On the noun אִישׁ in 1 Samuel 26:23

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification projected for October 2023. Before accounting for the two renderings, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this document, pp. 11–16.)

The syntax of this verse is complex and rather odd. It’s important to note the presence of a definite article in the prepositional phrase לָאִישׁ (rather than לְאִישׁ). One defensible construal is that the definite noun phrase refers not to an individual but rather to a type (i.e., to whoever fits the stated criterion, which in this case would presumably be anyone who has demonstrated right conduct and loyalty). On this possibility, see my comment at 9:9, and at 14:24 (2nd instance). Rashi, Kimhi/Radak, and Tedeschi appear to construe the verse in this way; Kimhi’s paraphrase is: לאיש שעושה כמו שעשיתי “(another) man who does what I have done.” Similarly, the UBS Translators’ Handbook says that the first half of this verse seems to be a general statement in which David refers only indirectly to himself. If so, then gender is not at issue and women are in view.

However, if that were the point, it arguably could have been made more easily without the article. In that case, אִישׁ could be pragmatically enriched to include everyone in its denotative scope, as in:

• Jer 17:10 and 32:19 לָתֵת לְאִישׁ כִּדְרָכָיו ‘so as to repay every man according to his ways’ (NJPS); and
• Ps 62:13 תְשַׁלֵּם לְאִישׁ כְּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ ‘reward each man according to his deeds’ (NJPS).

Rather, the article normally points to a specific and identifiable referent. If it is construed in that way here, it casts the referent as a known participant in the situation under discussion. The referring expression itself, הָאִישׁ, meanwhile calls attention to the (unfair) situation that David finds himself in, while casting him in terms of that situation, as an essential participant in it. (Such usage is common—and derives directly from the prototypical usage of אִישׁ, so it would have been highly accessible to the ancient audience.) It is a reference-point usage of אִישׁ, treating him as a fixed entity while the situation (hopefully) shifts around him. Compare Prov 24:29 with the article: אָשִׁיב לָאִישׁ כְּפָעֳלוֹ ‘I will pay the man what he deserves’ (NJPS).

Who is the intended referent in this case? Arguably it is David himself, expressed in terms of his previously depicted situation as someone falsely accused (see v. 18: “What have I done, and what wrong am I guilty of?”). Thus the REB translates this usage of אִישׁ as a direct self-reference: “The LORD who rewards uprightness and loyalty will reward the man into whose power he put you today, for I refused to lift my hand against the LORD’s anointed.” (For the use of אִישׁ in self-reference, see 29:4; Num 16:14; Judg 18:25; Ps 109:16.)

Within the context of David’s speech, such a construal indeed seems to yield a more coherent and informative text. His own predicament is more the topic under discussion than are God’s ways in general.

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘every man’—or ‘everyone’ in more gender-inclusive parlance—is a standard construal, yet it is not the only defensible one. The new footnote offers an alternate construal that may well be the plain sense.