On the noun אִישׁ in Joshua 14:6

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ.)

---

If we start from the prototypical meaning contribution of אִישׁ as indicating a situation-defining participant (as this noun’s most cognitively available meaning), then an informative and impactful meaning of the title אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים is readily available: “a participant who brings divinity into the [human or mundane] situation at hand,” that is, an agent for the divine interests. (Presumably this role has become a conventional one by virtue of the fact that for most people, their access to the divine will is occluded.)

This straightforward construal of the epithet is consistent with all four of its characteristic usages in the Bible:

• to describe someone who delivers messages that involve taking a stand on God’s behalf (most instances);
• to describe Samuel as he is noted for his ability to predict the future (1 Sam 9:6), and likewise Elijah and Elisha as they predict the future (e.g., 2 Kgs 4:16; 7:2; 8:7–8);
• to describe Elijah and Elisha as they perform certain supernatural acts (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:24; 2 Kings 1:10, 12; 4:7; 5:14–15; 6:6); and
• to describe King David when he is credited with establishing certain Temple practices, as tantamount to their having been divinely sanctioned (Neh 12:24, 36; 2 Chr 8:14).

Tellingly, in these usages, the figure’s devotion to the Deity is not at issue, whereas his ability to bring the divine realm to bear upon the mundane realm is at issue.

Biblical scholars who have examined the term אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים tend to focus on the differences between the aforementioned characteristic usages, which they then attribute to diachronic evolution in the term’s meaning. Yet given the relative consistency with which the noun אִישׁ is used throughout the Bible, there is no warrant for multiplying additional assumptions. Rather, the straightforward construal that assumes a consistent, prototypical meaning yields a coherent and informative text in all cases.

Gender is never at issue where this term is used.

---

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘man of God’ evokes the usual meaning of that expression in English, which is “a man devoted to God” (Oxford English Dictionary). This conventional meaning is apparently derived from the Christians’ New Testament usage of the term ἀνθρώπου τοῦ θεοῦ (which was already the standard rendering of אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים in the Septuagint). There it reportedly indicates someone who relinquishes normal human ties in order to serve God alone (so Van Selms).

However, that meaning is an extension of the sense of the Hebrew expression, as described above. It is not found in the Hebrew Bible itself. In particular, such a meaning does not apply to King David.

Moreover, the expression man of God nowadays is a significantly more male term than what אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים would have suggested to the text’s ancient audience (or to the audience of the King James Version).

Both of those reasons argue against employing man of God as the rendering of אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים for a translation of the plain sense into idiomatic English.

Although the RJPS rendering agent of God does not itself convey whether this figure is human (rather than divine), in practice the ambiguity is manageable. In nearly all actual contexts of use, such as Judg 13:6 and 1 Sam 9:6, it is obvious that the speaker considers the agent in question to be a human being (regardless of label). An exception is 1 Sam 2:27: “An agent of God came to Eli and said to him…” (NJPS). Encountering the first clause, a reader who is unfamiliar with “agent of God” as a conventional title might be unsure whether that figure is human or divine (cf. Judg 6:11). To offset the ambiguity in English (and specify gender), I have added a co-referential pronoun in the next clause: “An agent of God came to Eli, and he said to him.…” (RJPS).

Hence a trade-off is involved in the rendering as ‘agent’. The down side is the creation of occasional ambiguity, which is minor and can be remediated. This is a small price to pay for adopting a rendering that in general is more informative, by virtue of its being closer to how speakers used the word אִישׁ in ancient Hebrew.

Sources consulted: ¶ Burnett, Joel S. 2001. A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. SBLDS 183. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ¶ Gangloff, Frédéric. 1999. “L’homme d’Elohim (איש (ה)אלהים).” Biblische Notizen 100: 60–70. ¶ Hallevy, Raphael. 1958. “Man of God.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17.4: 237–44. ¶ Holstein, Jay A. 1977. “The Case of “’ish Ha’elohim” Reconsidered: Philological Analysis versus Historical Reconstruction.” Hebrew Union College Annual 48: 69–81. ¶ van Selms, A. 1959. “Die uitdrukking Man van God in die Bybel.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 15.2–4: 133–49.