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.

family / clan / house

The Hebrew terms that are translated as “family” or “clan” or “house” or similar in English are all translated in Kwere as ng’holo or “clan.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

In the English translation by Goldingay (2018) it is translated as “kin-group.”

See also tribe.

Simeon

The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Simeon” or “Simon” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign that signifies “swords,” referring to the traditional Jewish symbol for the tribe. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


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

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

More information under Tribe of Simeon .

Judah, Judea

The name that is transliterated as “Judah” or “Judea” in English (referring to the son of Jacob, the tribe, and the territory) is translated in Spanish Sign Language as “lion” (referring to Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5). This sign for lion is reserved for regions and kingdoms. (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. and Steve Parkhurst)


“Judah” and “Judea” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

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

See also Judah, Judah (son of Jacob) , and Tribe of Judah .

complete verse (Joshua 19:1)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 19:1:

  • Kupsabiny: “The next land was given to the people of the clan of Simeon according to their houses. This land was inside the land that was given to the clan of Judah.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “The second lot was cast for the tribe of Simeon, clan by clan. As for their inheritance, it was situated in the middle of the inheritance given to the tribe of Judah.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “The second who was-allotted land were the families of the tribe of Simeon. Their land (lay) within the land which was-given to the tribe of Juda.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “The second/next tribe that was allotted land was the tribe of Simeon. Each clan in that tribe was allotted some land that was inside the area that had been allotted to the tribe of Judah.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Joshua 19:1 - 19:6

For the translation of the first sentence of this verse, see the proposed restructuring at 18.11. One may also translate “The second lot fell to the tribe of Simeon.”

Its territory extended into the land assigned to the tribe of Judah is more literally “And its inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah.” This appears to be a more accurate representation of the text, especially in light of verse 9, which states that the tribe of Simeon was given a part of the territory within the land of Judah, because Judah had been given more land then it needed. Accordingly, one may translate “Its territory lay within the territory of the tribe of Judah.”

In verse 2 the second name in Hebrew is Sheba. This, however, seems like an accidental repetition of the second part of the name of the preceding city, Beersheba, and makes a total of fourteen place-names, whereas verse 6 gives the total as thirteen. Consequently New English Bible (with a footnote that refers to the lack of this name in 1 Chr 4.18) omits Sheba; Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project revise the Hebrew to “Shema” (see 15.26); Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible follow the Masoretic text. It seems best to follow the Masoretic text here.

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 .

SIL Translator’s Notes on Joshua 19:1

Section 19:1-9

The clan of Simeon received their land

Paragraph 19:1-9

19:1a

The second lot came out: The clause The second lot refers to the second time that Joshua threw the lot. This time the lot showed that the clan of Simeon should receive their land. This verse is similar to verse 15:1 and 18:11. In each case the Hebrew verb is slightly different, but the meaning is the same.

Here are some other ways to translate this part of the verse:

The second lot belonged (NET Bible)
-or-

Joshua threw⌋ the lot a second time

19:1b

for the clans of the tribe of Simeon: The phrase the clans refers to the families among Simeon’s descendants. Simeon was one of the twelve sons of Jacob who had many descendants.

the tribe of Simeon: The phrase the tribe of Simeon refers to all the clans of Simeon.

Here are some other ways to translate this part of the verse:

Each of the families of the Simeon clan received some land
-or-

Joshua threw the lot again.⌋ This second lot showed that the clans of Simeon was the next to receive land. There was some land for each family in the Simeon clans.

19:1c

Their inheritance lay within the territory of Judah: The sentence Their inheritance lay within the territory of Judah indicates that the land that the clans of Simeon received was inside the boundaries of the land that the clans of Judah had received.

Here are some other ways to translate this part of the verse:

their land was within the boundaries of the land that belonged to the clans of Judah
-or-
their land was inside the land that the clans of Judah had received

© 2001, 2011, 2020, 2022, 2023 by SIL International®
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.