Thread by @DrPJWilliams

Thread: Omission of urination from Bibles

In the King James Version, David says:

“So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.” (1 Samuel 25:22)

The phrase “that pisseth against the wall” occurs another 5 times (1 Sam 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8)

All 6 occasions occur in formulae speaking about exterminating for a particular person (Nabal 2x; Jeroboam; Baasha; Ahab) all who urinate against the wall.

The KJV here is literal, but modern translations, even generally literal ones, usually avoid the bluntness of the KJV and simply use the word ‘male’:

Here’s 1 Kings 16:11:

he left him not one that pisseth against a wall (KJV)

he did not leave him one male (NKJV)

he left him not a single man-child (ASV)

he left not a single mother’s son alive (REB)

he did not leave him a single male (ESV)

he did not spare a single male (NIV)

he did not leave a single male (CSB)

From a historical perspective, the modern translations are unusual.

Literal renderings were given by the ancient translations: Greek (4/6 occasions), Latin, and Syriac. Targum Jonathan paraphrases (‘a knower of knowledge’).

Evidence that the verb was rude is found in the fact that the cognate noun ‘urine’ was used by Rabshakeh to threaten the Israelites with what they’d have to drink during siege (2 Kings 18:27).

The word was found sufficiently rough that though its consonants were written in manuscripts (the Kethiv), the more euphemistic ‘waters of their feet’ became what was read publicly (the Qere).

The Qere is highlighted here in the margin of the most amazing ever Hebrew biblical manuscript, the Aleppo Codex: aleppocodex.org

Of course, Martin Luther (1534) didn’t flinch for a moment from a literal translation: "der an die wand *pisset*"

Ditto, Matthew’s Bible (1537)

Even the Puritans had no problem with the expression in their version, the Geneva Bible (1560)

But modern Bible readers are left entirely without familiarity with this idiom.

This has several disadvantages:

1) A vivid & memorable expression is replaced by blander ones, reducing interest for readers.

2) More neutral expressions fail to present the expression’s emotion of disdain for the one whose line is to be exterminated.

3) Although all males are probably the referents of the expression, the very youngest males probably do not urinate against walls. The notion that this includes all males is thus only probable, not certain.

4) The expression potentially presents us with cultural knowledge that we wouldn’t otherwise have confidently possessed, namely that males used walls for the targets of their urine at least often enough for this to be viewed as characteristic.

5) For those who treat Scripture as normative, such bluntness of expression 6x in Scripture, & 3 of these within prophetic oracles, helps challenge notions that ‘godly’ expression must avoid such expression.

Interestingly, David broke his vow:

“So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.” (1 Sam 25:22 KJV)

He didn’t carry it through because of wise Abigail's intervention.

His predecessor Saul also made a vow he didn't keep:

“God do so to me and more also; you shall surely die, Jonathan.” (1 Sam 14:44 ESV)

However, whereas David invoked bad on *his enemies* if he broke the vow, Saul was stupid enough to invoke bad on *himself* if he broke it.

Though urine may not seem the most edifying topic, I’m a passionate advocate of the power of literal Bible translation.

Translators need confidence to present the text in as straightforward a way as possible.

Readers need access to such colourful expressions in translation.

There’s some biblical theology in this:

There are 4 genealogical lines to which this phrase applies: Nabal, Baasha, Jeroboam, and Ahab.

3 of these are kings & Nabal lived like a king (1 Sam 25:36).

All have lines which go nowhere.

But the 1st occurrence of the phrase is on the lips of David from whom comes the line of the promised King.

The wiping out of these lines provides a foil to the thematic survival of the Davidic royal seed amid existential threats.

So thank God for the survival of the Messianic line.

Thank him also for modern WCs.

END

RT if appreciated