Stork, חסידה, Ciconia

History of Identification

Identification History Table

Discussion

End Notes

Contributor: Prof. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, DNI Bible Project Leader, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Life & Natural Sciences

ID

Life History

Characteristics that Appear in the Bible

Other Characteristics

End Notes

Bibliography

Contributor: Dr. Haim Moyal, Ornithologist, Zoologist, and archaeologist, Levinsky-Wingate College

Material Culture

Iconographical Expressions

The Stork in Iconographic Media (Archaeological Contextualization)

1. Neolithic Tradition

2. Egyptian Traditions Present in the Biblical World

3. Small Finds (three stamp seal amulets from Israel/Palestine, one coin)

4. Possible Background of Stork Iconography

5. Register of Illustrations

1. Early attestations of probable stork depictions can be found in the Eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia (Schroer and Keel 2005, 70–71, no. 10.). One well-preserved representation of a stork is incised in a relief at the sanctuary of Göbekli Tepe (Area L9–65/75) already in the preceramic Neolithic (9400–8800 BCE; ill. 1.2). One of the pillars (3.5 m in height) shows a stork-like bird with an impressive beak beneath a bull and a jackal/dog (ill. 1). The beak of the stork (ill. 2) seems quite short in comparison to modern attestations, but of course different lengths characterize certain subspecies. In the present case, a more precise identification is not possible due to the schematic nature of the drawing on the stone pillar.

2. The iconographic evidence for the stork in the southern Levant is in certain aspects complex. Generally, the two-dimensional rendering of animals in the world of the Bible is strongly influenced by the animal depictions in the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing tradition (Schroer and Lippke 2013, 343). The possible attestations of storks are, therefore, closely related to hieroglyph G 29 in the Gardiner list (the so called b3-bird, or saddle billed stork, ephippiorhynchus senegalensis, ill. 3). At the same time it has to be admitted that there is a certain iconographic overlap with other wading birds (ciconiiformes) which perhaps even share a common ancestor with the pelecaniformes (e.g., the ibis, which belongs to subcategory threskiornithidae).

3. Three stamp seals (a. Beit Shean, b. Tel Gamma, c. Tel el-Farcah South) and one coin (d.) all dating from important biblical epochs can be integrated in the discussion about the proportion of the stork according to Gardiner G 29. 2

a. The most disputed example in this selection was unearthed at Beit Shean’s North Cemetery (III.3; LB IIA, 1400–1300 BCE). It bears the registration no. 29-104-92 and is now stored in the Philadelphia University Museum (ill. 4.5). A long-legged bird is depicted on a rectangular stamp seal. This may be a stork, but the ibis or ostrich are among other very plausible interpretations.

The detailed rendering of the beak is often not precisely represented in drawings throughout the different publications; it is absolutely necessary to consult the original object. Adapting the light source and the shadow-pattern reveal a close connection to stork imagery.

b. Another quite disputed example originates from Tel Gamma (room BZ; IA IIC, 700–600, ill. 6.7). While legs and body match in a fine way to the basic proportions of storks, the curvature of the neck is more closely related to a flamingo. At the same time it has to be emphasized that the identification of a flamingo could be also to certain extent anachronistic. The curvature for the neck as presented by hieroglyph A 29 shows a very dynamic form already in early attestations of the hieroglyph. But it is not possible to rule out all doubts about this stork bulla (London, Institute of Archaeology, registration no. EXXXVI.27/38).

    

c. The clearest example in the corpus of published stamp seals (Keel) originates from Tell el-Farcah South, Cemetery 900, LB IIB–IA IA (1300–1150, ill. 8). The scarab made out of composite material was dated (as far production is concerned) to the nineteenth and twentieth Egyptian dynasties. It is today stored at the Bolton Museum and Art Gallery, registered under no. 47.31.17. Next to two small signs in front of the bird (the hieroglyph is unclear) and behind its neck (hieroglyph p), the nb-sign at the bottom (Eg. “lord of xy”) could testify a certain appreciation of the stork icon. This object from the ancient Egyptian stronghold/fortress, which Tel el-Farcah was for a long time, has by far the best proportions of all the images discussed so far. The scarab itself belongs — as Keel has clearly shown — to a distinct subtype of scarab-seal-amulets, which are labeled as “Bet-Schean Level VI/VII-group” (indicators of type A1/0/d5 or d1). 3

4. Other modes of stork depiction are attested in coin imagery, by now only in the broader realm of the Mediterranean (500–480 BCE, Crotone). The silver coin (diameter 21 mm, N 1966.111; Ex-collection J. V. Kopp) is decorated with a stork standing next to a large tripod. In this case the iconographic rendering is absolutely clear considering depiction and does not allow any reasonable alternative .

5. The stork is not a broadly attested motif in the rich iconographic traditions of the ancient Near East (including Egypt) and the Levant. The same is true for the vast cuneiform resources. At least the lexeme laqlaqqu (laqalaqa, raqraqqu CAD 9 [L]:102; AHW 1:538) is attested on some occasions. In these cases there are hints that the name of the stork was chosen because of an onomatopoetic correspondence (clapping of the beak interpreted as “laq-laq”) already prior to the turn of the era. Since the sound of clapping beaks was and is used as a greeting ritual (a.), as well as a defensive action (b.) and in connection to mating rituals (c.), this aspect can be interpreted as another key feature of the stork figure in addition to the spread wings. It is thus very reasonable to depict a stork on stamp seals, for example, which were used as means to connect to the divine world (a.), as an apotropaic (i.e. defensive) object (b.), and as a lucky charm to evoke blessing (c.).

6. Register of Illustrations

1 http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=33428

2 Details from http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=33428

3 G 29 according to Gardiner list source: Winglyph 4

4 Illustration, http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=15871

5 Photography, http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=15871

6 Photography, http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=17838

7 Illustration, http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=17838

8 Illustration CSAPI III, Tell el-Farcah no. 937,

http://www.bible-orient-museum.ch/bodo/details.php?bomid=27285

9 Photography BIBEL+ORIENT Museum, Numismatics N 1966.111 (Ex-Sammlung Kopp).

Illustrations 1.4-7.9 © BODO database, Stiftung BIBEL+ORIENT Freiburg CH

Contributor: Dr. Florian Lippke, Curator for Levantine and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at the BIBLE+ORIENT Museums Fribourg, Switzerland

Exegetical studies

Migratory, Jeremiah 8:4–7

Information about the stork’s migration over the land of Israel suggests that Jeremiah likely experienced the migration of storks twice a year. Living in Anathoth (in Benjamin, 7–8 km northeast of Jerusalem) on the borders of the Judaean desert, the prophet could observe their journeys south in the autumn and north in the early spring. He could see the storks migrate and rest in the vicinity of Anathoth, as well as identify them from afar, flying above the Jordan valley.

4 Say to them: Thus said the LORD: When men fall, do they not get up again? If they turn aside, do they not turn back? 5 Why is this people — Jerusalem — rebellious with a persistent rebellion? They cling to deceit, they refuse to return. 6 I have listened and heard: they do not speak honestly. No one regrets his wickedness and says, “What have I done!” They all persist in their wayward course like a steed dashing forward in the fray. 7 Even the stork in the sky knows her seasons, and the turtledove, swift, and crane keep the time of their coming (גם חסידה בשמים ידעה מועדיה ותר וסוס [וסיס] ועגור שמרו את עת באנה ועמי לא ידעו את משפט יהוה); but My people pay no heed to the law of the LORD.

Jer 8:4–7 contains no less than six occurrences of the root שוב, including its special Jeremian forms of שובבה and משובה. As an adjective for the people, שובבה occurs only in Jeremiah (3:14, 22; 31:22; 49:3; or for the mountains in 50:6), while משובה desingnates the people’s disobedience.[1] These occurrences use the dual meanings of שוב “to turn away from” and “to turn back to”, in order to illustrate the people’s refusal to “turn back to” (God) (e.g., Jer 3:6). Jeremiah’s denunciation of the people focuses on movement in only one direction: away from God; he excoriates the people for their consistently disobedient attitude and sinful conduct that prevents them from returning to God.[2] Jeremiah introduces two different elements of zoological imagery to illustrate the persistence of iniquity. The first concerns war horses famous for their speed as they run forward with great power (Jer 6:23; 50:42). The combination of the war horse running tirelessly in one direction with the root שטף brings into this imagery the streams of water flooding in great strength through the wadis.[3]
A second image involves four species of migratory birds and their customary behavior, drawing on the seasonal migration in the landscape of Israel, a spectacle that takes place twice a year, in the autumn and in the spring. Stork, turtledove, swift, and crane know their customs, and they keep them with dedication. Each of these birds (assuming the identifications below, which are not assured) is famous for its annual return to the land of Israel on its way either south and or north to its place of origin. Each would fly the same route, arrive at the same spots, and even do it in similar time, down to the day!
The תור, if identified as streptopelia turtur, spends winter in Africa and arrives in Israel on the second week of April, where it nests through spring and summer.[4] The סיס, if identified as the swift (apus), is among the earliest to return. It arrives in Israel by the end of February or early March and stays here until the end of June or mid July, when it heads on to Europe to nest during August and September. The עגור, if identified as the crane (gruidae), arrives for the autumn migration from mid-September through mid-December and in the pring passes through Israel during February, March, and April.
The four birds mentioned in this verse seem to form two quite different pairs: the stork and the crane, the first and the last, are larger birds that fly on thermal winds (the crane also flies actively and thus is not limited to continental routes), whereas the turtledove and the swift are small songbirds that migrate and fly actively, crossing the Mediterranean. The stork and the crane both visit Israel twice a year, whereas the two songbirds spend one fairly long season there. The four birds are thus in Israel at the same time from March through April and then again from August through September.
The simile in Jer 8:4–7 employs two major aspects of bird migration: the routine of time and the dynamic of space.[5] These two aspects serve Jeremiah in his effort to point out the absurdity in the people’s behavior. He emphasizes the measure of time — birds know their seasons … keep the time of their coming — but even moreso the spatial aspect. The people have distanced themselves from God by falling into the depths of sin (v. 4) and wandering around in fraud and misconduct (v. 5). These spatial points are accentuated by שוב and enforced by the two nature similes. The horses running ahead in war and the migration simile both illustrate that the people are on a one-way journey away from God to the furthest places, beyond what eyes can reach when they watch birds departing. Yet, in contrast to migrating birds, the people do not seem to return. Thus the natural routine, steady and eternal, serves to illustrate the absurdity of the people’s religious behavior. This people does not know the law of YHWH (משפט יהוה); the known demands, that could have been part of their routine life. Unlike bird migration, the divine law did not become part of the people’s religious routine.[6]

End Notes

[1] משובה is translated as “evil” in LXX Jer 2:19, parallel to רעה “misconduct, rebellion” in Jer 2:19. NJPS takes these phrases as referring to judgment: “Let your misfortune reprove you, let your afflictions rebuke you,” or in parallel to פשעים “sins” in 5:6. The literal meaning of משובה seems to be “go back and forth,” as is learned especially from Jer 4:1 and 8:4. This noun occurs twelve times in the Hebrew Bible, once in Proverbs (1:32), twice in Hosea (11:7; 14:5) and nine times in Jeremiah, eight of them in the prophet’s words (2:19; 3:22; 5:6; 8:5; four times in the phrase משבה ישראל, [Jer 3: 6, 8, 11, 12]), and one in a quotated communal lament (14:7). See Holladay 1958, 49–50, 147–57; Holladay 1986, 96, 433; Har’uveni 1950, 94–98; the significance of שוב in this passage was also recognized by McKane 1986, 183.
[2] For a fine interpretation of the two phrases in v. 6a: לוא כן ידברו “they speak what is not right,” and אין איש נחם על רעתו לאמר מה עשיתי “no one is sorry about his evil,” see Lundbom 1999, 509. It is not clear in Jer 8:6, “I have listened and heard,” whether the subject is God or Jeremiah; LXX reads the verbs in the plural, avoiding the theological difficulty of this anthropomorphism, assuming the referent is God (I would consider this as a harmonistic version). Lundbom (1999, 504–505, 509) preferred to see here a dialogue that alternates between God and the prophet, yet v. 6, according to Lundbom (with other commentators) refers to Jeremiah.
[3] שטף designates the flow of water in Jer 47:2, as also in Isa 30:28; 43:2; 66:12; Ps 69:3, 16; 78:20; 124:4; Song 8:7. See Qimhi: “and for the intensive race it says שוטף, like a streaming wadi (נחל שוטף, Isa 30:28).”
[4] Haim Moyal suggests the תור to be streptopelia decaocto, which is active in Israel throughout the year and thus not a migratory bird, as the streptopelia turtur mentioned above. Rom-Shiloni prefers the latter and understands the entire list of the birds to be migrating back and forth, as has also been suggested by McKane (1986, 184).
[5] See further references to bird migration in Song of Songs 2:12; Isa 60:8–9; Hos 11:10–11; Prov 26:2, these are discussed below in connection with the different birds.
[6] See Qimhi on Jer 8:7. Qimhi further explained חסידה בשמים as referring to the Stork’s nesting; compare to McKane 1986, 184–85; Lundbom 1999, 510.

