It happened not many years ago. A Christian businessman was bringing a new believer to a Gideon’s “encampment.” Part of the proceedings included reading a Bible passage around in a circle, each man reading a verse. This posed a problem for the new believer who was not a good reader, and besides, the text was the King James Version. The businessman was afraid the young man might be humiliated if he stumbled in reading his verse.
As the men took their places in the circle, our businessman was horrified to read ahead and observe that his friend would be reading a verse with a word in it that is nowadays considered vulgar! It was one of those passages in the Books of the Kings that uses a rather earthy Hebrew idiom for a male.1
When the new Christian’s turn came, he read out in a loud, clear voice, “…he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pissayeth against a wall…” (1 Kings 16:11). The Old English verb ending plus the accidental addition of an extra syllable saved the day. The reader was totally unaware of what he had read, and the good Gideon breathed a sigh of relief!
A Matter of Good Taste
This true story is told, not to amuse, but to illustrate the fact that the 1769 text still retains a number of readings that were once quite acceptable in polite society, but which cause embarrassment in church circles today. The contemporary mass media often revel in vulgar language. But is it right for Christian children to find in their Bibles what they are taught are “no-no” words elsewhere? We think not. The Hebrew idiom “he that pisseth against a wall” means literally no more and no less than “a male.” Therefore NKJV, e.g., reads simply “…he killed all the household of Baasha; he did not leave him one male…” The passages mentioned have absolutely nothing to do with necessary bodily functions as such.
The noun form of this questionable verb occurs in 2 Kings 18:27 and its parallel text in Isaiah 36:12: “…hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”
This was an unpleasant remark, but the enemy wanted to communicate the terrible state of affairs that a military siege would produce. The NKJV communicates the facts without the 1611 words that are no longer in good taste: “…to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you” (Isaiah 36:12).
The word dung is still acceptable in some contexts, but certainly is not needed today as much as the KJV uses it. For example, compare the two New Testament occurrences of this word with their modernization in NKJV:
Philippians 3:8, a famous verse, likewise can be improved upon:
Now if the Greek word definitely meant waste products, dung would have been left here in the NKJV. But it does not! The Greek word skybala is thought by some to be from an expression “throw to the dogs”—hence garbage or rubbish. Another view is that it comes from skōr, an expression meaning dung.3 Since we are not sure, rubbish is a good choice.
Catalogs of Vice
Another word family that disturbs many people is the “wh- words”: whore, whorish, whoredom, whoring, and whoremonger. These are borderline words. They are not nasty, but they often shock people of cultivated taste. The KJV translates the Hebrew and Greek words for whore very often by the similar but more acceptable term, harlot. Since this word was already part of the King James tradition, the NKJV uses it in all places where whore occurred. The Executive Review Committees of both the Old and New Testaments considered using the word prostitute, but rejected it as being on a lower literary level than the KJV word harlot.
Five times in the New Testament the word whoremonger occurs, each time in lists4 of gross sins. The Greek word is pornos,5 which is also translated fornicator five times in the KJV. Where this term is used in a general sense in the NKJV, it is translated sexually immoral. Where it occurs next to other specific sexual sins, like adultery or homosexuality, the more precise English word for illicit sex between unmarried people—fornication—is used. The NKJV uses fornicator(s) six times and the abstract noun fornication(s) sixteen times, all but once in New Testament texts.
Because sexual sin is rampant in modern society, it seems relevant to retain the biblical terms rather than to conform to softened secular usages. “Premarital sex,” “extramarital sex,” and “gay sex” are morally anemic substitutes for plain “fornication,” “adultery,” and “sodomy.”
We have discussed some words that are rather unpleasant to many people of decent sensibilities, and to Christians in particular. But they are facts of life on this planet. Nevertheless, we can translate the terms so as to communicate the truth without violating the canons of good taste.
We have no desire to pillory the seventeenth-century translators. What was good and acceptable English then may not be so today. Hence the need for periodic updates of the Bible to correct contemporary usage.
The excision of needlessly offensive language from the King James tradition can only improve the text.6 In this respect most people will probably agree that the beauty of the NKJV is enhanced.
The Affections
Modern hospitals generally refer to elimination of waste by certain euphemisms, like “B.M.” There is nothing wrong with the old word bowel, when used literally, but many people are uncomfortable with the word and are reluctant to use it in public.
Seventeenth century society had no such qualms. The King James Bible used bowels thirty-one times in the Old Testament, translating three Hebrew terms. The King James New Testament, translating just one Greek word, used bowels nine times.
Interestingly enough, the word in the Bible seldom refers to the literal intestines, but usually is figurative for the emotions or affections.
The NKJV totally updates this old word in all forty places, choosing words that best fit the context.
Perhaps the most unfortunate occurrence of the old word is in Song of Songs 5:4. The context is one of love and beauty—until (in the KJV) the Shulamite says of her beloved, “and my bowels were moved for him.” Not only does this phrase spoil the loveliness of the passage today, but it definitely does not mean what modern usage might imply. The NKJV update, “my heart yearned for him,” communicates exactly what the clause means.
In Greek the word splangchna is used once literally. When Judas’ body fell from the rope after he hanged himself, “all his entrails gushed out” (Acts 1:18)—not an attractive scene, but an accurate portrayal!
Eight times this term is used in a figurative sense of the affections in the New Testament, for example 2 Corinthians 6:12; Philippians 1:8; 2:1.
In at least two cases the King James rendering is embarrassing to read in a church service. The following King James and New King James renderings illustrate this:
On the one hand many modern writers commonly ridicule euphemisms and prefer to express things bluntly, crudely, or with intent to shock the reader. We may be criticized for being prudish by such writers. Yet the Bible itself uses euphemisms. For example, Genesis 4:1 says that “Adam knew (Hebrew yāda‘) his wife Eve.” The result was conception and childbirth. The NIV translates this “Adam lay with his wife Eve.” The NKJV kept the literal rendering for two reasons. First it seems in better taste. If Moses felt a restrained expression was superior, and all who need to know will know what it means, why change it? Secondly, the Hebrew verb has deeper and richer meaning than the merely physical. It is the same word used of God’s intimate knowledge of His people Israel (Amos 3:2).
There are other euphemisms in Hebrew, such as the expression “to cover one’s feet.” This idiom, translated literally in the older King James (1 Samuel 24:3), is so unclear in English that many think it means that Saul lay down in the cave and put a robe over his feet. Actually, he was performing a bodily function of elimination, for which there are several modern English idioms.
Thus, one of the guidelines for the NKJV translators and editors was to correct all words and expressions that, while quite acceptable in earlier English, are now considered vulgar. We believe that most people will agree that these words are by no means a necessary part of the actual meaning of the sacred text. But they enhance the beauty of the NKJV—by not being there!
Notes
1. There are four such expressions in 1 and 2 Kings, and two in 1 Samuel 25:22, 34.
2. The same Greek word (kyrios) can mean “Lord” or “Sir.” In the 1611 edition it probably means the “lord” of the vineyard in the parable itself.
2. The same Greek word (kyrios) can mean “Lord” or “Sir.” In the 1611 edition it probably means the “lord” of the vineyard in the parable itself.
3. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 453.
4. The technical term for such lists is “vice catalogs.”
5. Our word pornography (“harlot-writing”) comes from this same Greek root word.
6. The older words for donkey and rooster, for example, generally bring needless snickers from schoolboys in Sunday school.