Textual Variants in 1 Kings 22:38 and the Question of Prostitutes

The verse in the King James Version reads:

"And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armour; according unto the word of the Lord which he spake." 1 Kings 22:38

Modern translations such as the NASB 2020 and ESV often render part of this verse differently. For example, the NASB 2020 includes:

"They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood. Now the prostitutes bathed themselves there, in accordance with the word of the Lord which He had spoken."

The question is why the KJV has "washed his armour" while some modern versions mention prostitutes, and where that idea comes from.

Same basic Hebrew text, different interpretation

Most Old Testament translations, including the KJV and mainstream modern versions, work from the Masoretic Text. This is not a case of radically different underlying Hebrew manuscripts, but of different understandings of a Hebrew expression.

Jewish editions, such as those available at Chabad, render the verse along the lines of:

"They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked his blood, and they washed the weapons there, according to the word of the Lord which He had spoken."

Thus we have three broad lines of rendering for the contested phrase:

• "they washed his armour" (KJV).
• "they washed the weapons there" (some Jewish translations).
• "the prostitutes bathed themselves there" (NASB, ESV and others).

All are trying to handle the same Hebrew wording, in which a key word can be related either to "weapons/armor" or, when vocalized differently, to "harlots/prostitutes."

Rashi and rabbinic discussion

Classical Jewish commentary sheds light on the history of interpretation. Rashi notes an alternative rendering in the Targum of Jonathan and mentions rabbinic discussion that takes the word in a sense related to harlots. According to this tradition, Jezebel, because Ahab was cold toward sexual relations, had images of two harlots placed in his chariot to arouse him. When the chariot was washed in the pool of Samaria, these images were washed there as well.

This fanciful story is not derived directly from the narrative flow of Kings, but from a particular reading of the Hebrew term and rabbinic imagination about Ahab and Jezebel's character. It illustrates that:

• There was ancient precedent for connecting the term in this verse with harlots.
• There was also the more straightforward reading of the word as referring to weapons or armor.

Modern translators and the Septuagint

Many modern translators are inclined to favor readings that align with the Septuagint or with certain rabbinic or scholarly reconstructions when the Masoretic pointing seems difficult. Some modern versions therefore choose the "prostitutes" sense as more vivid or as reflecting what they regard as an older or preferable tradition.

In doing so, they sometimes add clarifying words that are not directly represented in Hebrew. For example, the ESV reads:

"They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it, according to the word of the Lord that he had spoken."

The phrase "in it" (that is, in the blood) is not marked as supplied and can give a stronger impression than the underlying text warrants. The NASB at least italicizes some of its insertions, but the ESV generally does not signal where it has added words.

Evaluating the options

Given:

• The shared Masoretic base.
• The plausible lexical pathway from a term related to armor or weapons to one related to harlotry, depending on pointing.
• The fact that rabbinic discussion preserves both lines of understanding.

It is fair to say that the Hebrew here is difficult and that more than one legitimate rendering has been proposed. The KJV's "they washed his armour" is a straightforward and sensible reading that fits the immediate context: a chariot washed, dogs licking blood, and the armor being washed.

The "prostitutes bathed themselves" rendering introduces an additional scene that does not naturally arise from the narrative context and depends on adopting a less obvious meaning and often on imported interpretive detail.

This is a good example of a place where we should acknowledge that the wording is challenging, that translators sometimes make different choices, and that no major doctrine hinges on whether armor or prostitutes are in view. The verse is valuable pedagogically because it forces us to see how lexical ambiguity, rabbinic tradition, and translator preference can shape English renderings.

questiontransition