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.

gentiles / nations

The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin that is often translated as “gentiles” (or “nations”) in English is often translated as a “local equivalent of ‘foreigners,'” such as “the people of other lands” (Guerrero Amuzgo), “people of other towns” (Tzeltal), “people of other languages” (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), “strange peoples” (Navajo (Dinė)) (this and above, see Bratcher / Nida), “outsiders” (Ekari), “people of foreign lands” (Kannada), “non-Jews” (North Alaskan Inupiatun), “people being-in-darkness” (a figurative expression for people lacking cultural or religious insight) (Toraja-Sa’dan) (source for this and three above Reiling / Swellengrebel), “from different places all people” (Martu Wangka) (source: Carl Gross).

Tzeltal translates it as “people in all different towns,” Chicahuaxtla Triqui as “the people who live all over the world,” Highland Totonac as “all the outsider people,” Sayula Popoluca as “(people) in every land” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Chichimeca-Jonaz as “foreign people who are not Jews,” Sierra de Juárez Zapotec as “people of other nations” (source of this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), Highland Totonac as “outsider people” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Uma as “people who are not the descendants of Israel” (source: Uma Back Translation), “other ethnic groups” (source: Newari Back Translation), and Yakan as “the other tribes” (source: Yakan Back Translation).

In Chichewa, it is translated with mitundu or “races.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)

See also nations.

complete verse (Psalm 78:55)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 78:55:

  • Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
    “He chased the races of people in front of them
    and he gave their lands to the Israelites to be theirs;
    He established the tribes of Israel in their houses.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
  • Newari:
    “Going before his own people
    he scared off the people of the tribes and nations who were there.
    And He distributed their land to the clans of Israel as their inheritance.
    He also gave their homes to His own people.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon:
    “He drove-out the residents there far-away from his people,
    and he divided/allotted the land among the tribes of Israel so-that they would-possess-(it),
    and there he let- them -settle/dwell.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Laarim:
    “He chased nations to leave his people,
    he gave his people their land to inherit,
    and he gave the people of Israel to live in their land.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
  • Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
    “Akayafukuza makabila ambayo yalikuwa mbele yao,
    akawagawia nchi, makabila yote ya Wana israeli,
    nyumba za watu wale akawapa.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
  • English:
    “He expelled the people-groups while his people were advancing;
    he allotted part of the land for each tribe to possess,
    and he gave to the Israeli people the houses of those people who had been expelled.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Psalm 78:54 - 78:55

Verse 54 speaks of the land of Canaan as God’s holy land and the mountain which his right hand had won. Land translates a word meaning “border, frontier”; by extension it means the territory enclosed within the borders. Holy in his holy land extends the use of “holy” to still another aspect of things which are in relation to God. (For a more detailed discussion of the concept of “holy,” see 28.2.) Holy land may sometimes be rendered “land that belongs to God,” “God’s own land,” or “land that God has set apart.”

The mountain (singular in Hebrew) can be a reference to Mount Zion (so Bible en français courant) or else is a term for the whole land. New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, and Dahood take the word “border” in line a as a synonym of “mountain” in line b. Oesterley thinks the verse speaks of Mount Sinai, but this does not seem very likely; most commentators take the singular the mountain to mean Mount Zion.

His right hand means “his power”; so Good News Translation “he himself conquered.”

Nations in verse 55a are the pagan nations defeated by the Hebrews; Deuteronomy 7.1 names seven of them.

Since there are two plurals in verse 55, one referring to the Hebrews and the other to the Canaanites, care must be taken that the two are clearly distinguished. Them in line a refers to the Hebrews; in line b it refers to the Canaanites.

Good News Translation “divided their land” in verse 55b translates “apportioned by lot,” a reference to the division of the land of Canaan among the tribes of Israel (see Josh 23.4). Apportioned them is misleading, since in the context them can refer only to the people (the Canaanites); the meaning is (in Revised Standard Version terms) “he apportioned their lands.” For possession see 16.6; here it means “for the Hebrews to possess.”

In line c their tents is too literal a translation of the Hebrew; “homes” or “houses” would be better (the Canaanites were not nomads).

This verse presents a problem for some languages in respect to the sequence of events. If the translator follows Good News Translation, the structure is that of simultaneous action in line a, “as the people advanced God drove out the inhabitants.” Lines b and c are subsequent actions of God, and in many languages it will be necessary to make this clear by saying, for example, “and then…,” or “and after that…,” or “after driving out the inhabitants….”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .