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.”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Num 36:4)

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 Moses and the leaders.

Translation commentary on Numbers 36:4

And when the jubilee of the people of Israel comes: The jubilee refers to “the Year of Jubilee” (TNIV), which was the fiftieth year after a forty-nine year cycle (see Lev 25.8-55). During that year land that had been sold was supposed to revert to its original owners. However, this was not the case for inherited land. Thus, if Zelophehad’s daughters were to marry outside their own tribe, the land inherited by them would still remain attached to their husbands’ tribes, even after the Year of Jubilee (so Alter, page 865; Levine, page 578). This point can be highlighted by translating And when as “And even when” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The rule of the Year of Jubilee applied only to the restoration of lands to former owners, not to inherited land. We advise translators not to use the word jubilee (which transliterates the Hebrew word meaning “ram’s horn”) but to look for a term in their own language that expresses the idea of “restoration,” “liberation,” or “giving back.” Chewa has “Israel’s celebration of the fiftieth year.” Good News Translation translates “Year of Restoration,” but adds the long explanatory clause “when all property that has been sold is restored to its original owners” (which misses the point that inherited land fell outside the scope of this rule). Since the Hebrew text does not have this clause, it may be better to put such an explanation in a footnote; for example, Contemporary English Version has the following footnote on “Year of Celebration”: “This was a sacred year for Israel, traditionally called the ‘Year of Jubilee.’ During this year, all property had to go back to its original owner. But here, the property was not sold; it became part of the other tribe’s land when the daughter who owned it married into that tribe. So the property could not be returned even during this year.”

Then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong: See verse 3. The pronoun their refers to the daughters of Zelophehad, which Good News Translation makes clear by rendering their inheritance as “the property of Zelophehad’s daughters.” Good News Translation renders added as “permanently added” to highlight that the daughters’ inheritance would be added to the property of the tribes into which they married. Instead of the tribe to which they belong, Reina-Valera Contemporánea and Reina-Valera revisida say “the tribe of their husbands,” while NET Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translate again “the tribe into which they marry.”

And their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers: See verse 3. This sentence highlights what the situation will mean for the Gileadites if the daughters of Zelophehad marry men from other tribes. However, after the previous sentence (will be added to), this sentence (will be taken from) may seem like a chronological step back in some languages. Good News Translation avoids the problem by concluding this verse with “and will be lost to our tribe,” which may be a more natural way of highlighting the outcome in a number of languages. La Biblia: Traducción en Lenguaje Actual is similar to Good News Translation with “And our tribe will lose part of the territory that was hers.” NET Bible renders this outcome as “So their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of our ancestral tribe.”

The speech of the Gileadite leaders contains a lot of repetition. Perhaps the repetition indicates that they are nervous about the substance of their request: they seem anxious that part of their tribal inheritance might slip away from them and be annexed by another tribe unless Moses takes immediate steps to rectify the situation (so Alter, pages 864-865). Alternatively, this repetition may simply be a stylistic feature that is characteristic of such formal public negotiation in Hebrew discourse, especially where a legal precedent is being discussed.

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 .