Page:06.CBOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.B.vol.6.LesserProphets.djvu/728

 not only at variance with Joe 2:25, where gâzâm stands last, after châsı̄l, but is founded generally merely upon a false interpretation of Nah 3:15-16 (see the passage) and Jer 51:27, where the adjective sâmâr (horridus, horrible), appended to yeleq, from sâmâr, to shudder, by no means refers to the rough, horny, wing-sheath of the young locusts, and cannot be sustained from the usage of the language, It is impossible to point out any difference in usage between gâzâm and châsı̄l, or between these two words and ‘arbeh. The word gâzâm, from gâzâm, to cut off (in Arabic, Ethiopic, and the Rabb.), occurs only in this passage, in Joe 2:25, and in Amo 4:9, where it is applied to a swarm of flying locusts, which leave the vine, fig-tree, and olive, perfectly bare, as it is well known that all locusts do, when, as in Amos, the vegetables and field fruits have been already destroyed. ‘Arbeh, from râbhâh, to be many, is the common name of the locust, and indeed in all probability of the migratory locust, because this always appears in innumerable swarms. Châsı̄l, from châsal, to eat off, designates the locust (hâ'arbeh), according to Deu 28:38, by its habit of eating off the field crops and tree fruits, and is therefore used in 1Ki 8:37; 2Ch 6:28; Psa 78:46, as synonymous with hâ'arbeh, and in Isa 33:4 in its stead. Yeleq, from yâlaq = lâqaq, to lick, to lick off, occurs in Psa 105:34 as equivalent to ‘arbeh, and in Nahum as synonymous with it; and indeed it there refers expressly to the Egyptian plague of locusts, so that young locusts without wings cannot possibly be thought of. Haggâzâm the gnawer, hayyeleq the licker, hechâsı̄l the devourer, are therefore simply poetical epithets applied to the ‘arbeh, which never occur in simple plain prose, but are confined to the loftier (rhetorical and poetical) style. Moreover, the assumption that Joel is speaking of swarms of locusts of two successive years, is neither required by Joe 2:25 (see the comm. on this verse), nor reconcilable with the contents of the verse itself. If the ‘arbeh eats what the gâzâm has left, and the yeleq what is left by the ‘arbeh, we cannot possibly think of the field and garden fruits of two successive years, because the fruits of the second year are not the leavings of the previous year, but have grown afresh in the year itself. The