On the noun אִישׁ in 1 Samuel 4:9

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—as per a correction in April 2024. 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 document, pp. 11–16.)

Let us first consider the grammar and its semantic import. The double-imperative utterance הִתְחַזְּקוּ וִהְיוּ לַֽאֲנָשִׁים seems intended to encourage its audience (Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar [2017] §21.5.2.1.g, p. 198), rather than expressing a result. Its second clause is itself a special construction that casts אֲנָשִׁים as denoting a state to be achieved. And in the second half of the verse, the similar clause וִהְיִיתֶם לַאֲנָשִׁים is part of a double-we-qaṭal construction that casts it as expressing the necessary condition for fighting. (On the conditional we-qaṭal semantics, see my comment at 1 Kgs 2:2.)

Now, in the pragmatic context of this utterance (i.e., the conditions that frame their speech), the salient topic is the pending second battle of a war; vv. 1b–8. At issue is whether the Philistines should still engage in battle at all, given the apparently long odds. Ultimately they decide to resume the fight—that is, to become defining participants in the situation under discussion.

Thus in this verse, when the Philistines realize the need to become participants in the pending battle, despite the odds, אֲנָשִׁים efficiently profiles its referent (an abstract concept) as an essential participant in the situation under discussion—as fighters in the pending battle.

Although it is not common to employ אִישׁ in a predicate, this usage nonetheless relies upon the protoypical usage of the situating noun אֲנָשִׁים. “Being אֲנָשִׁים” in a stereotypical situation means doing whatever is appropriate and expected in that situation. When deployed both as a predicated goal and as a necessary condition for fighting, it calls for resolute engagement in the battle. And because a nearly prototypical meaning of אֲנָשִׁים readily yields an informative and coherent text, the foregoing must be the plain sense of this passage. (On this definition of the plain sense, see further Stein 2018: 550–52.)

(The above discussion treats the Philistines as speaking proper Hebrew—at least for the sake of the story—rather than a fractured version that would indicate their foreignness, as composers of biblical books occasionally seem to employ.)

One might object that if urging others to be resolute were the goal, another term might have been used for that purpose, such as brave-hearted ones (בְּנֵי־חַיִל), as in:

• David’s speech in 2 Sam 2:7 (תֶּחֱזַ֣קְנָה יְדֵיכֶ֗ם וִֽהְיוּ֙ לִבְנֵי־חַ֔יִל); and
• Absalom’s speech in 2 Sam 13:28 (חִזְק֖וּ וִהְי֥וּ לִבְנֵי־חָֽיִל׃).

The answer is that אֲנָשִׁים is preferred when participation in the situation is not treated as a given, whereas its absence (and use of another term) treats that participation as a given.

It is not about masculinity per se. Indeed, connotations of masculinity (e.g., the notion that to be a man is to swallow one’s fear) do not appear to be part of אֲנָשִׁים or אִישׁ anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Rather, they seem to be the result of a postbiblical reanalysis of cases like this one, while extending the noun’s increasingly masculine-focused meaning. (See my comment at 1 Kgs 2:2.) That evolution was then retrojected by many commentators on this verse, such as David Altschuler’s 18th-century gloss (לאנשים – רצה לומר לגבורים ואמיצי הלב “i.e., heroic and courageous”), as well as in dictionaries, such as Kühlewein in TLOT (1971/1997): “Specifically characterizes typical masc. properties such as strength, influence, courage”; and Gesenius 18th edn. (Meyer & Donner 1987): “männlich, mannhaft, stark” ‘manly, strong’.

Finally, as a check, let us consult one other similar instance: Ruth 1:11 וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲנָשִׁים “who could become husbands for you,” with a we-qaṭal inflection. (Because RJPS does not depart from NJPS there, I will not be composing a separate comment directly on that verse, so I will address it here.) There, in the pragmatic context of that utterance, the salient topic is finding a second husband; v. 9.

In such a setting, an underspecified label for such husbands is normal and expected, on the grounds that the intended referent would be understandable via inference. Thus in v. 11, when Naomi raises the hypothetical prospect of bearing more sons to be interlocutors’ husbands, it is not that the lexical meaning of אֲנָשִׁים is “husband.” Rather, that label profiles its referent (an abstract concept) efficiently as an essential participant in the depicted situation, employed so as to indicate a point of reference in that situation—as Naomi employs it to denote husbands.

In short, for that instance in Ruth, the nearly prototypical meaning of אֲנָשִׁים readily yields an informative and coherent text. Thus my analysis works there, too—unlike the conventional view of אִישׁ (as a normal content-laden noun meaning “adult male”).

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘be men’ is subject to the changing understanding of men over time, becoming more lexically male in recent decades. The admonition to “be a man” has taken on a more thoroughly masculine cast, from its more original meaning of engaging as a participant. So the current meaning is unlikely to express the plain sense of the Hebrew text. The revised rendering seems closer to the original meaning—expressed in English idiom. While there are more colloquial ways of expressing the idea (e.g., “get focused,” “stay the course,” or even “man up”), the wording chosen is a better match for the register of the NJPS translation.