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 (Judges 21:24)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Judges 21:24:

  • Kupsabiny: “The soldiers of Israel returned to their land where their clan was and where their people were.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “At that time the Israelites left that place, each went to the place of his own tribe and clan, everyone went to his own place.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “The rest of the Israelinhon also went-home to their own land, and to their own tribe and family.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “The other Israelis went to their homes in the areas where their tribes and clans lived, the areas that God had allotted to them.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Judges 21:24

This verse concludes the set of episodes that began at 21.1. It forms an inclusio with verse 2.6 and is also very similar to verse 24.28.

And the people of Israel departed from there at that time: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces a kind of summary statement or concluding remark. Translators should find a good transition here, for example, “So” (New Revised Standard Version). In some languages the time phrase at that time may be moved to the front, in which case, the conjunction could be omitted (New International Version). The people of Israel is literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel” (see verse 1.1). In 21.1-23 this phrase refers to all the tribes of Israel except Benjamin, but here it may point to all twelve tribes. Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, and Parole de Vie think it excludes the Benjaminites, so they refer to “the rest of the Israelites,” but many versions have simply “the Israelites” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Since this verse gives concluding remarks, the latter interpretation may be more correct. Departed renders a form of the Hebrew verb meaning “go” that suggests the people went off in different directions. Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible use the verb “dispersed.” From there seems to refer to Shiloh (see verse 20.12), but it may possibly refer to Bethel, the place of the assembly. We might say “from that town” or “from that place.” As noted above, the temporal phrase at that time may be placed near the beginning of the verse, for example, “So at that point [the rest of] the Israelites left that place.”

Every man to his tribe and family: Every man refers to all the Israelites present at the meeting. The Hebrew word for man (ʾish) can refer to men and women. As noted in verse 18.19, a tribe is a grouping larger than a family. In some languages where it is impossible to distinguish these two terms, translators might say “and each went back to his clan,” “and each returned to his own people,” or “and each went home.”

And they went out from there every man to his inheritance: This sentence repeats known information from 21.23. It does not signal a new step on the event line, but emphasizes what occurred. Thus translators need to find a transitional expression for and that does not insinuate a temporal sequence. The Hebrew verb rendered went out (yatsaʾ) again adds irony, since it is the same verb used by the men of Gibeah when they told the man from Ephraim to “Bring out” the Levite so they could have sex with him (verse 19.22), when Jephthah’s doomed daughter “came out” (verse 11.34), and when the dancers came out of the town of Shiloh (verse 21.21). Once again the mention of inheritance expresses bitter irony. At the beginning of the book the Israelites went to conquer the land, their inheritance (verse 2.6). Here at the end of the book, after a horrendous civil war and thousands of deaths on all sides, every person returns to his inheritance. Translators should attempt to convey this irony as best they can. For example, we might say “Yes, each man left that place and returned to the land he had inherited [from the LORD].”

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 .