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 Ezra 6:17

The description of the dedication is parallel to the dedication of the Temple of Solomon in 1 Kgs 8 and 2 Chr 7, although the ceremony here is much less elaborate. The number of sacrificial animals is much less in Ezra due to the difference in the economic situation of the community (compare 1 Kgs 8.63). Also there is an addition of twelve he-goats in the account in Ezra representing the twelve tribes of Israel. This corresponds to their inclusion in the dedication of the altar in Num 7.87.

They offered at the dedication of this house of God …: The text says only that They offered the animals, but Good News Translation makes it explicit that the animals that are listed were offered “as sacrifices”; that is, the animals were given and they were sacrificed in the dedication ceremony of the rebuilt Temple.

For bulls and rams, see the comments at verse 9 above. For lambs refer to the discussion on “sheep” in verse 9 since these two terms in Revised Standard Version translate the same Aramaic word.

As a sin offering for all Israel twelve he-goats: A sin offering was an offering that was made for sins to be forgiven or for a person to be purified from sin (see Lev 4.1–5.13; 6.24-30). It was an offering that was given to purify people from ritual defilement. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh calls it a “purification offering” (also Revised English Bible). It was partially eaten by the priests. Here the offering was given for the sins of all the people of Israel to be forgiven by God, as is made explicit in Bible en français courant (also Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). The twelve male goats were given as a sacrifice to purify the people (see also Ezra 8.35). In the account of the dedication of the altar in Num 7.87, twelve male goats were also sacrificed. He-goats is an archaic English expression for male goats. They are also referred to in informal English as billy goats.

The list of animals is not long enough to be presented in columns as may have been done with other lists earlier in the book of Ezra, but nevertheless the numbers should be presented according to the principles that were adopted for the numbers in the earlier lists (see the comments on 1.9-10). For example, Revised Standard Version has written out the numbers with words, while Good News Translation gives the numeral form.

For the translation of tribes, see the comments on 1.5.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .