וַ֠יְהִ֠י כְּֽהוֹצִיאָ֞ם אֶת־הַמְּלָכִ֣ים הָאֵ֘לֶּה֮ אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֒עַ֒ וַיִּקְרָ֨א יְהוֹשֻׁ֜עַ אֶל־כׇּל־אִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר אֶל־קְצִינֵ֞י אַנְשֵׁ֤י הַמִּלְחָמָה֙ הֶהָלְכ֣וּא אִתּ֔וֹ קִרְב֗וּ שִׂ֚ימוּ אֶת־רַגְלֵיכֶ֔ם עַֽל־צַוְּארֵ֖י הַמְּלָכִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה וַֽיִּקְרְב֔וּ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ אֶת־רַגְלֵיהֶ֖ם עַל־צַוְּארֵיהֶֽם׃
And when the kings were brought out to Joshua, Joshua summoned everyone on Israel’s side and ordered the army officers who had accompanied him, “Come forward and place your feet on the necks of these kings.” They came forward and placed their feet on their necks.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification projected for October 2023. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ.)
Scholars have differed as to the meaning of the referent of אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל. Many interpreters take the singular noun as equivalent to a plural, as if it meant “the men of Israel” in general.
The main function of אִישׁ here is (as usual) to mark a situation-defining participant. A situation-oriented construal of אִישׁ provides the following cognitive motivation for its usage here: This noun is a standard part of the Biblical Hebrew vocabulary for describing conflict—not only between individuals, but also between groups. Its use in singular form indicates that the situation should be construed as a conflict between two parties: Israel on one side, and its enemies on the other side. The context of hostilities immediately evokes this conventional usage of the term אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל (and similar constructions), which when employed in the context of hostilities as the clausal subject is clearly a collective term. Instances of אִישׁ that profile one of the sides in a hostile situation as such are found in Judg 7:8, 23, 24; 9:55; 12:1; 20:11 (and throughout the rest of that chapter); 21:1; 1 Sam 13:6; 2 Sam 15:13; and many other instances in the book of Samuel.
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 ‘all the men of Israel’ does not convey the conceptual or situational nuance (nor does NRSV ‘all the Israelites’). It also unduly highlights gender, given today’s usage of men, as gender goes without saying for the English audience.
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.)