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.

Simeon

The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Simeon” or “Simon” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign that signifies “swords,” referring to the traditional Jewish symbol for the tribe. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Simeon” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

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

More information under Tribe of Simeon .

complete verse (Numbers 2:12)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Numbers 2:12:

  • Kupsabiny:

    Three clans shall spread/set up on the South side, and the clan of Reuben shall be in charge. Those clans are these:

    Clan Leader Number of soldiers
    Reuben Elizur son of Shedeur 46,500
    Simeon Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai 59,300
    Gad Eliasaph son of Deuel 45,650

    The total/all is 151,450.
    The community of Reuben is number two to be going.

    (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)

  • Newari: “Alongside them, the tribe of Simeon must set up [their] tents. The leader of the tribe of Simeon is Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon:

    ‘The tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad are-to-camp on the south, under the banner of their own each tribe. These (are) the names of their leaders/[lit. heads] and numbers of their people/men:

    Tribe Leader/[lit. Head] Numbers
    Reuben Elizur son/[child] of Shedeur 46,500
    Simeon Shelumiel son/[child] of Zurishadai 59,300
    Gad Eliasaf son/[child]of Deuel 45,650

    (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)

  • English: “Shelumiel, the son of Zurishaddai, will be the leader of the 59,300 men of the tribe of Simeon.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)

In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”

In Dutch, Afrikaans, and Western Frisian translations, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Japanese benefactives (watashite)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.

Here, watashite (渡して) or “hand over” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Numbers 2:10 - 2:16

Most of the comments on verses 3-9 apply here as well.

On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben means Reuben and the other tribes in its group must camp on the south side of the Tent of Meeting. The cardinal point south may be difficult to translate. In some languages, with an orientation toward the rising sun (east), south is spoken of as being on the “right hand.” The camp of Reuben refers to the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad.

The leader of the people of Reuben being Elizur the son of Shedeur: See 1.5.

And those to encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Simeon: The pronoun him refers to the tribe of Reuben. Contemporary English Version makes this clear by rendering this clause as “On one side of Reuben will be the tribe of Simeon.”

The leader of the people of Simeon being Shelumi-el the son of Zurishaddai: See 1.6.

In some languages it will be more natural and seem less repetitive if Then the tribe of Gad (verse 14) is moved to the beginning of verse 12, combining it with the tribe of Simeon as follows: “Those to camp next to the tribe of Reuben shall be the tribes of Simeon and Gad….”

The leader of the people of Gad being Eliasaph the son of Reuel: See 1.14. The name Reuel is spelled “Deuel” by Good News Translation. There is textual evidence for both these spellings in this verse. (The Hebrew letters for “d” and “r” look very similar and are easily confused.) Reuel follows Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia as well as the Septuagint and the Peshitta, the ancient Syriac translation. “Deuel” is found in the Vulgate and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Elsewhere in the book of Numbers (1.14; 7.42, 47; 10.20), the same person, the father of Eliasaph, is consistently called “Deuel.” So we recommend “Deuel” here as well (so also Hebrew Old Testament Text).

They shall set out second: The pronoun They refers to the three tribes under the banner of Reuben. Set out renders the same Hebrew verb as at the end of verse 9 (see the comments there). Chewa translates this clause as “They should be the second group when traveling.”

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 .