On the noun אִישׁ in Genesis 39:1

(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 by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

This phrase is a longstanding interpretive crux. As Claus Westermann notes, “the real difficulty is that in a three-part note of this sort the ’ish mitzri [a generalizing detail] should stand at the beginning.” Like most critical scholars (e.g., Wellhausen, Dillman, Skinner, Seebass), he concludes that the two prior descriptors of Potiphar must be a later insertion. Unfortunately, that construal begs the question as to the plain sense of the text as given. (Why would someone have inserted those phrases out of order?)

Other attempts fare no better. Characteristically, J. H. Hertz defends that text by historicizing. He explains that the notice runs counter to the audience’s expectation: “The story of Joseph took place during the reign of the Hyksos kings, the Bedouin conquerors of Egypt. Exceptionally, ‘an Egyptian’ was entrusted with a high Government post.” Even if this were historically true, how would the ancient Israelite audience have known it? More recently, Nahum Sarna (JPS commentary, 1989) and Richard Steiner (“Midianite Men, Merchants” [2023], pp. 113–14) explain the notice in terms of future significance (the exodus from Egypt, and in particular a link to Moses in Midian, Exod 2:19). Again, however, that approach does not establish a foreground meaning in context here.

As a matter of plain sense, this appositive phrase is indeed uninformative if construed merely as a notice of Egyptian ethnicity. True, as Steiner points out, Potiphar’s being a courtier does not necessarily mean that he himself was Egyptian; Pharaohs had many foreign-born officials in their service. Nonetheless, the default expectation would have been that he was Egyptian unless otherwise noted (especially given his characteristically Egyptian name).

Pragmatically speaking, however, whenever someone states what might otherwise be considered obvious and therefore should go without saying, it is imbued with extra unstated meaning. The audience naturally concludes, “You must be telling me this for a reason”—and so enriches the notice.

Here, in order for the apposition to be construed as informative, it is deemed as what discourse-oriented linguists call thematic highlighting, that is, it underscores the salience of information that is already disclosed or assumed. (“Thematic highlighting can … be implicit, simply by virtue of including a redundant appositive”; Steven E. Runge, “Pragmatic effects of semantically redundant anchoring expressions in Biblical Hebrew narrative,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 32.2 [2006]: 85–102, here 99.)

Now, the phrase in question is specifying an attribute of its referent that is treated as salient. In effect: “Potiphar—being an Egyptian.” See further Robert D. Holmstedt and Andrew R. Jones, “Apposition in Biblical Hebrew: Structure and Function,” KUSATU: Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 22 (2017): 21–51, esp. 32, 35–36.

Prototypically, the term אִישׁ marks the quality that is attributed by its modifier term as being essential for grasping the depicted situation. What then is the essential aspect of Egyptian ethnicity in this case? Here the notice must be emphasizing the Egyptian milieu—that is, both the foreignness of Joseph’s new surroundings (from his perspective), and his own foreignness (from his new owner’s perspective), and hence his vulnerability. So already the commentator S. R. Hirsch pointed out in 1867.

As Richard Steiner recently noted, Hirsch underscored that point by observing that מצרי is “repeatedly emphasized” in vv. 1–6 (appearing once apiece in vv. 2 and 5). In short, as Steiner concludes, “מצרי is a keyword in Gen 39:1–6.” (Richard C. Steiner, “‘Midianite Men, Merchants’ (Gen 37:28): Linguistic, Literary, and Historical Perspectives,” Vetus Testamentum 73.1 (2023): 82–131, here 114.)

Not to treat the biblical text lightly, but one could liken this trope to the meme that is expressed in American popular culture (taken from The Wizard of Oz) as: “Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘a certain Egyptian’ takes the phrase as having an individuating function (as do Speiser and Mitchell, in their respective translations). However, this is fudging: in effect, it moves the Hebrew phrase to the front of the line. In its position at the end of the clause, this phrase cannot properly be construed in that way.

The revised rendering restores this phrase’s proper position in the list of designations, while treating it as thematic highlighting.