Nehemiah 7:2 - On the noun אִישׁ

(The above rendering is the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation, incorporating a minor correction made in April 2024. 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.)

Syntactically, the clause that gives Nehemiah’s reasoning, כִּי־הוּא֙ כְּאִ֣ישׁ אֱמֶ֔ת וְיָרֵ֥א אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים מֵרַבִּֽים, is complex. It comprises two parallel comparisons about Hananiah: he is כְּאִ֣ישׁ אֱמֶ֔ת ‘like an ʾîš ʾĕmet’ (to be clarified below), and יָרֵ֥א אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים מֵרַבִּֽים ‘he fears God more than most’.

I say this for two reasons:

1. Normally the two prepositions -ְכּ ‘like’ and -מֵ ‘more than’ do not “play together nicely” in the same clause.
2. It is consistent with what is conventional usage for אִישׁ. Depicting a situation schematically is a prototypical usage of אִישׁ as a situating noun. And only the phrase כְּאִישׁ אֱמֶת can be considered schematic.

There, the head noun אִישׁ is employed in evoking an idealized situation, characterized by the presence of a completely trustworthy individual. That is, אִישׁ provides the situation’s reference point and thereby concisely defines it.

In its succinctness, the comparison term works as in the more common expression כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד, which is used 9x in the Hebrew Bible to describe a manner of action, meaning: as in a situation with only one participant. (See my comments at, e.g., Judg. 6:16; 1 Sam 11:7; 2 Sam 19:15.) Here, too, the similar expression points to an evidently conventional role model of perfection. Equally succinct depictions of a stereotypical situation include ‏לָ֤מָּה תִֽהְיֶה֙ כְּאִ֣ישׁ נִדְהָ֔ם (Jer 14:9) and ‏הָיִ֙יתִי֙ כְּאִ֣ישׁ שִׁכּ֔וֹר (Jer 23:9).

As the description of an individual, this verse’s comparison to perfection is intended to be complimentary. The point is not that Hananiah could be totally trusted, but rather that he was trustworthy to a very great degree; he was as trustworthy as could be.

This construal, which relies upon conventional usages of אִישׁ in its prototypical meaning, readily yields a coherent and informative Hebrew text. Consequently, it must be the plain sense of this passage.

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘for he was a more trustworthy and God-fearing man than most’ strays farther from the Hebrew text than it needs to. By employing the situating noun man, it creates an implication that does not exist in the Hebrew text—namely, that the stated facts about the referent are essential for properly grasping the depicted situation. Yet Nehemiah is not describing his situation per se; rather, he is explaining an appointment that he made, via recourse to a comparison.

Although strictly speaking gender is not in play in this verse, I have repaired the NJPS misuse of man here, as has been done many times elsewhere in RJPS. It is more of a copyediting correction than a new rendering.

A fairly literal rendering as ‘for he was like a perfectly trustworthy man’ would not reflect good English idiom. (For certain other comparisons, it would be idiomatic, e.g., “he was like a man pursued” [Aldous Huxley]; “he was like a man possessed.”) Therefore it seems best to represent the Hebrew text’s comparison and its idealized situation only indirectly. The revised rendering does so.