1 Kg 22:38 - Translation issue

Status
Not open for further replies.

Polanus1561

Puritan Board Junior
And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armour; according unto the word of the Lord which he spake. KJV

Then someone washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood while the harlots bathed, according to the word of the Lord which He had spoken. NKJV

And they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it, according to the word of the Lord that he had spoken. ESV

----
The change in the KJV may be motivated to to the original prophecy of Ahab's death not including prostitutes.
1 Kg 21.19 - ‘Thus says the Lord: “In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs shall lick your blood, even yours.” NKJV

NKJV ESV and many others translate 1 kg 22.38 passage literally, and include the translation of 'prostitutes'.
KJV translates it with a relative pronoun 'they'. Why? I believe it is because elsewhere, prostitutes (males) are referred to as dogs Deut.23.18 - You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering.

---
1) How would you explain why the KJV rendered it as such?
2) How would you translate 1 Kg 22:38 according to what your deem as literal and accurate?
 
I'm not sure I have a compelling answer. The issue is the meaning of hazzonot; there don't seem to be any text critical issues.

To begin with, the KJV is following the Geneva Bible here, as it does much of the time. It doesn't seem to be following the Septuagint, which has "prostitutes", as does Luther. The Vulgate does have habenas ("belts", which Douai Rheims renders as "reins"). The only modern version to have something similar to the KJV is the NIV, which has a footnote "or cleaned his weapons".

John Gill gives us a more contemporary insight:
and they washed his armour;
his coat of mail, through the joints of which the blood issued, and ran upon it. The word is sometimes used for whores, and is so translated here in the Greek version, and by Munster and Castalio; and both Ben Gersom and Abarbinel say, that women, who were harlots, washed here in his blood, mixed with water; and so Josephus writes, that afterwards it was a custom for whores to wash in this pool; though some say two whores were painted on Ahab's chariot, by the order of Jezebel, to inflame his lust, and these were what were washed; but the word signifies armour, or rather ornaments, clothes, jewels.

So Gill is aware of the majority view but supports the KJV. Frankly, I wish he had showed his working, because neither the DCH or HALOT show any support for a different meaning for the root znh and the normal meaning seems to fit perfectly. Strongs suggests that "some are linking it to the root 02109 zun (to feed) or an unused root applied to military equipments" (and dismisses that understanding). I still don't see how you get there. The NIV footnote suggests that this isn't quite as out of left field as it looks however. A deep dive into the critical commentaries might dig something up, perhaps an alternative rabbinic tradition. But the most straightforward translation is undoubtedly "prostitutes" (see already the ASV).

One more problem for the KJV: if hazzonot is the object (his armour) and not the subject ("the prostitutes") of the verb ("they washed") it should have a direct object marker 'eth. So grammatically, everything seems to be against the KJV/Geneva here.
 
Last edited:
One more problem for the KJV: if hazzonot is the object (his armour) and not the subject ("the prostitutes") of the verb ("they washed") it should have a direct object marker 'eth. So grammatically, everything seems to be against the KJV/Geneva here.
But where else in Scripture is that Hebrew verb ( שָׁטַף ) used for "bathed"? Isn't this verb's meaning distinct from "bathed" and specifically used to indicate rinsing or washing off an object whereas a verb such as רָחַץ is used to indicate washing the body/bathing (washing feet throughout Genesis, ceremonial washing/bathing in Exodus-Deuteronomy, Bathsheba bathing when David spied her in II Samuel 11)?
 
Would it work grammatically to have the dogs "washing" the armor by licking off the blood just like they lapped up the blood from the chariot? This would seem to fit the Scripture of both I Kings 22.34-25 (bold brackets are my clarifications): "Then a certain man drew a bow mightily, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of his brigandine [body armor]. Wherefore he said unto his chariot man, 'Turn thine hand, and carry me out of the host: for I am hurt.' And the battle increased that day, and the king stood still in his chariot against the Aramites, and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound [down his armor] into the midst of the chariot" and the prophecy ("In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, shall dogs lick even thy blood also." 22 v.19)?
 
But where else in Scripture is that Hebrew verb ( שָׁטַף ) used for "bathed"? Isn't this verb's meaning distinct from "bathed" and specifically used to indicate rinsing or washing off an object whereas a verb such as רָחַץ is used to indicate washing the body/bathing (washing feet throughout Genesis, ceremonial washing/bathing in Exodus-Deuteronomy, Bathsheba bathing when David spied her in II Samuel 11)?
Edit: the verb you highlight is connected with cleaning up the chariot.

Ex.2:5 Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her young women walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her servant woman, and she took it

To clarify, this latter term is used in 1Ki.22:38 with harlots/armor, where the sense is aligned.
 
Last edited:
I believe the verb is רָחַץ in Ex.2.5, not שָׁטַף as in I Kings 22.

The word you have highlighted is the word at the top of the sentence, "washed" the chariot. The word connected to the harlots/armor is the same in both 2Ki2:38 and Ex.2:5 (where used with Pharaoh's daughter).
 
But where else in Scripture is that Hebrew verb ( שָׁטַף ) used for "bathed"? Isn't this verb's meaning distinct from "bathed" and specifically used to indicate rinsing or washing off an object whereas a verb such as רָחַץ is used to indicate washing the body/bathing (washing feet throughout Genesis, ceremonial washing/bathing in Exodus-Deuteronomy, Bathsheba bathing when David spied her in II Samuel 11)?
I'm not sure if this is your point, but your observation reinforces the unlikelihood of the KJV being right here. shataph (which applies to the chariot) implies lots of water and is usually used of washing (or washing away) an object; rachats seems to be generally describing washing a person; I can't find any instances where it would be sed of garments or similar objects. My initial argument didn't rest on the verbs at all, but rather on the grammatical structure of the sentence (lack of direct object marker; compare the rekeb in the first clause) and the meaning of the extremely common root znh ("to be a prostitute")
 
Sorry, I think we may be going off tangent here. All sides saw the same pieces of the puzzle.
The exclusion of -prostitutes znh- by the KJV authors likely was an interpretive one, no? Likely to harmonize with the original prophecy.
 
How so? Whether "harlot" or "armor," neither are mentioned in the prophecy (nor is a chariot).
Pardon my previous hasty post, you are right. Anyway to clarify:

My hypothesis is that how the KJV ends up the way it is here is that the first hunch they followed is: prostitutes here cannot be literal, due to the original prophecy excluding it and perhaps because how it does not fit the context.

One clue to follow is that 'dog' is often used metaphorically (Gideon's soldiers) and in Deut 23:18 - Deut 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God. - dog here = male prostitutes (TWOT)

If that follows, then there are no prostitutes here, but dogs. The KJV translators then used 'they' instead of translating znh to avoid confusion. That then leaves 'washed'. They (dogs) washed. There is no object here. It looks like the Dogs were licking and washing—two words describing the same action. And it is not hard to imagine that by licking Ahab's blood, they washed Ahab's armor.

The above pertains to my first question: what was going through the minds of the KJV translators. Feel free to think up of your own hypothesis.
 
Pardon my previous hasty post, you are right. Anyway to clarify:

My hypothesis is that how the KJV ends up the way it is here is that the first hunch they followed is: prostitutes here cannot be literal, due to the original prophecy excluding it and perhaps because how it does not fit the context.

One clue to follow is that 'dog' is often used metaphorically (Gideon's soldiers) and in Deut 23:18 - Deut 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God. - dog here = male prostitutes (TWOT)

If that follows, then there are no prostitutes here, but dogs. The KJV translators then used 'they' instead of translating znh to avoid confusion. That then leaves 'washed'. They (dogs) washed. There is no object here. It looks like the Dogs were licking and washing—two words describing the same action. And it is not hard to imagine that by licking Ahab's blood, they washed Ahab's armor.

The above pertains to my first question: what was going through the minds of the KJV translators. Feel free to think up of your own hypothesis.
I don't think that is what the KJV translators were thinking (or more precisely the Geneva translators, since the KJV is simply following them); remember Gill's comment "but the word signifies armour, or rather ornaments, clothes, jewels." Similarly the Vulgate must have got "reins" from somewhere, and the Strongs comment suggests there are some who trace it to a different root.. I can't currently explain that (just as I can't explain the KJV use of "perish" in Prov 29:18). It is hard to account for translators, since they don't get to give you half a page of notes to explain their choices. But I do think that they are wrong in their translation here. And I don't see the original prophecy being a factor either way. Prophecies can be fulfilled more comprehensively than we might have expected. It's not dogs or prostitutes; it's dogs and prostitutes.
 
Some additional comments by others:

Perhaps the reference to (female) ‘prostitutes’ is suggested by the reference to ‘dogs’ (which in other contexts refers to male prostitutes, e.g. Deut. 23:18); together the words hint at something of the state of moral and religious decay under Ahab, for which the toleration of prostitutes under Solomon (chapter 3) has prepared us. - Davies, EPSC

22:38 they washed. More properly translated, “the harlots washed.” This pool was the place where the temple prostitutes would wash themselves. Ironically, Ahab introduced temple prostitution in Israel, and in death his sins followed him. - Reformation Heritage Study Bible

Matthew Henry ignores (?) the mention of prostitutes - One particular circumstance is taken notice of, because there was in it the accomplishment of a prophecy, that when they brought the chariot to the pool of Samaria, to be washed, the dogs (and swine, says the Septuagint) gathered about it, and, as is usual, licked the blood, or, as some think, the water in which it was washed, with which the blood was mingled: the dogs made no difference between royal blood and other blood. Now Naboth’s blood was avenged (ch. 21:19), and that word of David, as well as Elijah’s word, was fulfilled (Ps. 68:23), That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thy enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same. The dogs licking the guilty blood was perhaps designed to represent the terrors that prey upon the guilty soul after death.
 
They (dogs) washed. There is no object here. It looks like the Dogs were licking and washing—two words describing the same action.

Alright, but I can find no linguists or commentators who suggest that as a possible understanding.

And as had already been pointed out, רָחַץ is never used in the OT of objects, only people and parts of animal sacrifices (i.e. flesh). Likewise, the LXX always translates it as λούω or νίπτω, both of which are again reserved for the washing of a body or specified parts of it.
 
Alright, but I can find no linguists or commentators who suggest that as a possible understanding.

And as had already been pointed out, רָחַץ is never used in the OT of objects, only people and parts of animal sacrifices (i.e. flesh). Likewise, the LXX always translates it as λούω or νίπτω, both of which are again reserved for the washing of a body or specified parts of it.
I am not here to justify the KJV translation but attempting to construct their thought in translating the way it is. But your information here is well-taken.
 
I am not here to justify the KJV translation but attempting to construct their thought in translating the way it is. But your information here is well-taken.

A couple of commentators note that the Chaldaic and the Syriac translate it as "armor," which they suppose may have been the cue for the KJV, although they still dismiss that reading as grammatically unsupportable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top