his bowels discharged

[sitifan]

Even the handle sank in after the blade, and his bowels discharged. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it.
Source: Judges 3:22, NIV.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Judges 3:22

What does the clause in bold mean?

 

[Rover_KE]

Your link is about the verb ‘deliver’.

What has that got to do with the quoted sentence?

 

[sitifan]

Your link is about the verb ‘deliver’.

What has that got to do with the quoted sentence?

I'm sorry. The correct link is as follows: NIV

Judges 3:22 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you for providing the correct link. "... his bowels discharged" means that his bowels emptied (he had a sh*t!) That's what happens when dies suddenly (stabbing, shooting etc) - the body immediately releases all muscles, including the sphincter.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't think post #4 is right. I think it means that some of the matter inside his gut came out of the wound, such was the severity of the aggression.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't think post #4 is right. I think it means that some of the matter inside his gut came out of the wound, such was the severity of the aggression.

Having now read the entire list of translations in the OP's second link, I'm inclined to agree that most of them seem to suggest that excrement escaped through the wound.
That's the problem with ancient works of fiction like this - there are so many translations, re-writes and re-interpretations around that it's pretty much impossible to ascertain exactly what the original authors might have meant.

 

[PeterCW]

That specific translator wrote as if it was an involuntary bowel movement at the point of death. As my knowledge of Hebrew starts and finishes at "shalom" I am not qualified to pronounce on the original text.

 

[Skrej]

I think it does refer to defecation. The various translations suggest to me that the body fat seemed to completely envelop the weapon (even the handle), so there doesn't seem to be much room for leakage. It's possible that very little blood even came out, with that kind of suction.

Although I doubt it was intentionally meant as an insult, calling the Bible a work of fiction would be deeply offensive to many devout believers. While I'm sure it's been edited like any book, many of the references and figures in the Bible have clear historical evidence, so it's not completely fictional as a whole. It does of course contain fables and parables that are intentionally meant as fiction.

Emsr2d2's point about the ambiguities of translation (particularly when the translated work itself was the result of translation from the original language) is spot on, though, regardless of veracity - even accepting the Septuagint, which covers only a portion of the modern-day Bible.

 

[Rover_KE]

... calling the Bible a work of fiction would be deeply offensive to many devout believers.

We should avoid disrespecting the holy book of any religion, especially those we know will not attract a death penalty from its adherents.

 

[emsr2d2]

No offence was intended but I don't think there's anyone who thinks that the whole book is a contemporaneous record of events.

 

[jutfrank]

The focus of the passage is to provide a graphic description of the severity of the violence of the stabbing, so I don't think it's the kind of natural involuntary bowel movement that comes from relaxed muscles upon death. I suppose it could be that the blow from the sword was so forceful that it pushed the fecal matter out of his rectum.

These two translations seem unequivocally to interpret that it was through the anus:

ASV ... for he drew not the sword out of his body; and it came out behind.

DARBY ... for he did not draw the sword out of his belly, and it came out between the legs.

By the way, the Bible is in part a historical record of events. There's no question of that. This particular account may well be historical, at least partially.