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.

Gad

The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Gad” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign for “tent,” signifying army tents that refer to Genesis 49:19. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Gad” 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 on Gad (son of Jacob) and the Tribe of Gad .

complete verse (Joshua 21:38)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 21:38:

  • Kupsabiny: “Four more cities were given coming from the land of the clan of Gad: Ramoth in Gilead (where one could flee to), Manahaim,” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “From the tribe of Gad they were given Ramoth in Gilead
    (which is one of the cities to give refuge for a person who accidentally killed someone), Mahanaim,” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “They were-given yet four towns/cites from the land[s] of the tribe of Gad. This is Ramot in Gilead, (which (is) one of the towns/cities of refuge, where a man who kills untentionally can-flee), the Mahanaim, Heshbon, and Jazer, including their pasturelands.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “From the area that had been allotted to the tribe of Gad they were allotted four cities. They were Ramoth, which was one of the cities in the Gilead region to which people could run/escape to be safe/protected, Mahanaim,” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Joshua 21:34 - 21:40

Twelve cities are assigned to the clan of Merari.

Four cities are in Zebulun (verses 34-35).In verse 35, instead of the Masoretic text Dimnah, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefers “Rimmonah” (as in 19.13); New English Bible Bible de Jérusalem Jerusalem Bible prefer “Rimmon.”

Four cities are in Reuben (verses 36-37). The first part of verse 36 in the Masoretic text is “and from the tribe of Reuben, Bezer with its pasture lands” (see Revised Standard Version). The Septuagint (see also 1 Chr. 6.78) has “and on the east side of the Jordan, opposite Jericho, from the tribe of Reuben, one of the cities of refuge, Bezer in the wilderness on the plateau, with its pasture lands” (the passages in italics are not in the Masoretic text). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, rating its decision highly probable, takes this to be original and recommends its adoption (so Soggin; Bible de Jérusalem, New English Bible, New American Bible, and Jerusalem Bible include part of the Septuagint additional matter).

Four cities are in Gad (verses 38-39), one of which, Ramoth, was a city of refuge (see 20.9).

The translation of verses 34-39 should follow the pattern of verses 17-18, and the translation of verse 40 should follow that of verse 19. Although the phrase with their pasture lands is not found in verse 40, it may be introduced there by way of summary and omitted from its occurrences in the previous verses.

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 .