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.”

conspire

The Hebrew that is translated as “conspire” in many English versions is translated into Anuak as “tie the mouth.”

See also conspire (Shilluk).

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 22:8

There may be some confusion about the wording of the question that begins in verse 7 and ends at the beginning of this verse. In most languages it will be better to make a separate sentence of the last part of the previous verse. The beginning of this verse will then be translated either as a question (Good News Translation) or as an emphatic statement: “But you’re all plotting against me!” (Contemporary English Version).

Discloses to me: literally “uncovers my ears [concerning …]” (see the comments on 9.15). It will be more natural in many cases to say “no one tells me” or “nobody informs me.”

My son … the son of Jesse: the references are to Jonathan and David. At the end of this verse, David is referred to as my servant. Translators should make sure that all of these references are understood by their readers. In some cases this may mean supplying the names.

Makes a league with: literally “about my son cutting [a covenant] with.” The Hebrew is elliptical here, omitting the word “covenant” after the verb “to cut.” See the comments on “make a treaty with” in 11.1-2.

Stirred up: literally “cause to arise.” This may be translated “helped [to] rebel” (Contemporary English Version), “encouraged” (New Century Version), or “incited” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible).

To lie in wait, as at this day: see the same words in verse 13 below. To lie in wait renders a participle of a Hebrew verb meaning “to lie in wait to ambush someone.” The same verb occurs in 15.5. Some possible model translations of this expression are “is waiting to attack me” and “to ambush me” (New Century Version, Contemporary English Version).

The Septuagint says “against me as an enemy” instead of against me, to lie in wait. The two Hebrew words “to lie in wait” and “enemy” differ only in the middle consonant and could easily be confused, since they are similar in shape. The Septuagint is followed by New American Bible (“to be an enemy against me”), New Jerusalem Bible (“to become my enemy”), and Osty-Trinquet.

As at this day is a literal translation. More idiomatic English renderings include “right now” (Good News Translation), “today” (New Revised Standard Version), and “now” (Revised English Bible). Saul is upset not just that David is looking for a chance to kill him, but also that he has already started his plans against Saul and no one had told him. New American Bible makes this clear: “None of you shows sympathy for me or discloses to me that my son has stirred up my servant to be an enemy against me, as is the case today.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .