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)

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.

Issachar

The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Issachar” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign that signifies “donkey” referring to Genesis 49:14. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Issachar” 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 strong(-boned) donkey.

More information on Issachar and the Tribe of Issachar .

complete verse (Joshua 19:23)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 19:23:

  • Kupsabiny: “These cities together with their villages are those that were given to the clan of Issachar according to their houses.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “These cities and their villages were the inheritance the tribe of Issachar clan by clan.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Those were the towns/cities and villages that the tribe of Issachar received, which was-divided/partitioned/allotted according-to each family.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Joshua 19:18 - 19:23

Rabbith (so Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version) translates the Masoretic text; Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefers the spelling “Daberath” (identifying it with the city of this name in 19.12; 21.28); also Soggin and Bible de Jérusalem.

In the Masoretic text fifteen cities are named, but the total given in verse 22 is sixteen; Soggin adds in verse 19 (after Shion) “Reeroth,” in accordance with one manuscript of the Septuagint. It seems best to stay with the Masoretic text here.

Verses 18-22, as they stand in Good News Translation, present several problems. First it is important to tell a city from a mountain. Tabor is a mountain; the other places, except for the Jordan, are cities. Second, the mention of sixteen cities in verse 22b may be taken as a reference to cities other than those listed above. Third, because of a fairly literal rendering of verses 22b-23, there is some unnecessary repetition. This problem of overlap may be resolved either by translating verses 18-23 as a unit, or by translating verses 18-21 in sequence, and then placing verses 22-23 together. These two alternatives may be represented as follows:

• (1) Their territory included sixteen cities, along with the towns around them. These cities were Jezreel … Shahazumah, and Beth Shemesh. In the north their border ran east from Mount Tabor to the Jordan River. Joshua gave this entire region, including its cities and towns, to the tribe of Issachar.

Or it is possible to follow this same restructuring and list separately the towns of Shahazumah and Beth Shemesh:

• Their territory included sixteen cities, along with the towns around them. Some of these cities were Jezreel … and Bethpazzez. In the north their border ran east from Mount Tabor to the Jordan River, including the cities of Shahazumah and Beth Shemesh …

• (2) Their territory included the cities of Jezreel … 19 … 20 … 21 … and Bethpazzez. 22-23 In the north their border ran east from Mount Tabor to the Jordan River, and it took in the cities of Shahazumah and Beth Shemesh. All this territory, including these sixteen cities and their towns, belonged to the tribe of Issachar.

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 .