Owls Aren’t Kosher—But What Do They Symbolize?

[1] Cf. the nearly identical list in Deuteronomy 14:12–19. Biblical translations follow the NRSVue, with modifications. On the birds in these passages, see Peter Altmann, Banned Birds: The Birds of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 (Tubigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019). Translating Hebrew terms for animals with precision is difficult, and many of the identifications are debated. Scholars employ a variety of approaches in their study of these terms. For example: (1) Traditional philological approaches explore cognate terms in other Northwest Semitic languages or examine ancient translations (e.g., the Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate) in the hope that some ancient translator might demonstrate helpful contextual knowledge. (2) Early modern translators often relied upon later linguistic data, such as Arabic terms, to provide educated guesses. See, e.g., Benjamin Hübbe, “The Fauna of Fallen Babylon—Carl Aurivillius on the Animals in Isaiah 13:21 and the Task of Bible Hermeneutics,” Apotheosis of the North: The Swedish Appropriation of Classical Antiquity around the Baltic Sea and Beyond (1650 to 1800) 48 (2017): 187. This approach continues to be present in some of the notes in modern lexica. (3) Another approach suggests that many of the uncertain animal names present in the Bible might best be understood by “onomatopoetic correspondences,” whereby an animal is identified by the sound that it makes. See, e.g., Martin Johnson and Philip Jensen, “An Attempt to Identify the Birds of Leviticus 11:13–19 using Onomatopoeia,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 48.2 (2023): 208–228; and Adam E. Miglio, “Soundscapes, Portentous Calls, and Bird Symbolism in the Gilgameš Epic,” JNES 81 (2022): 165–185. (5) Modern zoology and the study of animal behavior is frequently deployed to determine if an identification is “plausible” given what we know (or think we know) about the species under consideration. The use of the natural sciences as a hermeneutical aid is, however, rarely explicit or as critical as it might be. For an interesting and ongoing exception, see the Dictionary of Nature Imagery in the Bible Project.

[2] See “The Libyan Tribute Palette,” Egypt Museum. Alan Sieradzki notes: “The species of owl portrayed in the Protodynastic period (3100–3000 BC) is the Eagle Owl Bubo ascalaphus and this species continues to occur sporadically from Dynasty III (2670–2613 BC) throughout dynastic times, but from Dynasty III the common hieroglyph m is the Barn Owl Tyto alba.” See Alan Sieradzki, “Eulenmumien im Alten Ägypten,” Kauzbrief 35 (2023): 44–51.

[3] As with several other animals—including the saddle-billed stork, Egyptian vulture, helmeted guineafowl, and horned viper—use of the image of the barn owl was largely limited to the hieroglyphic system. See Patrick F. Houlihan, The Birds of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 1986), 109.

[4] Egyptologist Patrick Houlihan (Birds of Ancient Egypt, 102) notes that the face-forward presentation of the owl is unusual:

The owl’s body, right wing and feet are seen from the side, but the head is turned toward us, and is viewed full face, which distinguishes it from all other birds. Its large eyes are wide open and stare ahead with a humanlike appearance, and help to create the owls’ legendary concentrated facial expression.

[5] Sarah El-Sayid Kitat, “The Veneration of the Owl in Græco-Roman Egypt,” International Journal of History and Cultural Studies 5.2 (2019): 1–20 (at 2). HSQ apparently carries the same meaning in some Ptolemaic texts (ibid.). Owls also commanded respect for their visual acuity and hunting ability: “The sign of the owl was used to form the word meaning ‘to see.’ As early as the 18th dynasty, owls were named nw, meaning ‘keen-sighted hunters,’ with some scholars believing that the owl was linked to the sun god Ra because the eyes of owls were said to be inlaid with the sun” (Sieradzki, “Eulenmumien im Alten Ägypten,” 48).

[6] Sieradzki, “Eulenmumien im Alten Ägypten.”

[7] Kitat, “Veneration of the Owl in Græco -Roman Egypt,” 2, 4.

[8] Kitat, “Veneration of the Owl in Græco -Roman Egypt,” 3.

[9] The soul was generally conceived in a tripartite fashion in ancient Egyptian texts: the ka was the life-force, the ba was the non-physical soul, and the akh was the combination of the two in the afterlife. Sieradzki notes:

The ba-bird, the image of which has been depicted many times in tomb paintings and in statue form, has often been described by archaeologists and Egyptologists as a falcon with a human head. Being the sacred bird of Horus, the falcon could be seen to be an obvious choice to be the carrier of the ba spirit, indeed, this nightly journey of the ba-bird has been compared to the journey of Ra the sun god to the Duat (afterlife) every night, where the reunification with Osiris precedes the sun's resurrection at dawn. But what if the images of the ba-bird were meant to be representative, not of a falcon, but of an owl? (Sieradzki, “Eulenmumien im Alten Ägypten,” 49.)

See also Molefi Kete Asante, “The Idea of the Human Soul in Ancient Egypt,” Gaudium Sciendi 6 (2014): 43–52. For a broader discussion of human-headed bird images, see Rania Elhelw, “The Human-Headed Bird Figure in Painting from the Bronze Age to the Early Twentieth Century,” Journal of Arts & Architecture Research Studies 1.1 (2020): 186–200. For a comparative study of afterlife beliefs, see Jock Matthew Agai, “The Journeys of the Dead: A Comparative Study of the Ancient Egyptian and the Yoruba Conceptualization of the Human Body,” Proceedings Ekklesiastikos Pharos 2014.1 (2016): 21–35.

[10] Sieradzki, “Eulenmumien im Alten Ägypten,” 50.

[11] For a discussion of city laments, see Randall Heskett, “A Study of City Laments: Their Form and Function,” in Reading the Book of Isaiah: Destruction and Lament in the Holy Cities (New York: Palgrave, 2011), 7–30; and John Jacobs, “The City Lament Genre in the Ancient Near East,” in The Fall of Cities in the Mediterranean: Commemoration in Literature, Folk-Song, and Liturgy, ed. Mary R. Bachvarova, Dorota Dutsch, and Ann Suter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 13–35. Editor’s note: On city laments, with a note on fox imagery, see Uri Gabbay, “The Genre of Lamentations,” TheTorah (2017). For a brief discussion of Naram-Sin, see also Yigal Levin, “Nimrod, Might Hunter and King – Who Was He?” TheTorah (2020).

[12] The Sumerian name for the bird, ukuku^mušen, lit. “sleeping-bird,” is followed by the epithet “bird of depression.” That owls are culturally associated with both sleep and misfortune suggests that the ukuku is an owl. See Philip Schmitz, “The Owl in Phonecian Mortuary Practice,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9.1 (2019): 51–85 (at 57–59). On the owl’s associations, he highlights an Akkadian omen of an owl hooting at night, presumably disturbing the sleep of the one who hears it (CAD 8:357, s.f. kilili), and a neo-Assyrian literary text: “The owl is the bird of Ea. Its cry is, ‘Lament, lament’” (KAR 125:9). In addition, he cites a first-millennium lexical commentary that equates the Sumerian term u₃-ku-ku-ba-uš^mušen, lit. “it-lays-down-and-dies-bird,” with the Akkadian term qadû, which is usually interpreted as referring to a type of owl.

[13] Translation follows The Curse of Agade, The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, with modifications.

[14] Translation follows Lament for Eridug, ETCSL, with modifications. See also M. W. Green, “The Eridu Lament,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30.3 (1978): 127–167. Ilan Peled, “A New Manuscript of the Lament of Eridu,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 67 (2015): 39–43.

[15] On the theme of wild animals displacing humans see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Cityscape to Landscape: The ‘Back to Nature’ Theme in Isaiah 1–35,” pp. 35–44 in “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak, JSOTSupp (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 35–44.

[16] The Septuagint translates קפוד as ἐχῖνοι, “hedgehog,” perhaps relating the term to the Piel verb קפד, “roll up.” See Judit Blair, De-Demonizing the Old Testament: An Investigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb, and Resheph in the Hebrew Bible (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 2009), 71. Early vernacular translations suggest the igel (hedgehog) or the bittern. The Revised Standard Version adopts porcupine. More recent translations, however, believe the term refers to an owl of some sort. Blair notes that קפוד is presented here in parallel withקָאַת , another bird term, which would indicate it must also be a reference to a bird. The verse also imagines the קפוד on a high pillar. See also Richard Whitekettle, “Of Mice and Wren: Terminal Level Taxa in Israelite Zoological Thought,” SJOT 17.2 (2003): 163–182. (For additional analysis, see the next footnote on קפוד in Isaiah 34:11.)

[17] Here, קפוד appears with three other terms that refer to types of birds. It would be difficult to understand the sudden appearance of a hedghog or other non-avian creature. Furthermore, poetic parallelism in the verse would suggest a correspondence between the two terms governed by the verb ירש, “possess,” and the two connected to the verb שכנ, “dwell.”

[18] The modern distinction between “real” animals and mythological creatures is anachronistic. As biblical scholar Peter Atkins notes, “the distinction between zoological and mythological categories is a modern construct. Current classification systems have not always been in existence. These systems were themselves created, and there is good reason to suggest the ancient Hebrews did not share them.” See Peter Joshua Atkins, “Mythology or Zoology: A Study on the Impact of Translation History of Isaiah 13:21,” Biblical Interpretation 24 (2016): 48–59 (at 49). For an overview of Lilith in biblical scholarship, see Judit M. Blair, De-Demonising the Old Testament: An Investigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb, and Reseph in the Hebrew Bible (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 24–30 and 63–95; and M. Hutter, “Lilith,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2d rev. ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 520–521. Editor’s note: See also the brief discussion of Lilith in Shawna Dolansky, “The Immortal Myth of Adam and Eve,” TheTorah (2015).

[19] The King James Version renders בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה, lit. “daughters of the desert,” as “owl.” See also Israel Aharoni, “On Some Animals Mentioned in the Bible,” Osiris 5 (1938): 469–470. Broad contemporary consensus, however, holds that the term refers to an ostrich. The image of the ostrich was complex in the Hebrew Bible and in later Jewish tradition. There was even debate as to whether the ostrich should be considered a bird at all. See Abraham O. Shemesh, “‘Ostrich Is a Fowl for Any Matter’: The Ostrich as a ‘Strange’ Fowl in Jewish Literature,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 74 (2018): 1–14. See also, Ken Stone, Reading the Hebrew Bible with Animal Studies (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018), 126–129; and Arthur Walker-Jones, “The So-Called Ostrich in the God Speeches of the Book of Job (Job 39,13–18).” Biblica 86.4 (2005): 494–510. An ostrich amongst the ruins would not be unexpected.

[20] The identity of the קִפּוֹז is debated, but the behavior of the animal, marked by nest-building (קִנְּנָה) egg-laying (וַתְּמַלֵּט), hatching (וּבָקְעָה), and brooding (וְדָגְרָה), provides some guidance. Early vernacular translations were divided between translating as “owl” or “viper,” but many modern translations render the term as “arrow-snake.” G. R. Driver, “Birds in the Old Testament: II, Birds in Life,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 87.2 (1955): 136, held that the term must refer to a bird of some sort, but he doubts that it was an owl. His argument, however, lacks any explicit justification. Israel Aharoni, a zoologist working in Ottoman and British Palestine, was more confident in asserting the presence of multiple owls in Isaiah 34. He identifies the term in question with asio flammeus, the short-eared owl. See Israel Aharoni, “On Some Animals Mentioned in the Bible,” Osiris 5 (1938): 469–470.

[21] Willem Beuken (professor emeritus, Catholic University of Leuven) argues that the animals in this passage are “embodiments of chaos.” See Willem A. M Beuken, Isaiah II: Isaiah 28–39, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 299. See also, Paul Albertus Kruger, “A World Turned on its Head in Ancient Near Eastern Prophetic Literature: A Powerful Strategy to Depict Chaotic Scenarios,” Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012): 58–76; and Patricia K. Tull, Isaiah 1–39, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2010), 268; and G. Gordon McConville, Isaiah, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Prophetic Books (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 211.

[22]

‏^{ישׁעיה לד:טז} דִּרְשׁוּ מֵעַל סֵפֶר יְ־הוָה וּקְרָאוּ אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה לֹא נֶעְדָּרָה אִשָּׁה רְעוּתָהּ לֹא פָקָדוּ כִּי פִי הוּא צִוָּה וְרוּחוֹ הוּא קִבְּצָן. ^לד:יז וְהוּא הִפִּיל לָהֶן גּוֹרָל וְיָדוֹ חִלְּקַתָּה לָהֶם בַּקָּו עַד עוֹלָם יִירָשׁוּהָ לְדוֹר וָדוֹר יִשְׁכְּנוּ בָהּ.

