Nehemiah 1:11 - On the noun אִישׁ

(The above rendering—an excerpt from the full verse—is 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, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

The referring expression in question is הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה. Elsewhere I have shown that in Biblical Hebrew, the label הָאִישׁ is the standard way for a speaker to regard a referent as a participant in the established situation of interest, while mentally anchoring that referent to that situation. That is, הָאִישׁ is a kind of shorthand label—a device for efficient communication. (See “Explaining the Preference for הָאִישׁ as a Label,” paper presented to the Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew section, Society of Biblical Literature, Annual Meeting, San Diego, 24 November 2024.)

Although usually הָאִישׁ refers to someone who was already introduced in the preceding conversation or co-text, it can also point to someone who, even though not yet mentioned, is nonetheless readily identifiable, due to the audience’s familiarity with the situation that is being depicted. The presence of this party in the scene is invoked just by mentioning the situation. See Gen 42:30; 43:3; 1 Sam 9:9; Prov 7:19; 2 Sam 17:19 (הָאִשָּׁה).

Here, Nehemiah is referring to his master: the emperor. (In so doing, he meanwhile employs polite speech by referring to himself in the 3rd person as ‘your servant’ and ‘him’.) While praying to God, he is schematically depicting a situation of interest, namely an impending audience with the emperor. In so doing, the label הָאִישׁ casts his boss as a cognitive reference point, i.e., as not only a known participant whose presence is assumed, but also one whose involvement defines the situation. It use tells us that the focus of Nehemiah’s attention is not on the emperor per se but rather on some other aspect of the situation—in this case, on the divine help that he is seeking in support of the request that he is planning to make of his master.

Reference-point usages of הָאִישׁ are quite common, normal, and customary—occurring dozens of times in the Bible. In particular, they are attested in three contexts that likewise appeal for divine help, namely Gen 43:14, where Jacob says to his sons, regarding Egypt’s vizier (Joseph):

וְאֵ֣ל שַׁדַּ֗י יִתֵּ֨ן לָכֶ֤ם רַחֲמִים֙ לִפְנֵ֣י הָאִ֔ישׁ...

and 1 Sam 2:20, where the priest Eli blesses Elkanah, regarding his wife Hannah:

יָשֵׂם֩ יהוה לְךָ֥ זֶ֙רַע֙ מִן־הָאִשָּׁ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את...

and Ruth 4:11, where “the people at the gate and the elders” bless Boaz, regarding Ruth as his betrothed:

יִתֵּן֩ יהוה אֶֽת־הָאִשָּׁ֜ה הַבָּאָ֣ה אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֗ךָ כְּרָחֵ֤ל ׀ וּכְלֵאָה֙...

Yet the present instance is an unusual one, in that the very nature of the situation of interest—and therefore also the identity of the party labeled הָאִישׁ—is not yet apparent to the text’s audience. We know from the use of אִישׁ that a situation is in view, but we must wait until the next clause to learn that it must revolve around the speaker’s close relationship to “the king.”

Nonetheless, Nehemiah is speaking in a natural manner: he is using conventional vocabulary (אִישׁ) to allude to a particular situation that is obviously clear in his own mind—and would presumably be equally clear to his divine addressee (and therefore does not need to be spelled out in his prayer)—even if it is not yet clear to the text’s audience. The delayed disclosure both of the situation and the identity of its key participant is best viewed as a device for piquing the audience’s interest. In addition, the text presupposes the general knowledge that a king is precisely the kind of person whom one petitions God for assistance in dealing with (cf. Prov. 19:12; 20:2; 24:21).

Given those two reasonable assumptions and the aforementioned conventional usages of אִישׁ in its prototypical meaning, this construal yields a coherent and informative Hebrew text. Consequently, it must be the plain sense of this passage.

Among biblical scholars, this instance of אִישׁ has been an interpretive crux—as if its sudden usage were pointed and thus highly significant. As H.G.M. Williamson (Word Biblical Commentary, 1985) notes, “Much has been made of the expression ‘this man’ as a way of referring to the king.” He cites Rudolph, who perceived pejorative connotations, and Kellerman, who saw it as legal terminology (as is used elsewhere to refer to an opponent in a lawsuit)—thus implying that Nehemiah purportedly wrote this passage in response to his having been accused of disloyalty to the Persians. Similarly, the UBS Translator’s Handbook mentions that some commentators have perceived a theological point: “by saying this man, Nehemiah makes it clear that God to whom he is praying is greater than this earthly ruler.”

Williamson rightly concludes: “Such speculations are unnecessary. As the memoir was written, Nehemiah could no doubt vividly recall his apprehension as he took wine to the king (2:1) and he simply reproduced the otherwise quite neutral words which, both in the historical setting and later, came most naturally to his mind.… Finally, there is no problem in the fact that ‘this man’ has no antecedent. Rather, an effective narrative crescendo is achieved as ‘this man’ is identified later in the verse as ‘the king,’ and in the next verse is further identified as Artaxerxes. The reader’s developing awareness of just how precarious Nehemiah’s situation was successfully carries him forward into the next episode of the narrative.”

As for rendering into English, the NJPS “that man” is not a normal way to refer to someone who has not yet been introduced into the discourse. Furthermore, it comes across not as labeling a point of reference but rather as disparaging or distancing. The NJPS rendering is thus overly literal. At the same time, the NJPS reformulation of the clause is quite dramatic—obscuring the reference-point construction.

The revised rendering is more idiomatic, in accord with the NJPS preference for making references clear. Yet its departure from the literal meaning warrants an explanatory footnote.