Deuteronomy 21:21 - 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 containing אִישׁ—in this case, its plural form: אֲנָשִׁים—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

The label כָּל־אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ relates the depicted situation’s key participants (אֲנָשִׁים) to their town. Yet it is vague as to the nature of that designated relationship.

Practically speaking, in the context of a public execution, it is more likely one of representation of the group (i.e., leaders or proxies) rather than one of membership (i.e., residents or citizens). Indeed, 1 Kgs 21:11–13 describes a stoning that was supervised by אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ, whose meaning was clarified there by an apposition: הַזְּקֵנִים וְהַחֹרִים אֲשֶׁר הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּעִירוֹ “the elders and nobles who lived in his town.” Moreover, the logic of the story implies that the victim, Naboth, despite his being a local resident householder with a patrimony, was not a member of this particular body. That is, Jezebel’s dispatch of her conspiratorial letter to that body implied that Naboth would not see it.

That same construct term occurs in only two other passages: Gen 34:20 and Deut 22:21, along with the broader formulation “anshei + Locale,” totaling more than forty instances. After surveying them, I conclude that אַנְשֵׁי עִיר is not an idiom or technical term with a fixed, specific meaning. (Cf. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel, [Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1996], 98–107; 256–57.)

In Gen 34:20, the chief of the town of Shechem and his son address אַנְשֵׁי עִירָם (“the anashim of their town”) in the town gate. In Canaanite and Israelite walled towns, the gate’s plaza area, where public business was customarily transacted, was too small for all adult males to assemble, let alone the entire populace. Hence it would have gone without saying that a smaller, representative body is in view. (Consequently, Speiser [Anchor Bible commentary] renders this term as “their town council,” while Milgrom glosses it as “members of the city council” in his discussion at Num 13:2 [JPS Torah commentary].)

Note that the present passage (in vv. 19–20) twice uses the similar expression זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ (“elders of his town”), as in Judg 8:15–16; 1 Kgs 21:11 (cf. Ruth 4:2)—and similarly elders (זִקְנֵי הָעִיר) are on the scene in Deut 22:21 (see vv. 17–18). Furthermore, this case is being heard in the gate (שַׁעַר “public place”), as in Gen 34:20 (cf. Ruth 4:1). This raises the question: Given that these—or closely related—parties are so often already identified as “elders,” what is gained by designating them also as אַנְשֵׁי עִיר? Apparently our term regards its members as deliberating and/or acting together on behalf of the עִיר.

In conclusion, the apparent representation of the group is expressed here metonymically, in terms of the city as a whole. The executioners are profiled as standing in for everyone.

Are women in view? The fact that one woman (the mother) has played an active role in prosecuting the case suggests that other local women could likewise be involved in carrying out the sentence. Timothy M. Willis, in providing comparative examples from present-era kinship-based societies, mentions a case in which a “confirmed thief” was hanged by “his elder brother and his mother,” and another case where an “incorrigible thief” was buried alive by her sister (The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy, 2001, pp. 164–65). It meanwhile seems likely that stone-throwing was the province of women as well as men, if we take into account women’s involvement in the routine care of sheep and goats (see Carol Meyers,“Everyday Life: Women in the Period of the Hebrew Bible.” In Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, eds. Women’s Bible Commentary, expanded edn. [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998]: 251–59,

here 253–56), given that stone-throwing is a classic means of managing a herd, and that nearly every Israelite household included livestock if it could afford to.

As for the elders, we lack clear evidence that they were an exclusively male body in ancient Israel.

In short, women are not definitely excluded from view.

As for rendering into English, there is no warrant for rendering in gendered terms. The NJPS “the men of his town” is nowadays construed as gendered. The revised rendering is not.

In this context, the metonym is evident to an English reader. Thus a clarifying footnote is not needed.