וְעַתָּ֗ה קְח֤וּ לָכֶם֙ שְׁנֵ֣י עָשָׂ֣ר אִ֔ישׁ מִשִּׁבְטֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִישׁ־אֶחָ֥ד אִישׁ־אֶחָ֖ד לַשָּֽׁבֶט׃
Now select twelve individuals from the tribes of Israel, one from each tribe.
(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 the first instance in this verse, אִישׁ is employed both as a counting unit and as a situating noun. Speakers, when issuing a directive, typically depict their desired state of affairs in schematic terms. As usual, Joshua does so here, using the label that is communicatively most efficient, namely the situating noun אִישׁ. He asks that a subgroup be created from among the Israelite people, by their being chosen in a particular way. The members of that newly individuated subgroup are labeled as אִישׁ, that is, in terms of their participation in the depicted (desired) situation: they are constitutive of that situation.
The referents are situated in relation not only to the act of Joshua’s making a choice, but also to the group that they are to be individuated from: “the tribes of Israel.”
Meanwhile, because the reference is nonspecific, the participants’ social gender is left unspecified (Stein 2008c; Stein 2013). Joshua may well presuppose that only men would be selected—and that constraint may well be understood from the fact that each participant will apparently be representing their tribe—but this assumption goes without saying.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS rendering as ‘men’ is nowadays construed as requiring that only men be chosen, which places more emphasis on gender than what Joshua is actually saying. Like the ancient audience, the contemporary one probably assumes that only men are in view, given the fact that each participant will apparently be representing their tribe. Thus there is no warrant for rendering in gendered terms.
The RJPS rendering simply individuates the referents, without regarding them in terms of the situation. Yet it seems to be the most natural way to express the thought in English nowadays. It also fits the similar context of 4:1, below.