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.

Judah, Judea

The name that is transliterated as “Judah” or “Judea” in English (referring to the son of Jacob, the tribe, and the territory) is translated in Spanish Sign Language as “lion” (referring to Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5). This sign for lion is reserved for regions and kingdoms. (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. and Steve Parkhurst)


“Judah” and “Judea” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

See also Judah, Judah (son of Jacob) , and Tribe of Judah .

Translation commentary on Numbers 1:20 - 1:46

The people of Reuben, Israel’s first-born: It should be made clear that Israel refers to Reuben’s father Jacob, who was renamed Israel, and not to the people of Israel. It is probably for this reason that Good News Translation has actually replaced Israel with “Jacob.” However, the Hebrew brings out that the people and their common ancestor share the same name. So a better way to avoid confusion between the ancestor and the people named after him is to keep the name Israel by beginning verse 20 with “The people of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel’s sons” or “The people of Reuben, the firstborn of the ancestor Israel.”

Various formulaic expressions recur throughout verses 20-43 and are the same for the census of every Israelite tribe. In translation these expressions should be rendered consistently in terms of wording and order of occurrence. If a language requires that the various expressions are put in a different order, this should be done consistently for every tribe as well. The recurring expressions are as follows:

1. Their generations refers to the descendants of a particular ancestor through an unspecified number of generations. So a rendering such as “their descendants” (Bijbel: Vertaling in opdracht van het Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap) or even “their successors” is more accurate and probably less puzzling than their generations. Compare also New Revised Standard Version with “their lineage.”
2. By their families, by their fathers’ houses: See verse 2. The Hebrew kinship terminology here is better rendered “according to clan and family” (Good News Translation) or “by clans and families.”
3. According to the number of names: See verse 2. In verse 22, which introduces the census of the tribe of Simeon, the following phrase precedes this one: those of them that were numbered. This phrase is absent elsewhere in verses 20-43. Good News Translation omits this phrase, but the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (Hebrew Old Testament Text) recommends keeping it. Were numbered renders the same Hebrew verb translated “number” in verse 3 (see the comments there).
4. Head by head: See verse 2.
5. Every male from twenty years old and upward: See verses 2-3.
6. Who were able to go forth to war means “who were fit for military service” (Good News Translation; see verse 3). Good News Translation moves this clause closer to the beginning of the sentence. This is helpful since it makes it clear from the start that only those fit for military service were included. Except for the beginning of verse 20, there is no past tense verb form in the Hebrew of verses 20-43. This clause is the same as in verse 3 and may not need a past tense in translation by saying “those able to go forth to war.” However, the Hebrew past tense form at the beginning of verse 20 makes it clear that the list of verses 20-43 as a whole does refer to the past. This past tense is expressed in NET Bible, which begins verse 20 with “And they were as follows: The descendants of Reuben….”
7. The number of the tribe of …: The Hebrew word for number renders the verb paqad translated “number” in verse 3 (see the comments there). New Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translate this phrase as “those enrolled of/from the tribe of….”

Of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim … Of the people of Manasseh…(verses 32-35): Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Joseph, a son of Jacob (see verse 10). These two tribes are combined here under the name of their ancestor Joseph. Good News Translation has omitted this connection between Ephraim and Manasseh. But even in a list layout, this problem can be solved by inserting “Joseph’s sons” in the list (so New Afrikaans Version) or by listing “tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph” and “tribe of Manasseh, son of Joseph” (so Bible en français courant).

Of the people of Naphtali (verse 42): Strictly speaking, the preposition corresponding to Of is lacking in the Hebrew text. The reason for this may be to mark the fact that the people of Naphtali are mentioned last in this list (so Rendsburg). Ancient translations have treated this phrase in the same way as with the other tribes.

