Lilith

[stephofthenight]

The concept of Adam having a first wife, and Eve not being the first woman is of interest.
I have found the church, and those in the church to steadfast refuse any notion that Lilith might have existed. But then those same church people will also not acknowledge that before the flood everyone was a vegetarian sooo.....

There are two distinct women created in the Bible:
Eve- Genesis 2:21-25 "made from the rib of man"
"Lilith"- Genesis 1:26-29 Genesis 2:4-8 and Genesis 5:1-2. The three accounts imply that Adam and the woman were created at the same time. Both from dust, unlike the account of eves creation. In some translations the woman is missing from the second account, in literal Hebrew translations a woman named Adamah was created with adam, and watered with mist.

In Genesis 1:26-29 God gives permission to both man and woman to eat freely of every tree; however Eve was never given permission to eat of every tree. After Adam was moved to the Garden, BEFORE Eve was created in Genesis 2:18-25, God warns Adam that he may no longer eat freely. In Genesis 2:15-17 God tells Adam he must guard the tree of knowledge, and not eat from it. The restriction is in place before the creation of Eve- this leads me to think that there has to be a different female creation before Eve. In Genesis 5:2 a single name is given for both the male and female "Adam" supporting the dual creation from dust theory. You could conclude that Adamah would be the feminine form of Adam, meaning "ground" and "root" Consistent with the legend that Lilith was created from muck and mud. The literal Hebrew of Genesis 2:18 would explain why Adam was lonely, as he originally had a mate and became alone, explaining Adam's unsuccessful search for a mate. You could also take this to show that Eve was a replacement for the first woman. After Eve was created Adam awakened to exclaim "this time is this" or "hapa'am" in Hebrew. Representing a repeated event in comparison to the original. Almost as if to exclaim this time we got it right! In reference to the "bone of my bone" in comparison to the original creation with dust/mud.

The serpent in the Garden was not a snake, but rather a "nachash" the root word nechash means "divine". Originally the root meant to whisper, it came to change meaning to describe individuals who obtain power from whispering voices of demonic spirits. Those inhabited were predominately women, If the serpent is indeed human, Lilith provides a very plausible origin. The most famous Nachash serpent of the Bible is Leviathan, commonly believed to be Lucifer in the form of the garden serpent. In Job 26:23 and Isaiah 27:1 Leviathan has described as a winged serpent fleeing from God to the seas. The legend of Lilith
matches this description, with her also fleeing on wings from the garden, to the ocean. 1 Enoch confirms that the Leviathan dwells in the seas, and is Female, again matching Lilith. In the Garden God curses the Serpent, promising the Messiah would crush its head, In Psalm 74:14 we see God crushing the head of the Leviathan- are they one and the same?

Job 26:13 implies that the serpent Leviathan was created along with Adam "By his spirit he has garnished the heavens; his hand has formed the crooked serpent." This places the serpent being created, at the same time as Adam in the same fashion. Making a fairly decent case for the serpent being Lilith and supporting her existence. The serpents ability to speak and manipulate characterize it as having human traits, the lack of surprise on behalf of Adam and Eve that the serpent spoke leads me to believe this was the creatures natural state of being. If you look at the curse God laid out against Eve and the Serpent it would seem both are female. These are the same curses we see for the adulterous wife, and Eves curse of childbirth matches that of the innocent woman of the trial. The serpent as Sotah, and Eve as the innocent woman could further identify the serpent as the adulterous female who went astray from Adam.

In Isaiah 34 we see a demon named Lilith, described as a deadly creature with wings. She is said to be a slayer of young children. A snake fused with Lilith make the two "one being" She dwells in tthe midst of the sea sharing her home with angels cast from heaven. Upon the day of judgement the waters of her home will whither and become like molten tar,and the dust brimstone. The entire account in Isaiah matches that of Lilith's legend and association.


So what are your thoughts? Could such a creature exist? Why is this not acknowledged in the church? Or have I missed some simple explanation? My apologize for any typos, poor spelling or grammar as its quite late and It's very possible i'm simply rambling.

[Jackson Richardson]

You have a very literalistic approach to scripture.

