וַיִּשְׁלַח֙ אִ֣ישׁ בֹּ֔שֶׁת וַיִּקָּחֶ֖הָ מֵ֣עִֽם אִ֑ישׁ מֵעִ֖ם פַּלְטִיאֵ֥ל בֶּן־לָֽיִשׁ׃
So Ish-bosheth sent and had her taken away from [her] husband,* Paltiel son of Laish.
*As in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Targum. Or “the other man involved.” Cf. 1 Sam. 25.44.
(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 אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this document, pp. 11–16.)
The ancient versions (early translations) apparently found or imputed a possessive pronoun in their base text, which by convention evokes the salient partner in a marriage situation. Thus the narrator situated Paltiel with respect to Michal. Arguably this perspective depicts the action as scandalous.
Alternatively, from a perspective that attends to efficient communication, the MT’s wording both makes sense and is grammatical even without the pronoun. The syntax with a repeated preposition places אִישׁ in apposition with the name Paltiel. Having a proper noun as the appositive term normally requires that the co-referential head term likewise identify its referent. That condition is met here by construing the bare noun phrase אִישׁ as being deployed in contextually unique reference (see my comment at 1 Sam 26:15). In the context of this (highly unusual) situation, the category denoted by אִישׁ has only one member; and in Hebrew, a unique reference needs no determiner.
If we read in terms of the standard functions of אִישׁ as a situating noun, then it is employed here to label a situation-defining participant as such; it is re-activating the audience’s awareness of Paltiel’s key (and poignant, if not tragic) participation in the larger depicted situation. It regards him with respect to that situation, which includes both of Michal’s marriages and dynastic politics. This perspective seems more circumspect in its evaluation of the action.
Because the latter construal is based upon the MT and yields a coherent and informative text, it can be considered the plain sense of this passage.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS rendering follows the ancient versions. The new rendering, offered as an alternative in a new footnote, expresses the plain sense of the MT in English idiom. (Here man is employed in its original situating sense.)