Bibliography

Allen, Leslie C. 2002. Psalms 101–150. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary 21. Waco: Nelson.
Assis, Eliyahu. 2010. “Zechariah’s Vision of the Ephah [Zech. 5:5–11].” Vetus Testamentum 60(1): 15–32.
Boda, Mark J. 2016. Zechariah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Brockelmann, Carolo. 1928, Lexicon Syriacum. Göttingen: Halis Saxonum.
Chacham, Amos. 1990. Psalms 2. Jerusalem: Massad HaRav Kook.
Driver, Samuel R. 1906. The Book of Job. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gordis, Robert. 1978. Job. Moreshet 2. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Habel, Norman C. 1975. Job. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Har’uveni, Nogah. 1968. New Light on the Book of Jeremiah. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Kiriath Sefer (Hebrew).
Holladay, William L. 1958. The Root Subh in the Old Testament: With Practical Reference to Its Usage in Covenantal Contexts. Leiden: Brill.
_____. 1986. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. 1996. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14(2). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1989. Psalms 60–150: A Commentary. Translated by H. C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
Lundbom, Jack R. 1999. Jeremiah 1–20. Anchor Bible 21A. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Maher, Michael. 1994. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. The Aramaic Bible. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
McKane, William. 1986. Jeremiah I–XXV. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
McNamara, Martin. 1994. Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus. The Aramaic Bible. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. 1987. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Anchor Bible 25B. Garden City, NY.
Schnocks, Johannes. 1996. “Eine intertextuelle Verbindung zwischen Ezechiels Eifersuchstbild und Sachrjas Frau im Efa.” Biblische Notizen 84: 59–63.
Stead, Michael R. 2009. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 . Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 506. New York: T&T Clark.
Stec, David M. 2004. The Targum of Psalms. The Bible in Aramaic. London: T&T Clark.
Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. 2008. “Zechariah’s Spies and Ezekiel’s Cherubim.” Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah: Tradition in Transition. ed. M.J. Boda and M. Floyd. LHBOTS 475. London/New York: Continuum, 104–27.
Weiss, Meir. 1984. The Bible from within: The Method of Total Interpretation. Trans. B. J. Schwartz. Jerusalem: Bialik.

Contributor: Prof. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, DNI Bible Project Leader, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Nesting upon trees, Ps 104:17

13 You water the mountains from Your lofts; the earth is sated from the fruit of Your work.
…
16 The trees of the LORD (עצי יהוה) drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon (ארזי לבנון), His own planting,
17 where birds (צפרים) make their nests; the stork (חסידה) has her home in the junipers (אשר שם צפרים יקננו חסידה ברושים ביתה).

The only ornithological detail about the stork referenced in Psalm 104 is the location of the nest in a high spot (see Ornithological Information).
This psalm praises God, the creator, for his magnificent cosmological deeds and his sustenance of the world he created in perfect harmony.[1] The poet proceeds from the heaven (vv. 1–4) to the earth (vv. 5–24), followed by further attention to the sea (vv. 25–26), before he presents the dependency of all on their creator (vv. 27–30) and closes with further verses of praise (vv. 31–35).[2] Having described the substance of mountains, valleys, and the subterranean waters that supply water for both beast and birds (תהום, vv. 6–12), vv. 13–18 refer to the vegetation and to the life it supports. Looking first at the mountains and beyond,on earth, God is praised for nurturing them with respiratory waters (v. 13b), so they can grow (מצמיח, v. 14) those agricultural products that supply animals and humans, and cause humanity to rejoice (vv. 14–15).[3] Verses 16–17 start anew on this divine nurturing of nature; see the use of שבע to create an inclusio in verses 13 and 16.
Verses 13–18 show three constructions of the pattern “from the general to the particular” (כלל ופרט): The first is from the land (v. 13b) to the trees of YHWH; see the similar use of שבע in v. 16. The second is from the trees of YHWH to the cedars of Lebanon and the junipers (vv. 16–17); both species are of the highest and most astounding trees of the Lebanon, thus suitable to extol God’s creative powers.[4] Finally, the third is from the general reference to birds (indefinite, צפרים) to the particular stork (v. 17).[5]
This reference to the cedars and junipers of the Lebanon Mountains seems to have generated the reference to the stork in this psalm.[6] This choice of the stork in connection with those high trees is ornithologically accurate. While trees in the vicinity of the land of Israel typically reach a height of 3–4 m, cedars and junipers can grow as high as 30–40 m. What is puzzling about the poet’s awareness to the geo-ecological and ornithological information in these verses is quite puzzling. As he first chooses the highest trees and then connects them with the stork, which is famous for building its nests on such high trees. Once this connection is made between the trees and the bird, the poet extends his sight beyond the geopolitical areas of Israel and Judah and chooses the high mountains of Lebanon.

The versions seem to have moved away from this stork imagery, as they suggest other species instead (see the table on box 3, History of Identification). The Septuagint (and probably the Vulgate following it) presents specific identifications of the birds occurring in each of the stiches: ἐκεῖ στρουθία ἐννοσσεύσουσιν, τοῦ ἐρωδιοῦ ἡ οἰκία ἡγεῖται αὐτῶν “There small sparrow will make their nest, of them [the trees] the heron (אנפה) considered as house.” The Septuagint presents two species of birds in each of the stiches. To translate חסידה, “stork,” LXX chooses ερωδιος “heron” (אנפה). Moreover, the generic name צפרים “birds” is translated as στρουθία “sparrow” (passer domesticus, ploceidae, דרור).[n.7] These identifications transform the style of the verse, as the Septuagint looses the general-to-specific pattern in MT. The Septuagint also does not reflect the parallelism in the trees ארזים and ברושים, evident in its reading of בראשם “at their height” instead of ברושים.[n. 8]

End Notes

[1] Psalm 104 has attracted scholars for its many unique qualities of a song of praise, for its relationship with Egyptian hymnic poetry, etc. See commentaries such as Kraus 1989, 298–99, 302 and Allen 2002, 39–49; and Weiss 1984. The discussion below focuses only on the specific nature imagery connected to the stork, thus on vv. 13–18.
[2] See other divisions of this psalm by Kraus 1989, 298; Chacham 1990, 164; Allen 2002, 44; and others.
[3] Verses 14–15 refer implicitly to the triad דגן תירוש ויצהר, “bread, wine, and oil,” three products as that cause humanity to rejoice; see Chacham 1990, 163; Allen 2002, 46. This triad deserves a separate discussion.
[4] Allen 2002, 46. The relationship between עצי יהוה and ארזי הלבנון / ברושים is often taken as כלל ופרט (“from the general to the detail”); see Chacham 1990, 156. Note also that the phrase עצי יהוה already has this superlative value as in other phrases, such as הררי אל (Ps 36:7) and ארץ מאפליה, (Jer 2:31); see Joüon and Muraoka 1996, 2:141n.
[5] This pattern occurs further in this psalm in v. 11 (חיתו שדי and פראים); thus this cluster of three constructions in vv. 13–18 is remarkable.
[6] Psalm 104 is reach of nature pictures that are far-reaching in their geographical scope than the land of Israel. Looking north to the Lebanon mountains, there is no geographical border between the Galilee mountains and south Lebanon.
[7] Στρουθία is further the equivalent of צפור in Prov 26:2; and see the Ploceidae, passer domesticus, דרור.
[8] This elliptic translation was suggested to reflect a reading of the Hebrew בראשם (“on the top of them”); see Allen (2002, 38), who aptly rejected this reading as “not compelling,” and Kraus (1989, 297), who stated “the correction to בראשם is not mandatory.” It seems to me that this translation is a result of a sheer mistake for the MT plant name ברושים “juniper,” translated in 1 Kgs 5:22; 6:34 as πεύκινoς (pine). The pair ארזים and ברושים occurs regularly; see 1 Kgs 5:22, 24; 1Kgs 6:15; 9:11; 2Kgs 19:23; Isa 14:8; 37:24; Ezek 31:8; Zech 11:2.

Contributor: Prof. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, DNI Bible Project Leader, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Wings and Feathers, Zech 5:9; Job 39:13

9 I looked up again and saw two women come soaring with the wind in their wings (והנה שתים נשים יוצאות ורוח בכנפיהם) — they had wings like those of a stork (ולהנה כנפים ככנפי החסידה) — and carry off the tub between earth and sky. 10 “Where are they taking the tub?” I asked the angel who talked with me. 11 And he answered, “To build a shrine for it in the land of Shinar; [a stand] shall be erected for it, and it shall be set down there upon the stand.”

This third scene of the ephah vision (vv. 9–11, a subset of the section extending from vv. 5–11) introduces the two women carrying this ephah away from its place of origin.[1] The present discussion sheds light on the simile presented in v. 9, where the women’s wings are presented as those of the stork, asking: What would the author want to emphasize in his choice of the stork for this specific context?
As Meyers and Meyers (1987, 305) noted, the prophet in verse 9 describes “an action and not an object, of what he sees” and thus creates the fulfillment of the earlier command (v. 5). Following up on their femininity, the two winged women carry the ephah northward (before they take an east bound turn to the land of Shiner.[2]
Mark Boda pointed out the two means of describing the wings in this vision: having the wind blow through them (ורוח בכנפיהם) and comparing them to the wings of the stork (ולהנה כנפים ככנפי החסידה).[n. 3] Regarding the latter, Boda accumulated all information possible from the other occurrences of the stork in the Hebrew Bible: Its mention among the unclean birds (Lev 11:19; Deut 14:18) seems to be an indication of idolatry, taken as “uncleanness,” and the relationship of חסידה, to חסד “piety” stands in contrast to the רשעה “wickedness,” creating a meaningful wordplay, as the stork-like winged women lead wickedness away from the land.[4]
I would add that this simile employs two qualities of the stork. First, it relies on the migratory quality of the stork leaving the region and heading north. The migratory routes would not bring the storks to Babylon; the closest would be over northern and western Syria, across northern Iraq to present-day Armenia and the Caucasus Mountains by the Caspian Sea — hence, northern Mesopotamia and Urartu of the ancient world.[5] This does not seem a necessary detail within this vision in Zechariah. The important thing is the northward direction of flight and their disappearance from the sight of those in the land of Judah.[6] It is of great interest that this vision suggests a counter deportation, at this point idolatry is expelled away from the land.[7]
Second, “the wind in their wings” may be a good reason to choose the stork, with its wide wingspan, strong and outstanding feathers, and impressive flight abilities. The white stork is considered among the large birds, with a wingspan as large as 200 cm. The stork (male and female alike) has white colors throughout, except for black feathers on its primaries and secondaries (Alon 1986). Their long and broad wings enable storks to soar effortlessly over hot thermal winds. All these qualities make the stork suitable as a simile for the role given to the two women of flying to Babylon carrying wickedness.

The versions read this part of the verse, not knowing of this specific bird. The Septuagint reads καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτῶν, καὶ αὗται εἶχον πτέρυγας ὡς πτέρυγας ἔποπος “and the wind in their wings, and they had wings like the wings of the hoopoe bird,” suggesting the bird be identified as דוכיפת (ἔποψ). The Vulgate here did not follow the Septuagint but rather suggested milvus “kite” ( דיה), which seems to follow Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan to Lev 11:19 and Deut 14:18.
The Targum for this verse gives an allegorical and clearly elaborated translation which includes a significant switch of the bird. Instead of the stork, there appears the much more powerful bird, loaded with further symbolic meanings to be discussed separately: the נשר.

וזקפית עיני וחזית והא תרתין מדינן גלין ועממין קלילין מגלן יתהון בקלילו כמא דמשתדי נשרא ואגליאו ית עמא דהוו נסבין ויהבין במכילתא דשקרא לביני מלכות עממי ארעא דתחות כל שמיא

“And I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold two states going into exile, and swift-footed people were taking them into exile in haste, just as the vulture flies, and they took into exile the people who were trading with false measure, among the kingdoms of the nations of the earth which were under all the heavens.”

Translation by Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 14; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 196-97.

End Notes

[1] The present discussion is thus limited in scope, and cannot aim to solve the enigmatic content and message of this passage among Zechariah’s visions. For discussion of the general context of this vision, see Boda 2016, 340–55 and the references there.
[2] Meyers and Meyers 1987, 305–306 suggested (as one of several options) that the femininity of the two winged women (otherwise occurring as the כרובים, masculine creatures carrying God, as in 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; as also 22:11), is influenced by this simile to the stork.
[3] Boda 2016, 351.
[4] For the pair חסד and רשע, see Ps 32:10; and חסיד / רשע in 1 Sam 2:9; Pss 37:28; 97:10. Assis (2010, 26–28) found the three women of this vision to allegorically represent the Samaritans (רשעה), whereas the two women taking her away in her wings are Israel and Judah; see also Boda 2016, 353.
[5] Cf. Boda 2016, 352 and n. 104. Meyers and Meyers (1987, 306–7) also presented this use of migratory imagery. They also aptly pointed out that nesting and producing young do not occur in the vicinity of Israel and the Levant, which makes their mention of the maternal quality of the stork strange, as it would have been beyond the knowledge of authors in this area of the world.
[6] I accept the suggestion of Boda (2016, 355) that enmity is addressed at the Babylonians and not at the Judean exiles in Babylon; cf. Assis (2010, 21–25), who suggested that the vision represents an anti-Samaritan prophecy, envisioning their expulsion from the land, back to their lands of origin, where there they could establish their own temple.
[7] Boda follows scholars that presented literary allusions between Zechariah 5 and Ezekiel 8: Schnocks 1996; Stead 2009, 198–99. Cf. Assis (2010, 29–31), who found allusions to the tower of Babel story in Genesis 11.

Contributor: Prof. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, DNI Bible Project Leader, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Job 39:13–18

13 The wing of the ostrich beats joyously (כנף רננים נעלסה); are her pinions and plumage like the stork’s (אם אברה חסידה ונצה)?
14 She leaves her eggs on the ground, letting them warm in the dirt,
15 Forgetting they may be crushed underfoot, or trampled by a wild beast.
16 Her young are cruelly abandoned as if they were not hers; her labor is in vain for lack of concern.
17 For God deprived her of wisdom, gave her no share of understanding,
18 Else she would soar on high, scoffing at the horse and its rider.

Within God’s first speech to Job (chs. 38–39), 39:13–18 are said to be focusing on the ostrich (יען, struthio camels).[1] The ostrich is among the few birds mentioned in this speech, alongside the hawk (v. 26) and the eagle (vv. 27–30), but its name does not appear explicitly; rather, the ostrich voices were learned to stand behind רננים, (that literally stands for “piercing cries”).[2] יען occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible (Lam 4:3), in the Qere form (כיענים במדבר; contrast the Kethib כי ענים במדבר). The more common occurrences are of בת יענה (Lev 11:16; Deut 14:15), commonly in the plural (בנות יענה), and the term appears in contexts that tell of a bird that resides on destroyed regions and in the desert (Isa 34:13; 43:20; Micah 1:8; Job 30:29). These last contexts brought interpreters to suggest an identification within the realm of night birds of prey, like the owl species (ינשוף or אוח, תנשמת).
Not least surprising is the fact that, while the name of the bird addressed is obscured, the stork occurs in the second stich of this verse. This imbalance brought commentators to exclude the mention of the stork from this verse and interpret חסידה as an adjective designating “kindness.”[3] So, for instance, Samuel R. Driver translated “The wing of the ostrich rejoiceth; but are her pinions and feathers kindly?” and commented that this translation is preferable over the literal meaning, “or like the stork’s.” Driver did, however, mention the popular etymology of the stork’s name, relating to חסד, understanding it to refer to the stork’s reputation for taking care of its young, and in the end stated that “it is very likely, therefore, that that bird is alluded to.”[4]
An additional grammatical difficulty involves the אם, at the beginning of the second stich. אם is oftentimes is the second interrogative article in a sentence, which raises the question: should the first part of the sentence be read as a question as well?

Also related to word choice in the second stich, Gordis, following Hölscher, found it most attractive to make a small change in punctuation: אם אברת חסידה ונצה “Is it the wing of the stork and the falcon?”, understanding נצה as the feminine of נץ ‘falcon’ (Job 39:26; see also Lev 11:16; Deut 14:15), thus translating this part of the verse: “Is her wing (i.e., the osrtrich’s) the wing of the stork or the falcon?”[5]

How does the stork contribute to the imagery of this passage, in comparison to the ostrich? – In this regard there seems to be two different lines of comparison.
First, commentators (e.g., Driver, Gordis, and many more) have often brought to bear on this verse folk traditions that praise the stork for its parental qualities, its care of its young, in contrast to folk traditions that denigrate the ostrich as a neglectful parent (39:14–16).[6] Verse 17 also denigrates the ostrich by reference to its foolishness, another aspect of popular proverbs.[7]
Yet I wonder if this first comparison is truly relevant here. The stork is presented for its wing (אברה) and feathers (נצה), and nothing in the following verses calls attention to its parenting behavior or other social skills.[8]
This contrast between the ostrich and the stork, then, seems to be merely the result of a long reception history that developed from an effort to compare the two birds, especially as a result of the unfamiliar terms within this verse (or even lack of any reference to them in the Septuagint and Vulgate).
Second, the common denominator behind the three nouns in this verse — כנף, אברה, and נצה — is that all three are parts of wings.[9] Hence, MT Job 39:13 seems to call into comparison the ornithological qualities of the two birds regarding their wings, and subsequently regarding their flight.
In these respects, there is clearly much to compare between the ostrich and the stork. At face value the two birds may not be that far away in their colors: black, white, and red are shared. The feathers of the adult male ostrich are mostly black with some white primaries and white tail; in some of the subspecies, such as the North African ostrich (or Barbary ostrich) and the Masal ostrich, the male has pinkish or even reddish skin exposed on its neck and thighs.[10]
But the two birds differ substantially in their ability or disability to fly. Over against the known mobility of the stork and its flight that climbs high over the hot thermal winds, the ostrich is far too heavy even to be able to leave ground and fly, and its wings have in fact been withered and are very short in comparison to their large body size.

אברה and נוצה have been a challenge to the early versions. אברה occurs in parallel to “wings” in all of its four appearances (Deut 32:11; Ps 68:14; 91:4; and Job 39:13) and נוצה occurs but four times in the Hebrew Bible, three of which clearly refer to the feathers of birds (Lev 1:16; Ezek 17:3, 7), and one debated occurrence in Job 39:13. But it is quite surprising to find that the Septuagint translates the first word by grammatical-phonological mistake and suggests a transliteration of the second:

πτέρυξ τερπομένων νεελασα,
ἐὰν συλλάβῃ ασιδα καὶ νεσσα·

The wing (f.s.) of those who take pleasure in (pl. gen. part.) neelasa (transcription),
if an Asida (transcription) shall conceive (subjunctive) and nessa (transcription)

The Hebrew Vorlage of this verse (which I would not think different than MT) clearly caused a lot of embarrassment to the translator, who had no clue how to translate the first part of the verse, never mind its second half, where the specific name of one bird appears. Three considerations are significant: (1) This transliteration to Asida occurs also in LXX Jer 8:7. (2) The translators did not understand the unique ornithological term אברה, and their translation συv λαμβάνω reflects the root עבר ‘conceive, become pregnant’. (3) While translators take νεσσα to stand for נץ ‘falcon’ (of the Falconinae family), I would suggest this nothing but a third case where the scribe transliterated the Hebrew, reflecting ignorance of another ornithological term —נוצה — standing for “feather.”

The Vulgate seems to go its own way, accepting the verse as drawing a simile between the wings of the ostrich and that of two birds, the heron and the hawk:
Pinna strutionis similis est pinnis herodii et accipitris.
‘The wing of the ostrich is like the wings of the heron and the hawk (נץ)’
(The Vulgate Bible III, 135).