These are those who were numbered, whom Moses and Aaron numbered with the help of the leaders of Israel, twelve men, each representing his fathers’ house (verse 44): The Hebrew verb rendered were numbered and numbered is paqad (see verse 3, where it is translated “number”). New Revised Standard Version is better with “were enrolled” and “enrolled.” For leaders (nasiʾ in Hebrew), see the comments on verse 16. The leaders of Israel, twelve men are the tribal representatives listed in verses 5b-15.

So the whole number of the people of Israel (verse 45) is literally “And they were all those enrolled of the people of Israel.” The connector So is not in the Hebrew, but such a conjunction is helpful to indicate that verses 45-46 are a conclusion for verses 17-44. Number renders the Hebrew verb paqad again (see verse 3), so it is better translated “enrolled” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

Their whole number was (verse 46) is literally “and all those who were enrolled were.” Once again, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates the Hebrew term paqad for number more accurately by rendering this phrase as “all who were enrolled came to.”

Thousand: The surprisingly high numbers in verses 20-46 have been the subject of much discussion among scholars. There is one point that has sometimes been made which, if valid, would affect translation. The Hebrew word for thousand is ʾelef, which is the same word rendered clans in verse 16 (see the comments there). The word ʾelef is not necessarily a precise number and can also mean “division” or “contingent.” So if we read the numbers in this way (that is, ʾelef meaning “contingent”), then the number forty-six thousand five hundred for the tribe of Reuben in verse 21 should be rendered “46 contingents that together numbered 500 men.” With this interpretation of ʾelef, the tribes together would consist of 598 (that is, 46 + 59 + 45 + 74 + 54 + 57 + 40 + 32 + 35 + 62 + 41 + 53) contingents, and the total number of men would only be 5,550 (that is, 500 + 300 + 650 + 600 + 400 + 400 + 500 + 200 + 400 + 700 + 500 + 400). The number of men in one contingent would have to vary between 5 (in the tribe of Simeon) and 15 (in the tribe of Gad). According to this view, the thousands were only treated as part of the actual numbers at a later stage in the transmission of the Hebrew text. And only this led to the addition of the total number of 603,550 in verse 46. So this alternative meaning of ʾelef might explain what lies behind the text. But there are many problems with this view, especially in relation to other parts of this book (see, for example, 11.21) and in other books as well (see, for example, Exo 38.26, where the same number 603,550 occurs, and Exo 1.7, 9, where it is implied that the Egyptians were afraid because there were too many Israelites). And even if it were to be a valid point of view, the total number in verse 46 still shows that the text itself treats the thousands as part of the actual numbers. (The same applies to 26.51 in the context of chapter 26, the second census of the Israelites.) The word ʾelef in the census lists of Numbers must surely mean “thousand,” because every time it alternates with “hundred” and other numbers. Thus, as in the case of similar issues of this nature (where we lack the necessary explanatory or background information), it is the actual text with its high numbers that should be translated. The text may reflect an epic tradition that attributed great numbers to the Israelites in the wilderness, conveying a sense of the grandeur of the LORD’s army (so Davies, page 17; Levine, page 139; Milgrom, page 339); God promised many descendants to Abraham. The large numbers imply that there is no ground for Israel’s fear of other nations.

Good News Translation has severely reduced verses 20-46, and it has completely omitted verse 44. But Good News Translation‘s list layout in itself is helpful, not least because the Hebrew in verses 20-43 seems like a list: many of its sentences are not grammatically complete. Bible en français courant has a list layout as well but in a more convincing way: it combines only verses 20-43, while its rendering of verses 44-46 is set off as distinct, not part of the list as such. (Bible en français courant is also different from Good News Translation in that the list layout in Bible en français courant is without headings. Instead, every line in the list in Bible en français courant begins with “tribe of….”) Alternatively, for each tribe the verses about it can be put in a separate paragraph (so New International Version). The numbers can be printed in figures in any case, not only to make the translation easier to read but also because figures are probably more fitting in a list of this kind. Finally, even a translation similar to Revised Standard Version but with fewer or no verbs (so Revised English Bible, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling) would bring out the list character of verses 20-43 more clearly.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Exodus. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .