On the noun אִישׁ (and אִשָּׁה) in Genesis 7:2

(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—here including also its feminine form אִשָּׁה—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

This is a rare case of the application of the situating noun to (non-human) animals; yet it is otherwise a prototypical usage. This directive from GOD lays out its goal by using אִישׁ and אִשָּׁה to express the desired situation in a schematic manner. Now, such situating nouns are used to refer to a participant in a schematically depicted situation, in terms of that situation. That is their classic function. Thus this usage is utterly conventional, despite the fact that the referents are animals (rather than humans).

If the application to animals seems surprising, the cognitive-linguistic theory known as Barsalou frames (see, e.g., Barsalou [1992] 2009; de Blois 2010) can be helpful here. According to that theory, a noun evokes a conceptual frame; that theory then distinguishes between the concept’s source and its function. In this case, the frame’s source is the ontological domain of <human being>, while its function is to situate its referent efficiently during communication. A given usage of אִישׁ (including its feminine form) can put the focus of attention on one aspect more than the other (or on certain additional aspects). In this case, the speaker’s usage shifts the focus toward function, which thereby licenses an extension to non-human referents.

Grammatically speaking, the desired situation is expressed via a non-restrictive appositional phrase, אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ. Its meaning is derived in light of the contextual concern for the continuity of species, and from evoking the audience’s general knowledge that most animals reproduce sexually. Thus this construction tells Noah (and the text’s audience) that the two members of the specified pair must be capable of being sexual partners—i.e., a mating pair.

The anaphoric pronoun וֹ that is affixed to אִשָּׁה (in the construct state) does not mean that possession is involved, nor that the two parties are seen as being in an abiding monogamous relationship (let alone that they are married!). Remember, a situating noun tells the audience to regard its referent in terms of the depicted situation; its presence tells us that situatedness is at issue. So this grammatical relationship is readily construed as indicating that the parties are situationally related, as in 1 Kings 20:20. That is, of the many types of semantic relationships that Hebrew grammarians list as being expressed by the construct state, this one seems closest to what van der Merwe et al. call the “entity–interested party” relationship (Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 2nd edn., 2017, p. 229).

The above construal meets all three criteria of a plain sense interpretation: it yields a coherent and informative text while being readily available in the audience’s mind.

(This case meanwhile has implications for the regular usage of אִישׁ and אִשָּׁה elsewhere to express human marriage. It argues for understanding that usage likewise as the schematic depiction of participation in a partnership situation.)

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘males and their mates’ reflects the Hebrew grammatical construction in an overly literal manner. The English possessive construction implies a sexual hierarchy that is not the plain sense of the text. The revised rendering better conveys (in English idiom) that a mating pair is in view.