^{Isaiah 34:16} Seek and read from the book of YHWH: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without its mate. For His mouth, it has commanded, and His spirit, it has gathered them. ^34:17 He has cast the lot for them; his hand has portioned it out to them with the line. They shall possess it; from generation to generation they shall live in it.

The language here is similar to that used elsewhere to refer to other nations and even to Israel (Num 26:55–56; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2–3; Josh 14:2; 18:8–10 and passim; Mic 2:5; Pss 16:6; 60:8; 78:55; 105:11). See Roberts, First Isaiah, 437. For a broader overview of the mixed attitude towards Edom in the biblical writings, see Bradford A. Anderson, “Edom’s (Dis)Possession,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 84 (2022): 365–384.

[23] See Adrian Franklin, Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human Animal Relationships in Modern Culture (London: Sage, 1999), 62. It is the case, however, that primordial relationships (or at least evolutionary ones) exist between human beings and their perception of some animals. While primate perceptions of snakes are perhaps the most well-known example, some have argued that the human/owl relationship may also extend beyond culturally mediated responses. Ken Stone draws on the concept of the “zoological gaze” as a way of exploring how ancient Israelite authors perceived the various kinds of animals which surrounded them and how they were utilized to construct and communicate meaning. He argues (Reading the Bible with Animal Studies, 116–117): “Familiarity with animals supplied the Bible’s writers…not only with positive symbols of care and sustenance, but also frightening symbols of danger.”

[24] For a discussion of the Sefire Treaty and its connection to biblical literature, see e.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, Biblica et Orientalia 19/A (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995). More recent works include Melissa Ramos, “A Northwest Semitic Curse Formula: The Sefire Treaty and Deuteronomy 28,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128.2 (2016): 205–220; and Kevin Scott, “Time and the Locust Plagues in the Book of Joel and the Sefire Inscriptions,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 85 (2023): 19–35. Editor’s note: See also Gad Barnea, “Enforcing YHWH’s Covenant with Blessings and Curses—Imperial Style,” TheTorah (2022).

[25] Text and translation follow Fitzmyer, Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, 46–47.

^[26] Elisha Qimron and David Talshir, “The Birds in the Deir ʿAllā Inscription,” Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects 58 (1994): 339–345 (Hebrew). See also Carl S. Ehrlich, “Balaam the Seer: From the Bible to the Deir ʿAlla Inscription,” TheTorah (2018).

[27] Text and translation follow J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alla, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1976).

[28] Schmitz, “Owl in Phonecian Mortuary Practice,” 53.

[29] Schmitz, “Owl in Phonecian Mortuary Practice,” 69. He owl iconography in Phonecian seals from this period to support his assertion.

[30] Notice that one of these associations is based on a biological fact about the nature of owls as nocturnal hunters, while the other is a function of human cultures: Owl vocalizations are not inherently “haunting.”

[31] On the study of birds and cultural and religious traditions, see Boria Sax, Avian Illuminations: A Cultural History of Birds (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Jeremy Mynott, Birds in the Ancient World: Winged Worlds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); and Peter (Petra) Gardella and Laurence Krute, Wings of the Gods: Birds in the World’s Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024). Dealing specifically with owls, see, e.g., Tony Angell, The House of Owls (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015) and Jennifer Ackerman, What an Owl Knows (New York: Penguin, 2023). On avian imagery in the Bible, see, e.g., Evelyne Martin, Flügel und Hörner: Gottes Tiergestaltigkeit im Alten Testament, BWANT (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 2023); Joel M. LeMon, Yahweh’s Winged Form in the Psalms: Exploring Congruent Iconography and Texts, OBO 242 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010); Angelika Berlejung, “The Metaphor of the Bird and the Discourse on Life and Death: Life and Death According to the Imaginations of the Israelites,” in Divine Secrets and Human Imaginations: Studies on the History of Religion and Anthropology of the Ancient Near East and the Old Testament, Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 42 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 335–368.

