וַ֠יָּשֻׁב֠וּ כׇּל־אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדָ֤ה וִירוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ וִיהוֹשָׁפָ֣ט בְּרֹאשָׁ֔ם לָשׁ֥וּב אֶל־יְרוּשָׁלַ֖͏ִם בְּשִׂמְחָ֑ה כִּֽי־שִׂמְּחָ֥ם יהוה מֵאוֹיְבֵיהֶֽם׃
Judah’s and Jerusalem’s
contingents, with Jehoshaphat at their head, returned joyfully to Jerusalem, for GOD had given them cause for rejoicing over their enemies.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification made in October 2023. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
The expression in question is כָּל־אִישׁ יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַם, which is matched with a plural verb and a plural pronoun.
On the “collective” usage of the singular אִישׁ in the context of hostilities, see my comment to Josh 10:24. Here, this usage profiles the referent more precisely as two distinct entities within a larger military force. That is, it regards Judah’s and Jerusalem’s forces as participants that are essential for properly grasping the depicted situation—and therefore as a contingent of the total forces under Jehoshaphat’s command. Similar instances include Judg 7:24; 8:1; 12:1; 1 Sam 11:8; 15:4; 2 Sam 10:6, 8; 19:15; 24:9; and for a non-military contingent, Jer 44:26–27.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men of Ephraim’ nowadays places undue emphasis on masculinity. Furthermore, it relies upon an archaic sense of men as participants. Worst of all, it misses the situational nuance described above. On more properly rendering the Hebrew term into idiomatic English, see my comment at Josh 10:24. Meanwhile, the fact that women are not in view can go without saying, because it is self-evident from the military context.