וְהָאִ֣ישׁ מִיכָ֔ה ל֖וֹ בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיַּ֤עַשׂ אֵפוֹד֙ וּתְרָפִ֔ים וַיְמַלֵּ֗א אֶת־יַ֤ד אַחַד֙ מִבָּנָ֔יו וַֽיְהִי־ל֖וֹ לְכֹהֵֽן׃
Now this man Micah had a house of God; he had made an ephod and oracle idols and he had inducted one of his sons to be his priest.
(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 אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
Here הָאִישׁ is referentially superfluous, given that the name Micah alone would suffice to identify the party in question. Other such instances are listed in my comment at Exod 11:3.
Preceding this verse, the narrative has been about Micah’s interactions with his mother, leading to his having commissioned “a sculptured image and a molten image.” Now the topic shifts back to him—and then to his other possessions and arrangements. Here the label הָאִישׁ has at least three discourse functions: it signals the shift in topic; it regards Micah in terms of the situation that he has been depicted within; and it frames him as a key player in that situation, while it is depicted schematically.
As usual, the label הָאִישׁ—being part of the vocabulary for sketching a situation—cognitively anchors its referent to the situation of interest. This instance is thus a prototypical usage of אִישׁ. Meanwhile, as usual, הָאִישׁ says nothing new or relevant about the age or gender of its referent. (See further David E. S. Stein, “Explaining the Preference for הָאִישׁ as a Label,” paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting, November 2024.)
Thus I differ from the approach of Arnold Ehrlich (Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, vol. 3, 1910), who would emend the text so as to delete the word הָאִישׁ—a position that was endorsed by Paul Joüon (“Notes de Lexicographie hébraïque,” Biblica 6, 1925:314n1). For Ehrlich, Micah was too obscure a personage, and for Joüon he was too obviously a scoundrel, to have had such an honorific title as הָאִישׁ. On why אִישׁ is not a social status term, see my comment at Exod 11:3.
As for the translation, the NJPS “the man Micah” has been modified, on the grounds that such an expression is not current English idiom. In the revised rendering, the demonstrative pronoun regards the referent within his situation.
• For a list of my comments on the RJPS translation, see here.
• For a list of my comments on אִישׁ, see here.