Is σκύβαλον a Curse Word?

A common misunderstanding of the word σκύβαλον is that it is a curse word Paul uses in Philippians 3:8. It is supposedly equivalent to our "sh" word or the lesser offensive but still crude "cr" word. Hence, many Christians feel vindicated in their belief that they are free to use curse words as Paul did. I will attempt to show here that this is completely false and that the word is never used as a curse word within Second Temple Jewish literature, which is Paul's linguistic context.

I chalk this one up to one of the evangelical myths of our time, where something gets repeated enough that everyone just believes it without ever studying the issue.

As an example of this one might quote BDAG, the standard lexicon for NT Greek.

σκύβαλον, ου, τό useless or undesirable material that is subject to disposal, refuse, garbage (in var. senses, ‘excrement, manure, garbage, kitchen scraps’: Plut. et al.; PSI 184, 7; PRyl 149, 22; PFay 119, 7; Sir 27:4; Philo, Sacr. Abel. 109; 139; Jos., Bell. 5, 571; SibOr 7, 58.—τὰ σκύβαλα specif. of human excrement: Artem. 1, 67 p. 61, 23; 2, 14 p. 108, 21; Jos., Bell. 5, 571 [cp. Epict., Fgm. Stob. 19 ἀποσκυβαλίζω].—MDibelius, Hdb. on Phil 3:8) πάντα ἡγεῖσθαι σκύβαλα consider everything garbage/crud Phil 3:8 (cp. AcPl Ha 2, 23; Spicq. s.v. “to convey the crudity of the Greek … : ‘It’s all crap’.”).—DELG. TW. (BDAG 932).

BDAG somewhat captures this but in quoting Spicq includes the unfortunate misperception that so many evangelicals have adopted, which is that the word refers to some sort of curse word. Spicq gives no evidence for this whatsoever. Instead, the word has no crude connotations in Greek usage, so even though Spicq might mean "useless" by his use of the "cr" word, it is still a false equivalent because σκύβαλον has no such crude element to it as the "cr" word has in many contexts. The word σκύβαλον simply refers to things that are not useful and one would have no issues saying it in mixed company. 

In Sacrifices, Philo uses the word is paralleled with φορῠτός, which is whatever is left over from the winnowing process, i.e., chaff blown in the wind.

But the first fruits are the holy motions of each in accordance with virtue; on which account they have been compared to a threshing-floor. As, therefore, on a threshing-floor there is wheat and barley, and as many more of such things as are capable of being separated by themselves, and husks and chaff, and whatever other refuse [φορῠτός] is dissipated and scattered in different directions, so too, with us, there are some things which are excellent and useful, and which afford real nourishment, by means of which a good life is brought to perfection; all which things we should attribute to God. But there are other things which are not divine, which we must leave like refuse [σκύβαλα] to the race of mankind; but from these some portions must be taken away, (Charles Duke Yonge with Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995], 107–108).

In On Dreams (2.21-22), he uses the word similarly of what is discarded because it is seen as poor quality or non-nutritious.

But when I hear Jacob relating his dream I marvel at his having fancied that he was binding up the sheaves, and not reaping the corn; for the one is the task of the lower classes and of servants, but the other is the occupation of the employers, and of men more skilled in agriculture. For to be able to distinguish what is necessary from what is mischievous [σκύβαλον], and what is nutritious from what is not so, and what is genuine from what is spurious, and useful fruit from a worthless root, not only in reference to those things which the land bears, but also in those which the intellect bears, is the work of most perfect virtue. (Ibid., 389).

Likewise, as he does in Sacrifices, in On the Virtues, he uses the word to contrast the chaff with wheat.

For it is he who, before the sowing was performed, cut the furrows through the deep-soiled plain, and prepared the field for the operations of heaven and for the labours of the husbandman; for the latter, so that he might sow it at a seasonable time, and for the other, that the deep bosom of the earth might receive its bounty displayed in gentle showers, and in consequence might treasure up rich nutriment for the seed and dispense it to it gradually until it should swell into the full ear and bring its annual fruit to perfection. And, after the corn is brought to perfection, then again the ox is necessary for another service, namely, for the purification of the sheaves, and the separation of the chaff [σκυβάλων] from the genuine useful grain. (Ibid., 654).

He uses it also in Sacrifices (138-139) to refer to what is discarded in burnt offering sacrifices.

Therefore the lawgiver judging a place which was capable of receiving both these opposite qualities, namely, what is honourable, and what is disgraceful, and which was adapted to each, and distributed equal honour to both, to be quite a much impure as holy, removed it from the altar of God. For what is disgraceful is profane, and what is profane is by all means unholy; and this is why the dominant part is kept away from sacrifices, but if it is subjected to examination, then, when all its parts have been purified, it will be consecrated as a burnt offering, free from all stain, and from all pollution. For this is the law respecting whole burnt offerings, that with the exception of the refuse [σκυβάλων, i.e., everything that belongs to the category of things to be discarded] of the food, and of the skin which are tokens of the weakness of the body and not of wickedness, nothing else should be left to the creature, but that all the other parts which exhibit the soul perfect in all its parts, should be presented as a whole burnt offering to God. (Ibid., 111).

In the law, this refers to anything discarded in a burnt sacrifice, including the feathers and crop of a bird (Lev 1:16). 

Finally, in On Providence, he uses it to refer to debris and burning garbage heaps in which critters, like reptiles, live. 

. . . for it is seen that these creatures flee out of the cities into the fields and into desert places, to avoid man as their master. Not but what, if this is true, there is a certain sense and principle in it; for rubbish [φορῠτός]is heaped up in recesses: and quantities of sweepings [σκυβάλων--Note: Yonge's translation here is a bit odd. The Greek only contains one phrase but Yonge seems to translate two trying to explain σκυβάλων as both sweepings and refuse], and refuse, and such things, are what venomous reptiles love to lurk in, besides the fact that their smell has an attractive power over them. (Ibid., 755).

The one use in the LXX is found in Sirach 27:4, where it refers to the extra/remaining particles that fall out of a sieve when shaken. 

When a sieve is shaken, the useless material appears; so do a person’s faults when he speaks. 

The word appears only twice in the Pseudepigrapha, both in the Sibylline Oracles (7.55-59 and 11.185).

Prophesy, Colophon, a great terrible fire hangs over you. Ill-wedded Thessaly, the earth will no longer look upon you, even as ashes, but you will be sailing alone, a refugee from the mainland. Thus, O devastated one, you will be the sorrowful leftovers of war, O one who falls to dogs and rivers and swords.

You will be the mournful leftovers of a terrifying war among all the tribes.

In Wars of the Jews 5.571, Josephus uses it only one time to refer to the unused food particles left over in both human and animal dung that the Jews resorted to eating during the starvation of the Roman siege on Jerusalem.

 . . . as also that a medimnus of wheat was sold for a talent; and that when, a while afterward, it was not possible to gather herbs, by reason the city was all walled about, some persons were driven to that terrible distress as to search the common sewers and old dung hills [ὄνθος] of cattle, and to eat the dung [σκύβαλον] which they got there; and what they of old could not endure so much as to see they now used for food. (Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987], 726).

Beside the one NT use of the word in Philippians 3:8, the quotations above make up the only uses of the word in Second Temple Jewish literature. The word clearly refers to that which is left over/useless/unnecessary/unusable. There is absolutely no crude connotation made by the word. It is simply not a curse word.