Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: When you gotta go, you gotta go

Thread: Kerygmania: When you gotta go, you gotta go Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001331

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Over in Hell, a new thread calls to task US Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte for disgraceful behavior which included an act of public urination. In the discussion it was noted that, in the Bible, such acts carry a curse.

The passages cited are:
1 Sam 25:22
1 Sam 25:34
1 Kings 14:10
1 Kings 16:11
1 Kings 21:21
2 Kings 9:8

These passages, in the KJV, seeking destruction of a particular group, include the phrase "every man that pisseth against a wall" (or similar).

Taking a brief look at some other translations suggests that most of them avoid any reference to bathroom matters and just apply the curse to "any male." And the context (again, not a comprehensive analysis) suggests to me the insult in question is something other than relieving oneself on another man's property.

Is there anything in text analysis or in the culture of that time and place that accounts for the use of this colorful phrase? Can anyone unzip this for us?

[ 31. January 2017, 21:43: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I'm wondering if it is a crude designation of a "manchild" who is old enough to stand and relieve himself without nappies.

And since it is pretty limited to the KJV, the Wycliff, and the Geneva Bibles, I wonder if it is a particularly Medieval/Renaissance turn of phrase.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm wondering if it is a crude designation of a "manchild" who is old enough to stand and relieve himself without nappies.

And since it is pretty limited to the KJV, the Wycliff, and the Geneva Bibles, I wonder if it is a particularly Medieval/Renaissance turn of phrase.

Or that they're less squeamish than we are --- the verb for "piss" definitely appears in the Hebrew. I think the more modern translations have decided "he that pisseth against the wall" just means "a man" and have translated it thus. A deft bit of eisegesis that prevents having to be graphic. The biblical authors appear to be far less squeamish and more earthy than our modern theologians and translators.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Ah, so it was in the Hebrew. Good to know.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The thing that intrigued me about the passages in Kings was the addition "and him that is shut up and left in Israel".

What does that mean?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

The passages in which the wall-pisser language occur all suggest the phrase is being used in a pejorative sense and not just simply as a substitute for ‘male’. If the phrase is meant metaphorically to point to dogs for whom urinating against a wall was their metier – and dogs were not really regarded positively at the time – then the phrase would have carried negative connotations when applied to a human. The English versions that dilute the phrase do seem to have lost the impact as a result.

Those passages don’t provide biblical support for wall-pissing by the way, in case anyone feels led by God to rush out and expiate their sins.

The additional phrase that crops up in Kings probably makes sense in the context of the pejorative dog-related language as well. The more literal translation of the Hebrew in the KJV runs: “him that is shut up and left in Israel”, which does seem unusual in English as it stands. It could, though, link to the wall-pisser phrase more along lines: “whether on a leash or not” and then translating that idiom across the metaphorical boundary to something like: “closely related or not” (kin and kith?).

The prophecy against Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14 could the include the passage translated something like this (v.10f), taking the idiom as:

“So pay attention to how disaster falls on Jeroboam’s House. I destroy all of his filthy household, whether they wallow in his shit inside or out. I incinerate his dung out of existence. They are like filthy curs and filthy curs will eat those who wallow inside, carrion will eat those outside.”

And so to lunch.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I'm wondering if "the wall" is significant in that it could be a desecration of sorts.
Like that unlucky chap a while back who thought a drunken pee against a war memorial was no big deal. Heightened sensitivity during the follow up to 9/11 said different.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I note the AV has no problem with pissing, but Saul goes into a cave 'to cover his feet'.

Is that a reflection of the original language or a degree of prudery on the part of the translators?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If the cave wall had hydrophobic paint, the effect could be to cover his feet.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I note the AV has no problem with pissing, but Saul goes into a cave 'to cover his feet'.

Is that a reflection of the original language or a degree of prudery on the part of the translators?

It appears to be a euphemism in the Hebrew. "Cover" means "cover" -- for instance the angels "cover" the Mercy Seat with their wings. One has to assume they don't shit on it, and even if they did, they wouldn't shit with their wings.

Blueletter Bible on this one.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It appears to be a euphemism in the Hebrew. "Cover" means "cover" -- for instance the angels "cover" the Mercy Seat with their wings. One has to assume they don't shit on it, and even if they did, they wouldn't shit with their wings.

I had a priest once explain that when Saul squatted, his feet would be covered by his robe. Whenever he mentioned this chapter, he would always chortle at some American translation or other that had Saul going in to a cave to go to the bathroom.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the cave wall had hydrophobic paint, the effect could be to cover his feet.

There are loos in China not dissimilar.

And while we're on the subject, what exactly is Ruth up to, uncovering the feet of Boaz?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Eglon the Fat also "covers his feet" in Judges 3:24.

As for uncovering the feet of Boaz? I always thought that meant she crawled into bed with him from the bottom of the blanket. But that's just me. I've seen people make a feet=gonads argument as well, but sometimes feet are just feet.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm wondering if it is a crude designation of a "manchild" who is old enough to stand and relieve himself without nappies.

I think this is pretty much right, except that (as MT said, it is in the Hebrew, at least of the two 1 Sam quotes, which are the two I looked at). I seems to mean 'male non-baby.' Certainly a colorful expression, and rather appropriate for a guerrilla warrior uttering a curse (as David is in 1 Sam 25:22).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Also used effectively by Canadian singer-songwriter Bruce Cockburn in his 1980 song "Tokyo," where he is cataloguing the things he sees in that city, including "grey-suited businessmen pissing against a wall."

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The passages in which the wall-pisser language occur all suggest the phrase is being used in a pejorative sense and not just simply as a substitute for ‘male’. If the phrase is meant metaphorically to point to dogs for whom urinating against a wall was their metier – and dogs were not really regarded positively at the time – then the phrase would have carried negative connotations when applied to a human. The English versions that dilute the phrase do seem to have lost the impact as a result.

So, if I understand it correctly, the wall-pissing is not what these guys are being cursed *for.* The interpretation that it's an allusion to dog behavior as a way of heaping scorn on the offenders is interesting. Either way, it's meant as an epithet. Good to know it was considered bad manners back then as well.

quote:
Those passages don’t provide biblical support for wall-pissing by the way, in case anyone feels led by God to rush out and expiate their sins.

Well, that's a relief to me, since I don't have the right equipment. [Biased]

[ 24. August 2016, 00:09: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Another scriptural euphemism for male urination is in the account of Elijah vs the priests of Baal. In which Elijah taunts the priests by saying 'perhaps he (Baal) has turned aside. which my OT professor explained as meaning 'he stepped off the path to pee.'

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Which, of course, is particularly scathing if you are talking about a supposed god!

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Even Baals gotta go.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Eglon the Fat also "covers his feet" in Judges 3:24.

As for uncovering the feet of Boaz? I always thought that meant she crawled into bed with him from the bottom of the blanket. But that's just me. I've seen people make a feet=gonads argument as well, but sometimes feet are just feet.

My understanding is that Old Testament scholars don't believe feet are just feet in these passages.

In Isaiah's vision of God in Isaiah 6 the flying seraphim "cover their feet" with one pair of their wings. The Jewish Study Bible notes say that this is a scribal emendation. Apparently the Hebrew word for "feet" is very similar to the word for the sexual organs (presumably the male sexual organs, the JSB isn't specific about this). So the seraphim are actually covering their genitals.

Reversing this emendation makes Ruth's behaviour sexually explicit. And why not? She was effectively demanding that Boaz fulfil his legal requirement to marry her. Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar went even further when Judah tried to cheat her out of her legal rights to levirate marriage and motherhood. Tamar's attitude was, "if you won't marry me to your son, which is my legal right, you can damn well father a child on me yourself!"

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I am sceptical about the idea that Ruth was seducing Boaz. My principal reason for this is that she was following Naomi's instructions. I have trouble believing that a woman would give her son's widow detailed instructions on how to seduce a man. If you read the entire book of Ruth, it is clear that Naomi, at Ruth's request, is teaching her how to be Jewish. I have trouble believing that this was customary Jewish behavior.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There's a practical problem with Ruth "insisting" on her rights, which is that there is a kinsman-redeemer nearer to her than Boaz (as the story states). No matter what she does, Boaz can't be compelled. There's also the matter of "don't marry a Moabite" in the Law somewhere, which appears to mean "don't marry a non-converting Moabite," but is not explicit, and as a result gives anybody wanting to duck Ruth's demand a great excuse.

Since it's been all of five minutes since we had this debate last [Razz]

, the thing about Boaz's feet--there's a darned good reason for her to lie at his feet and not at his side, and that has to do with drunken men at parties. Lie at the man's side and he'll assume you're there for one purpose only, and are probably a whore someone brought along--that is, if he even wakes up enough to register who you are before er, doing the deed. Lie at his feet and not only are you in the traditional and non-sexual position of a supplicant, but the guy's going to have to do more than just roll over if he wants to come to grips with you. He's going to have to sit up and say something. Which is exactly what Boaz did, giving Ruth her opening.

As for uncovering the guy's feet--if these are actually genitals, and the guy's wearing a tunic or robe of any length, Ruth would have to uncover a considerable amount of Boaz before she got to the target area. It's not just a matter of unzipping someone's fly. And I doubt Boaz was sleeping in a loincloth--it gets chilly at night after the hard work of harvesting.

On the other hand, if "a foot is just a foot," then Ruth has it easy. Flip the end of his robe or cloak back to leave his feet bare to the chilly air. Lie down at his feet, close enough that if he moves, he's bound to kick you and realize you are there. Wait for the chilly feet to wake him up. Have your conversation.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Since it's been all of five minutes since we had this debate last

Yes, OH GOD can we please discuss " Variations on a Foot" again? Pretty please? [Biased]

(It's become the Kerygmania version of "Who's on First?")

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yes, OH GOD can we please discuss " Variations on a Foot" again? Pretty please?

Well, OK. The US survey foot is defined as 1200/3937 meters. The international standard foot is defined as 0.3048 meters, which is two parts in a million shorter than the survey foot.

Sometimes, this matters.

[Two face]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0