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.

sent them away

The Hebrew in Joshua 2:21 that is translated as “sent them away” or similar in English is translated in Kalanga as “bid them farewell,” because the notion of sending them away seemed culturally unacceptable. (Source: project-specific notes in Paratext)

Shittim

The Hebrew in Hosea 5:2 that is translated in various ways in English translations (see here ), including “sin,” “slaughter,” “deceitfulness,” “rebel,” and “Shittim” as a place name (see Numbers 25:1, 33:49, Joshua 2:21, 3:1, Joel 3:18, and Micah 6:5 for other references to the place name), is translated by the Good News Translation and the New Living Translation as “Acacia City (or: Valley).” “Shittim” is a word for the Acacia tree and the translators chose “Acacia” since “Shittim,” especially as part of “pit dug deep in Shittim” or similar resembles a rude expression in English, especially when read aloud. (Source: de Blois / Dorn / van Steenbergen / Thompson, 2020)

See also acacia.

Rahab (image)

Hand colored stencil print on momigami by Sadao Watanabe (1972).

Image taken with permission from the SadaoHanga Catalogue where you can find many more images and information about Sadao Watanabe.

For other images of Sadao Watanabe art works in TIPs, see here.

See also Rahab.

word (Japanese honorifics)

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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.

In these verses, the Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “word” or “bidding” in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-kotoba (おことば), combining “word” (kotoba) with the respectful prefix o-. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff.

complete verse (Joshua 2:21)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 2:21:

  • Kupsabiny: “That woman replied, ‘I have accepted everything you have said.’ And after that the woman bid farewell to those people and tied that red cord in the window.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Agreed! she responded, "May it be as you say." Then they departed. She tied up that red rope in the window.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Rahab replied/answered, ‘Yes, I agree.’ Then Rahab sent- them -away, and then Rahab tied the red rope in the window.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “Rahab said, ‘I agree to do what you say.’ So they climbed down the rope and left. And she left the red cord tied in the window.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Joshua 2:21

Rahab agreed to the three conditions, and after the Israelites left she tied the cord to the window. According to verse 18 the Israelite spies instructed Rahab to tie the red cord to her window when we invade your land. But the present verse states When they had gone, she tied the red cord to the window. The problem may be resolved by leaving implicit When we invade your land of verse 18. It is also legitimate to render verse 18 “When we invade your land, be sure this red cord is tied to the window.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .