וַיֵּלְכ֧וּ אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֛עַ אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה הַגִּלְגָּ֑ל וַיֹּאמְר֨וּ אֵלָ֜יו וְאֶל־אִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל מֵאֶ֤רֶץ רְחוֹקָה֙ בָּ֔אנוּ וְעַתָּ֖ה כִּרְתוּ־לָ֥נוּ בְרִֽית׃
And so they went to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal and [in a parley] said to him and to the rest of Israel’s side, “We come from a distant land; we propose that you make a pact with us.”
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification made in November 2023. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
Scholars have differed as to the identity of the referent of אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, and to the meaning of the term. Many interpreters—and all English translations consulted—take the singular noun as equivalent to a plural, as if it meant “the men of Israel” in general. There are two problems with this reading. For one thing, it yields a text whose plain sense is incoherent. To those who construe אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל broadly, the text contains two parallel versions of the same episode: vv. 6ff. depict an incipient democratic decision-making assembly, whereas vv. 15ff. depict a more hierarchical decision process.
The second problem with equating the singular form with its plural is that, as Jehoshua Grintz pointed out in a 1966 article, such a construal does not fit the mores of that era. Surely the Hivite delegation is negotiating with a small body of Israelite representatives, because that is how things were done. Indeed, just a few verses later (vv. 15–22), the Israelite negotiating party is labeled retrospectively as נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה “chieftains of the community.”
To resolve the above problems in one stroke, Grintz takes אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל as a technical term for “the leaders” of the community as such. (To support his conclusion, Grintz adduces the meaning “leaders” also in several other passages. I do not find that evidence convincing.) Unfortunately, Grintz’s conclusion does not account for the difference between the noun’s reference and its sense—that is, between those whom אִישׁ denotes and what it is predicating about them.
Yes, the use of singular אִישׁ points toward the communal leadership as a collective. But at this point in the story, the fact that they are leaders is presupposed; it goes without saying. What the term in question is framing that leadership body as representing Israel in an international parley. It casts that body situationally, as one side in that parley.
This situation-oriented construal of אִישׁ yields a more coherent text, for it is consistent with the co-referential term used later in the episode. And because it is based upon the noun’s usual and prototypical meaning, it obviates Grintz’s recourse to a technical term.
Similar collective usages of אִישׁ that profile one side of a parley as such are found in Judg 8:1; 15:10; 1 Sam 11:9; 2 Sam 19:15, 42–44.
As for rendering into English, the challenge is that Biblical Hebrew uses grammatical number to express a conceptual frame (which a speaker can then harness to make a pragmatic point) more extensively than English does. Although the same nuance in meaning is not conveyed in English directly in the same domain—that of grammar—it can be reflected in English lexically, via an idiomatic rendering. The NJPS rendering the men does not convey the conceptual or situational nuance.
RJPS typically renders such instances of collective usage (and there about 70 of them) with a relational noun such as side. The latter encourages the audience to regard its referent in relationship to something larger than the referent itself. Indeed, in many of its biblical usages, אִישׁ has long been represented in English by (relational) role terms such as husband, warrior, subordinate, etc. Relational nouns are often the closest English equivalent to a situating function that operates on the discourse level of communication. (That being said, they cannot have the exact same cognitive and communicative impact as a situational noun, because the latter reflects a distinct conception that is processed more quickly by the mind.)