Exodus 10:7 - On the noun אִישׁ

(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 אִישׁ—in this case, its plural form—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

---

This noun phrase, הָאֲנָשִׁים, has been an interpretive crux. Some read it as specifying adult males, as if Pharaoh’s advisors intend that the women and children remain behind (Bekhor Shor, in light of v. 11; Durham (Word Biblical Commentary, 1987:136). Others construe הָאֲנָשִׁים more broadly, as denoting ‘the people’ (Keil and Delitzsch 1866; NRSV; cf. ἀνθρώπους in the Septuagint.). Cornelis Houtman (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament, 1993: 7, 105–6) senses a third possibility—a “denigrating connotation”; thus he renders הָאֲנָשִׁים as ‘those good-for-nothings’. (However, Houtman cites no other instances to support his construal; and I am not aware of any cases that would not be better explained in other ways.)

I will resolve this crux, by seeking the answer not on the informational level (i.e, what this noun tells us about the salient qualities of its referent), but rather on the discourse level (i.e., how this noun helps the audience to efficiently grasp the situation under discussion). A situation-oriented construal shows that this noun’s usage is utterly conventional: the speaker is expressing a desired state of affairs (a situation), in a schematic matter. In so doing, the speaker employs אֲנָשִׁים in a prototypical manner; it functions to put attention on the situation of interest, while regarding the referents situationally rather than according to their intrinsic qualities.

Pharaoh’s courtiers perceive the situation to be dire—in need of prompt remedial action. Because the speaker’s intended referent is specific and already discourse-active, the most efficient way to refer to that party is in terms of the existing situation, which is precisely what הָאֲנָשִׁים does. The label is underspecified because within the speech context, the intended referent is taken as given—as a point of reference: the ones already under discussion.

* * * * * *

Looking ahead, there soon turns out to be disagreement between Pharaoh and Moses about who exactly they have been talking about. Thus far during their parleys, Moses has specified the referent only as עַמִּי “My people.” Yet the label עַם ‘people’ is ambiguous. It often labels a group of leaders in their role as representing the nation (e.g., 19:7–8). Especially with regard to a deity’s communal worship, a duly authorized delegation was standard practice in that era (e.g., Exod 19:7–8; 24:1–11). And furthermore, such a delegation would plausibly consist of leading citizens, named in advance (e.g., Num 1:4–17; 13:1–16).

Not surprisingly, Pharaoh proceeds to construe “the ones under discussion” in those narrow yet conventional terms, for that would minimize any disruption in his ongoing plans. He promptly summons Moses; and after claiming to have assented to Yahweh’s demand, Pharaoh asks (10:8): מִ֥י וָמִ֖י הַהֹלְכִֽים “Who are the ones to go?” Pharaoh must be presupposing a selected Israelite subset that is readily countable and identifiable. As Naḥmanides notes (at v. 8), “Pharaoh initially wanted [only] leaders and elders to go—אֲנָשִׁים who would be ‘designated by name’.” (That phrase אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמוֹת ‘designated by name’ quotes an adjectival clause that is applied to אֲנָשִׁים elsewhere, where it refers to designated agents: Num 1:17; 2 Chr 28:15; 31:19.)

This is not to say that the phrase הָאֲנָשִׁים profiles its referent as “the leaders”—any more than it means “the men (adult males)” or “the people.” Rather, a delegation or leadership construal is plausible as the referring expression’s implied denotation, given the situation as depicted by Pharaoh’s courtiers.

This view is similar to that of Cassuto (1967; at 10:11), who interprets the passage as if Pharaoh purposely twisted his advisors’ recommendation: the king realized that in saying הָאֲנָשִׁים they meant ‘the entire people’, but he chose to ignore that aspect: “he pretends that he understood it in its restricted sense,” namely the men only (based on v. 11). More precisely, the advisers are speaking vaguely; Pharaoh then follows their recommendation in a way that best serves his perceived goals, by taking the position that dispatching only certain leaders should satisfy Moses’ demand.

---

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men’ nowadays implies that only adult males are in view. The revised rendering is more properly situation oriented.