On the noun אִישׁ in 2 Samuel 10:5

(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—in this case, its plural form אֲנָשִׁים—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in “Notes on Gender in Translation,” pp. 11–16.)

---

Three consecutive clauses will be treated here, with attention on the discourse participants and how they are mentioned and profiled.

1. The first clause tells us that David was apprised of a situation that warranted action, although the verb has no stated object. The audience is left to infer which situation of interest was most salient: the present predicament of his returning agents, or how they had been treated while abroad. It is the first option that comports best with the fact that the king responds first to his agents, and only later deals with the Ammonites. This inference also matches the more explicit phrasing of the parallel account in 1 Chr 19:5: וַיַּגִּידוּ לְדָוִיד עַל־הָאֲנָשִׁים “David was told about the men”.
2. The second clause tells us that the king sent a message, although the wording actually elides mention of the messengers themselves; their involvement goes without saying.
3. The third clause uses the situating noun אֲנָשִׁים for one of its classic discourse functions, namely to introduce characterizing information about a key participant that is deemed essential for grasping the depicted situation. Although the envoys had previously been labeled עֲבָדָיו ‘[David’s] courtiers’, regarding them in relation to the king, the changed label הָאֲנָשִׁים now regards them in terms of the prior depicted situation of interest. Because the referent is highly given, the situating noun is the preferred label—i.e., the most communicatively efficient. (Such usage of אִישׁ is typical for reporting a crucial change of a participant’s emotional state, as in Gen 20:8; 24:21; 34:7; 43:18, 33; Jon 1:10.) In short, although masculine gender performance is clearly at stake in this episode, that aspect is immaterial to the choice of אֲנָשִׁים as a label for the participants.

---

As for rendering into English, each clause needs to be considered, in turn.

1. In the first clause, the complement object it that NJPS supplied in ‘When David was told of it...’ yields a rather incoherent text, for it implies that the focus of attention is on what was recounted in the previous verse, namely what happened in Ammonite capital. For clarity, I moved up the men from the third clause, in place of it. (Although it mentions only the participant of interest, the situating noun men evokes the intended situation, as well.)
2. In the second clause, the word men supplied by NJPS to label David’s second set of agents (necessary for English idiom) nowadays it places undue emphasis on gender. The revised rendering others matches what NJPS supplied in the parallel account.
3. In the third clause, the men in the NJPS ‘the men were greatly embarrassed’ nowadays it places undue emphasis on gender. A simple pronoun is more in accord with contemporary idiom.