Numbers 13:2 - On the noun אֲנָשִׁים

(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 אֲנָשִׁים—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

Prototypically, the situating noun אִישׁ labels an essential party whose involvement defines the situation of interest. At the same time, by regarding its referent in terms of the overall situation, אִישׁ directs our attention to that situation.

Usage of אִישׁ is frequent when speakers issue a directive, for they typically need to describe in a schematic manner the situation that they wish to see achieved.

Here, the presence of אֲנָשִׁים carries out its prototypical function. It introduces a new (plural) participant into the discourse: someone else aside from the addressee (Moses). Meanwhile, both the semantics of the Qal-stem verb שׁלח, and the benefactive prepositional phrase לְךָ, require that the verb’s object describe someone who would serve in the capacity of an agent: a party who will act on behalf of the sender.

(The frequent usage of אִישׁ to introduce an additional party as constitutive of the depicted situation is most evident in the singular—often rendered with terms like “another…” or “someone else.” Instances include: Gen 31:50; 41:38; 45:1; Exod 2:12; 12:44; 34:3; Lev 7:8; 16:21; 19:20; 20:10 [2nd instance]; Num 5:13; 19:9, 18; Deut 19:16; Josh 10:14; Judg 16:19; 1 Sam 2:25 [2nd instance]; 10:22; 12:4; 2 Sam 17:18; 18:26 [2nd instance]; 21:4; 2 Kgs 12:5 [2nd instance]; Isa 3:5 [2nd instance]; Ezek 18:8 [2nd instance]; Ps 49:17; Prov 20:5; Est 1:8.)

In the context of messaging, אִישׁ (including its plural form אֲנָשִׁים) is a natural collocate of the Qal verb שׁלח, whose semantics presuppose the involvement of a messenger. Hence that participant can be efficiently identified in terms of the situation, without needing to be specified via a contentful (“sortal”) noun—as a מַלְאָךְ “messenger” or some other kind of agent—which involves more effort in speech and in mental processing. Aside from the recounting of this same episode in Deut 1:22, the instances include: Lev 16:21 (Piel stem); Josh 7:2; 18:4; Judg 6:8; 18:2; 20:12; 2 Kgs 6:32; Jer 26:22; Ps 105:17; 2 Chron 2:6, 12.

Notably, the above construal of אֲנָשִׁים is at odds with Ibn Ezra and two prominent recent commentators, Jacob Milgrom (JPS Torah Commentary) and Baruch Levine (Anchor Bible). Ibn Ezra comments:

והטעם אֲנָשִׁים שהם ידועים גבורים

The sense of אֲנָשִׁים is that the referents are known to be stalwarts.

Milgrom—citing Ibn Ezra (and Rashi and Rashbam on other, unspecified passages)—comments that אֲנָשִׁים “can refer to important and brave men, such as the members of the city council (Gen 34:20; Judg 8:15–17). Thus the men were not ordinary military scouts…but distin­guished leaders of each tribe.…” (1990:100). For his part, Levine—citing Judg 18:2 and 20:12—comments that אֲנָשִׁים “often implies status. This is true here, as is suggested by v 3” (1993:351). Hence he renders: ‘Dispatch important per­son­ages.…”

However, such a view—which I myself used to hold—is wrong in imagining that the noun’s rare (predicate) usages, such as in verse 3, should influence its meaning here, in a prototypical usage. Rather, prototypical usage is automatically construed conventionally, because it is cognitively so accessible. Furthermore, to perceive a “status” sense here conflates the meaning of אֲנָשִׁים on the informational level of communication (which is minimal) with its meaning on the discourse level (which is its main function). It also confuses the noun’s denotation (its occasional application to people who happen to be “important personages”) with how it regards its referent. See further my comment on the next verse.

Regarding gender implications, here אֲנָשִׁים is used to refer to a category of persons. Such references, by their nature, do not exclude women from their scope (Stein 2008; Stein 2013). However, in terms of societal norms, the specification that these participants must be “chieftains” makes it highly likely that women are not in view.

As for rendering into English, the contemporary audience can be counted upon to infer from the specification of “chieftains” that women are not in view. Thus we have no warrant to translate in gendered terms. Yet nowadays the NJPS “men” puts undue emphasis on gender. A non-gendered manner would be more in accord with English idiom.

In an agency context like this one, the closest English equivalent to the Hebrew situating noun appears to be the basic-level role term ‘agents’. (Such a rendering approach is analogous to the standard English rendering of אִישׁ in marital contexts as ‘husband’, which is likewise a role noun.) Although role terms operate on the informational level (rather than the discourse level), they nonetheless indirectly evoke a situation, while characterizing the relationship between its participants. This generalization is true of ‘agent’ in the present context.

In recasting situational participation in terms of relational roles, I am not claiming that אֲנָשִׁים means ‘agents’ in Biblical Hebrew, merely that it is the best rendering in idiomatic English.