehicles for travel) (source: Loren Bliese)
  • Chichimeca-Jonaz, it is translated as “little house with two feet pulled by two horses” (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
  • Hausa Common Language Bible as keken-doki or “cart of donkey” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
  • Mairasi: “going-thing [vehicle]” (source: Enggavoter 2004)

It is illustrated for use in Bible translations in East Africa by Pioneer Bible Translators like this:

Image owned by PBT and Jonathan McDaniel and licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

See also cart.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Josh 17:16)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding Joshua.

complete verse (Joshua 17:16)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 17:16:

  • Kupsabiny: “Those people again said, ‘That highland is not enough for us, but we are not able to manage the Canaanites who live in Beth-shan and their villages and those who live in the valley Jezreel because, they are fierce and have chariots of iron.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Joseph’s descendants replied, "The hill country is not enough for us. in the plain, that is Beth-shean and its villages and the all the Canaanites who live in the valley of Jezreel have iron chariots."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “The descendants of Jose said, ‘The mountains (are) (too) small for us (excl.). And we (excl.) are- not -able-(to-fight-against) the Canaanhon in the valley/plains because they have iron chariots. And also the Canaanhon at Bet Shean and in the towns/cities around it, and in the Valley/Plain of Jezreel.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “The people of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh replied, ‘It is true that the land in the hilly area is not big enough for us, but the Canaan people-group who live in the lowlands, in Beth-Shan and the surrounding villages in that area, and in the Jezreel Valley, have iron chariots, so we will not be able to defeat them!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Joshua 17:16

Beth Shan is on the eastern border of West Manasseh, not far from the Jordan River; Jezreel Valley runs east and west, north of Beth Shan.

For people who lived in the plains, the iron plated chariots were formidable weapons (see chariots in 11.4). At this time the Israelites had nothing to compare with them, and so they had to stay in the hill country.

In place of They replied, it may be useful to translate “The descendants of Joseph replied.” It should be made clear that the descendants of Joseph in verse 14, They of this verse, and the tribes of Ephraim and West Manasseh of verse 17 are the same people. This may be achieved by translating “The tribes of Ephraim and West Manasseh, which were the descendants of Joseph, replied….” Here again the lengthy sentence of Good News Translation may be divided into smaller units:

• “There is not enough room for us in the hill country, but the Canaanites live in the plains and the valleys. And all of them have war chariots made of iron. Those who live in the city of Beth Shan and its surrounding towns, and those who live in Jezreel Valley, all have war chariots.”

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 .