(The above rendering and footnote come from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—with a slight modification as proposed for late Fall 2024. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

---

The definite noun phrase כֹּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל is a vague term whose denotation here has been controversial. Bekhor Shor construes it as “ordinary men,” as opposed to the leadership categories mentioned earlier in this verse. In contrast, Ibn Ezra construes it as “adult males,” as opposed to the children and wives mentioned in the next verse. Both of those interpretations seem unlikely, because they rely upon both reading אִישׁ as expressing intrinsic attributes (which is relatively rare in Biblical Hebrew), and upon reading singular אִישׁ as having the same meaning as its plural construct form אַנְשֵׁי. What happens when we instead expect the situating noun אִישׁ to behave prototypically by labeling its referent in situational rather than sortal terms?

Elsewhere, in the context of a conflict between two groups, the same expression כֹּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל repeatedly profiles its referent collectively as one of the two parties in that conflict: the totality of Israel on one side, and its enemies on the other side. The first such example is Josh 10:24; see my comment there.

Similarly, in the context of a parley between two opposing sides, the use of singular אִישׁ repeatedly profiles each side collectively as a constitutive party to the disagreement. Each group’s members are construed as a unit, while that unit is situated as one of the two competing sides. One such example is כׇּל־אִישׁ יְהוּדָה in 2 Sam 19:43; see my comment there.

Here, in much the same way, a situational approach would construe אִישׁ as profiling its referent in terms of the context of ratifying a covenant between two parties. After all, a covenant is necessarily defined by its parties, who have potentially divergent interests. Other such cases include כָּל־אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל in Deut 27:14;1 Kgs 8:2; 1 Chr 16:3; and 2 Chr 5:3. In all five cases, a two-party covenant frame employs the singular אִישׁ in a construct relation, which appears to regard collectively those who are representing the Israelite side in the ceremony.

That is, the label כֹּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל is being applied metonymically to Israel’s leadership, to indicate that they are representing the whole nation. Such a construal here is supported by the similar role and labeling of the leadership as representatives of the people during the Tabernacle’s dedication ceremony (Num 7:2), as well as by the label אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל in Josh 9:6–7, to denote the authorized representatives in the context of another negotiated agreement (see my comments on v. 6 and on v. 7 there). A consistent reading of the phrase in question here would be as an appositive that restates the import of the foregoing list of three types of leader (“tribal heads…elders…officials”). It thus separates the list of the active participants from the passive ones that follow.

(The ordinary Israelite householders, who are likewise passive participants in the ceremony itself, are addressed as part of the initial אַתֶּם...כֻּלְּכֶם “You…all of you” without being further specified; they are also the “possessors” pointed to by the possessive suffixes attached to the labels for everyone else, while being invoked by their conspicuous absence in the sequence of the full list of attendees. Within that matrix, their presence can go without saying. Indeed, their explicit omission yields a more coherent and informative text.)

This solution must be the plain sense because it construes the expression in question according to established convention, and because it readily yields a coherent and informative text.

In short, the referring expression כֹּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל functions to collectively denote the Israelite leadership, while situating the people Israel in its covenant with God, prior to a rite that formalizes that covenant.

See further my article “Linguistic Analysis behind Innovative Renderings of אִישׁin a Newly Published Translation,” The Bible Translator 75/2 (2024): 140–63, esp. note 31. doi:10.1177/20516770241251704. Accepted Manuscript: purl.org/scholar/rjps-groups.

---

As for the translation, the NJPS “all the men of Israel” is unlikely, as explained above. The revised rendering reflects a situating approach, expressed in English idiom.