Tribe (Hastings' Dictionary)

i. Teriiis.—la EV 'tribe' is tr. in OT of Heb. npD matteh (^vXti, tribus), B^C* ahibhet, or c^::' shebhe\ {fvXr., tribiis), Aram. cspl shibhai (ifiKii, tribus) ; in NT of Gr. <pi/>.r,. Ai»iixxCt/Kov is used Ac 20' for ' the set of twelve tribes.'

In Is l'Ji>' sliftibet is used of the 'tribes' (Chej-ne 'castes,' I)uhm ' Homes') of t^j^n'pt, nnd in Mt 24^0 ^t^^ii of 'tribes' generally; othenvise all tiiese words are used exclusively of the tribes of Israel, except that tt/iehhet is occasionally used of the subdivisions of these tribes, .li,' 2012, IS 921, according' to MT 'tribes of Benjamin'; but probably the sin;,', should be read, 'tribe of B." (Moore, H. P.

Sinithl ; and Nu 4i» MT, 'cut not ofl the tribe of the famines,' where, however, we should perhaps read 'cut not off from the tribe," etc. [the text is doubtful, see L.XX, Vulg.) The use of 7natt<:h And shebhe^ for 'tribe' is fijjurative, the words meaning orife-inally 'rod,' ' stafi,' 'sceptre,' 'branch,' etc., in which senses they are used in OT. Ox/. Ueb. Lex. explains under .-i:iD : * tribe, orig. company led by chief with staff.' Matfeh as ' tribe' is found in P in the Hexateuch, in Chron.

; and in 1 K 71-* 8i, where Benzinger regards the clauses in which malteh stands as late additions, in & the 7»fl^ft'/i-c]ause is absent from LXXB. Shebtie( is common in D, is found in JE, and very occasionally in P (possibly only in redactioiial passages), and occurs throughout the OT from JE to Chronicles. Giesebrecht (/.ATW, l&Sl, p. '242) maintained that the name and thing expressed by shebhet died out before the Exile, and matfeh was used for it after the E.xile.

This position is controverted bv Driver, yo«m. Philol. xi. 1882, p. 213 f. The decision depends partly on the %iew taken as to the text, etc.

, of individual passages ; current views on these points seem to admit the opinion that(l) shebhet accnn in post-exilic literature onlv in passages borrowed from pre-exilic works, or as a literary archaism, its use having been revived through a study of the earlier literature ; and that (2) there is no certain instance of the use of matteh for ' tribe ' before the Exile.— The use of Aram, words corres]>onding to shibliet in the sense of ' tribe' may be dvic to the influence of the OT.

— On the tenns for the sub- divisions of the tribe, viz. mishpdhd and beth 'dbh, see Familt and below. ii. Origin, Nature, and Historij of the Tribe as a Social Onjanizntion. —The articles on individtial tribes show that there are two chief theories of their origin. First, tlie biblical statements as to the patriarchs are understood as persotuil liistory, and the tribe is regarded as having arisen chiefly by the natural increa.se of the descendants of a son or grandson of Jacob.

The descendants of each son kept together as a social group, in which, however, foreign slaves, wives, etc., were some- times included. The second theory, now more generally held, regards much that is said of the patriarchs and their children as tribal history j)ld in a personal form ; cf. liENJAMIN, i. 27'2'' ; JuDAll, ii. 792''. According to this view tlie tribes did not all arise aa subdivisions of Israel, but Israel was formed, in a measure, by the aggregation of some of the earlier tribes.

The process by which the complete set of tribes was formed began before the Conquest, and was continued afterwards. Israel as it invaded Palestine was a loose confederation of kindred tribes. These tribes liad themselves been formed by the aggregation of smaller bodies or niishpdltas, which were groups of families. We have few data as to the tribal system in the nomadic period ; but it would be similar to that of the nomadic Ai'abs. The unifying forces in the tribe, clan, etc.

, were the blood-bond, and the tribal or family cult. The blood-bond was jjartly real, partly theoretical ; it could be established by mutual agreement and religious ceremonies. The cliief duties of members of a tribe were to act together in war, and to protect one another by blood-revenge. The tribes and their subdivisions were fluid organizations liable to combination, sub- division, loss by secessions, and gain by accessions. Cf. W. R. Smith, Kinship, etc. 1-5S, 171 ; iJ6'3Stf.

In the Conquest, Israel fought by tribes and subdivisions of tribes ; sometimes the tribes com- bined (Jg P 4. 5), sometimes they acted separately (Jg l, "-). In the settlement the natural tendency would be for each family, clan, and tribe to settle together in the same district (Jos 14'- '■' 18'°). It is, however, quite uncertain how far the tribes which we find in Canaan under the monarchy correspond to tribes which existed before the Conquest.

Even where there was a real connexion, the name may have been changed. Thus, as tlie sons of concubines. Gad and Asher (ZUpah), Dan and Naphtali (Billiah), are regarded as additions to Israel after the Conquest. Tlie stories of the late birth of Benjamin and of the recognition of Epliraim and Manasseh (Gn 48^", J E) have been understood to mean that these three tribes were formed by the subdivision of Joseph after the Conquest.

These views are partly confirmed by the fact that some of these tribjil names are apparently names of places in Palestine : Asher (Aseru) appears as the name of a district or people in Galilee in inscriptions of Seti I. and Ramses II. ; Benjamin is ' son of the right hand ' or ' south,' i.e. the southern district of Joseph ; and Ephraini, from its form (cf. Mizraini, etc.), should be a place- name meaning 'a fruitful land.' The discovery of Joseph-cl (':) and Jacob-el (see JACOB, ii. p.

526') in a list of i)laces in Palestine conquered by Thothmes III., B.C. 1481-1449, has led to the sug gestion that the tribe of Joseph assumed tha. name after its settlement in Canaan. On the other hand, the comparative lack of territory, and the insignificance of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi in historic times, point to the antiquity of these tribal names (but cf. Levi).

Possibly in early times the tribes of Israel were known as Rachel and Leah, and at some time, before or after the Conquest, these broke up into divisions, which eventually became the twelve tribes. After the Conquest the tribes became essentially territorial, though no doubt the theory of the blood-bond survived. Similarly the mishpdifil came to mean the town, or quarter of a town, or village, or district.

Hence the tribal name denoted a district, and the trilie included not onlj' the Israelite invaders, but also in time the natives whom they absorbed, or by whom they were absorbed. These tribal districts had no fi.xed or couliniuius political organization, and they varied in number or extent. The real political units TRIBE 811 00 M a 5 o 1, M «0 •« OCDt^OOOaOp^M 3 3 1 >^ §■ ^ ^ f « o •? 1 3 2 " S §' 1 1 i 1 5 S si 1 _ § >< & S a i-: ■< o- . J 1. si ^ :?

>■ 1 ^ 1 ■-9 III 1^ t d <-3 1 1 1 ^ £ -• § i ^ § ■« e c n OB a 3, e-3 ^ § 1 Bi 3 i g OQ -4 •-> rf g B § d J- "S -g oS Ill III II s «> 1 g § ^ S :? III 1 III i J- = •Sc s 3 d a a o s! '• i •-> to •2 =^ =• c «• ^ .^ ^- §, 5 g -i i s 5 3 D H 1 1 1 g g, "S § 1 -g ^ N 2 o « fe; •< 1 a & Ui § 1 1 ^ -g g 1 1 H n 3 g 5 ^ 00 S g ^ S = » -s 1 ^ 1 ;■ 1 g CO O ^ . „• ^ a- « B J '^ 1 3 .

5' D H a; Q 1 1 ^ ^ §■ £ § i ■= 1 -i 1 1 1 1 s ^ 1 5 1 1 1 I 1 i s =■ "S g m O -1 -i ^ S' ^ § 1 -^ 1 ■^ 3 w" 13 III g g 1 § 5 -g ^ 1 ■i S Q O K u .J D -' E g- m J "> . J >; e a. _ J a 2 Co e a 3 "S 3 N 25 O i^ O -3 1 ^ 5 1 g 00 fJ ■-« 1 1 II 1 1 ll I o OS 3 1 g CO 1-3 <-3 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 D M 1 3 1 ll'Sa^gg^, «<Dr-3DaoMM m ■ c .2 J 1 i 812 TEIBE TRIBE were the smaller communities, towns, and districts ■whose inhabitants were bound togetlier by neigh- bourhood and common interests.

