On the noun אִישׁ in Genesis 37:28

(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 this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

RJPS here construes the expression אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים as referring to the Ishmaelites already mentioned in v. 25 and in the preceding verse. Many commentators and scholars have pointed out that the same identification is found in Judg 8:24, which applies both gentilic terms (“Ishmaelite” and “Midianite”) to the same referent.

What, then, is the point of a changed label—and why now?

This is a banner instance of changing a label for the sake of what discourse analysis calls thematic highlighting (“to recharacterize the participant or highlight some thematically important information,” Steve Runge and Josh Westbury, “Glossary,” in Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible, Logos Database, 2012). Let me address the meaning contribution of each of the three apposed nouns, in turn.

First, אֲנָשִׁים. As is prototypical for this noun, it appears here as a matter of situation-defining participation. Its invocation signals that its referent (the caravaners) is now an essential—and not merely ancillary—part of the immediate depicted situation.

Furthermore, the situating noun also marks the participant as being situationally unique and therefore identifiable to the audience. (The caravan is the only discourse-active party in the scene to whom the verb וַיַּעַבְרוּ “passed by” could plausibly apply.) Grammatical determination (i.e., a definite article) would therefore be superfluous.

Indeed, a definite article would change the meaning: instead of profiling the referents in terms of the present situation, it would have profiled them in terms of the previously depicted one. But in that earlier situation, they were not yet introduced by the narrator as a situation-defining participant. As they go from being peripheral to being essential, the narrator marks this change in the situation via the situating noun אֲנָשִׁים.

Thus I differ with Richard Steiner, who in a recent article views the whole referring expression as parenthetic—an admittedly unconventional reading with rather unusual syntax. Unfortunately, Steiner overlooks the meaning contribution of אֲנָשִׁים. And given that this noun is being used conventionally, a conventional reading of the syntax would have cognitive priority.

The exemplars of such usage of אִישׁ (or its plural or feminine forms)—namely, to head an apposition with unique reference—are 2 Sam 20:3 and Est 7:6. (Other cases of אִישׁ in unique reference and a semantic relation of identification, albeit not with apposition, include Ps 37:7; 109:16; Est 6:7.) Likewise here, the semantic relations of the referring expression are both identification and characterization.

To sum up, אֲנָשִׁים, being the head noun in the apposition, is conventionally cast here as the verb’s subject. It marks the referent as essential on the discourse level—and as identifiable—while its appositives profile that referent in terms of qualities on the informational level. (See further David E. S. Stein, “The Noun ’îš in Ancient Hebrew: A Marker of Essential Participation,” Journal for Semitics 30.2 [2021]:18 pages.)

As for the second noun, מִדְיָנִים, we no longer know the respective connotations of this gentilic versus the primary one, “Ishmaelites.” We can say, however, that they each profile their referent in different ways, from different perspectives. Fortunately, the nuance does not matter for establishing the overall plain sense of this passage.

And with the third noun, סֹחֲרִים, the omniscient narrator is providing the text’s audience with salient information about the caravan: they are traders. As Richard Steiner has pointed out in his article, we thereby learn that this caravan is staffed not only by mere delivery drivers (as would be usual) but also by people who can negotiate and close an impromptu deal. This fact enables the brothers to carry out their plan.

In conclusion, the above construal readily yields a coherent and informative text, which is the hallmark of its plain sense.

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘Midianite traders’ misleadingly treats the referent as unidentifiable to the audience—as if it were a different body from the aforementioned Ishmaelites.

For the print edition’s first printing, I regrettably adopted the NRSV construal of אֲנָשִׁים as individuating a new referent without quantification: “some.” That is misleading, too.

The plain-sense construal of אֲנָשִׁים as marking a situationally unique reference appears to be reflected already in the Septuagint, the 1599 Geneva Bible, NIV, and CEV, given the definite article which they all employ. However, that article in English still does not make the referent identifiable to the contemporary audience, for they cannot be assumed to share the ancient audience’s presumed knowledge that Midianites were a kind of Ishmaelite (Judg 8:24)—which went without saying here. To help with that identification, the revised rendering employs a demonstrative pronoun. Thus it makes the implicit link more explicit. The changed label becomes recognizable as such.