[32] Billie Jean Collins’ (Emory University) monumental work, A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2002 )contains only a handful of references to owls.

[33] See Pelayo Benavides and Jose Tomas Ibara, “Uncanny Creatures of the Dark: Exploring the Role of Owls across Human Societies,” Anthropos 116 (2021): 153–176. See also Desmond Morris, Owl (London: Reaktion Books, 2013); and S. Hildebrandt, “I am a Lonely Bird”: Psalm 102 and the Psychology of Loneliness, Biblical Theology Bulletin 53.2 (2023): 68–76.

[34] See Queen of the Night Plaque, The British Museum. The purchase of the plaque by the British Museum in 2003 from a private collector for 1.5 million pounds sparked an additional round of debate. Frankfort, Kraeling, and Van Buren held that the work was consistent with iconography and texts from elsewhere in the ancient Near East, while Opitz was more cautious. See H. Frankfort, H. “The Burney Relief,” Archiv fur Orientforschung 12 (1937): 128–135; Emil G. Kraeling, “A Unique Babylonian Relief,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 67 (1937): 16–18; and Dietrich Opitz and E. Douglas Van Buren, “Die Vogelfüssige Göttin Auf Den Löwen.” Archiv Für Orientforschung 11 (1936): 350–357; and Dietrich Opitz, “Die Probleme Des Burney-Reliefs,” Archiv Für Orientforschung 12 (1937): 269–271. Pauline Albenda, “The Burney Relief Reconsidered,” JANES 2 (1969): 87–93, rejects the authenticity of the plaque, noting that position of the rod and ring is inconsistent with iconography from the period. She further develops her argument with a detailed analysis of the figure of the nude female, the lions, and the owls in Pauline Albenda, “The ‘Queen of the Night’ Plaque: A Revisit,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005): 171–190, concluding again that the iconography as a whole is idiosyncratic and lacks parallels. Of the owl, she notes: “Indeed, no known examples of an owl exist, except on the unexcavated, unprovenanced British Museum plaque. A comparison between the owls on the plaque with real owls reveals the craftsman’s lack of knowledge of the living variety and, therefore, his inability to depict an owl in a convincing manner” (ibid., 184). Dominique Collon, “The Queen Under Attack–A Rejoinder,” Iraq 69 (2007): 43–51, challenges a number of Albenda’s assumptions about the nature of visual representation in ancient Mesopotamian art and raises some pragmatic questions. With regard to the representation of the owls, she asks: “Is it not just possible that the maker had seen more naked females than owls? The idea of drawing from life is a relatively recent phenomenon, and whereas a Mesopotamian would frequently have glimpsed owls flying in the dark, he (or she) would have been unlikely to have seen them perched and well lit” (ibid., 48).

[35] There is a tremendous amount of scholarship relating to the enigmatic figure of Lilith, much of it dealing with the later development and reception of the figure in Jewish tradition. See, e.g., Blair, De-Demonising the Old Testament.

[36] Frankfort, “The Burney Relief,” 130.

[37] Thorkild Jacobson, “Pictures and Pictorial Language (The Burney Relief),” in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1987), 1–9. Jacobsen makes a connection between the image of Innana in her “owl form” and sex workers in the ancient Near East: “One may therefore hazard the opinion that the Burney Relief represents Inanna as goddess of harlots and served as a cult-relief at the house-altar of an ancient bordello. If so, that would explain also a last unusual feature of the relief, the nudity of the figure. Nudity is practically never found in monumental art in Ancient Mesopotamia and seems to have been deliberately avoided for reasons of propriety. In a bordello, though, it would hardly have given offence” (ibid., 6).

[38] Collon, “The Queen Under Attack–A Rejoinder,” 46.

[39] Innana’s/Ishtar’s “Descent into the Underworld.” On the relationship between clothing, nudity, illness, and death, see Laura Quick, “‘Like a Garment Eaten by Moths’ (Job 13:28): Clothing, Nudity and Illness in the Book of Job,” Biblical Interpretation 30 (2022): 46–65; and Christoph Berner et al, eds., Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible (London: T&T Clark, 2019). On Ereshkigal, see Yağmur Heffron, “Erishkigal,” ORACC.