ebscohost_ ʼkl in malachi 3_11--caterpillar

8/11/2019 EBSCOhost_ KL in Malachi 3_11--Caterpillar

1/5

JBL121/2 (2002) 327^336

CRITICAL

NOTESto IN MALACHI 3:11CATERPILLAR

According to the prophet MalachiYHWHSb&tpromises the community: "I willrebuke the ^DK('kl)on your behalf so that it will not destroy for you the fruit of the

land and the vine in the field will not miscarry."1

The word ^28 in this passage, althoughnever considered a notorious exegetical difficulty, has nevertheless proven somewhatproblematic to translators and Bible commentators. Morphologically the word is to beparsed as an active participle in theqaltheme of the common root*?DK,and etymologi-cally it can be given a literal translation "eater" or "devourer." It is also clear from thecontext that some sort of agricultural pest is indicated. Nonetheless, the exact nuance ofthe term is yet obscure. In particular it is not certain whether the word is a generaladjective describing any type of animal, beast, or insect that menaces the crops, orwhether it is a substantive designating a specific pest. If it is a particular species, what isit?

It is not necessary to rehearse all the opinions voiced on the matter, but a representative sampling of interpretations throughout the ages readily reveals the variousapproaches to this crux.Targum Jonathan renders itfcDnQ,"the destroyer," but Rashiexplains that it refers to various types of locusts that eat the produce of the field. Ibn-Ezra and David Qimhi also connect it with types of locusts. To be sure, Rashi mentionsspecifically and*7,while IbnEzraspeaks ofand22,buttheyare never-thelessinagreementaboutthe basicnatureofthepest. Themodern translationsare no

exception.KJV, AV, JPSV 1917, andGoodspeed AT render "devourer," while RSVtranslates"devourer" and glosses in themargin"the devouringlocust."NABtranslates

"the locust"with nonote,while NJPS translates "thelocusts,"commenting"devourer"

inthefootnote.The revised Luther's Bible renders"Fresser"(inquotationmarks) and

provides amarginalcrossreference toJoel 1:4 indicating that locusts are intended.2

Indeed,the word DKis frequentlyused in the Bible indescriptions of locusts,as has

been pointedout by numerous commentators.C. F. Keil explains thatthe locust is

intended andthatit is called "devourer" because of its insatiable voracity."3P. A. Ver

1

S MT th LXX t fl t diff t i ti f th d t ti i l b t


2/5

328 Journal ofBiblical Literature

hoef translates"devouringlocusts"andprovides adetaileddepictionoftheirdestructive

culinaryhabits.4NEBbreaks ranks and translates "pests," which couldincludeanimals

other than insects.Afourth possibility has been suggestedbyH.Wolf,who takes the

termtomeana wormthatdevours the fruit, on the basisofDeut28:39,"You shall plant

andcultivate vineyards, but wine you shall not drinkorstore away because the worm()willeat it."

5Thereseems tobeno wayofclearly deciding among these options,

so A. E.Hill,who has written the mostrecentcommentaryonMalachi,playsitsafeand

prefers the more generalinterpretation"devourer."6

Exegesis based on the Bible alone seems, therefore, to have reached an impasse.

However,some Akkadian (and Aramaic) evidencethatsurprisingly has been totally

overlookedmayberelevant to clarifying our verse and perhaps pointing toward the

minorityinterpretationassome wormlikecreature.7Apparentlyunnoticedbymodern

scholarsisthattheBiblicalHebrewword inquestionis the exactmorphologicalandety-mological equivalentoftheAkkadiannounkilu. This wordtoo can beparsedas anactive participlein Gtheme ofaklu,"to eat," and translated literally "devourer." Tobesure, W.vonSoden givesas themain definition "Essender, Esser, Fresser" (AHw29a,s.v.kilu). CADA/1266b translatesit"(a pest)," the parentheses indicating that, likethebiblical^DK,itisabit enigmatic.Intexts cited in vol. M/2 207 s.v.mnu, thedictionaryrendersin its inimitable English "fciZw-pests."In thesame volume,s.v.mubattiru (p.159a),theword istranslated "eater."S.Parplaand K.Watanabe translate it in itsappearanceinthe Esarhaddon Vassal Treaties (Une 599) as "field pests."8Moshe Wein

feld, in his Hebrew rendition of the Vassal Treaties translates literally DWl, "the eater,"and comparesitwith Sefire IA30-31 *?DK7b ]r?K ]*71 ("May the godssendall sorts ofdevourers/eatersagainstArpad").

9 H.Tawil, whileconvincinglysuggest-

ingadifferent wayofreadingthe Sefire passage, interprets boththe Akkadiankiluinthe Esarhaddon treaty, and the Aramaic cognate tott inhis new translationofSefireas"crop-consuming devourer."10 Interestingly, neitherhe norWeinfeld recognizes thatthis is identical with the DKofMalachi.11

4

P. A.Verhoef,The Books ofHaggai and Malachi(NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1987), 308.5H.Wolf,Haggai andMalachi:Rededication and Renewal(Everyman's Bible Comm

tary;Chicago:Moody, 1976), 110.6A.E.Hill,Malachi(AB 25D; NewYork:Doubleday, 1998), 317; see also D. L. Petersen,

Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi(OTL;Louisville:Westminster JohnKnox,1995),218.7Abbreviations in references to Akkadian texts are accordingtoCAD.8S.Parpla andK.Watanabe,Neo-Assyran Treaties and Loyalty Oaths(State Archives

Assyria2;Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), 55.9

Moshe Weinfeld, "The Vassal TreatiesofEsarhaddonan annotated translation"(inHebrew),Shnaton1(1975): 89-122,esp.118 n.138.10 H Tawil "A Curse Concerning Crop-Consuming Insects in the Sefire Treaty and in Akka


3/5

Critical Notes 329

These suggestions notwithstanding, closer investigation shows thatkilu is notnecessarily a general term. In one case it is a nickname for the jackal, and in another itindicates a sword-swallower, so it can potentially have a general use as a designation for

any type of devouring animal. But in the majority of cases it appears together with wordsmubattiru andmnu that mean specifically "larva" or "caterpillar." CAD D 143a, s.v.dimnu, translates kilu u dimani ina eqli moti ibassi(ACh Sin 34:39) as "there will becaterpillars andd.insects in the fields of the country." More recently, von Soden gives amore specific rendering and translates"Raupe,"larva or caterpillar for most of the listings(AHw29a s.v.kilu2).

The lexical evidence bears out von Soden's interpretation. In the great lexical listUR5-ra =hubullu thekilu is mentioned several times. In particular, in XIV 279-82(MSLVIII/2 p. 32; cf. CADA/1 s.v. kilu, lexical section) it occurs as the Akkadianequivalent of five different Sumerian terms. Most significantly thekilusection appearsas the sixth passage in a series of ten pests, eight of which are worms or caterpillars ofsome sort and two of which are lice (miqqanu, tltu, mubattiru, mnu, nappilu, kilu,tltu, urbatu, isqippu, andmeqqanu).

In Hg III iv 2527 (MSLVIII/2p. 47) we find a threecolumnexplicit associa-tionofthekiluwith caterpillars:

[uh].dur.ra = mu-bat-ti-ru = a-ki-[lum]

uu = mnu = MIN

[usu].sim = MIN = MIN

Association ofkiluand caterpillars is known also from incantations. Most telling isSTT 243 r. 1, an incantation.12In this text we find a list:

INIM.INIM.MA [m]nu kilu mubattira sastra samna kalmat eqliina eqli suit,

"an incantation for removing from the fieldcaterpillar,kilu, mubattiru, cricket, red bug, field-lice"

It is clear that all the pests mentioned are of the insect type. Erica Reiner has compiled several parallels to the Sultantepe text just cited, and in each one we find thekilugrouped together with themubattiru and themnu, both of which are caterpillars(K.5897:10';K.8072:llf;Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon 599). In fact, in only one textdoes anarrabu,a dormouse, appear in such a list (K.8072:12 cf. CADA/2 p. 303a s.v.arrabu c). However, the lexical equations and the association in literary texts with the

mnu, which is a caterpillar, seem to indicate thatkilutoo is a caterpillar. To the best ofmy knowledge, except for the mentionoisasiru, "cricket," in the incantation from Sult t th i littl id i ti th i kil ith l t f t 13


4/5

330 Journal of Biblical Literature

Itis possiblethattheHebrew, Aramaic,andAkkadian cognates havenothingtodo

with eachother, reflect independent developments,ordenotedifferent pests in each

language. If this is the case, then the extrabiblical evidence is largely irrelevant.

Nonetheless,we should rememberthat there are frequent cases of names for fauna

crossing language borders, so acommonmeaning is not to be ruled out here and mayevenbe expected. It isnoteworthythatJoel,who lists several types oflocusts,makes no

mentionof^DK,nor is a locust ofthisnamerecordedanywhere else in the Bible.More-

over, the meaning suggested is certainly applicable to the verse inMalachi.As amatter

offact,it is probablymoresuitablethanthecommon translation"locust."

Ironically,eventhoughthe etymology ofthe^38 associates it witheating,when it

comesto describing the activitythat typifies thisparticularpest,eating is conspicuously

absent.Exodus 10:120, in describingtheplague oflocusts,uses the verb^DN to signify

the destructionwreaked by the locusts (w. 5, 15). The book ofJoel,whichcontainsthemostextendeddescriptionof a locustplague,also uses the verbbDto(Joel 1:4; 2:28; cf.

1:19; 2:3,5).Theverb isemployedtodescribethework ofvarioustypes oflocustsalso in

Amos 4:9; 7:2; Ps 105:35; and 2 Chr 7:13.Malachi,however, speaks ofin refer-

enceto theland,and the verb indicatingthe defloration ofthevine is^DOT.This word,

whichusuallymeans"tobe bereaved of offspring" or"tomiscarry," appears onlyherein

relationshipto fruit oragriculturalproduce.It may have been used in thisconnectionas

ahiddenpunon^DK,"grape cluster," in which case it would be a privativepicelmeaning "to shed/remove the cluster." However, its plain meaning is "to cause to miscarry."

This is the type of damage that would be caused more by a larva destroying the vinefrom within causing it to lose its fruit than by a locust, which would consume the entirevine, grapes, stems, leaves, and all.

Moreover, the extent of the damage of the locusts seems to be far greater than thatof the*?DK.The locusts that plagued Egypt are said not to have left a single green thing,neither grass or tree. Joel is careful to list as being destroyed all of the seven species thattypify the land of Israel. Amos observes theJ"completelyconsuming(bDVO rfo) thegrass ofthefield" (7:2).This extensive defoliationcertainlydwarfs the damage described

byMalachi,whopinpointsthe loss offruit.In anycase,the strongcontrastbetween the

ruininflicted by locuststhroughoutthe Bible and the damage done by an infestation of

^DKmay beadducedtoindicatethattheboto isnotthe locust.

Inlight of theAkkadian wordkiluand a reconsideration of the biblical text, it ishighly possible that*7D8in Mai 3:11 is not a general name for unspecified pests or evenlocusts, but designates a specific stage in the metamorphosis of insects, and in particulara larva or a caterpillar. It should be listed as a separate lexeme in the dictionaries ofBiblical Hebrew.

Victor Avigdor [email protected]

Ben Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva 84105 Israel


5/5

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

ebscohost_ ʼkl in malachi 3_11--caterpillar

Documents