There is an interesting passage in the Old Testament that is worthy of some attention—1 Samuel 25:22. It occurs after David has become upset with Nabal for refusing to give his men food and drink. David vows to kill Nabal because "he has returned me evil for good" (verse 21, RSVCE). In verse 22, David goes on:
God do so to David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him.
All the translations I have searched are in agreement that David will kill all of Nabal's male children. However, it is the phrasing we should pay careful attention to. The more modern translations talk about not leaving alive any "male" that belongs to Nabal. I've already given the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition above, but let's look at two other modern translations.
New International Version: May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive one male of all who belong to him!
New American Bible: May God do thus and so to David, if by morning I leave a single male alive among all those who belong to him.
In the early 16th century, Martin Luther translated it thus:
Gott tue dies und noch mehr den Feinden Davids, wo ich diesem bis zum lichten Morgen übriglasse einen, der männlich ist, aus allem, was er hat.
[God does this and still more to the enemies of David, if I leave up to the morning light one, which is male, from everything that he has.]
The King James and Douay-Rheims versions, translated nearly a hundred years after Luther's version, indicate the same meaning, but offer a much more interesting phrasing:
KJV: 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.
DRB: May God do so and so, and add more to the foes of David, if I leave of all that belong to him till the morning, any that pisseth against the wall.
Women cannot urinate against walls without significant effort so, clearly, the KJV and DRB are referring to Nabal's male children. But their choice of words seems coarse to our modern ears, and apparently to Luther's more-modern-than-ancient-but-not-so-modern-as-our ears as well. Ironically, the Church Fathers developed the canon of Scripture to define what was acceptable to read in public worship. So what do the ancient sources, which would have been read aloud to the congregations of early Christians, have to say?
The DRB was translated from St. Jerome's late fourth/early fifth century Latin translation (a.k.a. the Vulgate) which says:
haec faciat Deus inimicis David et haec addat si reliquero de omnibus quae ad eum pertinent usque mane mingentem ad parietem
Mingentem ad parietem is literally to make water/urinate against the wall.
The Greek Septuagint, read in antiquity by Jews in the diaspora and used by the earliest Christians (including the Gospel writers), says ourounta pros toikon, "urinates on a wall."
And finally, according to Strong's dictionary (#H8366), the Hebrew root word is shathan, to make water.
So, the KJV and DRB agree most closely with the ancient sources as to the phrasing, but all translations have their problems, and I'm sure the KJV and DRB have their fair share. This is just a fun example of how hard it is to communicate the intended meaning of the original text in a way that contemporary readers will understand without veering too far away from the literal translation. When I first read 1 Samuel 25:22 in the KJV, it took me a while to figure it out. It actually took my dad and I comparing the KJV to the NIV. After some deliberation, dad eventually made the connection for us between the mode of urination and the fact that David wanted to kill male children. The moral of the story? We must be very careful when we read translations, especially if we are tempted to then make up our own doctrines based on what we read on our own, in isolation, apart from the last two thousand years of Christian tradition.