War would unite a whole tribe or a number of tribes, and induce them to recognize a single leader, like (lideon or Jephthah, and to accord him a certain authority after he had brought the war to a successful close. The term shophit used for such leaders in Juilges suggests that their authority was utilized to decide disputes too serious to be settled by local chiefs.

The Song of Deborah implies that, apart from such 'judges,' a tribe had no single head ; at any rate it does not mention any one in that position, except Deborah and Barak, but speaks of the ' governors ' (mcho/:c/:im) of Machir, ' they that handle the marshal's stall'' (moshckhim besliibhet sophe.r) of Zebulun, and the 'princes' (sarim) of Issachar. Similarly in the times of the Judges and the Monarchy we read of ' elders ' of Gilead, Jg 11"; of Israel, 1 S 4^ etc.

; of Jabesh, 1 S IP; of Judah, 2S 19"; of the 'princes' (sdrim) of Gilead, Jg 10'". Normally, the highest authorities in the tribe were those 'elders,' probably the heads of the mishpahiis (B. Luther). 1 Ch 27'""**, which assigns a 'ruler' (ndghidh) or 'captain' (sar) to each tribe, is probably from a late post -exilic source (Gray, UPN pp. 185-188). Abimelech's kingship (Jg 9) was quite exceptional, and was not tribal ; he is spoken of as king of Shechem only.

It is possible that the tribes brought with them into Palestine a tribal cult, and established tribal sanctuaries which would serve as rallying points. The sanctuary of Dan, at the Northern Dan (Jg 17. 18), however, is hardly an example ; the priest, etc., were acquired in Palestine, and Dan itself may not have been one of the original tribes ; still, in forming a tribal sanctuary, it may have been imitating them. Dt 33'*- '" seem to refer to a sanctuary of Zebulun and Issachar.

Even if a tribe had no official sanctuary, the various high places promoted union and intercourse in a district. After the establishment of the Monarchy, as the power of the kings inci'eased, the tribal names gradually became mere geographical expressions, and the districts they denoted ceased to be political divisions. Solomon (1 K 4'"'") divided the land of Israel, with the exception of part of Judah, into twehe districts, whicli do not coincide with the tribal districts.

In a measure, however, the tribal system prevailed : by the division into two king- doms and the disappearance or absorption of the weaker tribes, Judah became the Southern king- dom, Ephraim the Northern kingdom, and Gail stood for S.E. and Eastern Manasseh for N.E. Israel ; although the political existence of the other divisions of the Northern kingdom is some- times recognized (Is 9'-').

The oracles on the tribes, the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49), and the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33), come to us in their present form from the period of the Monarchy ; but they are constructed on the model of more ancient oracles, so that the fact that they contain sayings on nearly all the tribes (cf.

below) does not show that the tribe continued a iiolitical unit througliout the Monarchy ; on the other hand, the space devoted to Judah and Joseph in Gn 49, and to Joseph and (Jad in Ot 33, supports the view- taken above. The section on Levi (Ut SS""") may have received its present form from one of the Deuteronomic writers. The disappearance of the tribe as a political unit is further indicated by the silence of 2 K, etc.

, and especially by the fact that, with two exceptions, none of the numerous lists of Jewish families in Ezra and Neh. refer them to their tribes. The exceptions are Neh IP"" H^o-s* (in their present form very late, Guthe, SBOT, etc.), where, too, 'Benjamin' and 'Judah' may be mere names of districts. On the other hand, the Blessings of Jacob and o/ Moses, with Ezk 48 and such references as Ps 68^ I 80-, show that a strong archaic religious interest was taken in the ancient tribes.

One result of this interest was the set of tribal genealogies, Gn 40""" = Nu 20'-" (late strata of P), 1 Ch 2-9, which partly expressed the recollections of ancient politics and geography, and partly served to connect existing families with the primitive tribes. Meyer (Ent.iteh- ung, 160) deduces from the statement in Ezr 2°""*' that certain families could not prove Israelite descent, the conclusion that the rest traced their descent from Judah or Benjamin.

The silence as to tribal descent, mentioned above, seems to show that this is an erroneous theory ; and the habit of tracing descent to the ancient tribes and their primitive clans became general only long after the Exile ; families which derived their ancestry from distin- guished men, David, Saul, etc., could of course name their tribe. In other cases, a family would determine its tribe from its home before or even after the Exile, and from similar circumstances.

Hence the description of various persons in the Apocrypha and NT as belonging to certain tribes (To 1', Jth 8', 2 Mac 3*, Lk 2^«, Ko 11') can be accepted only in this limited sense. iii. Ord&r and Grouping. — The accompanying Table will show that the tribes are arranged in twenty diUerent orders, only one of which, that of Nu 2. 7. and 10, recurs. The principles of arrange- ment are^ (1) Tlie relationship to Jacob, and his wives and concubines. Thus : Sons of — Leah : Reu. , Sim., Levi, Jud.

, Iss., Zebulun. Zilpah : Gad, Asher. Rachel : Joseph, Benjamin. Bilhah : Dan, Naphtali. This principle, niudilied in some cases by others, determines the order in Gn 29-3o, in the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49), and in the lists based on the Blessinsr (Gn 46, Ex 1, Nu 1 (two). 2. 7. 10. 13. 26, 1 Ch 2'^ 27).

As the grouping according to wives and concu- bines does not correspond to any known historical situation after the Conquest, it must be based on a tradition of the circumstances of Israel before, or shortly after, that event. (2) Geographical position. This position influ- ences most of the lists mentioned above, and governs in large measure those in Nu 34, Dt 33, Jos 13 tt"., Jg 5, 1 Ch 2»-8 (partly), 12 ; Rev 7 (partly).

(3) In Dt 27 tradition and geography have some influence, — witness the position of Simeon and Issachar ; but the chief principle seems to be that the tribes regarded for various reasons as more important are chosen to bless, and the less im- portant to curse. The cursing tribes belong to the E. and N. districts, which were carried away cap- tive tir^t.

(4) The list in Ezk 48 is baaed on the geography of the monarcliy modified by the transference of the Eastern tribes to the West of Jordan, and by the ideal necessity for placing the temple about the middle of the country. In the Table on the preceding pa^e the sons of the various wives, etc., are printed tlius ; — Sons of Leah, small caps., e.g. IvEO. ; of Zilpah, ordinary type, e.g. Gad ; of llachel, small caps, italic, e.g. Jus. ; Bilhah, italic, e.g. Dan. iv. Subdivisions of the Tribe.

— The tribe was a confederation of mi.'ihpdhn.t (cf. above), UV ' families ' ; and the mislipnlid was a group of households, bnijith or bi-th 'ahh {' father's house'). A common worship of the mishpdha is implied in 1 S 20". Tlie names of some of the mishpdha • Also used o( a tribe (Nu 17"), or chieJ division ot » trib« (Nua-'oco). TRIBUTE TEOAS 813 (Hfbronites, Nu 3=^ ; Hezrunitts.

Nu SO" ; Sheilie- mites, Nu ■2iy") show that in many cases the mis/i- pahd came to mean the inhabitants of a town or district. Jg 9', however, iuiiilies that in the time of Abiraelech ben Gideon tliere were more than one mi-s/ipdhd in Sliechem. According to tlie oldest form of tlie Gideon narrative (J, Jg 6" S*, see analjsis in PB), Gideon's force consisted of the liylitin^' men of the niis/i/Hl/id Abiezer, wlio amounted in number to three hundred. In E.

v \-2'- * the hayith or beth 'abh is spoken of as normally capable of consuming a paschal lamb at one meal. Cf. Family, Goverxment, Israel, Jacob, and articles on the separate tribes, etc. LmRATCTiB.— See on Family ; also B. Luther, ' Pie Israel- itiKhen Stamnic,' ZATW, 1901, Heft 1, pp. 1-7B ; Coniill, Hint, of the People of Israel, pp. 36-«'2 ; Steueniagel, Die Kin- wiiuUrung der wr. Stuitune in Kanaan, 1001; Ed. Konij;, Snuste Pritizipien der altUut. Kritik geprii^ft, 1902, p. 3.') ff. W. H.

Bennett.