* Aa wild geese that the creeping fowler eye.'
For Fowling see under Hunting.
FOX (Si'i^ shU'dl, aXwirrj^, vulpes). — There can be 110 doubt that shu'Al meant both jackal and fox. It is used in the sing, only once m OT (Neh 4'), where the intention is doubtless to refer to a small animal, and fox is more likely to be meant than jackal. The plural shuAlim, is used in a number of places in OT. AV has tr'" it in all of tliem foxes. In two of these (Jg 15^ Ps 63">) the context makes it pretty certain that the jackal is intended. In the first passage Samson is said to have caught 300 shu'dlim,. This would be well-nigh impossible in the case of foxes, which are shy, solitary animals, but not difficult in that of jackals, which are gregarious. In the second the expression ' they shall be a portion for foxes ' implies a carrion-eater. Foxes may sometimes join other animals in feasting on the slain, but it IS jackals that share with vvutures the carrion of a battlefield. In the other passages of OT shu'dlim, may mean either animal, though the context points rather to the habits of the fox than to those of the jackal. Thus La 5" represents shu'dlim, as walking on the ruins of Zion, and Ezk 13* ' shA'&lim in the deserts' (RV 'waste places'), and Ca 2" speaks of 'the foxes, the little fo.xes that spoU the vines' (RV 'vineyards'). A special word for jackals occurs in OT d"!;! (see Dragon under o'jn, and Jackal).
The Gr. iXiiwij^ means the fox only. In NT the sing, occurs once (Lk 13'-), where Herod is spoken of as a fox. Here the reference is to the well- known cunning of this animal. It occurs twice in the plu. (Mt 8"", Lk 9=^) 'foxes have holes.'
The fox of Syria does not dift'er essentially from the common fox of Europe, Vulpes vulgaris, L. Its body is about 14 in. long, and its bushy tail almost as long. It is of a grey colour, has a long pointed snout, and small cunning eyes. It is a nocturnal animal, prowling about houses and en- campments. It captures poultry, and small birds and animals. It is also very fond of grapes, and both it and the jackal do much mischief in \'ine- yards. G. E. Post.
FRAGMENT.— The word K\d<rfM (from xMeir, to break) is used in the plu. {KXdtr/iaTa) of the !»• mains of the loaves and fishes in the account of tlie Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mt W, Mlc 6«, Lk 9", Jn 6"- "), the Four Thousand (Mt 15", Mk 8"), and in the reference to these miracles (Mk 8"- "), and it is used nowhere else in NT.*
The Veraiona have offered a great variety of tr". Wyclif varies between * broken gobbeta ' (Mt 1420), • relefls ' (Mt 1637, Mk 8**, Jn 61*- 1'), and 'broken meat' or 'metis.' "Tind. haa ' gobbets ' in Mt 1430 and Mk 6*3, elsewhere ' broken meate ' (1626 ed. in Mk 820 'levinges'). Rogers (Matthew's liible) Introduces * scrappes ' (Mt 1420), haa ' gobbettes ' in Mk 6**, and * broken meate ' in the rest, (joverdale gives ' broken raeatfl ' everywhere except Mk 6^3 ' broken pecep.' The Great liible otTer» 'fragments* as a new trn (Mt 1420), and 'leauinges' (Mk 8«»), says simply ' baskettes full ther of ' in Mk 6*3, and for the reat has * broken meate.' The Geneva and Bishops' Bibles follow the Great Bible in all places except Mk 643 'fragments,' and (Gen. 1660 only) Mt 163' • fragments' again. The Rhemish NT prefers ' fraginentfi ' everj'\vhere except Mt 1420 ' leauinga.' AV accepts 'fragments' m all but the two passages which refer to tlie miracle of the Four Thousand, where it falls back on the rendering * broken meat.' RV chooses ' broken pieces * (which has appeared only once before, Mk 6*3 Gov.), and uses it consistently throughout.
Wliy were the Revisers not content with AV ' fragments ' ? ' For some mysterious reason,' says Sir Edmund Beckett {Should the Revised New Test, be Authorised? 1882, p. 91), 'they prefer " broken pieces " to " fragments that remained over " of the two sets of loaves and fishes. We liave all heard of " broken victuals " ; but tlie victuals were once whole, and had been broken. Each piece of bread or fish is a piece, and not broken, though broken ofif, if they will be so pre- cise. But a fragment is a piece broken off. So here is another miserable bit of pedantry of some kind, and for some unknown reason, which only turns riglit into wrong for nothing ; for the AV is certainly quite as accurate a translation : indeed the Durh.am Greek professor said more so.'
But there are two good reasons. In the first place the word ' fragment ' carries, and has always carried, a sense of contempt. Shaks. uses the word seven times, and this is always present, mostly prominent. The aptest instance is perhaps 'Trail, and Cress. V. ii. 159 —
' The fragments, scraps, the bits, and greasy reliques Of her o'er-eaten faith, are bound to Diomed.'
Of. T. Fuller, Holy Warre, iv. 16 (p. 195), 'Yea, now full willingly would the Christians have accepted the terms formerly ofiered them ; and now their hungrie stomachs would make dainties of those conditions which before, when full of pride, they threw away as fragments.' In the second place the ' broken pieces ' were not frag- ments of larger pieces ; aU that the disciples gave to the multitude were ' broken pieces,' and these which were gathered up were the broken pieces that were in excess of the requirements.