When the Bible Gets Vulgar - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

When the Bible Gets Vulgar ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/T1RA3ougj7w/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [When the Bible Gets Vulgar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1RA3ougj7w) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-translation, biblical-profanity, new-testament-greek, hebrew-bible, ezekiel] > author: Dan McClellan > source: Dan McClellan (YouTube) > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1RA3ougj7w > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: When the Bible Gets Vulgar >  ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan argues that two biblical passages — Philippians 3:8 and Ezekiel 23:19–21 — contain profanity or graphic obscenity in the original languages that most English translations soften or euphemize. - In Philippians 3:8, Paul calls his prior religious credentials *skybala* (σκύβαλα), a Greek term BDAG glosses as "refuse, garbage" but which scholar John David Punch argues functions as crude slang closer to "crap" or "shit," used deliberately for rhetorical shock. - In Ezekiel 23:19–21, the Hebrew *zirma* — glossed alternately as "phallus" or "ejaculation/emission" — describes Egyptian men in sexually explicit, degrading animal imagery (donkeys, stallions) as part of a metaphor condemning Judah's political alliance with Egypt. - McClellan's stakes: he contends that euphemistic translation choices erase authorial intent, "domesticating" texts that were meant to provoke a visceral reaction in their original audiences. - Key tension: fidelity to a text's rhetorical force (accuracy, shock value) versus the accessibility, propriety, and liturgical/devotional expectations that shape most mainstream Bible translations (NRSVUE and others). ## 📖 Main Content McClellan opens with Philippians 3:8, where Paul says he regards his former status "as rubbish" (NRSVUE) in order to gain Christ. The underlying Greek word is *skybalon* (σκύβαλον). BDAG (the standard Greek-English lexicon for the New Testament) defines it as "useless or undesirable material subject to disposal," glossing it as "refuse" or "garbage." McClellan cites a scholar quoted in that same lexicon entry who renders the line "it's all crap" to "convey the crudity of the Greek," and pushes further, arguing "it's all shit" is defensible. He supports this with John David Punch's 2014 article in *The Bible Translator*, "Skibala Happens: Edification from a Four-Letter Word in the Word of God," which argues Paul's use of the term is an intentional register shift — coarse, public, provocative — that most translations flatten into a mild "rubbish," losing the rhetorical jolt Paul intended. He then turns to Ezekiel, a book McClellan describes as generally saturated with coarse and explicit language (citing *gillulim*, a term for foreign gods built on a root associated with dung, as a running pun against *Elohim*/God). His central example is Ezekiel 23:19–21, part of an extended allegory (Oholah and Oholibah) portraying Judah and Israel as unfaithful wives lusting after foreign powers. The Hebrew word *zirma* — occurring only here in the Hebrew Bible — is glossed in HALOT as "phallus" (via a proposed metathesis from *zimra*, "branch") or alternatively "ejaculation" (from the root *zaram*, "to pour out," used elsewhere for cloudbursts/heavy rain). Klein's dictionary rejects the phallus/metathesis reading and renders the Ezekiel phrase "ejaculative of horses." Either reading, the verse graphically sexualizes Egyptian men via animal-endowment imagery, which McClellan (citing outside scholarship) frames as more about male anxiety/obsession with virility than actual female desire — and about "othering" foreign ethnic bodies, a rhetorical move he likens to modern racialized rhetoric. McClellan's broader argument: biblical authors used vulgarity and obscenity deliberately, in both testaments, and English translations that habitually launder this language do their readers a disservice by hiding the authors' rhetorical intent. ### 🗒️ Notes - **Philippians 3:8 — skybala**: BDAG entry glosses *skybalon* as "useless or undesirable material... subject to disposal"; standard glosses are "refuse"/"garbage," which the NRSVUE renders "rubbish." - A cited scholar in the BDAG entry itself says a translation that "convey[s] the crudity of the Greek" should render it "it's all crap"; McClellan argues "it's all shit" is arguably still more accurate to register. - John David Punch, "Skibala Happens: Edification from a Four-Letter Word in the Word of God," *The Bible Translator* (2014) — abstract argues Paul's use of *skybala* appears to contradict his own elsewhere-stated prohibitions on "unwholesome speech," and the article evaluates whether coarse language is warranted given other available (milder) terms. - From Punch's conclusion: Paul's use of slang/obscenity likely "awakened his original readers" the way his citation of Greek philosophers in Acts 17 did; domesticating the term risks losing that effect. Punch argues this wasn't likely Paul's everyday speech — it was a deliberate, calculated jolt "in mixed company," expecting a reaction. - Translation spectrum offered: garbage → crap → [stronger vulgarity]. Most translations stop at "crap" at best; McClellan argues the rhetorical intent calls for going further. - **Ezekiel's vulgar register generally**: *gillulim* (a term for idols/foreign gods) is built on a root tied to dung/excrement, functioning as a deliberate pun against *Elohim* ("God"/"gods"). - **Ezekiel 23:19–21 — zirma**: NRSVUE renders the Egyptians' "members... like those of donkeys" and "emission... like that of stallions," softening the Hebrew (per McClellan, "domesticating" it). - Hebrew: *zirmat susim zirmatam* — from *zirma*, hapax legomenon (occurs only this once in the Hebrew Bible). - HALOT gloss: "phallus," reasoning via proposed metathesis from *zimra* ("branch," used figuratively for phallus); alternative gloss offered parenthetically: "ejaculation," from *zaram* ("to unload clouds/water, accompanied by thunder" — cf. noun *zerem*, "heavy rain, cloudburst"). - Klein's *Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language* rejects the metathesis/phallus reading, deriving strictly from *zaram* ("pour out, be squeezed/wrung out"); renders the specific Ezekiel 23:20 phrase "ejaculative of horses." - McClellan frames the imagery as functioning less as an account of female desire and more as projection of "male obsession with the phallus," and as an "othering" device applied differently to Egyptian bodies than to Mesopotamian/Assyrian bodies elsewhere in Ezekiel — comparable, he says, to racialized rhetoric that persists today. - Recommended further reading (per McClellan): a book on *Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel*, and Rosanne Liebermann's *Exile Incorporated: The Body in the Book of Ezekiel*. - Closing thesis: biblical authors do use profanity/vulgarity — more often in the Hebrew Bible than the New Testament, but present in both — and translations should let it show rather than euphemize it, for the sake of fidelity to the text's intended effect. ## 📚 References - [The Bible Translator (journal)](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/tbt) — home of John David Punch's 2014 article "Skibala Happens: Edification from a Four-Letter Word in the Word of God" - Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich — *A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature* (BDAG), entry: σκύβαλον - Koehler & Baumgartner — *Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament* (HALOT), entry: זרמה (zirma) - Klein, Ernest — *A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language* - *Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel* (book cited by title only in transcript) - Liebermann, Rosanne — *Exile Incorporated: The Body in the Book of Ezekiel* - New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSVUE) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase Paul, writing to the Philippians, doesn't just say his old religious résumé is worthless — the Greek word he picks, *skybala*, is crude slang for excrement or garbage, and at least one Bible-translation scholar argues English versions that render it "rubbish" undersell how jarring it would have sounded to Paul's first audience. McClellan thinks a translation like "it's all crap" — or even "it's all shit" — better captures what Paul was actually doing: using a dirty word on purpose to make a point land harder. Ezekiel goes further. In an extended allegory where Judah and Israel are portrayed as unfaithful wives chasing after foreign powers, the description of Egyptian lovers uses a rare Hebrew word that lexicographers translate as either "phallus" or "ejaculation," paired with explicit animal comparisons. Standard translations smooth this into vaguer language about "members" and "emission," but McClellan argues that obscures both how graphic the original is and what the imagery is doing rhetorically — degrading a foreign people through exaggerated, dehumanizing sexual caricature. ## 📰 Newsletter Ever wonder if the Bible actually swears? Turns out — yes, and scholars have receipts. In his latest short, biblical scholar Dan McClellan walks through Paul's very salty word choice in Philippians 3:8 (spoiler: "rubbish" is doing a lot of polite lifting) and an eyebrow-raising passage in Ezekiel 23 that most translations quietly soften. It's a fun rabbit hole on lexicons, translation ethics, and why "accurate" and "comfortable" aren't always the same thing. Worth the six minutes if you like your Bible history with a little bite. *(Note: this piece is biblical-studies content, not WordPress/dev-ecosystem material, so the usual plugin/community angle doesn't apply here.)* ## ✅ Action Items *This video is biblical-translation scholarship, not WordPress/OSS/DevRel content — the standard subteam taxonomy (DevRel, OSPO, WordPress components, WPCC, FAIR) doesn't map onto it. Listing only genuinely applicable follow-ups:* - Read John David Punch's "Skibala Happens" (2014) in full for the complete translation-history argument. - Cross-reference BDAG's *skybalon* entry and HALOT's *zirma* entry directly if doing further lexical work. - Read Liebermann's *Exile Incorporated* for the broader argument about ethnic "othering" via body imagery in Ezekiel. - If drafting a related piece: consider pairing this with other "translation domestication" examples (e.g., Song of Songs, Hosea) for a fuller pattern. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: Modern English Bible translations systematically favor euphemism over accuracy when source texts contain obscenity or profanity, more so in liturgically-used passages than academic ones. - H2: Translator choice of register (e.g., "rubbish" vs. "crap" vs. stronger) correlates with a translation's intended use context (devotional/liturgical vs. academic/critical editions). - H3: The rhetorical function of *skybala* in Philippians 3:8 was intended by Paul as a status-reversal shock device, not incidental word choice. - H4: Ezekiel's use of explicit sexual/scatological language toward foreign nations serves a consistent rhetorical strategy of ethnic degradation, distinguishable in kind from language used about Israel/Judah itself. - H5: Readers' comprehension of authorial rhetorical intent (shock, humor, condemnation) is measurably reduced when translations euphemize source-language vulgarity. ## 📊 Methodology - Comparative lexical analysis: cross-check gloss ranges in BDAG, HALOT, and Klein's dictionary against how mainstream translations (NRSVUE, NIV, ESV, etc.) render the same terms, tabulating register drift. - Reception-history survey: sample English translations chronologically (KJV → NRSVUE) for skybala/zirma and similar terms to trace when/why euphemism increased or decreased. - Reader-response study: present matched groups with a euphemized vs. a more literal/vulgar translation of the same passage; measure perceived tone, shock, and comprehension of rhetorical intent. - Corpus study: catalog other candidate profanity/obscenity terms across the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (building on McClellan's *gillulim* example) to assess how widespread the pattern is beyond these two case studies. ## ❓ Questions - How many other biblical terms have a similarly wide gloss range between "polite" and "vulgar" that translators default toward the polite end? - Does denominational or institutional affiliation of a translation committee predict how it handles obscene source language? - Is there a meaningful difference between translating for shock (matching register) versus translating for clarity (marking that a term was shocking, via footnote) — and which serves readers better? - How does the "othering via sexualized body imagery" pattern in Ezekiel compare with similar rhetorical patterns describing Israel/Judah's own body in prophetic literature? ## 🔮 Future Research - A systematic register-mapping project comparing vulgarity/obscenity across major English translations, term-by-term. - Comparative work on how other ancient religious/legal corpora (e.g., other Second Temple or Greco-Roman texts) used coarse language rhetorically, to contextualize whether biblical usage was unusual for its genre. - Deeper engagement with Liebermann's and others' work on ethnic body-rhetoric in Ezekiel as a case study in ancient dehumanization rhetoric, with possible comparative work to modern parallels. ## 💡 Implications - **Practice (translation/publishing)**: Bible translation committees face a real editorial choice between fidelity to register and reader comfort; this has direct implications for how translation notes/footnotes are used to flag register decisions. - **Education**: Seminary and religious-studies curricula could use these passages as teaching cases for translation theory (formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence vs. reader-response). - **Security/compliance**: N/A for this content. - **Funding models**: Academic Bible-translation scholarship in venues like *The Bible Translator* depends on niche journal funding; broader popularization (e.g., via short-form video) may affect public engagement with translation-studies research that otherwise stays in specialist journals. ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level estimate: approximately Flesch-Kincaid grade 10–11 (qualitative estimate based on sentence length and technical vocabulary density — academic/lexicographic terms like "metathesis," "etymology," and "hapax legomenon" raise complexity, offset by McClellan's conversational, first-person spoken delivery). Not computed via automated tool. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: on-screen lexicon page images (BDAG, HALOT, Klein's), Hebrew/Greek text highlighted in colored boxes. - Improve: side-by-side gloss comparison tables; a labeled diagram of the *zirma* etymology branches (metathesis vs. *zaram* root). #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: full spoken-lecture format is itself the native medium here. - Improve: a short audio-only recap summarizing the two case studies for on-the-go listening. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: definitions and glosses given directly from primary lexicons; clear before/after translation examples. - Improve: a plain-language glossary of key terms (skybala, zirma, gillulim, metathesis) for reference. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: none inherently (lecture format). - Improve: a hands-on "translate it yourself" exercise using the BDAG/HALOT gloss ranges shown on screen. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: McClellan builds a stepwise lexical case (dictionary entry → cited scholar → translation proposal) for each passage. - Improve: an explicit decision-tree showing how translators choose between competing glosses (e.g., "phallus" vs. "ejaculation" for *zirma*). #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: none directly in the video itself. - Improve: discussion prompts for reading groups/seminary classes on translation ethics. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: content works well for independent close reading alongside a physical/digital lexicon. - Improve: self-check questions (e.g., "why does Klein's reject the metathesis reading?"). #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: not directly applicable to this content. - Improve: N/A. ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: N/A (assessment of the source video, not a document); video itself has no visible captions confirmed in the transcript. - Improve: publisher should provide accurate closed captions and a full transcript (as used here) for screen-reader and non-native-speaker access. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: N/A — video platform, not an interactive document. #### Contrast and readability - Present: on-screen lexicon screenshots rely on visual reading of dense reference-book pages, which may be low-contrast or small-print in the original source images. - Improve: overlay high-contrast text call-outs of the specific gloss lines being discussed. #### Text resizing and reflow - Improve: ensure any on-screen lexicon images are zoomable/high-resolution rather than fixed low-res screenshots. #### Media and captions - Present: transcript exists (this document's source). - Improve: publish official captions and a downloadable transcript alongside the video; add audio description of the lexicon-page visuals for blind/low-vision users, since key evidence (dictionary entries) is shown, not just spoken. #### Forms and interactions - N/A — no interactive elements in this content. #### Standards reference - Primary WCAG 2.2 AA gap: media alternative (audio description) for visually-presented lexicon evidence (1.2.5); everything else is largely satisfied by the existence of a transcript. ## 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: draws on Greek, Hebrew, and cross-cultural (Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Assyrian) ancient contexts. - Improve: could contextualize how modern faith communities across different regions/cultures currently handle these same translation questions. #### Inclusive language - Present: technical/lexicographic terms are defined as introduced. - Improve: a glossary would help readers unfamiliar with terms like "metathesis" or "hapax legomenon." #### Neurodiversity support - Present: linear, chunked argument structure (passage 1, then passage 2). - Improve: clearer visual/verbal section markers within the video itself (e.g., on-screen chapter titles). #### Representation - Present: McClellan explicitly names the ethnic-othering dynamic in Ezekiel's Egyptian-body imagery and draws a direct line to "a lot of racist rhetoric that is used around the world" today — a notable moment of self-aware critical framing rather than passive repetition of the text's rhetoric. - Improve: could cite specific modern scholarship on ancient Near Eastern ethnic rhetoric by name for readers wanting to go deeper. #### Psychological safety - Present: McClellan gives a clear content-note-equivalent by framing the video's premise up front ("does the Bible contain profanity or vulgarities?"), so viewers aren't blindsided by graphic sexual/scatological content. - Improve: an explicit on-screen content warning for graphic sexual language, given the frankness of the Ezekiel 23 discussion. ## ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - **Inductive/lexical argument (skybala)**: McClellan grounds his claim in the standard scholarly lexicon (BDAG) itself, which already cites a scholar rendering the term "it's all crap" — he's building on, not inventing, an existing scholarly position. This is a well-supported inductive move from primary lexical evidence to a translation recommendation. - **Comparative-etymology argument (zirma)**: presenting both HALOT's and Klein's competing derivations transparently, rather than picking one and hiding the disagreement, is a strong, intellectually honest move that lets the viewer see genuine scholarly uncertainty. #### Fallacies - **Mild appeal to authority**: McClellan's strongest claim ("it's all shit" as the more accurate rendering) leans on Punch's single 2014 article as the main scholarly backing; the argument would be stronger with additional independent scholarly corroboration, since translation-register judgments are inherently somewhat subjective. Fix: note explicitly that this specific proposed rendering ("shit," beyond "crap") is McClellan's own extension of Punch's argument, not something Punch's article itself concludes. #### Tone of voice - Direct, informal-academic, mildly provocative by design (using the words under discussion rather than only describing them) — consistent with his stated thesis that euphemism itself is the problem being critiqued. ## 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Not applicable. This content is scholarly commentary on translation choices, not an account of interpersonal conflict or an accusation McClellan is responding to. No denial, attack-the-accuser, or victim/offender-reversal rhetoric is present in the transcript. ## 🎯 Conclusion McClellan makes a focused, well-evidenced case that both Paul (Philippians 3:8) and Ezekiel (23:19–21) used deliberately coarse, even obscene, language for rhetorical effect — and that most English translations soften this in ways that mute the authors' intended impact. The Philippians case rests on solid lexicographic ground reinforced by peer-reviewed translation-studies scholarship; the Ezekiel case is more etymologically contested but still supports McClellan's broader point that "domesticating" translations obscure both the text's rhetorical force and, in Ezekiel's case, an uncomfortable pattern of ethnic degradation worth naming rather than smoothing over. Practical next step for readers: when consulting a translation for serious study, cross-check flagged "difficult" terms against a scholarly lexicon (BDAG/HALOT) rather than assuming the English rendering carries the same charge as the original. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — When the Bible Gets Vulgar ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### Skybala in Phil 3:8 likely means "shit," not "rubbish" > [!quote] ID:rw_skybala01 > "To convey the crudity of the Greek, it's all crap." **Context & use**: - BDAG lexicon entry for σκύβαλον, cited ~3rd line from end of the Phil 3:8 entry. - Shows a scholarly source already pushing past "rubbish"/"garbage" toward vulgar register; McClellan extends this to "shit." **Tags**: #xref  #### Paul likely wouldn't say skybala in mixed company casually > [!quote] ID:rw_punch01 > "He likely would not have said it in mixed company unless he expected a reaction." **Context & use**: - From John David Punch's 2014 *The Bible Translator* article conclusion. - Supports the claim that the word choice was a deliberate rhetorical device, not habitual speech. **Tags**: #xref  #### Zirma's meaning splits between "phallus" and "ejaculation" > [!quote] ID:rw_zirma01 > "phallus... alternatively ejaculation from Zaram" **Context & use**: - HALOT entry for זרמה (zirma), Ezekiel 23:20, the word's only biblical occurrence. - Shows genuine lexicographic disagreement — Klein's dictionary sides with the "ejaculation/pour out" root and rejects the metathesis-to-phallus reading. **Tags**: #xref  #### Ezekiel's body imagery others Egyptians via male-obsession framing > [!quote] ID:rw_ezek_body01 > "this has less to do with actual female desire and more to do with male obsession with the phallus" **Context & use**: - McClellan's framing of Ezekiel 23:20, drawing on outside scholarship (cf. Liebermann). - Connects to a broader claim about ethnic othering through sexualized body rhetoric, explicitly compared to modern racist rhetoric. **Tags**: #xref #articleseed  ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### Euphemistic translation can erase a text's intended rhetorical force **Claim** (Courtney's voice): When a translator softens a source text's deliberately shocking register into polite language, readers lose access to the author's actual persuasive intent, not just their "tone." **Evidence pointer**: [[Literature note#Skybala in Phil 3:8 likely means "shit," not "rubbish"]] **Scope & conditions**: - Holds when: the source register itself is the argument (shock, insult, intimacy) rather than incidental to it. - Breaks when: register can't be reliably reconstructed (e.g., true hapax legomena with contested etymology, like *zirma*) — there, euphemism vs. accuracy is a judgment call, not a clear translation error. **Links**: - [[Translation domestication]] — because extends - [[Reader-response theory of translation]] — because applies-in Bible-translation studies  ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Track down full text of Punch (2014) "Skibala Happens" for direct citation in future writing — The Bible Translator journal #xref - [F2] Is there a similar "domestication" pattern in Song of Songs translations worth comparing? #articleseed ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Read John David Punch's "Skibala Happens" (2014) in full — source verification for future citation #things - [ ] Read Liebermann's *Exile Incorporated* chapter on Ezekiel 23 body-imagery — background for the ethnic-othering claim #things --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Does the Bible contain any profanity or [00:03] vulgarities? [00:04] Hey everybody, I'm Dan McClellan. I'm a [00:06] scholar of the Bible and religion, and I [00:08] want to talk about an example of each, [00:10] one from the New Testament, one from the [00:12] Hebrew Bible. And we're going to start [00:14] in Philippians 3:8. Here is this passage [00:17] from the updated edition of the New [00:19] Revised Standard Version. More than [00:21] that, I regard everything as lost [00:23] because of the surpassing value of [00:25] knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his [00:28] sake, I have suffered the loss of all [00:30] things and I regard them as rubbish in [00:32] order that I may gain Christ. And my [00:34] concern here is the Greek word that is [00:37] rendered rubbish. Here is the Greek and [00:39] I've highlighted in the red box skibala. [00:42] Now, if we look in the Greek-English [00:45] lexicon of the New Testament and other [00:47] early Christian literature, in the red [00:49] box we've got the entry for skibalon, [00:53] and the definition is useless or [00:55] undesirable material that is subject to [00:57] disposal. And the two glosses that are [01:00] provided here are refuse and garbage, [01:02] thus rubbish in the NRSVUE. But I want [01:06] to go down to the third to last line [01:08] where you see the bold Phil 3:8, and we [01:10] have this quote from a scholar who says, [01:12] "To convey the crudity of the Greek, [01:15] it's all crap." [01:17] And I think we could actually get even [01:19] more strong than that in our language. I [01:23] think you could say that Paul is [01:25] intending to use a term that we might [01:27] consider profane. I think you could [01:30] translate this, "It's all shit." [01:34] Now, there's actually a scholar who has [01:35] made this argument in The Bible [01:37] Translator, a journal that is for the [01:40] Bible Translation Industry. John David [01:42] Punch in this 2014 article, Skibala [01:45] Happens: Edification from a Four-Letter [01:47] Word in the Word of God. And I want to [01:49] read the abstract and then a paragraph [01:51] from the conclusion. "Saint Paul's use [01:53] of the term skibala in Philippians 3:8 [01:55] seems to contradict his prohibition [01:57] elsewhere of unwholesome speech. This [02:00] article compares debated etymologies of [02:02] the term, considers evidence of the [02:04] term's use in antiquity, and evaluates [02:05] the warrant for its usage in contrast [02:08] with other available terms. Lastly, it [02:11] offers a conclusion about the [02:12] appropriateness and inappropriateness of [02:14] similar uses of coarse language by those [02:16] who follow Paul in the Christian Church. [02:19] Now, from the conclusion, much like his [02:22] well-documented use of Greek [02:23] philosophers in Acts 17, Paul's use of [02:25] slang or obscenity may have awakened his [02:29] original readers to hear what they [02:30] otherwise might have missed. We too [02:32] might miss the benefit of what Paul is [02:34] saying if we domesticate this Pauline [02:36] text as some have warned. I do not think [02:38] the use of skibalon is indicative of [02:41] Paul's daily speech, but it does serve [02:43] to make his point in Philippians 3:8. He [02:45] likely would not have said it in mixed [02:46] company unless he expected a reaction. I [02:49] think Paul succeeded with his plans. His [02:51] words are still ringing in the ears of [02:53] those who continue to debate the [02:54] significance of what he said. Might they [02:57] ring a little louder if, as the evidence [03:00] above seems to suggest, translations [03:02] were to use the more accurate and more [03:04] forceful translation of crap or [03:08] for skibala. And so, the idea is that [03:11] Paul is intentionally using an obscenity [03:14] profanity in order to evoke a visceral [03:18] reaction from his audience. This is [03:20] unexpected. This is profane. This is [03:24] obscene. Pay attention to what's going [03:27] on here. So, this is an argument that [03:29] has been put forth for some time now, [03:32] but we don't really see it making its [03:33] way into a lot of Bible translations. I [03:36] think the strongest we get is crap, but [03:39] there's a spectrum between garbage, [03:41] crap, and [03:43] And I think if we want to convey [03:46] the full force of the rhetorical intent [03:50] of the author here, if we want it to [03:51] come across the way the author wanted it [03:53] to come across, I think we need to be [03:55] more toward the latter end of that [03:58] spectrum and maybe even render for [04:01] skibala. Now, I also want to talk about [04:05] an obscene vulgar passage in the book of [04:09] Ezekiel. And now, Ezekiel is full of a [04:11] lot of um quite coarse language, quite [04:15] uh [04:16] explicit language. In fact, there's a [04:19] substitution for the word Elohim that is [04:21] used by Ezekiel, gillulim, [04:24] which could be translated gods. [04:27] It's intended to sound at the end of the [04:30] word kind of like Elohim, like the word [04:32] for God or gods, but is using a root [04:35] word that refers to dung or crap or [04:38] So, we can see some profanity, [04:41] some obscenity in Ezekiel's language, [04:45] but I want to focus in on a couple of [04:47] verses in chapter 23, specifically [04:49] verses 19 through 21. [04:52] Here we have the NRSVUE's rendering, [04:54] "Yet she increased her prostitutions, [04:56] remembering the days of her youth when [04:57] she prostituted herself in the land of [05:00] Egypt and lusted after her paramours [05:02] there, whose members were like those of [05:04] donkeys and whose emission was like that [05:07] of stallions. As she longed for the [05:09] lewdness of your youth when the [05:10] Egyptians fondled your bosom and [05:13] caressed your young breasts." Now, the [05:15] NRSVUE is [05:18] kind of domesticating, [05:20] so to speak, the language a little bit [05:21] here. Here's the Hebrew and the words I [05:24] want to focus on here are in the red [05:26] box, the zirmatsusim [05:29] zirmatam. [05:30] And [05:32] zermat here is coming from the word [05:35] zirma, and I've highlighted the entry [05:37] for zirma in the Hebrew and Aramaic [05:39] Lexicon of the Old Testament, hallot. [05:42] The word only occurs this once in [05:44] Ezekiel 23:20, and the gloss provided [05:47] here is phallus based on the [05:49] understanding that this is actually [05:51] metathesis from Zamora, which would be a [05:55] word that means a branch and so [05:57] figuratively could refer to a phallus. [06:00] But notice parenthetically they say [06:02] alternatively ejaculation from Zaram and [06:06] if we go to the page above this one, we [06:09] see Zaram a verbal root meaning to [06:11] unload clouds, water accompanied by [06:15] thunder. [06:17] And then under that entry you see Zaram [06:19] the noun form, which we see here refers [06:22] to heavy rain, a cloudburst [06:25] accompanied by thunder. And if we go to [06:27] Klein's dictionary of classical Hebrew, [06:30] Klein's doesn't endorse the metathesis [06:34] understanding. Klein's just says, "No, [06:36] this is from Zaram as you see down at [06:38] the bottom to pour or pour out." And [06:42] Klein's renders here ejaculative of [06:44] horses for the specific phrase in [06:47] Ezekiel 23:20 and Klein's bases it on [06:51] the verbal root that he glosses pour [06:53] rain, be squeezed, be wrung out. And [06:56] then the noun form downpour, rainstorm. [06:59] And you can check out all the different [07:00] ways that occurs there if you would [07:02] like. But this is a very kind of [07:06] shocking explicit [07:08] uh use of this language to refer to the [07:11] Egyptians as particularly well endowed. [07:15] Uh this is using animal imagery actually [07:18] to represent the Egyptians and as some [07:21] scholars have pointed out this has less [07:23] to do with actual female desire and more [07:25] to do with male obsession with the [07:28] phallus. But uh if you'd like some [07:30] scholarship that's talking about how [07:32] this imagery is functioning [07:34] within Ezekiel's rhetoric, this is a [07:37] wonderful book Sexual and Marital [07:38] Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, [07:40] and Ezekiel. Uh lots of good stuff in [07:43] that book, as well as Rosanne [07:45] Lieberman's more recent Exile [07:47] Incorporated the Body in the book of [07:50] Ezekiel, which talks about what's going [07:53] on with the references to the bodies of [07:56] Mesopotamians, [07:57] of Assyrians, of Egyptians. Why are the [08:01] bodies of Egyptians represented in very [08:03] different ways than the bodies of [08:05] Mesopotamians and others? It's a [08:07] fascinating look at what is going on in [08:10] Ezekiel with the othering [08:13] of the ethnic groups beyond Israel and [08:18] the use of their bodies as a way to kind [08:21] of facilitate accomplish that othering, [08:23] which is something that still goes on in [08:25] a lot of ways today with a lot of racist [08:28] rhetoric that is used around the world. [08:30] But that's a more [08:31] vulgar [08:33] passage that we find in Ezekiel [08:36] representing Judah and the Judeans as [08:39] women who are longing for this time when [08:43] they were allied with Egypt and [08:45] comparing that to lusting after the [08:49] discharge, the emission, the ejaculate, [08:53] the load of the Egyptians and talking [08:56] about lusting after [08:58] their members, their falluses as the [09:01] falluses of horses. And again, Ezekiel [09:04] uses a lot of vulgarities. And there are [09:07] other passages in the Hebrew Bible that [09:09] deploy vulgar speech, that deploy what [09:12] we might refer to as an obscenity, as [09:15] profanity today. It's a lot more common [09:17] in the Hebrew Bible than in the New [09:18] Testament. But as we've seen with [09:20] Philippians 3:8, it is not absent from [09:22] the New Testament. And I think that [09:25] Bible translations do their readers a [09:27] disservice when they use euphemisms and [09:29] when they soften the language. It's [09:32] really just glossing over what the [09:34] authors were trying to do, what they [09:36] were trying to accomplish with their use [09:38] of vulgar and profane language. I think [09:41] we need to include it if we want readers [09:44] and listeners to actually experience [09:46] these texts the way they were intended [09:48] to be experienced by the authors and [09:51] editors. So, do the biblical authors use [09:53] profanity and vulgarity? Absolutely, [09:56] they do and I think we should allow this [09:59] to come through in translation. I think [10:01] this makes the Bible a lot more [10:03] interesting, a lot more engaging. I [10:05] think it makes for a lot more honest [10:07] translation and I think it just makes [10:10] the Bible do what it was intended to do [10:13] rather than do what we allow it to do. [10:16] And the fit for this video [10:17] has been Spawn.  📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/When the Bible Gets Vulgar.md|When the Bible Gets Vulgar by YouTube]] ## Highlights - provided here are refuse and garbage, thus rubbish in the NRSVUE. But I want to go down to the third to last line ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ky2p0tfay6g2s3ee25m00vz4)) - Note: Translation comparison: how modern versions (NRSVUE) soften deliberately coarse Hebrew/Greek terms. - Tags: atom/literature/h1 - company unless he expected a reaction. I think Paul succeeded with his plans. His words are still ringing in the ears of ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ky2p10nr9dqs4zsk8g3epy5g)) - Note: Rhetorical argument: Paul's deliberately shocking language was calculated for reaction/effect. - Tags: atom/literature/h2 - uh use of this language to refer to the Egyptians as particularly well endowed. Uh this is using animal imagery actually ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ky2p163hsp6kvj8v5re3k65g)) - Note: Example of the "vulgar" imagery in Ezekiel — animal metaphor that translations typically sanitize. - Tags: atom/literature/h3