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.

put hand over one's mouth

The now commonly-used German idiom Maul halten, which today is a coarse way of saying “be quiet” (literally “hold one’s [animal-like] mouth”), was made popular in 1534 in the German Bible translation by Martin Luther. Note that from the 1956 of the Luther Bible edition on forward, this was replaced with the equally colloquial but less coarse Mund halten (literally “hold one’s mouth”). (Source: Günther 2017, p. 90)

For other idioms or terms in German that were coined by Bible translation, see here.

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.

priest

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Greek that are typically translated as “priest” in English (itself deriving from Latin “presbyter” — “elder”) is often translated with a consideration of existing religious traditions. (Click or tap for details)

Bratcher / Nida (1961) say this:

“However, rather than borrow local names for priests, some of which have unwanted connotations, a number of translations have employed descriptive phrases based on certain functions: (1) those describing a ceremonial activity: Pamona uses tadu, the priestess who recites the litanies in which she describes her journey to the upper or under-world to fetch life-spirit for sick people, animals or plants; Batak Toba uses the Arabic malim, ‘Muslim religious teacher;’ ‘one who presents man’s sacrifice to God’ (Bambara, Eastern Maninkakan), ‘one who presents sacrifices’ (Baoulé, Navajo (Dinė)), ‘one who takes the name of the sacrifice’ (Kpelle, and ‘to make a sacrifice go out’ (Hausa); (2) those describing an intermediary function: ‘one who speaks to God’ (Shipibo-Conibo) and ‘spokesman of the people before God’ (Tabasco Chontal).”

In Obolo it is translated as ogwu ngwugwa or “the one who offers sacrifice” (source: Enene Enene), in Mairasi as agam aevar nevwerai: “religious leader” (source: Enggavoter 2004), in Ignaciano as “blesser, one who does ritual as a practice” (using a generic term rather than the otherwise common Spanish loan word sacerdote) (source: Willis Ott in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.), and in Noongar as yakin-kooranyi or “holy worker” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

For Guhu-Samane, Ernest Richert (in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. ) reports this: “The [local] cult of Poro used to be an all-encompassing religious system that essentially governed all areas of life. (…) For ‘priest’ the term ‘poro father’ would at first seem to be a natural choice. However, several priests of the old cult are still living. Although they no longer function primarily as priests of the old system they still have a substantial influence on the community, and there would be more than a chance that the unqualified term would (in some contexts particularly) be equated with the priest of the poro cult. We learned, then, that the poro fathers would sometimes be called ‘knife men’ in relation to their sacrificial work. The panel was pleased to apply this term to the Jewish priest, and the Christian community has adopted it fully. [Mark 1:44, for instance, now] reads: ‘You must definitely not tell any man of this. But you go show your body to the knife man and do what Moses said about a sacrifice concerning your being healed, and the cause (base of this) will be apparent.'”

For a revision of the 1968 version of the Bible in Khmer Joseph Hong (in: The Bible Translator 1996, 233ff. ) talks about a change in wording for this term:

​​Bau cha r (បូជា‌ចារ្យ) — The use of this new construction meaning “priest” is maintained to translate the Greek word hiereus. The term “mean sang (មាន សង្ឃ)” used in the old version actually means a “Buddhist monk,” and is felt to be theologically misleading. The Khmer considers the Buddhist monk as a “paddy field of merits,” a reserve of merits to be shared with other people. So a Khmer reader would find unthinkable that the mean sang in the Bible killed animals, the gravest sin for a Buddhist; and what a scandal it would be to say that a mean sang was married, had children, and drank wine.

See also idolatrous priests.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Judg 18:19)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding the priest.

complete verse (Judges 18:19)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Judges 18:19:

  • Kupsabiny: “He was told, ‘Be quiet, you come and go with us to burn sacrifices for us and advise us like a father. Is it not better for you to be priest for a whole clan of Israel than to belong to one person?’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “But they responded — "Be quiet, don’t complain! Come and be our priest and father! Is it better [lit.: good] to be priest in the house of one man or to be priest for a clan and a tribe of Israel?"” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “They replied, ‘[You (sing.)] just be quiet. [You (sing.)] come-with us (excl.) for we (excl.) will-make you (sing.) priest and adviser. Don’t you (sing.) want to-become a priest of one tribe of Israel than just of one household?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “They replied, ‘Be quiet! Do not say anything! You come with us and be like a father to us and a priest for us. Is it better for you to stay here and be a priest for the people in the house of one man, or to be a priest for a clan, and a priest for a whole tribe of Israelis?’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Judges 18:19

And they said to him: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be omitted in this context of a heated exchange (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). The pronoun they refers once again to the Danite spies. The general said may be rendered “ordered” or “commanded” here. The pronoun him refers to the young Levite.

Keep quiet, put your hand upon your mouth: With these two commands the Danite spies tell the Levite to be quiet. They do not want him to raise an alarm that brings resistance. They just want to take the valuable religious items and make a quick getaway. Also they want the Levite to be quiet because they want to strike a deal with him.

Keep quiet conveys the urgency in the spies’ voice. This imperative will have a close equivalent in most languages. In English we might say “Hush!” “Be quiet!” (New International Version), or even “Shut up!” ( NET Bible).

Put your hand upon your mouth is close in meaning to the previous command. This idiomatic expression uses the word hand, which is often used in this book to describe Israel’s victories. Here, of course, this is not the case, since this scene describes one group of Israelites stealing from another! Thus the irony here is very strong. If possible, translators should try to preserve this literary feature. Whether or not this is possible, most languages will have two ways of telling someone to keep quiet. For example, Good News Translation has “Keep quiet. Don’t say a word,” which is a good model. Contemporary English Version begins this verse with “ ‘Quiet!’ the men said. ‘Keep your mouth shut and listen.’ ”

And come with us is literally “and go with us.” This request of the Danites is more than an invitation to accompany them on their journey. They want the Levite to become part of their group. There may be a link here to the Deborah story, where Barak begged Deborah to go with him to battle (verse 4.8). Contemporary English Version says “Why don’t you come with us…?”

And be to us a father and a priest: As the story proceeds, the irony increases. This clause repeats almost word for word what Micah initially said to the Levite (see verse 17.10). The only difference is the pronoun us in place of “me.” Now it becomes obvious why the Danites want the Levite to be quiet and not try to defend Micah’s belongings. Obviously they have other plans for him. The word priest occurs three times in this verse, and if possible, translators should try to maintain this ironic repetition.

Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and family in Israel?: This rhetorical question, presented in two parts, is intended to convince the Levite that he would be better off serving them rather than Micah and his family. The Danites are obviously appealing to the Levite’s pride, but they may also be suggesting he would be better off financially if he served many people. This question seems to be a mirror image of Abimelech’s proposal in verse 9.2, where he suggested to the people of Shechem that it would be better to have one ruler rather than be ruled by the seventy sons of Gideon. Better renders the Hebrew word meaning “good” (tov). Two options are presented, and the Levite is asked to decide which of the two is better for him. Languages have various strategies for expressing such comparisons. Some languages have to express the two options first, and then ask “Which is good for you?” or “Which [option] surpasses the other?” We may also begin this question with “Wouldn’t you prefer to…?” or “Isn’t it better for you to…?”

To be priest to the house of one man gives the first option. This clause has several key terms: the word priest, which continues the ironic tone, the word house, which means “family” (Good News Translation) in this context, and the reference to one man, an expression that plays an important role in many earlier passages (see, for example, verse 9.2; verse 16.28).

Or to be priest to a tribe and family in Israel is the second option and the one favored by the Danites. They want the Levite to become their priest. Some languages do not have an alternative conjunction such as or, so they must restructure this sentence to provide the options. A tribe and family in Israel is contrasted with the house of one man. For the Hebrew word rendered tribe (shevet), referring to a larger group than a family or clan. see verse 18.1. Family renders the Hebrew word for clan (mishpachah; see verse 17.7), which sounds like the Hebrew word for “judge” (shafat). Once again the irony is strong. As the thieves are robbing their fellow Israelite, they are evoking the values of tribe and family in Israel! If possible, translators should try to find two terms to use here as they seek to express the strong irony. Good News Translation preserves the question form, saying “Wouldn’t you rather be a priest for a whole Israelite tribe than for the family of one man?” Contemporary English Version has “You could stay here and be a priest for one man’s family, but wouldn’t you rather be the priest for a clan or even a whole tribe of Israel?” In some languages a strong statement may be more convincing, for example, “You would be better off serving a whole tribe in Israel rather than one man’s family.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• The spies said to him, “Keep quiet! Don’t say a word! Come with us and serve us as father and priest. Which would you prefer? To work for one man or to work for a whole tribe in Israel?”

• The spies ordered the priest to be quiet, saying, “Keep your mouth shut and come with us! Be our father and priest. Isn’t it better to serve the whole tribe of Dan as a priest rather than serve just one man?”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .