4

Ezra 4:18 ASV

The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.

One person can say we, our us, but can a plurality of persons say I, me, mine myself?

The letter in question is addressed to king Artaxerxes only and it does not include his seven counselors. Note that Ezra 4:18 does not say "these letters" , but instead we find that it shows "the letter"

The letter was addressed specifically to King Artaxerxes not to "us" as Ezra 411 shows.

Ezra 4:11 ESV

(This is a copy of the letter that they sent.) “To Artaxerxes the king: Your servants, the men of the province Beyond the River, send greeting. And now

1
  • I truly wondered why you were asking such a "far fetched" question but now after noting your comments to Jason my eyes are opened. Well bated. + 1. Commented Aug 15 at 21:38

2 Answers 2

7

The wording of Ezra 4;18 is significant. Note the use of two different first person pronouns:

The letter which you (plural) sent to us has been translated [and] read before me

Note that "us" cannot be the "royal we" as this would require "me" to be also plural which it is not.

The simplest way to understand the "us" is to recall that all official correspondence with the Persian royal court was addressed to the king and his seven counselors (compare Esther 1:10 & 14).

Thus, it is entirely proper that the letter would be addressed to the king and his counselors and thus the king responded precisely as the text states:

  • the letter addressed to "us", and
  • it has been translated and read to "me".
0
4

EDIT: While the "royal we" is a common explanation for the use of plural pronouns by a single ruler, having read Dottard's answer, I believe that “us” referring to the king and his counselors is well-founded. Therefore, this answer may not hold the merit that I had initially thought, and I have relegated it to a possibility.


Short Answer: “us” displays King Artaxerxes status as ruler not that he is a plurality of persons.

The letter which ye sent unto us The plural number is used, being now become courtly for kings thus to speak of themselves: (John Gill's Exposition of the Bible)

Possibility:

Royal we and the majestic plural.

the majestic plural is a rhetorical technique used to magnify the grandeur and authority of the one speaking. [1]

To put it simply, when a king or queen says “we,” they’re not just speaking for themselves, but for their whole country. The use of plurals is like they’re saying, “I’m the leader, and this is what we’ve decided is best for all of us.” Therefore, a king saying "we" is not indicative of a plurality of a person.

Gotquestions says,

The majestic plural, also called the royal plural, is the use of a plural word (such as the pronoun we or us) to refer to a single person. As a type of nosism, the majestic plural emphasizes something or honors someone in a stylistic way. Basically, when a member of royalty, referring to himself, says, “We” instead of “I,” he is using the majestic plural. For example, Queen Victoria, upon hearing a tasteless joke, is said to have replied, “We are not amused.”

The ancient Hebrews used the majestic plural, and some examples are found in the Old Testament. But the construction is not unique to Hebrew.

A single individual (like a ruler) might use “we,” “us,” “our,” or “ourselves” to refer to themselves collectively.


Can a plurality of persons say I, me, mine myself?

There are certain contexts where a group might be represented by a single individual using “I,” “me,” “mine,” or “myself.” However, I can think of no Biblical example of this. Today, this is often seen in legal or formal settings where one person is authorized to speak on behalf of a group.

For example, a lawyer might say, “I object, Your Honor,” in court while representing one or more clients. In this specific case, when they say, “I object,” they are acting within their role as the client’s legal voice.

9
  • @Jason.Is there a plurality of persons in the being of Artaxerxes in his use of the pronoun us? Commented Aug 14 at 4:49
  • 1
    @AlexBalilo No. “us” displays King Artaxerxes status as ruler not that he is a plurality of persons. Furthermore, there is no context around that would support or indicate that King Artaxerxes was a plurality of persons.
    – Jason_
    Commented Aug 14 at 5:05
  • 1
    @Jason_. The letter was addressed to king Artaxerxes only as Ezra 4:7 show. Commented Aug 14 at 16:48
  • 1
    @Jason_. So if Artaxerxes use of "us" does not show a plurality of persons in his being, why is it asserted that the "us" in Genesis 1 has a plurality of persons in one being. Commented Aug 14 at 16:53
  • 1
    @Jason_.Your comment God not using a majestic plural for Himself. – "The 10-volume commentary by Keil and Delitzsch is considered by many to be the most influential exposition on the “Old Testament” in evangelical circles. Yet in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, we find, The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis . . . No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis . . . Commented Aug 15 at 4:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.