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 (Judges 20:10)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Judges 20:10:

  • Kupsabiny: “We shall chose ten out of one hundred people of the clans of Israel to be bringing food. And the rest shall go to war against the city of Gibeah in the country of Benjamin for their sin and the shameful act they have done to the stomach of Israel.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “We will take one man in ten from all the tribes of Israel to prepare the provisions for the soldiers. Then, after the army has come to Gibeah of Benjamin, we will take vengeance on those who live in Gibeah for all the despicable work they have done in Israel.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “The tenth part of all the men in each tribe will-be the ones to take-care of the food of the soldiers. The rest will-be the one to take-revenge to those from-Gibea because of what they did which (is) very wicked in Israel.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “We will choose one tenth/one from every ten of the men from all the Israeli tribes. Those men will go and find food for the men who will go to attack the people of Gibeah. Then the other men will go to Gibeah to pay the people back/punish them for this terrible thing that they have done here in Israel.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Judges 20:10

The speech of the Israelites continues here. They make detailed plans on how to carry out their attack on the people of Gibeah. Once again the reference to “the tenth” seems ironic, as it evokes past actions of the patriarchs (Gen 14.20; verse 28.22).

And we will take ten men of a hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel …: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the next course of action, but in some languages it may be omitted (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). This rather complex expression and the two that follow simply mean that the Israelites will take a tenth of all their men, as Good News Translation makes clear. In many languages it will be helpful to spell out in detail what is meant, for example, “Out of a hundred men, we will take ten men….” The phrase all the tribes of Israel reveals once again their oneness of spirit and their determination. However, again this phrase is ironic, since the people talk about all the tribes but the tribe of Benjamin is excluded, and is, in fact, the enemy. For the Hebrew word rendered tribes (shevet), see verse 18.1.

And a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand of ten thousand: The structure in the previous clause is repeated twice here and applied to greater numbers. Out of one thousand men, a hundred will be chosen. Out of ten thousand men, a thousand will be chosen. Good News Translation reduces these lengthy expressions to “One tenth of the men in Israel,” which may be a helpful model for other languages.

To bring provisions for the people: Ten percent of the men are put aside to bring supplies for the rest of the soldiers. Bring renders the Hebrew verb laqach meaning “take,” which occurs often in this book. Provisions can refer to both food and water (see verse 7.8). New American Bible has “supplies.” Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version say simply “food.” Here the people seems to refer to the army being assembled to fight the people of Gibeah. Some versions speak of “the soldiers” (New American Bible), “the army” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), or “the troops” (New Revised Standard Version). However, even this reference to the people is ironic, since the Hebrew word here (ʿam) normally refers to all the Israelites, including the tribe of Benjamin. This, sadly, is not the case here.

That when they come they may requite Gibe-ah of Benjamin: The Hebrew text is difficult here. It reads literally “to do to come to Geba of Benjamin.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text, which has the name “Geba” instead of Gibe-ah. However, both names refer to the same place, so many versions harmonize and use Gibe-ah or “Gibeah” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The Hebrew text probably refers to the army going to Gibeah and punishing the people there, as in Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation is similar with “and the others will go and punish Gibeah.” Another possibility is that the verb “do” refers to preparations for the battle, and the verb “come” refers to movement toward the town of Gibeah, as in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “to prepare for their going to Geba in Benjamin.” Translators will have to pick one of the accepted interpretations, and if desired, include a footnote, stating the Hebrew is uncertain. Gibe-ah of Benjamin refers to the people of Gibeah, in the territory belonging to the Benjaminites. We might say “to provide food for the army when it goes to punish the people of Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin.”

For all the wanton crime which they have committed in Israel is literally “for all the foolishness that he has done in Israel.” For render a Hebrew preposition that can also mean “as” or “according to.” Here it introduces the reason for the punishment, so it can be rendered “because of.” For the Hebrew word rendered wanton crime, see the comments on verse 20.6, where it is translated “wantonness.” Though this word can refer to foolishness, in this context it refers to something far more serious, so crime or even “evil” might be a good rendering. The word all emphasizes how bad the acts of the people of Gibeah were. The pronoun they (“he” in Hebrew) refers to the people of Gibeah. In this context of a crime, committed renders well the general Hebrew verb meaning “do.” Another possible verb is “carried out.” In this context Israel could refer to the land within the territory of Israel or to the Israelites themselves. If the latter is in view, we might say “among us Israelites,” with the Benjaminites being included. However, the Hebrew preposition rendered in can also mean “against,” so the whole clause might be translated “for all the horrible things they did against [the people of] Israel.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• One tenth of the people will provide food for the army when it goes to punish the Benjaminites of Gibeah for all the evil they have done in Israel.”

• From 100 men, 10 will be chosen. From 1,000, 100 will be chosen. From 10,000, 1,000 will be chosen. These men of Israel will supply food for the army when it goes into battle against the people of Gibeah living in Benjamin territory. They will punish them for the horrible things they have done against the people of Israel.”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .