Translating Sexual and Scatological Language in Modern Bibles

Translating the Bible into contemporary language is difficult, not least when it comes to sexually explicit or crude content. Recent translations, such as Denmark’s Bibelen 2020, lay bare these problems and have provoked discussions about linguistic propriety and cultural expectations.

See also “A Litany of Excruciatingly Difficult Choices: The Making of Bibelen 2020.”

By Martin Ehrensvärd
Associate Professor
Faculty of Theology
University of Copenhagen
July 2025

Traditional Bible translations emphasize literalness, preserving textual ambiguity and the reverence associated with the word of God. However, contemporary translations, including the Danish Bibelen 2020, often prioritize accessibility and clarity, sometimes altering traditional terminology to better resonate with modern readers. Translators acknowledge how hard it is to balance readability with respect for the original text’s cultural and historical nuances. Should you use the literal “way/manner of women” in Genesis 18:11 and 31:35, etc., or should you go with the more natural sounding “menstruation”? The latter is slowly becoming more common in modern translations.

            I was one of the translators and editors of Bibelen 2020 where the ambition was to translate into good, contemporary Danish without recourse to traditional Bible language. So, we tried to avoid words like e.g. “sin,” which these days (in Denmark, anyway) is connected primarily with sex or delicious foods. Instead, we would use words and expressions that we felt were more natural in Danish – not using slang, but endeavoring to make the Bible sound like the exceedingly good literature that it is: For “sin” we would use variations of “what God does not want” or “going against God’s will/law,” etc. We also aimed for the text to have a similar impact upon hearing it now as it might have had back then. Thus, we did not tone down the condemning words about, for example, women in general or about men having sex with men.

            Now, the sexual language in the biblical texts complicated our efforts because of the absence of universally acceptable contemporary terminology. In the Bibelen 2020 translation team we realized that sexual language is highly context-dependent, influenced by demographic factors such as age and cultural background. Danish slang such as bolle (“to have sex”) is outdated, carrying 1970s connotations inappropriate for a contemporary translation. And no universally appropriate term exists to bridge generational and cultural divides. This dilemma underscores a linguistic and cultural gap: We have no common language for sex.

            The Hebrew Bible frequently uses titillating or disgusting sexual imagery to convey prophetic messages, notably in passages such as Ezekiel 16 and 23. Here, sexual metaphors explicitly criticize Samaria and Jerusalem’s infidelity. For instance, Ezekiel’s metaphor involving donkey and stallion genitalia and their ejaculates to ridicule Judah’s political alliances is intentionally shocking and provocative. Historically, translations like the Septuagint, Vulgate, and King James Version retained these zoological obscenities unaltered. In contrast, modern versions, including Bibelen 2020, often opt for softer alternatives to maintain respectability in public readings, thereby diluting the original’s provocative force.

            Modern discomfort with biblical explicitness partly results from viewing scripture through lenses shaped by Victorian prudery and missionary paternalism. This sanitizing trend reflects societal shifts towards reverential treatment of sacred texts, more or less inadvertently diminishing their original social and political critiques. Translators thus face a dilemma: whether to preserve the shock value and prophetic critique inherent in explicit passages or to soften the language to accommodate contemporary sensibilities.

            Biblical texts themselves employ euphemisms to address sensitive topics – “Adam knew Eve and she became pregnant” – a tradition carried forward by ancient Jewish scribes and translators. “Hand” or “feet” sometimes euphemistically refer to male genitals, and even strong terms like shagal (violent intercourse, rape – possibly even anal rape) were historically softened by the early rabbis who prohibited their public reading, despite their presence in the text. Such practices provide historical justification for the continued use of euphemism and polite language in modern translations, balancing fidelity to original texts with contemporary cultural expectations.

            Decisions to euphemize explicit language inevitably influence theological interpretations and reader perceptions. While euphemisms ensure texts remain acceptable for broader audiences, they dilute the powerful and confrontational messages intended by original authors. As translators of Bibelen 2020, we acknowledged this, weighing readability against textual potency. The outcome is a translation attempting to navigate between preserving the shock of prophetic critique and meeting modern expectations for respectful language.

            Terms such as shagal, explicitly denoting violent sexual acts, or the phrase “one who pisses against the wall,” exemplify biblical Hebrew’s blunt approach to bodily functions. Historically, translations varied widely in their responses: early Greek versions retained bluntness, while Latin translations like Jerome’s Vulgate oscillated between precision and euphemism. Medieval translations continued this balancing act, with figures like Martin Luther using explicit language, softened in subsequent editions. One can check this for themself, comparing a facsimile of the original of 1 Samuel 25:22 with digital versions of the – purportedly – same 1545 translation. One finds that Luther’s original “einen der an die wand piſſet” (“one who pisses against the wall”) was changed to “einen, der männlich ist” (“one male”).

            Over a span of a few years, in the editorial committee we would keep coming back to the question of dirty words. If we were to remain true to our charter, we would have to use crude words like “cock” and “fuck,” perhaps even “cunt.” But the Danish Bible Society in the end felt that Denmark was not ready for a “fucking” Bible. This was probably a correct call. After all, these texts have been taken out of their ancient context and have been put in a context that requires some solemnity. So, instead of “cock,” we used “member.” We did, however, use the Danish equivalent of “cum,” so Ezekiel 23:20–21 sounds like this in Danish:

Hun længtes efter sine unge egyptiske elskere, som havde lem så store som æslers, som kunne sprøjte som heste.

My literal back-translation of this passage into English:

She longed for her young Egyptian lovers who had members as large as donkeys, who could cum like horses.

            We also use the Danish word for “whore,” i.e. luder, 17 times, rather than “prostitute.” “Whore” gives the right connotations when used in pejorative contexts. In other, more neutral contexts, “prostitute” is the more correct rendering, and we use this term 45 times. Note that we did not use “sex worker” so as to avoid using too modern of a term.

            In 2 Kings 18:27//Isaiah 36:12, sadly, we had to use “urine” and “excrement” rather than “piss” and “shit.” This in my opinion was an unfortunate compromise, as the context is crude: The Assyrian commander threatens Jerusalemites that soon they will be eating their own shit and drinking their own piss, unless they surrender.

            Instead of the more correct “fucking,” the women in Ezekiel are now “whoring around,” which sounds decidedly less crude in Danish, not least since this is the word traditionally used for adultery in Danish Bible translations. Again, I think this was a reasonable choice, given how this text is to be read in solemn contexts. It is also a pity.

            As for a possible, crude reference to female genitalia in Judges 5:30, we certainly toned down that one, just like every Bible translation that I am aware of. The context is one of soldiers dividing spoils. Here is NET Bible’s translation:

No doubt they are gathering and dividing the plunder—

a girl or two for each man to rape!

Sisera is grabbing up colorful cloth,

he is grabbing up colorful embroidered cloth,

two pieces of colorful embroidered cloth,

for the neck of the plunderer!

Bibelen 2020 has “a lady or two for each man,” and we did not add the interpretative “to rape.” The word in question means “womb,” and according to Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament s.v. רַחֲמָה, in Judges 5:30 it means:

…one or two laps, a euphemism for vaginas, meaning one or two women as spoils of war, bed-mates, in vulgar conversation of soldiers.

Roland Boer, in an interesting article about Allen Edwardes (author of a work titled Erotica Judaica), does not mince his words:

Within the semantic cluster of rhm we find not only “womb” but also “love and compassion” (especially in the verbal and dual forms), as well as “the vulture that devours,” “two millstones that grind together” (in a hand-mill), and of course “cunt.” The telltale signal of vagina comes in Judg 5:30, where raham rahamatayim may well be soldier-talk for either a threesome (one or two cunts [Gray 1967, 293]) or for the two lips of the vagina itself (one or two flaps). In this light the previous senses, especially the dual forms as well as the senses of millstones, vulture, and “love” gain a whole new meaning. (“Orientalist Camp: The Case of Allen Edwardes,” Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 2, no. 1 [2012]: 133–51 [148])

See also the NET Bible (n. 78): “The Hebrew noun translated ‘girl’ means literally ‘womb’ (BDB 933 s.v. I. רַחַם), but in this context may refer by extension to the female genitalia.”

            One passage that is translated unusually daringly in some Danish Bibles, and (to my knowledge) not in other major Bible translations, is Ruth 3:4. Many translations have Ruth uncover Boaz’s legs or feet, such as in, for example, the NET Bible:

When he gets ready to go to sleep, take careful notice of the place where he lies down. Then go, uncover his legs, and lie down beside him. He will tell you what you should do.

The Hebrew behind the phrase “uncover (his legs/feet/genitals)” is ambiguous and can also mean “take off your clothes (by his feet).” Both the current Danish authorized version (from 1992) and Bibelen 2020 take the passage to mean that Ruth is to undress.

            Note that Song of Songs brims with erotic imagery, for example 5:4, translated thusly in the NET Bible:

My lover thrust his hand through the hole,

and my feelings were stirred for him.

See the point above of how “hand” is ambiguous, and see also the note in the NET Bible (n. 10) which says:

Possibly a euphemism (double entendre). The term יָד (yad, “hand”) normally refers simply to the physical hand (HALOT 386 s.v. I יָד 1; BDB 388 s.v. יָד 1). There are, however, at least three occasions when יָד refers to tall stone pillars (translated “monument” or “pillar”), such as those used in Canaanite fertility-cults in the form of phallic representations (1 Sam 15:12; 2 Sam 18:18; Isa 56:5). It is clearly used as a euphemism for the male copulative organ in Isa 57:8, 10. It is now an established fact that yad is sometimes used as a euphemism for the male sexual organ in Ugaritic literature (e.g., text no. 52:33-35) (UT 1072). The noun יָד is also used in the Qumran literature in this sense in a list of penalties for indecent exposure (Manual of Discipline 7:12-15). Thus, several scholars suggest that [sic] a subtle double entendre in 5:4-6. The imagery of the man thrusting his “hand” through the “hole” in the door, and the Beloved “opening” to her lover, with her fingers dripped with “myrrh” on the “handles of the lock,” might have a double reference to the literal attempt to gain entry to her bedroom and his desire to make love to her.

Song of Songs, however, usually is not too difficult for a Bible translator concerned with modesty to handle, because its erotic imagery is given in the form of double entendre and thus without problems it can be translated literally. In that way, it is very different from prophetic passages, meant to shock, or passages quoting harsh talk by soldiers.

            So, obscenity in scripture poses an excruciating choice: convey it and risk offence, or conceal it, which is clear misrepresentation. 2300 years of translations testify that neither route is neutral. My own practice, after wrestling with donkey genitals and wall‑pissers, is to preserve explicitness where it serves a rhetorical function, while using notes, if possible, to signal sensitivity. Other translators will strike the balance differently, but none should pretend the decision is merely linguistic.

            The Bible is a book about bodies – desired, defiled, threatened, and redeemed. To erase its dirtiest words is to betray that incarnational earthiness. Perhaps the most pertinent question we can ask is not “How clean can we make God’s word?” but rather “Are we willing to hear God speak through words we would not let our children say at the dinner table?”