Linguistic Analysis behind Innovative Renderings of אִישׁ‎ in a Newly Published Translation

David E. S. Stein

The author is grateful to Profs. Ellen van Wolde and Ziony Zevit for their helpful critiques of an early version of this article. Illustrations are courtesy of biblemapper.com (detail from “The Battle at Mt. Gilboa”) and National Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.), Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund (detail from “Saul’s Suicide after His Defeat by the Philistines” by Antonio Tempesta).

The NJPS translation committee’s goal was “to render the Hebrew text as they believed the original author of that text meant it to be understood by his contemporaries” (Orlinsky 1970, 18). It featured “intelligibility in diction” and a thought-for-thought rendering of the text’s plain sense (17). In turn, the RJPS project has sought to restore those translators’ intent in light of recent changes in English, mainly the increasingly gendered usage of he/him/his/himself and the word man. On this retranslation’s goals and features, see its preface at https://purl.org/jps/rjps-preface. On its methods, see “Notes on Gender in Translation,” https://purl.org/jps/gender. On selected rendering decisions, see –.

Hebraists commonly gloss the masculine singular form of אִישׁ‎ as “man” or “person.” However, those typical glosses clearly fail for the cases treated herein. Masculine forms of אִישׁ‎ appear 2,198 times in the Bible and their evaluation is crucial for gender accuracy in translation due to a combination of two factors. First, contrary to popular belief, אִישׁ‎ in Biblical Hebrew is lexically gendered only minimally (Stein 2019). And second, when its masculine forms are employed in nonspecific (class) reference or non-referentially, the referent’s gender is not specified (Stein 2008; ). Therefore, women may well be in view.

Similar constructions appear also in 12.1 and 20.20. Other exemplary cases of this type include Judg 8.1, 22; 15.10; 20.17; 1 Chr 10.1; 2 Chr 13.15.

The verb’s plural form וַיִּצָּעֲקוּ‎ “[they] rallied,” although attested elsewhere, is pointedly not used here (cf. the next example, where the verb is plural). This verb (niphal of צעק‎) appears five more times in the Hebrew Bible; of those, two are singular, with singular אִישׁ‎ as subject (like the present case), while the other three are plural, governing various plural or collective subject noun phrases.

The words אִישׁ‎ and אֲנָשִׁים‎ are best viewed as alternate forms of the same frequently occurring word, even though they come from different roots. The linguistic phenomenon called suppletion is known to give rise to irregular alternations of this kind. The relation of אֲנָשִׁים‎ to אִישׁ‎ is akin to the English irregular plural people for the singular person, each term deriving from a different Anglo-French root. On the plural and feminine forms of אִישׁ‎ as suppletive, see , n6.

The singular and plural usages do appear synonymous on the surface, for they share collocated words and the same situational contexts. Notably, these variants repeatedly appear together within the same biblical narratives. Consider the following sets: Josh 10.6, 24; Judg 12.1, 4–5; 1 Sam 11.8-15 (three singular and three plural, interspersed); 1 Sam 15.4; 17.25; 17.52.

The plural and singular terms do not seem to differ in referential gender, i.e., whether women are in view. The expression כָּל־אַנְשֵׁי מִגְדַּל־שְׁכֶם‎ “all the people of the Tower of Shechem” is clearly gender-inclusive in Judg 9.49, just as כָּל־אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ “all ʾîš yiśrāʾēl” is in 1 Chr 16.3. UBS translators have been advised regarding both אַנְשֵׁי יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ in 2 Sam 15.6 and אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ in v. 13 that they denote “the people of Israel” in general rather than only its males (, 936). In any case, the present article will conclude that the gender profile is beside the point, at least for choosing idiomatic renderings in English.

A singular form regards its referent as a unity, whereas a plural form regards it as a group of distinct individuals (Löbner 2013, 80). Because the two forms evoke different meanings and thus offer speakers a choice, linguists commonly speak of a “singular–plural contrast” (e.g., Taylor 2002, 367). See also Hirtle 1982; Eschenbach 1993, 27; , 105.

Grammatical number must be distinguished from a language’s counting system. As Alan Cruse notes, the two systems are “syntactically and semantically distinct” (, 272). Consequently, the fact that ancient Hebrew speakers often used singular אִישׁ‎ non-referentially as a unit of enumeration (e.g., with שִׁבְעִים‎ “seventy” in Num 11.16) is not germane to this article.

E.g., Gesenius 1829, 84, s.v. אִישׁ‎ 1.g; Kaddari 2006, s.v. אִישׁ‎ 4; Clines 2018, 319. Likewise for אִישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ in our first exemplar in Judg. 7.23, UBS translators were recently advised that it “has a plural sense,” and so also for אִישׁ יְהוּדָה‎ in our second exemplar in 15.10 (, 390, 686).

Another approach in the literature treats the singular form as what ; hereafter JM) call a “noun of species”—so that in effect, אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ = יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ “Israel.” JM §135c reads, “almost any singular noun may be used as a noun of species or of category—the generic use—and then it is equivalent to a plural. … The phrases איש יהודה‎ 1 Sam 11.8 and איש ישראל‎ Josh 9.6 are more frequent than the plural אנשי י׳‎ and express the notion of a generic group better” (467, emphasis in original). Yet this view is at odds with how people use language; it does not account for why speakers repeatedly prefer a longer expression (e.g., אִישׁ יְהוּדָה‎) over a shorter one (e.g., יְהוּדָה‎ “Judah”) when either could be used to label the same referent. Because a shorter label involves less effort, it should be preferred by default. Thus it stands to reason that a speaker who uses the longer label must somehow find it more informative, contra JM.

See the Appendix for a tabulation of the seventy instances. For a caution about the textual instability of verb agreement compared to non-Masoretic texts, see , 478.

Semantically speaking, construct phrasing with a personal noun such as אִישׁ‎ evokes a relationship of affiliation: the persons are identified with their group or place—and they also represent it.

The Bible includes additional instances of singular אִישׁ‎ that denote a variety of groups of people; however, because unlike the present cases, those involve nonspecific reference (i.e., reference to a class of entities that exists only in the discourse, also known as irrealis), they do not shed light on the present ones.

As already demonstrated, the duality is evident in ways both grammatical and semantic. Additional grammatical clues include singular co-reference while representing a larger body (e.g., Josh 9.7; 1 Sam 13.6), and apposition with an obviously collective term (2 Sam 16.15). Semantic clues include a report of conversation that is internal to the referent, which therefore cannot be a singleton (Judg 20.22; 1 Sam 17.25), and a hearer’s reaction that is well out of proportion to a singleton referent (2 Sam 15.13-14). In addition, the audience’s expectation of textual coherence often demands a group reading even with a singular verb (Judg 20.41; 21.1; 1 Sam 14.24; 17.25; 2 Sam 15.13; 20.2). On semantic duality, see , 64.

For cases with the quantifier כֹּל‎ “all,” see Jacobus Naudé’s finding that “כֹּל‎ with a singular definite noun expresses ‘the totality of the individual members of the specific group or set’” (Van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze 2017, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar [BHRG], 310, §36.5.1(3)).

There are 327 instances of the masculine singular construct, per Accordance Bible Software’s module (i.e., the 70 under study comprise 21 percent of the total). Of those, there are another dozen that pair אִישׁ יְהוּדָה‎ with either יוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם‎ or יֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם‎ “inhabitants of Jerusalem.” I have set those cases aside for the time being, due to special challenges in interpretation of the full noun phrase.

A situation consists of several elements, such as human participants, that are configured in relationship to each other. Extreme types of situations include a crisis, an emergency, and a predicament. The human mind continually thinks in terms of situations; human cognition seems to be largely devoted to doing so (Yeh and Barsalou 2006). Thus, paying attention to situations, albeit highly abstract, is cognitively basic. See further Stein 2021; 2022; .

A situating noun is commonly used to depict a situation, to ask a question about it, to issue a directive to alter it, or to characterize a participant in it. Its use indirectly evokes a situation. See further Stein, forthcoming.

The mental habit of attending to situations naturally conditions human communication (Sanford and Garrod 1998; Taylor 2002, 72). As one linguist observed (Lambrecht 1994, 46), “Informing a hearer of something … necessarily involves not only participants but also something to participate in.” While a speaker is depicting a situation, the audience forms a mental representation of it (ibid.). That mental model is typically populated by participants whom the audience must keep track of. The speaker’s orchestration of this model is handled by the audience in automatic and unnoticed ways (, 15, 57–58).

I.e., the intrinsic features that the label אִישׁ‎ ascribes to this referent, namely that he is an adult male person, are both incidental to this word’s function in the discourse and a matter of reliance upon a prototype.

Several have regarded the change in Chronicles as merely stylistic: Braun 1986, 149, citing Kropat (1909, 11) and Rothstein (1902, 200). Yet as we have seen, a difference in meaning should be expected. Other commentators have treated the change as meaningful by construing the usage of אִישׁ‎ as representative: the purported report that one man/person fled is taken as standing for the whole army (Curtis and Madsen 1910, 180; , 285). However, if אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ can indeed mean “each/every man of Israel” (which is otherwise unattested), then what is the point of adding the universal quantifier elsewhere: כָּל־אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ “each/every man of Israel” (e.g., 2 Sam 20.2)? Neither of the foregoing interpretations seems compelling.

Similarly 1 Sam 15.4, but the syntax is unusual, featuring the resumptive use of an accusative (direct object) marker: וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים אֶת־אִישׁ יְהוּדָה‎ “and 10,000 [as] ʾîš yəhûdâ.” This phrase can be construed as informative per BHRG §33.4.2(2): it signals that “the object is identifiable, animate, and persistent within the context.” I.e., the referent of אִישׁ יְהוּדָה‎ is treated as a distinct entity; אִישׁ‎ is not being used as a mere counting unit. (So also LXX: καὶ τὸν ιουδαν “and Judah,” versus the usual ἄνδρες “men” for counting; Targum: יָת אְנָשׁ יְהוּדָה‎ [direct object marker followed by the Aramaic cognate of אִישׁ‎ followed by “Judah”], versus the usual גֻּבְרָא‎ “men” for counting.)

In this verse, the main Israelite contingent is treated as a given, for Saul had called it up (v. 7). Generally the term אִישׁ‎ is not used for a participant whose presence is given. In contrast, אִישׁ‎ succinctly introduces the Judahite contingent that was not individuated in the discourse until now. The latter is reported apart from the Israelite contingent (rather than as part of it), judging from the similar case in 2 Sam 24.9.

The expression appears also in v. 8. (In v. 6, upon their arrival, the parties are listed according to the status of their leaders. In v. 8, arrayed on the battlefield, they are listed instead by size.) The same proposed solution applies there.

Fuenn 1887; Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1907; Gesenius, Meyer, and Donner 1987; .

Translations include: LXX, Vulgate, Syriac. Interpreters include: Josephus (Ant. 7.6.1), Joseph Kara (https://mg.alhatorah.org/Parshan/R._Yosef_Kara/Shemuel_II/10.6#m7e0n6), and Abarbanel (at v. 8; ). Cf. the names Ish-baal (2 Sam 2.8; 1 Chr 8.33) and Ishhod (1 Chr 7.18).

Jirku 1950; HALOT (Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm 2000, 1:43, §3b) accepts Jirku’s proposal.

This presupposition explains why Tob’s contingent is elided altogether in the simplified retelling of 1 Chr 19.7, 9. (In v. 7, only the עַם‎ “people” of the king of Maacah is mentioned, while in v. 9 the king stands for all of the troops under his command.)

Cf. Josh 13.11; Judg 11.3, 5; 1 Chr 7.14-16.

This construal of אִישׁ טוֹב‎ is similar to a proposal by , 197). He then rejects his own idea on the grounds that nowhere else in the Bible is a foreign force labeled with אִישׁ‎ in this manner. Yet the present article finds that domestic forces are so named on a regular basis; why would such a conventional expression not apply likewise to foreign forces? Furthermore, there is no counterexample—no instance of a distinct body of foreign troops being given a different (competing) label while that body is depicted as ready to act in concert alongside, or in the face of, another force. (Rather, foreign forces are usually depicted as an undifferentiated mass, labeled either by nationality or by the king who leads them.)

On how this approach resolves the longstanding interpretive crux אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ in Josh 9.6-7, see the commentary in Stein 2023– ().

This category differs from the others in two respects. First, the parties are not in conflict. Yet they remain two distinct parties that together constitute the situation of interest. Second, the syntax makes these usages ambiguous as to semantic duality. For example, in 1 Chr 16.3, וַיְחַלֵּק לְכָל־אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ “David distributed [a treat] to kol ʾîš yiśrāʾēl,” does the latter phrase mean “every person in Israel” (which has been its usual rendering), or “the totality of the Israelite party [to the covenant with God]”? Such cases were assessed by emulating the human mind’s standard processing of language (, 550–52): the other sixty-five instances establish that the label אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ situates and expresses semantic duality conventionally; i.e., those pragmatic functions have cognitive priority.

Even in the two related cases where the term אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ has only a one-person referent (Num 25.8, 14), it seems to be employed pointedly to indicate one of the sides in an intergroup conflict. If so, then the application of אִישׁ‎ to a group (as one of those sides) is a small step, cognitively speaking.

notes that in biblical Hebrew, collective nouns “vary both in their degree of variability in [grammatical] agreement, and in their patterns of agreement” (478). He does not mention any nouns that have both a plural form and singular collective usages (like אִישׁ‎).

Biblicists have yet to notice that some “collective” nouns mean more than the simple sum of their denoted elements (cf. , 63–64, to wit: what the word forest denotes is more than a set of trees). Even the linguistically informed BHRG (53, 201) offers inconsistent definitions and examples.

Singular אִישׁ‎ is like the noun עַם‎ “people” in its collocating with singular verbs of gathering or spreading out (Exod 5.12; 32.1), with singular speech verbs (e.g., Num 21.5; Josh 24.16, 21), and with plural verbs and pronouns. When singular אִישׁ‎ functions collectively, it emulates the third, flexible type of collective noun in Dougald McLaurin’s provisional cognitive-linguistic schema for such nouns (). McLaurin’s main corpus was Deuteronomy. He did not discuss אִישׁ‎, presumably because its two instances of collective usage in that book (27.14; 29.9) are so subtle; see note 30, above.

Collective usages of the singular form man, as attested in major dictionaries, are quite limited: man-of-war as the label for a naval warship, whose crew is regarded as a unit; similarly, Frenchman as a sailing ship that hails from France (OED §25; now rare); and the man as a catch-all phrase for white people, in a race-conscious context (OED §18c). None of these usages is appropriate as a rendering within the biblical contexts of use.

A relational noun prompts the audience to relate its referent to something else that in the discourse may be only implicit. For example, use of the role term messenger presupposes related elements: a sender, a message, and a recipient. Relational nouns can thereby indirectly evoke situations. (This explains why in English the relational noun husband is commonly used to render אִישׁ‎ within the context of marriage.) That being said, the cognitive and communicative impacts of a relational noun differ from those of a situating noun, because the latter reflects a more primal conception that is processed more quickly by the mind (Stein, forthcoming).

Nearly all English translations, including NJPS, render אִישׁ‎ in most of these instances with a plural, typically as “the men of …” Even the avowedly Hebrew-oriented translator does so. Occasionally a more situational construal is evident, as in “Everyone in Israel is on Absalom’s side!” as the CEV rendering of the clause discussed above in 2 Sam 15.13; and cf. the NJPS rendering of כֹּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ in Judg 20.33 as “the main body of Israel’s force.”