I was lead on a bit of a side path into why my KJV uses foxes in all the verses in the Old Testament that contain the Hebrew word: H7776 (Strong)
שֻׁעָל שׁוּעָל
shû‛âl shû‛âl
shoo-awl’, shoo-awl’
From the same as H8168; a jackal (as a burrower): – fox.
Ezk 13:4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts.
Ezk 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.
Ezk 13:6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word. KJV
BTW…I’m totally in agreement with the point. The reality is that Satan, the devil, uses such people through out all history. Mike Ratcliff had another example describing Temptations we face…which is another example of such efforts. See:
I commented on Mike’s Post.
Great message Mike. The second type of temptation you describe, seems to be what Jesus addressed when he gave us the Lord’s Prayer:
Matthew 6:13 (Geneva)
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from {e} evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
(e) From the devil, or from all adversity.
For an old way of looking at the power of evil, I suggest those able to do so, work through Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones’ Armour of God sermons preached some 60 years ago. I’m just barely ten percent through them but realize we don’t hear these kind of messages today.
Ephesians 6:10-13 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. KJV
But getting back to the side track….I got this comment on why the old Bible used Foxes and not Jackal. I’m happy with this…it’s a proper translation and we do know foxes to roam about and wreak havoc…in this case I think they may have use Jackals if they were writing today. This does not have anything to do with the other Alexandrian Minority Text issues of the modern translations. I think it’s valid.
If you want to read what ChatGPS said of wording here it is:
Short answer: Because the King James Version followed earlier English tradition and the scholarly assumptions of its time, and in the early 1600s Hebrew lexicography had not yet distinguished clearly between foxes and jackals in the relevant Hebrew words.
Below is the full explanation.
⸻
Why the KJV says “foxes” instead of “jackals”
- The Hebrew word in question: שׁוּעָלִים (shuʿalim)
The word translated “foxes” in Ezekiel 13:4 (and many other places) is שׁוּעָלִים, the plural of שׁוּעָל.
Today, Hebrew scholars understand:
• שׁוּעָל (shuʿal) in biblical usage usually means jackal, not fox.
• Jackals were far more common in the ancient Near East and better match the behavior described in many passages (desert scavenging, howling, living among ruins).
But this distinction became clear only in the 19th–20th centuries as zoology, archaeology, and Near Eastern studies advanced.
⸻
- What the KJV translators had available (1604–1611)
A. Earlier English tradition
The KJV translators worked within a stream of earlier English Bibles:
Translation Rendering of שׁוּעָל
Wycliffe (1382) foxes
Coverdale (1535) foxes
Matthew’s Bible (1537) foxes
Great Bible (1539) foxes
Geneva Bible (1560) foxes
Bishops’ Bible (1568) foxes
Because all major English Bibles before them rendered the word foxes, the KJV team generally kept traditional wording unless it was clearly incorrect.
B. Lexical knowledge at the time
In the early 17th century:
• Hebrew lexicons (Kimchi, Buxtorf, Pagninus, etc.) typically glossed שׁוּעָל as vulpes (Latin for fox).
• Naturalists and travelers had not yet made a clear distinction between Palestinian foxes and the much more common golden jackal of the Levant.
• European scholars often assumed the Middle Eastern animal was basically the same as a European fox.
⸻
- The KJV translators’ translation philosophy
The KJV was intentionally conservative in vocabulary:
They preferred familiar, traditional English renderings, unless the Hebrew required something different.
Since “foxes” was standard, uncontroversial, and matched the best scholarly tools available to them, they kept it.
⸻
- Why most modern translations now say “jackals”
In the last 150+ years:
• Zoological studies clarified that the golden jackal (Canis aureus) is the animal actually typical of Palestine.
• Many biblical references (howling in desolate ruins, scavenging carcasses) fit jackals far better than foxes.
• Semitic cognates (Arabic thaʿlab vs. jackal terms) and ancient translations (some Targums) support the jackal meaning.
Thus modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, NRSV, etc.) frequently translate שׁוּעָלִים as “jackals” where context indicates that animal.
⸻
Summary
The KJV translators used “foxes” because:
1. They followed long-established English translation tradition.
2. Hebrew lexicons of the time identified שׁוּעָל with “fox.”
3. Natural history knowledge in 1611 did not distinguish Middle Eastern jackals from foxes.
4. Their translation philosophy urged conservative, familiar English renderings.
In other words:
They weren’t wrong for their time—just working with the best zoological and lexical information available in the early 17th century.
⸻
If you want, I can also give:
• A verse-by-verse comparison of KJV vs. modern renderings of shuʿal.
• A concise historical timeline of how scholars realized the word referred to jackals.
• Details on the actual animals in ancient Palestine.
Rainbow Trout 