Two birds then are mentioned, the heron (אנפה), by which the Vulgate translates חסידה in Ps 104:17 as well, in accordance with LXX Ps 104:17, and then the hawk (standing for נוצה). It seems that the Vulgate was not satisfied with the Septuagint transliteration to this verse and in reference to the first it brought one of its recognized equivalents to the stork, the heron, possibly due to the close proximity of חסידה and אנפה in Lev 11:18; Deut 14:18. On the second unrecognized word, נצה, the Vulgate did accept the Septuagint transliteration and identification concerning the hawk.

End Notes

[1] For the structure of Yahweh’s first speech, see Habel 1975, 530–35. The identification of the יען as ostrich (struthio camelus) is very problematic, and still presented here following the interpretive traditions. Another option connects בנות יענה to night birds of prey like the owl species (ינשוף orאוח, תנשמת). Moyal suggests the scops-owl, one of the night-predators, which indeed has the ability to fly.
[2] Habel (1975, 546) found this description of the ostrich to be comic, contributing to the absurdity that governs the entire speech. Gordis (1978, 458) mentioned the numerous suggestions these verses accrued. The identification of the יען is debated. נעלסה was understood to be close to עלץ, עלז ; see the hithpael in Prov 7:18 and עלז in 2 Sam 1:20; Jer 15:17, etc.; or עלץ in 2 Sam 2:1; Ps 9:3, etc.
[3] For this line of explanation in Zech 5:9 as well.
[4] Driver 1906, 119.
[5] Gordis 1978, 459. This suggestion follows the line the Vulgate has already suggested, as it accepts the verse as drawing a simile between the wings of the ostrich and that of two other birds, the heron and the hawk (נץ): Pinna strutionis similis est pinnis herodii et accipitris “The wing of the ostrich is like the wings of the Heron and the Hawk [נץ]” (The Vulgate Bible III, 135).
[6] Gordis 1978, 459. See Habel 1975, 546–47 for a counter portrayal of the ostriches as parents.
[7] Driver 1906, 119; Gordis 1978, 459–60.
[8] This was recognized and presented by Habel 1975, 546.
[9] אברה “pinions” (Ps 68:14; and otherwise metaphorically of God, Deut 32:11; Ps 91:4), is the feminine form of אבר, designating “arm” or “wing” in Isa 40:31; Ezek 17:3; Ps 55:7; as also Akkadian: abru; Aramaic: אברא, “pinion”; Arabic: wabbara “to be covered with feathers” (HALOT, 9). נוצה in its occurrences in the HB referring to the eagle (Ezek 17:3, 7) or the Stork (Job 39:13), desingates “feathers” and so it is established by the Akkadian nasu (AhW 758a) and Arabic nasiyat, nussat (HALOT, 682–83).
[10] The Ostrich female and youngs have brown-gray feathers; but their beak, neck and thighs are pinkish-gray. See the discussion of the Ostrich.

Contributor: Prof. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, DNI Bible Project Leader, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Reception Literature

The Stork in Rabbinic Literature

The Hebrew etymology of חסידה is unknown. The stork’s name is explained in the Talmud with a popular etymology, Babli Hul. 63a:
Rabbi Yehuda said: The stork is a white kite, why is she called חסידה? For she does kindness with her peers (שעושה חסידות עם חברותיה).
This popular etymology is built upon the root חסד, “be good, kind” (BDB 338; HALOT, I.336–37 considers חסידה as a derivative of חסד II, expressing solidarity, loyalty, faithfulness, goodness, etc). Along these same lines, Rabbi Yehuda continued to explain the name of the אנפה as “an angry kite,” coming from אנף, “to be angry” (BDB 60; HALOT I.72), thus “creating anger within her peers” (although the Hebrew has the root נאף, see: שמנאפת עם חברותיה). See the discussion on the אנפה.
Note that the verb in its biblical usage [both in qal and hithpael] is restricted to God as agent.
Note that the rabbinic explanation does not refer to the stork’s maternal qualities commonly highlighted in Greco-Roman (and European) folklore, where stories could reflect exposure and knowledge of the stork’s nestling habits.

Contributor: Prof. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, DNI Bible Project Leader, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel

The Stork in Greek and Roman Literature

Greek and Roman sources note the extra care storks take of their fledlings, even when it means prolonging the nesting period.
A folk tradition has also developed concerning how the young feed their parents. This “reversed” social order stands behind the Greek law, named Pelargonia after the Pelargos (stork), requiring children to support their parents (Grzimek 7, 232; Dor 1997).
From an orinithological perspective, however, this tradition is a result of a misunderstanding (or rather, a misobservation) based on the fact that the fledglings look bigger than their parents. But this is simply due to the fats that soon will transform into muscle.

Contributor: Prof. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, DNI Bible Project Leader, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel