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.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Num 14:7)

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 those who did not go to Canaan.

Levite

The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin that is transliterated “Levites” in English (only the Contemporary English Version translates it as “temple helpers”) is translated in Ojitlán Chinantec as “temple caretakers,” Yatzachi Zapotec as “people born in the family line of Levi, people whose responsibility it was to do the work in the important church of the Israelites,” in Alekano as “servants in the sacrifice house from Jerusalem place,” and in Tenango Otomi as “helpers of priests.” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)

In American Sign Language with a sign that combines “temple” + “servant.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“Levite” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

For the sign in Spanish Sign Language, see Levi.

More information about Levites .

complete verse (Numbers 1:47)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Numbers 1:47:

  • Kupsabiny: “The clan of Levi was not counted because” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Descendants of the Levi, however, were not counted along with the other tribes.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “But the descendants of Levi were not included here.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “But this number did not include the names of the men of the tribe of Levi,” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Numbers 1:47 - 1:49

But the Levites were not numbered by their ancestral tribe along with them: The conjunction But (literally “And”) may be needed in some languages to highlight the distinctive character of the tribe of Levi at the beginning of this new discourse unit. The Levites were the descendants of Levi, the third son of Jacob and Leah (see Gen 29.34; 35.23). To indicate that the Levites were a specific tribe descended from Levi, this phrase may be rendered “the descendants of Levi” or “the people of Levi.” For the Hebrew verb rendered were … numbered, see the comments on verse 3, where it is translated “number.” By their ancestral tribe is literally “by the tribe of their fathers.” “Fathers” has the sense of “ancestors” in this context. For tribe see verse 4. The pronoun them refers to the other Israelites tribes.

For the LORD said to Moses: For the LORD, which renders YHWH, the name of God in Hebrew, see verse 1. Good News Translation translates the verb said as “had said.” Unlike English, Hebrew has no separate verb form to express that something already took place earlier than the past, that is, before some other point in the past. So Good News Translation is not necessarily more accurate here. Although the verb “had said” shows that the LORD’s direct speech in verses 49-53 actually took place earlier, this verb may make the translation more difficult to follow. The Hebrew text of this chapter does not show an interest in the chronological order of things, but rather highlights what is most important to the account as it is being presented. It is only here in verses 48-49 that the text mentions for the first time that the LORD said that the Levites should not be included in the census.

The LORD’s instructions concerning the Levites occur in verses 49-53. In theory, these instructions could have been included in the LORD’s instructions concerning the census in verses 2-15 so that chronologically they would have come before the census itself was carried out (verses 17-46). But the fact that the instructions concerning the Levites only come as part of verses 48-53 shows that in this text things do not always come in their most likely chronological place but are mentioned where they are the most relevant or prominent. Coming after the statement in verse 47, the role of the Levites is made a separate and important theme. So the simple past tense form said is sufficient (and it may even be correct chronologically).

There is perhaps one more indication why the text does not intend to give chronological information here and why the simple past tense form said is sufficient. The conjunctions For and “because” (Good News Translation) are not based on the Hebrew at all. On the contrary, verse 48 begins literally with “And the LORD spoke….” Also the Leningrad Codex, on which Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is based, has a minor break in the text between verses 47 and 48 (which has been adopted by New Revised Standard Version and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Thus verse 48 starts another theme in its own right—the role of the tribe of Levi—rather than giving chronological information. This interpretation is supported by the fact that this same expression also begins major discourse units at 1.1 and 2.1. Since the new topic of the Levites’ distinctive role among the tribes is preceded by a reference to them in verse 47 that closes the previous unit, we recommend that verses 47-54 be treated as one unit.

Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, and you shall not take a census of them among the people of Israel: The two Hebrew verbs here are in the singular (in contrast to the plural imperative in verse 2); God is only addressing Moses. You shall not number and you shall not take a census are synonymous. These two synonymous expressions and the clause-initial Hebrew particle ʾak rendered Only indicate that the LORD is speaking with some emphasis here. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh conveys this emphasis by saying “Do not on any account enroll the tribe of Levi or take a census of them with the Israelites.” Perhaps this extra force can be expressed in the target language as well, for example, by a corresponding emphatic particle or conjunction. For the Hebrew verb rendered number, see verse 3; for take a census, see verse 2. Good News Translation renders take a census as “take a census of the men fit for military service.” The phrase “of the men fit for military service” does not correspond with anything in the Hebrew, but it reminds the reader whose census it was and what it was about. If such a reminder is not needed in the translation, it should be omitted.

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