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.

Joshua

The Hebrew, Latin, and Greek that is transliterated as “Joshua” is translated in Swiss-German Sign Language with a sign that depicts a trumpet of rams’ horn, referring to Joshua 6:4 and following.


“Joshua” in Swiss-German Sign Language, source: DSGS-Lexikon biblischer Begriffe , © CGG Schweiz

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

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Joshua .

complete verse (Joshua 4:4)

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

  • Kupsabiny: “Then, Joshua gathered those 12 young men.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “So Joshua called the twelve men that he had chosen, one from each tribe.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Therefore Josue called the twelve men whom he had-chosen from each/every tribe of Israel, and told (them),” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “So Joshua chose twelve men, one from each tribe. He called them together, and said to them,” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Joshua 4:4 - 4:5

Joshua does as the Lord commands: he chooses twelve men and gives them their instructions. They are to enter the Jordan ahead of the priests carrying the Covenant Box. The difficulty here is that in the final text of the book the crossing has already taken place (3.17; 4.1). Accordingly, Soggin takes these instructions to mean that the twelve men were to carry twelve stones from the east bank of the Jordan into the river and place them there for the priests to stand on; but certainly the Hebrew text as it now stands does not say this. Some scholars have suggested that the confusion arises because the writer joined two separate traditions about two different sets of twelve stones. The translator, however, can only translate the text as we have it.

Frequently the translator is torn between the desire to maintain the integrity of the text as it stands and the desire to “make sense” of the text (either logically, chronologically, or historically). Upon close reading, one discovers a “gap” between the end of verse 3 and the beginning of verse 4. In verses 1-3 the Lord commands Joshua to choose twelve men, but there is no statement in the text indicating that Joshua did choose these men. Then verse 4 begins “Then Joshua called the twelve men he had chosen….” The sequence of events which is suggested is that somewhere between verses 3 and 4 Joshua did choose the twelve men, but as of verse 4 he still had not called them together to give them their orders. For some readers this lack of connection between verses 3 and 4 can be quite confusing.

The translator may solve this problem by simply stating at the end of verse 3 “Joshua did as the LORD had commanded him,” since it is stated explicitly in verse 4 that Joshua did choose twelve men according to the Lord’s command. The dilemma may otherwise be resolved by placing together verses 4-5 and beginning the paragraph, “Joshua chose twelve men, one from each tribe of Israel…” An alternative solution, and one which may be less problematic, is to retain the text as it is, except for inverting the order of the verbs in verse 4. This verse may then be translated, “Then Joshua chose the twelve men and called them together.”

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 .