Pregnant with Possibilities
But the men of Israel said to the Hivites, “Perhaps you are living [b]within our land; how then are we to make a covenant with you?” Joshua 9:7 NASB
Men of Israel – What seems like a fairly straightforward verse and translation is anything but. This verse is really complicated. Let me explain why.
First, let’s look at the Hebrew text and the grammar. I provide it all in the same way that I study Joshua with my friend, Rabbi Zev. I color-code each crucial word and then provide lexical and grammatical notes. Then I raise questions if appropriate about the translation or the Hebrew text itself. The numbers associated with each word are the numerical designations from TWOT. So, here are my study notes for you to follow:
Joshua 9:7
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר (כתיב וַיֹּ֥אמֶרו) אִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל־הַֽחִוִּ֑י אוּלַ֗י בְּקִרְבִּי֙ אַתָּ֣ה יוֹשֵׁ֔ב וְאֵ֖יךְ אֶֽכְרָת־ (כתיב אֶֽכְרָות־) לְךָ֥ בְרִֽית
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר “said” 118 אָמַר (ʾāmar) say, speak, say to oneself (think), intend, command, promise.[1] NOTE: This is a masculine SINGULAR. The qere ketiv is a PLURAL. The case is in alignment with “man of Israel” (singular) though incorrectly translated as “men.” So, is it one person speaking (singular) or is it the group viewed as a single person (unity)? Notice that the qere ketiv (the written text) uses the PLURAL.
אִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל “the men of Israel” NOTE: as in the prior verse, this is singular treated as plural without a definite article – But it should be MAN of Israel, referring to someone with Joshua perhaps like we refer to Mr. President. A title, not a general noun? But notice that this person is NOT named. Why? Some rabbinic commentaries treat eesh yiśrāʾel as if it were a common noun indicating the thought of the whole group, or the spokesman for the whole group. But there are other issues with this grammar (see qereb below).
הַֽחִוִּ֑י “Hivites” Strong’s 2340. חִוִּי Chivvîy, khiv-vee´[2] NOTE: This is a SINGULAR form translated as plural.
אוּלַ֗י “perhaps” 46 אוּלַי (ʾûlay) perhaps, suppose.[3] There are two Hebrew words for “perhaps, maybe.” This one is found in Eliazer’s comment about getting a wife for Isaac and in Jacob’s concern that Isaac will touch his arm and realize he is not Esau. The other word is
1780 פֶּן (pen) lest, not.[4] (See exodus 23:33) What is the difference between these. Rabbinic commentary: ʾûlay is a condition where the speaker wishes something to occur but it may not. pen is a condition where the speaker does not wish something to occur but it may.
בְּקִרְבִּי֙ “within me” 2066a קֶרֶב (qereb) midst, among, inner, part.[5] NOTE: again, singular. Not “us.”
There is no word for “land” in Hebrew. It is added to the English text.
Maybe a better translation – “within us” but this ignores the SINGULAR form. Or,
does this actually show that “within” this person or group there was a desire to show compassion? It has nothing to do with the “land.” But this compassion must still be tempered by God’s directive concerning the people of Canaan. The expression would be something like “you live within us (me)” meaning, “I have a deep compassion for your condition” upon seeing the supposed destitute condition of these people. This is also in keeping with God’s commandments.
יוֹשֵׁ֔ב “you are living” 922 יָשַׁ ב(yāšab) sit, remain, dwell.[6] SINGULAR
וְאֵ֖יךְ “how then” vav+ 75b אֵיך (ʾêk) how?
אֶֽכְרָת “we make” 1048 כָרַת (kārat) cut off a part of the body, e.g. head, hand, foreskin; cut down trees, idols; cut out, eliminate, kill; cut (make) a covenant.[7]
NOTE: Once again the qere ketiv uses the PLURAL. It is the traditional reading of the text that converts this to masculine SINGULAR – “How shall I make?” But even this is a problem, because the Aleph in the spelling of the written text (אֶֽכְרָות) should not be there. Why is the word misspelled?
General comment:
Now let’s deal with the expression “men of Israel” in this NASB translation since the qere ketiv shows that the written text has been altered regarding this phrase.
The expression “man of Israel” (Hebrew: ’îš yiś·rā·’êl) or “men of Israel” (’an·šê yiś·rā·’êl) occurs multiple times in the Hebrew Bible, often referring to soldiers or men of fighting age, typically translated as “the men of Israel” or “the Israelites” in the plural.
The most prominent occurrence of “men of Israel” in a collective sense (sometimes rendered in the singular as “a man of Israel”) occurs in Judges chapter 20:
- Judges 20:11:”So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one man”.
- The phrase is used throughout this chapter to describe the collective army of the tribes (Judges 20:17, 20, 22, 33, 36).
Other notable occurrences include:
- 1 Samuel 11:8:”…the men of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah thirty thousand”.
- 2 Samuel 19:41 (19:42 in some Hebrew bibles):”And, behold, all the men of Israel came to the king…”.
- 1 Kings 20:15, 27:Describing the soldiers of the Northern Kingdom.
- 2 Chronicles 13:12:”…and behold, God himself is with us for our captain, and his priests with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O children of Israel, fight ye not against the LORD God of your fathers; for ye shall not prosper”.
The specific, singular, and often collective term “a man of Israel” (‘îš yiś·rā·’êl) appears in the context of legal or social actions, such as the mixed-parentage incident in Leviticus 24:10.
My comment: THE BIG PROBLEM
In Leviticus 24:19 the term is used to designate an individual, in this case one who has mixed ethnicity. However, the first time the expression is used in in Number 25:8 and 14 where it refers to an important man, the prince of the tribe of Shimon. After the use in Joshua 9:7, the next time the expression occurs is in Judges 7:14 regarding Gideon. But after this occurrence, it seems to be always a collective noun.
If ’îš yiś·rā·’êl is a collective noun in this story, then why are the subsequent verbs and pronouns singular? Furthermore, why is the written text PLURAL but the read (traditionally) as SINGULAR?
Conclusion: the hesitation of this man or this group is ignored by Joshua. Joshua makes the treaty even when there is some concern and opposition. Does the text not name this person (if it is singular) in order to deflect any blame from him over this treaty?
According to verse 6, the Gibeonites come to both Joshua and the ’îš yiś·rā·’êl. The ’îš yiś·rā·’êl speaks up, questioning their request. Joshua ignores this. Does that make Joshua’s decision even more tragic? Is he more at fault for not listening?
Topical Index: ’îš yiś·rā·’êl, qere ketiv, Joshua 9:7
[1] Feinberg, C. L. (1999). 118 אָמַר. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 54). Moody Press.
[2] Strong, J. (2009). In A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 2, p. 37). Logos Bible Software.
[3] Wolf, H. (1999). 46 אוּלַי. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 23). Moody Press.
[4] Hamilton, V. P. (1999). 1780 פֶּן. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 726). Moody Press.
[5] Coppes, L. J. (1999). 2066 קרב. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 813). Moody Press.
[6] Kaiser, W. C. (1999). 922 יָשַׁב. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 411). Moody Press.
[7] Smick, E. B. (1999). 1048 כָרַת. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 456). Moody Press.
