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.”

Translation commentary on Ezekiel 47:22

You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves is literally “And it will be and you shall make it fall in an inheritance for yourselves.” This expression has the idea of dividing the land by lot as in verse 14 (see the comments there). The Israelites must distribute the land among themselves, as if it were a family possession.

And for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you means they must also distribute the land to those who live in Israel as resident aliens. But this expression does not apply to all the foreigners in the land. It only applies to those who have begotten children among you, that is, men who have intermarried with Israelite women and “have fathered children” (New Jerusalem Bible) by them. However, many translations extend this phrase to foreigners who “have children” (New International Version, New International Reader’s Version, New Century Version, Revised English Bible; similarly New Living Translation, English Standard Version, Christian Community Bible) among them. This rendering reflects a broadening of the gender-specific Hebrew text in a way that applies Biblical statements to women as well as men, when the issue transcends maleness or femaleness. As such, it is acceptable. But the renderings “whose children were born in Israel” (Contemporary English Version) and “who have had children born here” (Good News Translation) reflect the modern view that citizenship depends on the place of one’s birth, as well as parentage. This is quite foreign to the ancient world, and translators should not follow this approach. An accurate way to translate the first sentence of this verse is “You will divide it as family property for yourselves and for the foreign men living here who have had children with Israelite women.”

They shall be to you as native-born sons of Israel: Foreigners who live permanently in Israel must “be treated like full Israelite citizens” (Good News Translation), “like any other Israelite citizen” (Contemporary English Version). This clause may be rendered “You must treat these foreigners the same as any other Israelite.”

With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel: These foreigners must receive a share in the land of Israel, just like the people who are born and bred Israelites. They shall be allotted an inheritance again reflects the practice of drawing lots for something (see verse 14), so Good News Translation says “[they] are to draw lots for shares of the land.” It is best if translators do not stress this aspect of the distribution here, so it is better to say “they must receive a share of the land” or “you must give them a share of the land.” For the tribes of Israel, see verse 13.

Quoted with permission from Gross, Carl & Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Ezekiel. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .