EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 100 books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Major Critical Texts and Manuscript Abbreviations of the Old Testament
AC: Aleppo Codex AT: Aramaic Targum(s) B.C.E.: Before Common Era BHS: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1984. B 19A: Codex Leningrad c.: Circa, about, approximately LXX: The Greek Septuagint (Greek Jewish OT Scriptures in general and specifically used during of Jesus and the apostles) OG: Original Greek (Oldest recoverable form of the Greek OT (280-150 B.C.E.) SOPHERIM: Copyists of the Hebrew OT text from the time of Era to the time of Jesus. CT: Consonantal Text is the OT Hebrew manuscripts that became fixed in form between the first and second centuries C.E., even though manuscripts with variant readings continued to circulate for some time. Alterations of the previous period by the Sopherim were no longer made. Very similar to the MT. MT: The Masoretic Text encompasses the Hebrew OT manuscripts from the second half of the first millennium C.E. QT: Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls) SP: Samaritan Pentateuch SYR: Syriac Peshitta VG: Latin Vulgate
Judges 3:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
22 And the handle also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword* out of his belly; and the excrement came out.
* The Hebrew word chereb is usually rendered “sword,” but it may also be rendered ‘dagger.’
These translations that are avoiding “dung,” fecal matter,” or “excrement,” they are softening the translation with “waste” or “refuse” with what they believe to be good intentions because the original language word is uncertain and they are simply sanitizing the text from being unnecessarily offensive. The others who refuse to translate the Hebrew term do so likely because they think it is some lost gloss. When we consider the scant evidence that we have, it seems that the best rendering is “dung,” fecal matter,” or “excrement.” God’s Word does not need to be sanitized. On this Old Testament scholar, Daniel Isaac Block writes,
When Eglon fell to the ground and expired, his bowels relaxed and discharged their contents. This seems the most likely interpretation of the enigmatic expression wayyēṣēʾ happaršĕdōnâ at the end of v. 22. Appealing to the omission of these words in the LXX, many delete the clause as a misplaced gloss on the equally unusual hammisdĕrōnâ at the beginning of v. 23.[1] By this interpretation, if it is authentic, it also refers to an architectural feature of the building through which the assassin exited.[2] The rendering of the NIV assumes the dagger is the subject of the verb, but this is unlikely because throughout this context ḥereb is consistently construed as feminine. It seems best therefore to follow Targum and interpret paršdōnâ as a term for excrement, an interpretation which finds support in an Akkadian cognate, naparšudu, “to escape.”[3]
Old Testament scholars Rob Fleenor and Mark S. Ziese write,
3:22 Eglon is obese enough that his fat completely engulfs the blade. If Ehud’s sword is eighteen inches long, then Eglon’s girth is likely in excess of a hefty size 60. Any reader winces with gleeful disgust at such an image.
The NIV sanitizes the text by omitting from the translation the last two words of verse 22. The phrase וַיֵּצֵא הַפַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (wayyēṣē’ happaršədōnāh) is uncertain, and is often translated, “and out came the dirt” or “out came the excrement.” Paršədōn is a hapax legomenon—a word appearing only once in the Bible. English translations vary on the exact meaning of the phrase. The NKJV uses “entrails” and most other translations use either “dirt” or “excrement,” but the scatological meaning is clear. Ehud’s sword pops the bloated king.[4]
[2] Comparison is drawn to Akk. parašdinnu, “hole.” Cf., 832; KB, s.v.
[3] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 168.
Thus M. L. Barré (“The Meaning of pršdn in Judges iii 22,” VT 41 [1991]: 1–11), who argues the form of the present word was influenced by the following המסדרונה. Barré suggests one of the hē’s on הפרשׁדנה is superfluous. One should read either “the excrement” or “his excrement.”
[4] Rob Fleenor and Mark S. Ziese, Judges-Ruth, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 2008), 77.
