jackal / fox

In biblical times and even today there are three species of fox found in Israel and one type of jackal. An additional type of fox was found in Egypt. In the Bible the Hebrew word shu‘al and its Greek equivalent alōpēx refer to any of these animals. These are members of the same animal family which includes the wolf and the dog. The word “jackal” was borrowed from the Arabic jakal which is from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word shu‘al. In the days of the King James Version the word “jackal” had not yet been introduced into the English language and so in that version “fox” is used throughout for shu‘al.

Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible

Modern scholars are almost unanimous in agreeing that the word ’iyim (plural of ’iy) is derived from a root meaning “to howl” and that it refers to howling jackals in particular. The word usually occurs in conjunction with the word tsiyim (“hyenas”) which is derived from a root meaning “to wail”. The pair together could justifiably be interpreted as “wild animals wailing and howling.” This is usually taken to refer to hyenas and jackals.

The context will usually indicate which animal is being referred to in a particular passage. It is possible that the fox was known as the small shu‘al and the jackal as the large one.

In early Hebrew the plural form tanin from tan meant a type of snake. This usage is found in Exodus 7:9 et al. The same word was the name of a mythical monster or sea serpent. This usage occurs in Genesis 1:21 et al. However, it is well accepted now that, in later Hebrew, tan is a poetic name for the jackal. It derives from a stem meaning to recite, or lament. In the passages where snakes or the monster tanin is referred to the context usually indicates that it cannot refer to jackals.

Fox: All foxes look like small, long-haired dogs with pointed noses. The Red Fox Vulpes vulpes (also Vulpes flavescens) is now very common all over Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, China, Japan, North America, and Australasia, having been introduced into the latter two continents to be hunted on horseback with packs of dogs. The red fox is a smallish animal, about 1 meter (3 feet) from nose to tip of the tail. It is usually reddish with white underparts and a bushy tail. Red foxes feed mainly on mice and rats but also eat chickens, game birds, and fallen fruit. They may occasionally eat carrion (dead animals), but are not scavengers in the usual sense of the word.

The Desert Fox Vulpes ruppelli and the Egyptian Fox Vulpes nilotica are slightly smaller and yellowish brown, but they are otherwise very similar to the red fox. The Fennec Vulpes zerda is a very small fox with large ears. It is now found in the Middle East and Egypt and was probably found in Israel also in earlier times. It feeds on insects and mice.

Foxes live in pairs, singly or in small family groups when they have young. During the day they live in holes in the ground usually dug by some other animal and come out at night to feed. When chased by dogs they are very clever at escaping, often doubling back on their tracks and then jumping sideways and heading in a new direction, thus confusing the scent trail. They also run up streams and thus avoid laying a scent trail altogether.

Red fox, Wikimedia Commons

Jackal: The jackal found in Israel is the Golden or Oriental Jackal Canis aureus. It is also sometimes referred to as the Indian jackal. This animal is larger than the fox. It is yellowish brown with black tips to the long fur on its back.

Jackals eat almost anything and are great opportunists moving very fast with clever tactics when they have to. They have been known to steal bread from people’s houses and baby animals even from dangerous wild pigs. They are scavengers, eating household rubbish as well as carrion, especially the remains of carcasses killed by lions, but they also eat beetles and birds’ eggs and kill small mammals game birds and domestic chickens and ducks.

In some of the literature there is reference to the fact that jackals live in packs. This is not strictly correct. They live in pairs or small family groups but they may associate temporarily in larger groups when many pairs are attracted to the same burrows, carrion, refuse dumps, or potential prey. In these larger temporary groups they may cooperate and act together like a pack.

Jackals live in burrows made by other animals or in abandoned human houses or shelters and emerge to feed at night. They yap, howl, and wail at great length at the entrance to their burrow, especially on moonlit nights, with one pair triggering a response from neighboring pairs.

Both foxes and jackals are extremely intelligent animals, and their quick-witted, crafty opportunism is legendary in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The fables of Aesop, a North African philosopher and storyteller, which feature the crafty fox, date from about the time of Daniel. The fox also figures in Greek and Roman fables. Similar fables about opportunistic jackals have been widespread in Africa and the Middle East for centuries.

In ancient Arabic literature and in the Talmud and Midrash the word “lion” stands for a truly great and powerful person. In contrast “jackal” is used to designate an insignificant but self-important person. Since this figurative usage of “lion” (or “lioness”) is also common in the Bible there is a strong probability that the term “jackal” or “fox” used as a metaphor in the Bible for a person carries the connotation of self-important insignificance.

However the main symbolism associated with the jackal in the Bible is related to its habit of living among ruins and feeding on carcasses. To say that a certain place would become the dwelling place of jackals meant that the place would become deserted and lie in ruins, as the result of war. The jackal was thus a symbol of death and desolation as well as insignificance and opportunistic craftiness.

In areas where jackals are known, but not foxes, the word for jackal can be used for both. Similarly, if foxes are known but not jackals, the one word will suffice. In areas where neither foxes nor jackals are found, there may be related animals such as the Coyote Canis latrans or various types of wild dog or small wolf. In those few areas where even these are not found, one may use an expression such as “wild dog” or a transliteration.

Golden jackal, Wikimedia Commons

Isaiah 13:21f.: In this verse there are four words for howling wild animals that inhabit deserted buildings: tsiyim, ’ochim, ’iyim, tanim . All except tsiyim probably mean “jackal”; however, to maintain the parallelism of the Hebrew poem, it is better to translate both tsiyim and ’iyim as “hyenas”. These verses will then be translated as:
Wailing hyenas will settle there,
Howling jackals will fill their houses.

Hyenas will wail in their fortresses,
And jackals howl in their luxurious palaces.

The word ’ochim occurs only here in the Bible. It is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “to howl”. “Owls” is a possibility, but “jackals” fits the context better, as it then preserves the parallelism of “jackals” and “hyenas”.

Judges 15:4: Since jackals are easier to trap because they are more easily attracted to baits of meat, most modern translations interpret shu‘al as jackal in this passage.

Nehemiah 4:3: Since the fox is smaller and lighter than the jackal, fox is the preferred interpretation here. The meaning is thus something like “Even if a little fox were to climb on these walls they would collapse.” Where foxes or jackals are not known, an expression for a small dog could be used in this context.

Psalms 63:10: Since the reference is to the enemy soldiers dying in battle and becoming carrion (that is, lying unburied), the interpretation of shu‘al should be “jackals”.

Song of Songs 2:15: This verse is very difficult to interpret. While foxes may occasionally eat fallen grapes, or grapes low down on a vine, they cannot accurately be described as “ruiners of vineyards”. It seems more likely that what is in focus is the fact that for Israelites jackals symbolize ruin.

Jeremiah 51:34 : Although many English versions translate tan in this verse as “dragon” or “serpent”, it seems likely that “jackal” is better; jackals often swallow their food in a great hurry without chewing properly, and then vomit it later when they are under cover and eat it a second time more slowly.

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

See fox, fox (Herod), and jackal.

Translation commentary on Exod 19:4

These are Yahweh’s words that Moses is to speak to the Israelites. You have seen, literally “You [plural], you saw,” is emphatic, so Revised English Bible has “You yourselves have seen” (so also New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Translator’s Old Testament). What I did to the Egyptians means “What I, the LORD did” (Good News Translation). In some languages the appositional construction, “I, the LORD,” will be unnatural style. In such cases one may say, for example, “What [or, The things that] I who am Yahweh did.” And how I bore you on eagle’s wings is literally “and I lifted you up on wings of eagles.” This is a metaphor that Good News Translation changes to a simile, “and how I carried you as an eagle carries her young on her wings.”

The word for eagle includes several varieties of large birds of prey, known for their powerful wings and swift flight. This figure of speech is based on a poetic picture of how the eagle teaches its offspring to fly, namely, that it will catch them on its wings when they fall. Such an activity has never been seen in real life, and so it is best to deal with this as a poetic figure created in order to picture God’s care for his people. (See Deut 32.11 for a more complete description of this metaphor.) In areas where eagles are not known, one may substitute another large bird of prey; but it should be one that can be pictured as catching its babies on its wings. If such a bird is not available, one may say something like “as a huge bird named ‘eagle’ carries….” It will also be helpful to include an illustration of an eagle and a note in the Glossary. And brought you to myself suggests that Yahweh means, as Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version express it, “how I brought you here to me,” that is, to this mountain.

Quoted with permission from Osborn, Noel D. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Exodus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1999. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

 

Exodus 19:4: The expression “I carried you on eagles’ wings” (NIV) involves a metaphor that has been taken literally by readers in many languages. However, the text does not mean that eagles carried the Israelites to Sinai. Rather the metaphor refers to God’s protection, speed, and power and means “I brought you here as if I had been a flying eagle carrying you.”

Some commentaries have quoted an often repeated but unsubstantiated statement to the effect that the Israelites believed that eagles carry their young on their wings. Some commentaries have even claimed that naturalists have actually seen eagles doing this. There is no independent evidence for this belief apart from two biblical passages of which this is one, and none of the naturalists who have specialized in the observation of eagles has ever reported this kind of behavior. These commentaries have actually misinterpreted the Hebrew idiom “on wings,” which does not mean “on the upper surface of the wings” but rather “in flight.”

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

Translation commentary on Leviticus 11:22

In some languages it may be more appropriate to begin this verse with something like “Therefore you may eat…” or “Here, then, are the ones you may eat:….” The repetition of the phrase according to its kind, as in verses 13-19, may be dropped or left implicit. Although the Hebrew lists four different kinds of insects here, Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have reduced this to three.

The problem is dealt with in New Jerusalem Bible by borrowing certain Hebrew terms: “the various kinds of solham locust, hargol locust and hagab locust.” But this is not a satisfactory solution in a common language translation. An attempt should be made to find well-known words that correspond more or less to the biblical ideas. If the correspondence is not exact, an explanation may be offered in a footnote. In languages where there are very few words for this type of insect, a more general statement like “the various kinds of crickets and grasshoppers” may be required. It may even be necessary in some languages to say simply “all kinds of grasshoppers,” but this is not advised unless it is impossible to do otherwise.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This text contains four clean insects. The two Hebrew words sol‘am and chargol occur only here, so it is very difficult to be precise about their meaning. The suggestions, therefore, have to be very tentative.

From the general rule given in this verse about the characteristics of clean insects, we can deduce that all four of the insects have specialized legs for hopping. This would suggest that locusts (’arbeh), grasshoppers (chagav), and crickets (probably chargol) would be included in the list, as various species of these three insects are commonly eaten in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia. Since a fourth name occurs in the list, New International Version translates sol‘am as “katydid”, while New American Bible translates chargol as “katydids” and sol‘am as “grasshoppers”. The katydid is a nocturnal hopping insect similar to a grasshopper in many respects, but usually with green leaf-shaped wings. However, katydids are usually solitary creatures, and not very easy to collect, and thus they are not commonly a food source.

All that can be said with certainty about the list of clean insects is that it most probably contains locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets. It is probably safest to translate the list as “all kinds of locusts, all kinds of grasshoppers, and all kinds of crickets,” and add this footnote: “In Hebrew there are four insects in the list. Some scholars suggest that these are four different types of locust.”

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

Translation commentary on Deuteronomy 32:11

Like an eagle that stirs up its nest: of the four lines in this verse, the meaning of this line is the most difficult to determine. New Revised Standard Version is the same as Revised Standard Version; other renderings are New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “Like an eagle who rouses his nestlings,” BÍBLIA para todos Edição Comum “like an eagle keeping watch over its young who are in the nest,” New Jerusalem Bible “Like an eagle watching its nest,” Revised English Bible “As an eagle watches over its young.” The Hebrew verb usually means to “disturb” or “stir up”; but the meaning “watch” found in the Septuagint is defended by some and is the meaning given by Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, and it is an alternative rendering given in the Good News Translation footnote. This meaning is the one recommended here. So we may also say something like “Yahweh is like an eagle watching over its young in the nest.”

An eagle: in cultures where eagles are unknown, some other large bird of prey may be used.

That flutters over its young: the verb in this line is the same one used in Gen 1.2 of the spirit (or, wind) of God hovering over the abyss. Good News Translation “teaching its young to fly” (also Contemporary English Version) follows theVulgate, provocans ad volandum, “enticing [its young] to fly.” This, however, is most unlikely, and it is recommended that the Revised Standard Version rendering be followed.

Spreading out its wings, catching them: Revised Standard Version and other translations take this line and the next one to apply to the eagle and its young. But a number of commentaries and translations take this line and the next one to apply to Yahweh and his people, not to the eagle and its young. So New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “so did he spread his wings and take them” (also Osty-Trinquet, Pléiade).

The last line, bearing them on its pinions, therefore refers also to God, not to the eagle. So God “carries them on his wings”; the Hebrew word for “wings” here is different from the one used in the previous line. For the figure of God doing this for his people, see Exo 19.4.

A possible alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The LORD is like an eagle guarding its nest,
and hovering over its young.
The LORD is always ready to spread his wings
and catch his people when they are falling.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Deuteronomy. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2000. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

 

There are a number of problems in verse 11. In the Hebrew poem verses 10 and 11 are closely linked, so that the main thought of verse 10 is continued in verse 11. In verse 10 the last three verbs are “shielded or, encircled, cared for, guarded.” In this context the translation of verse 11 as “stirs up its nest” (RSV, NIV) is not likely. “Watches over its nest” (NEB, JB, REB) is a better exegesis, but this verb is often translated elsewhere as encourage so “encourages its nestlings” is entirely possible (see NAB).

All of the English versions misrepresent how an eagle teaches its young to fly, probably because they accept the hypothetical myth mentioned above, namely that eagles carry their young on their wings.

What actually happens is that young eagles are shown by their parents how to set their wings by spreading them when the wind blows, while holding on to the side of the nest. Eventually when the young eagles have mastered this, they let go and ride the wind out of the nest. At this stage the parent eagles are usually nearby, circling overhead.
The Hebrew text, if the myth hypothesis is rejected, is actually open to a very different interpretation that is in accordance with what really happens. Th
is interpretation has some scholarly support, but has not yet been mentioned in any commentary or translation. It involves interpreting the last verb in verse 11 as meaning “lifts himself up” rather than “is lifted up.” The following model gives this interpretation:

10 He found him in a desert land,
in a barren howling waste.
He circled around him, cared for him,
guarded him like the apple of his eye.
11 Like an eagle encouraging its nestling,
hovering over its offspring,
spreading its wings, instructing him,
until he rises up on his strong wings,
12 Yahweh alone guided Israel,
with no foreign god at his side.

In verse 11 there are two words for “wing”, the second of which is a poetic word derived from a Hebrew root meaning “mighty”.

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

Translation commentary on Job 24:20

The pattern of this verse is unusual. Instead of the usual two lines of equal length, which are normal in Job, the first half of the Hebrew text has three sentences of two words each. The second half consists of a line of the normal length. The clue to the pattern of parallelism in the first half of the verse consists of the balancing of forget and no longer remembered. But this leaves the middle section of the first part disconnected from the other two. So in order to make two lines of average length in the first half of the verse, in place of the three short lines, Revised Standard Version distributes the three lines into two.

The squares of the town forget them: the Revised Standard Version footnote indicates that the Hebrew is obscure. The Hebrew has “the womb forgets him,” and Revised Standard Version has changed the word for “womb” and the following word to get The squares of the town, meaning “the centers of the towns.” This change does not seem necessary. Dhorme keeps the Hebrew and translates “The womb which has formed him forgets him,” which Good News Translation translates more naturally as “Not even his mother remembers him now.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project supports this. In some languages it will be more meaningful to express “mother” as “the one who gave birth to him.”

Their name is no longer remembered is literally “the worm sucks on him and he is not remembered.” Aside from Exodus 16.24 and Job 25.6, the word rendered “worm” in Hebrew is always used with dead or decaying bodies, so Good News Translation has “he is eaten by worms…,” the reason being that he is dead. Their name is a change based on the word for “worm” and is preferred by Dhorme. Revised Standard Version has made one line of what can also be read as two lines in the Hebrew. Good News Translation does not repeat no longer remembered. This line may be translated without any change, as suggested by Good News Translation and others; for example, “worms eat his corpse” or “his dead body is eaten by worms (maggots).”

So wickedness is broken like a tree: this line is a summary statement of the preceding thoughts. Revised Standard Version makes no textual changes. Good News Translation takes wickedness to be the same subject as in the two preceding lines. Broken like a tree is at best a vague simile; only certain kinds of trees can be described as broken. Therefore Good News Translation translates more meaningfully “destroyed like a fallen tree.” This line may also be expressed “he is destroyed like a tree that is cut down,” or “like a tree he is cut down,” or “they destroy him in the same way as they cut down a tree and destroy it.”

In Revised Standard Version verse 20 concludes Job’s quoting the friends. Verses 21-25 in Revised Standard Version are Job’s own words.

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, Wiliam. A Handbook on Job. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

In Job 24:20 the Masoretic Text is very obscure and difficult to understand. It contains a reference to rimah. Revised Standard Version supports a correction of the Hebrew text, changing rimah “maggot” to shemo “his name”. However, many commentators and most modern English versions interpret the verse without making this change and have wording similar to:

The womb [that is, his mother] forgets him,
And worms feast on him [or, suck him dry].
Thus are evil men forgotten,
like broken trees.

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

Translation commentary on Daniel 4:33

Immediately: literally “At that moment.” Compare “At that very moment” (Revised English Bible), “Instantly” (Moffatt), “There and then” (New Jerusalem Bible), “At once” (New American Bible), and “At that same instant” (Bible en français courant).

The word was fulfilled: the word is singular in form but has a collective meaning and should therefore be translated as a plural in many languages. Revised English Bible translates “this judgement came upon Nebuchadnezzar.” Another way of saying this may be “what had been predicted actually happened.”

He was driven from among men: see verse 25.

Till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers: the figurative language used here may be more naturally translated by a different image or by an emphatic nonfigurative statement such as “very, very long” or “remarkably lengthy.” However, some languages may natural similes that would be appropriate to describe the length or fullness of a person’s hair. (See below)

His nails were like birds’ claws: it may be important in some instances to say in what way the king’s nails resembled the claws of birds. As in the case of the hair, the focus is probably on their length rather than the sharpness or danger they may be to others.

It may be noted that New English Bible reads “until his hair grew long like goat’s hair and his nails like eagles’ talons.” This, however, is not a rendering of the Aramaic but of a conjecture of what the original text might have been, and it has been rejected by Revised English Bible. Translators are therefore advised to stay with the traditional reading reflected in Revised English Bible and most other versions.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

 

The reference here to Nebuchadnezzar’s hair growing “as long as an eagle’s feathers” may seem a strange one, since the eagles indigenous to the land of Israel have rather neat-looking heads, and the large vultures have either short bristles on their heads or are bald. The comparison may be to the small Egyptian vulture, which has very untidy long feathers on its head and neck, or perhaps to the Long-crested Eagle Lophaetus occipitalis, which is very common all over eastern and southern Africa, as far north as Ethiopia and Sudan.

In those parts of Africa where the Egyptian vulture or the long-crested eagle are known, the name for either one would fit this context well. Elsewhere an expression such as “his hair grew as long as an eagle’s feathers” is probably the best alternative.

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

Translation commentary on Acts 12:23

Struck Herod down is equivalent to “caused him to become sick.”

He did not give honor to God indicates that he claimed for himself the honor that belonged only to God, and thus was guilty of pride and sacrilege. The expression give honor to God is rather too general in some languages for this kind of context. Therefore one must say “because he did not insist that he was just a man and not God.” In other instances one may employ “because he did not have the people praise God rather than himself.”

To be eaten by worms was a death frequently described by ancient writers to extremely evil persons, especially of persons with great power and authority. The worms spoken of in this context should refer to some kind of intestinal worms rather than to maggots for, according to the text, it was the worms which caused his death and not maggots, which would eat his flesh after he had died.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

In Acts 12:23 there is a Greek verb skōlēkobrōtos, which means “eaten by maggots”. The death of Herod Agrippa was seen as punishment for an evil life, and it was believed to result from his being eaten by maggots. The reference may be to sores that did not heal (as may happen with gangrene, diabetes, syphilis, or tropical ulcers) and in unhygienic conditions became infected with maggots, eventually leading to blood poisoning and death. Another possible interpretation is that the “maggots” are intestinal parasites, such as tapeworms or liver flukes, which may cause ill health and eventually death.

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)