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.

complete verse (Joshua 4:2)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 4:2:

  • Kupsabiny: “‘Tell those twelve men who have been chosen from the twelve clans of Israel to each one pick a stone from the middle of the river Jordan where the priests are standing. Then, let (them) bring (them) and arrange (them) where your are going to sleep tonight in tents.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Choose twelve men, one man from each tribe. ” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “‘[You (sing.)] choose twelve men, one from each/every tribe,” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “‘When you choose the twelve men, one from each tribe, whom I mentioned previously, tell them to pick up large stones from the middle of the Jordan riverbed, where the priests are still standing.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Joshua 4:2 - 4:3

The verbs choose and command in Hebrew are plural, as in 3.12 where Joshua speaks to the people, and not singular; the Traduction œcuménique de la Bible footnote suggests that originally the order was given to the leaders, not just to Joshua alone. English versions do not reflect this difference between singular and plural imperative forms. Choose twelve men, one from each tribe may be rendered “Choose one man from each of the twelve tribes of Israel.” The twelve men, representatives of the twelve tribes, are to take one stone each from the Jordan, from the very place where the priests were standing, and take them to the place where the people will spend the first night on the west side of the river.It should be noted that in the Masoretic text hakin in verse 3 is to be parsed as the hiphil infinitive of the verb k-w-n “to stand”; Soggin calls it “a curious form” and says it makes no sense here; but there are other explanations. New English Bible treats it as having the same meaning as haken in 3.17, “stood firmly.”

Command them to take twelve stones could possibly be ambiguous, suggesting that each of the men was to take twelve stones. To avoid this ambiguity one may render “Command them each to take a stone.” For some languages it may be necessary to include a verb of motion, which may involve a slight reordering of the command: “command them to go to the place where the priests were standing in the middle of the Jordan River. Tell each of them to take a stone from there and carry it to the place where you will camp tonight.” In this restructuring, put them down is left implicit, but in some languages this aspect of the command may also need to be stated explicitly.

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 .