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 (Exodus 28:21)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Exodus 28:21:

  • Kupsabiny: “And each of these stones should be engraved with names following the names of Jacob’s sons to indicate the nation of Israel right from the beginning.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “According to the names of twelve sons of Israel there must be twelve precious stones. The names of the twelve tribes must be engraved in the twelve stones.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Each stone should have a name of the children/(sons) of Jacob to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. The way-to-engrave the names should be the same-(way) of engraving a seal.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Bariai: “On these twelve stones, you (pl.) must engrave Iakop’s twelve male children’s names. These people were leading over the twelve clans of you Israel people.” (Source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • Opo: “They must write name of male children of Israel there. On gem one, they must carve name of tribe of children of Israel one there as they carve signet. Thus, there will be gem which be 12 for tribes of children of Israel which be 12.” (Source: Opo Back Translation)
  • English: “A gem-cutter should engrave on each of these twelve stones the name of one of the sons of Jacob. These names will represent the twelve Israeli tribes.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Exod 28:21

The word order of the first clause is different in the Hebrew. Literally it says “And the stones shall be according to the names of the sons of Israel, twelve, according to their names.” The focus is on twelve stones, one for each of the names of the sons of Israel. The sons of Israel often refers to all the Israelites. So Good News Translation has “sons of Jacob,” to be more precise.

They shall be like signets is literally “they shall be engravings of a seal.” The same expression is used in verse 11. (See the comment there.) The word like is understood. The meaning is that each stone “is to have engraved on it the name of one of the sons of Jacob” (Good News Translation). For the twelve tribes means “to represent the tribes of Israel” (Good News Translation). This, of course, does not account for the fact that the usual listing of the twelve tribes included Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph, in place of Joseph and Levi. Contemporary English Version has “on each of them the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel,” omitting the phrase of the sons of Israel. In languages that do not have the passive voice, one may express this verse as “Have them engrave on these twelve stones the name of one of the sons of Jacob [or, one of the tribes of Israel], a different name for each stone.”

Quoted with permission from Osborn, Noel D. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Exodus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1999. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .