JBL121/2 (2002) 327^336

CRITICAL NOTES
to IN MALACHI 3:11CATERPILLAR
According to the prophet Malachi YHWH Sb&t promises the community: "I will
rebuke 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, although
never considered a notorious exegetical difficulty, has nevertheless proven somewhat
problematic to translators and Bible commentators. Morphologically the word is to be
parsed as an active participle in the qal theme of the common root *?DK, and etymologi-
cally it can be given a literal translation "eater" or "devourer." It is also clear from the
context that some sort of agricultural pest is indicated. Nonetheless, the exact nuance of
the term is yet obscure. In particular it is not certain whether the word is a general
adjective describing any type of animal, beast, or insect that menaces the crops, or
whether it is a substantive designating a specific pest. If it is a particular species, what is
it?
It is not necessary to rehearse all the opinions voiced on the matter, but a repre-
sentative sampling of interpretations throughout the ages readily reveals the various
approaches to this crux. Targum Jonathan renders it fcDnQ, "the destroyer," but Rashi
explains 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 mentions
specifically and *7, while Ibn-Ezra speaks of and 22, but they are never-
theless in agreement about the basic nature of the pest. The modern translations are no
exception. KJV, AV, JPSV 1917, and Goodspeed AT render "devourer," while RSV
translates "devourer" and glosses in the margin "the devouring locust." NAB translates
"the locust" with no note, while NJPS translates "the locusts," commenting "devourer"
in the footnote. The revised Luther's Bible renders "Fresser" (in quotation marks) and
provides a marginal cross-reference to Joel 1:4 indicating that locusts are intended.
2
Indeed, the word ^DK is frequently used in the Bible in descriptions of locusts, as has
been pointed out by numerous commentators. C. F. Keil explains that the locust is
intended and that it is called "devourer" because of its insatiable voracity."
3
P. A. Ver-
1
So MT; the LXX seems to reflect a different pointing of the word, not as a participle but as a
segholate noun b"Dfo meaning "food."
2
Der Bibel oder die ganze Heiligeschrifl des alten und neuen Testaments nach der bersetz-
ung Martin Luthers (Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964).
3
C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, vol. 10 in C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old
Testament in Ten Volumes (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 463-64. See more recently the
detailed discussion of locust plagues in B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger
(SBLDS 98; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 199-200.
327
328 Journal of Biblical Literature
hoef translates "devouring locusts" and provides a detailed depiction of their destructive
culinary habits.
4
NEB breaks ranks and translates "pests," which could include animals
other than insects. A fourth possibility has been suggested by H. Wolf, who takes the
term to mean a worm that devours the fruit, on the basis of Deut 28:39, "You shall plant
and cultivate vineyards, but wine you shall not drink or store away because the worm
() will eat it."
5
There seems to be no way of clearly deciding among these options,
so A. E. Hill, who has written the most recent commentary on Malachi, plays it safe and
prefers the more general interpretation "devourer."
6
Exegesis based on the Bible alone seems, therefore, to have reached an impasse.
However, some Akkadian (and Aramaic) evidence that surprisingly has been totally
overlooked may be relevant to clarifying our verse and perhaps pointing toward the
minority interpretation as some wormlike creature.
7
Apparently unnoticed by modern
scholars is that the Biblical Hebrew word in question is the exact morphological and ety-
mological equivalent of the Akkadian noun kilu. This word too can be parsed as an
active participle in G theme of aklu, "to eat," and translated literally "devourer." To be
sure, W. von Soden gives as the main definition "Essender, Esser, Fresser" (AHw 29a,
s.v. kilu). CAD A/1266b translates it "(a pest)," the parentheses indicating that, like the
biblical ^DK, it is a bit enigmatic. In texts cited in vol. M/2 207 s.v. mnu, the dictionary
renders in its inimitable English "fciZw-pests." In the same volume, s.v. mubattiru (p.
159a), the word is translated "eater." S. Parpla and K. Watanabe translate it in its
appearance in the Esarhaddon Vassal Treaties (Une 599) as "field pests."
8
Moshe Wein-
feld, in his Hebrew rendition of the Vassal Treaties translates literally ^DWl, "the eater,"
and compares it with Sefire I A 30-31 *?DK 7 b ]r?K ]*71 ("May the gods
send all sorts of devourers/eaters against Arpad").
9
H. Tawil, while convincingly suggest-
ing a different way of reading the Sefire passage, interprets both the Akkadian kilu in
the Esarhaddon treaty, and the Aramaic cognate tott in his new translation of Sefire as
"crop-consuming devourer."
10
Interestingly, neither he nor Weinfeld recognizes that
this is identical with the ^DK of Malachi.
11
4
P. A. Verhoef, The Books ofHaggai and Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987), 308.
5
H. Wolf, Haggai and Malachi: Rededication and Renewal (Everyman's Bible Commen-
tary; Chicago: Moody, 1976), 110.
6
A. E. Hill, Malachi (AB 25D; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 317; see also D. L. Petersen,
Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 218.
7
Abbreviations in references to Akkadian texts are according to CAD.
8
S. Parpla and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyran Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of
Assyria 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), 55.
9
Moshe Weinfeld, "The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddonan annotated translation" (in
Hebrew), Shnaton 1 (1975): 89-122, esp. 118 n. 138.
10
H. Tawil, "A Curse Concerning Crop-Consuming Insects in the Sefire Treaty and in Akka-
dian: A New Interpretation," BASOR 225 (1977): 59-62, esp. 61. Tawil combines b'D and HD in the
Aramaic text, which yields lit, which is cognate with Akkadian kulmatu. This lets him explain the
troublesome )D as "caterpillar" on the basis of Akkadian mnu. ^DK then becomes equivalent to
kilu. He then reads the passage ISItQ ^DK HQ^D ]Q "[
1
?** ]Tbw\ and translates, "May the gods let
loose caterpillar, vermin (of the field), crop-consuming devourer against Arpad and its people."
11
Likewise, M. Held associated Akkadian kilu with Hebrew ' and understood both as
terms for locusts, but the obvious connection with bDto seems to have eluded even him (see M. Held,
Critical Notes 329
These suggestions notwithstanding, closer investigation shows that kilu is not
necessarily a general term. In one case it is a nickname for the jackal, and in another it
indicates 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 words
mubattiru and mnu 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 be
caterpillars and d. insects in the fields of the country." More recently, von Soden gives a
more specific rendering and translates "Raupe," larva or caterpillar for most of the list-
ings (AHw 29a s.v. kilu 2).
The lexical evidence bears out von Soden's interpretation. In the great lexical list
UR
5
-ra = hubullu the kilu is mentioned several times. In particular, in XIV 279-82
(MSL VIII/2 p. 32; cf. CAD A/1 s.v. kilu, lexical section) it occurs as the Akkadian
equivalent of five different Sumerian terms. Most significantly the kilu section appears
as the sixth passage in a series of ten pests, eight of which are worms or caterpillars of
some sort and two of which are lice (miqqanu, tltu, mubattiru, mnu, nappilu, kilu,
tltu, urbatu, isqippu, andmeqqanu).
In Hg III iv 25-27 (MSL VIII/2 p. 47) we find a three-column explicit associa-
tion of the kilu with caterpillars:
[uh].dur.ra = mu-bat-ti-ru = a-ki-[lum]
uu = mnu = MIN
[usu].sim = MIN = MIN
Association of kilu and caterpillars is known also from incantations. Most telling is
STT 243 r. 1, an incantation.
12
In this text we find a list:
INIM.INIM.MA [m]nu kilu mubattira sastra samna kalmat eqli
ina eqli suit,
"an incantation for removing from the field
caterpillar, kilu, mubattiru, cricket, red bug, field-lice"
It is clear that all the pests mentioned are of the insect type. Erica Reiner has com-
piled several parallels to the Sultantepe text just cited, and in each one we find the kilu
grouped together with the mubattiru and the mnu, both of which are caterpillars
(K.5897:10'
;
K.8072:llf; Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon 599). In fact, in only one text
does an arrabu, a dormouse, appear in such a list (K.8072:12 cf. CAD A/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 that kilu too is a caterpillar. To the best of
my knowledge, except for the mention oisasiru, "cricket," in the incantation from Sul-
tantepe, there is little evidence associating the species kilu with locusts of any type.
13
"Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography," in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His
Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21,1965 [d. T. Jacobsen et al.; AS 16; Chicago: Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago, 1965], 395-406, esp. 401 [reference courtesy of Chaim Cohen]).
12
See E. Reiner, "Another Volume of Sultantepe Texts," JNES 26 (1967): 177-211, esp.
189-90.
13
Von Soden translates dimanu, which appears in one text together with kilu as "eine Art
330
Journal of Biblical Literature
It is possible that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Akkadian cognates have nothing to do
with each other, reflect independent developments, or denote different pests in each
language. If this is the case, then the extrabiblical evidence is largely irrelevant.
Nonetheless, we should remember that there are frequent cases of names for fauna
crossing language borders, so a common meaning is not to be ruled out here and may
even be expected. It is noteworthy that Joel, who lists several types of locusts, makes no
mention of ^DK, nor is a locust of this name recorded anywhere else in the Bible. More-
over, the meaning suggested is certainly applicable to the verse in Malachi. As a matter
of fact, it is probably more suitable than the common translation "locust."
Ironically, even though the etymology of the ^38 associates it with eating, when it
comes to describing the activity that typifies this particular pest, eating is conspicuously
absent. Exodus 10:1-20, in describing the plague of locusts, uses the verb ^DN to signify
the destruction wreaked by the locusts (w. 5, 15). The book of Joel, which contains the
most extended description of a locust plague, also uses the verb bDto (Joel 1:4; 2:28; cf.
1:19; 2:3,5). The verb is employed to describe the work of various types of locusts also in
Amos 4:9; 7:2; Ps 105:35; and 2 Chr 7:13. Malachi, however, speaks of in refer-
ence to the land, and the verb indicating the defloration of the vine is ^DOT. This word,
which usually means "to be bereaved of offspring" or "to miscarry," appears only here in
relationship to fruit or agricultural produce. It may have been used in this connection as
a hidden pun on ^DK, "grape cluster," in which case it would be a privative pi
c
el mean-
ing "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 vine
from within causing it to lose its fruit than by a locust, which would consume the entire
vine, grapes, stems, leaves, and all.
Moreover, the extent of the damage of the locusts seems to be far greater than that
of 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 that
typify the land of Israel. Amos observes the J "completely consuming (bDVO r f o) the
grass of the field" (7:2). This extensive defoliation certainly dwarfs the damage described
by Malachi, who pinpoints the loss of fruit. In any case, the strong contrast between the
ruin inflicted by locusts throughout the Bible and the damage done by an infestation of
^DK may be adduced to indicate that the boto is not the locust.
In light of the Akkadian word kilu and a reconsideration of the biblical text, it is
highly possible that *7D8 in Mai 3:11 is not a general name for unspecified pests or even
locusts, but designates a specific stage in the metamorphosis of insects, and in particular
a larva or a caterpillar. It should be listed as a separate lexeme in the dictionaries of Bib-
lical Hebrew.
Victor Avigdor Hurowitz
victor@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
Heuschrecke?" (AHw 170b), the question mark indicating his uncertainty. J. Black, A. George, and
N. Postgate seem to express reservation, translating simply "an insect" (A Concise Dictionary of
Akkadian [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000], 59b).
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according 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 permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically 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 specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright 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 previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection 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 American
Theological Library Association.