I understood there are two creation myths in Genesis - Genesis 1 where man and woman are created at the same time and Genesis 2 where the woman is created from the side of the man.

Both accounts are mythic descriptions of the human condition and refer to same human circumstances.

I will look up your citations though for interest.

[Jackson Richardson]

I’ve looked up Isaiah 34.14 where there is the reference to Lilith in several translations.

The King James translates Lilith as “screech owl” and one other as “monster of the night”. There is nothing to connect her with Adam or dwelling in the sea. She is just one of the horrid things that take over the destroyed city.

Of course the serpent was created at the same time as Adam and Eve. So were all the other animals in Genesis 1 (or at least in the same week).

The myth of Lilith being Adam’s first wife sounds pretty sexist to me.

[Danik 2016]

Steph
I have read something about the so called "Myth of Lilith" as it is sometimes referred to in Feminine Literature. I forgot the titles now, but the point about Lilith, if I rightly remember, is that she is created as an equal of Adam, as your citations above seem to support. Also she seems to be represented as the dark side of womanhood:), with an independent and unsettling character.

[Jackson Richardson]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this. I’ve been researching it a bit. According to Wikipedia – which is not a very good authority at times – the belief that Lileth was Adam’s first wife was a Jewish folk belief dating from the 700s at the earliest. As far as I can make out the name Lilth only appears in the Bible in Isaiah 34. The idea of her as Adam’s wife is not scriptural and was not current before the development of Christianity. In scripture she is demonic night creature, as far as we can tell from the brief reference.

That is why that belief does not figure in mainline Christian tradition.

In Genesis 1, the woman is equally created in the image of God as is the man.

[Jackson Richardson]

Stephofthenight obviously put a lot of thought and research into their post. Maybe she (he?) was telling us something about their personal mythology and symbolism that is personally very important.

In which case my replies have been a bit crushing. Or more than a bit. Mind you, it is difficult to be welcoming at the same time as telling someone they are barking up the wrong tree. But I wish I had been more personally gracious.

[mona amon]

The concept of Adam having a first wife, and Eve not being the first woman is of interest.
I have found the church, and those in the church to steadfast refuse any notion that Lilith might have existed. But then those same church people will also not acknowledge that before the flood everyone was a vegetarian sooo.....

Most of what I'm going to say is what Jon has already said, but there really is nothing about Lilith in the Bible, save for one passage in Isaiah which has a passing reference to 'the lilith', though no English translation has it. This is the mythical Lilith which would have been familiar to the people of that time, a sort of winged female demon/succubus, so there is no reason for the church to question the existence of Lilith as some sort of monster like Leviathan, but there is no evidence at all to identify it either with Leviathan or with the serpent of the fall.

The story of Lilith as Adam's first wife comes from an anonymous, satirical, 11th century Jewish text known as the The Alphabet of Ben Sira, so it is nothing more than a piece of fiction, not even a myth or legend, and appears at least 1500 years after the biblical account of creation. This is the full story from The Alphabet -


Soon afterward the young son of the king took ill. Said Nebuchadnezzar, "Heal my son. If you don't, I will kill you." Ben Sira immediately sat down and wrote an amulet with the Holy Name, and he inscribed on it the angels in charge of medicine by their names, forms, and images, and by their wings, hands, and feet. Nebuchadnezzar looked at the amulet. "Who are these?"
"The angels who are in charge of medicine: Snvi, Snsnvi, and Smnglof [סנוי סנסנוי וסמנגלוף] (in English: Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof). While God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone' (Genesis 2:18). He also created a woman, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels to bring her back.
"Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, what is made is good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.'
"'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.'
"When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted she go back. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God: 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day. Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write the angels names on the amulets of young children. When Lilith sees their names, she remembers her oath, and the child recovers." - (from Wikipedia)

It is easy to see why the Lilith of this story captured the popular imagination, especially the female! :D

I suggest you have a look at this interesting website for more on the Lilith myth.http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/lilith/

[stephofthenight]

No worry about being crushing JonathanB (she) can handle it :) I forget that my frequent long absences leave me a stranger to many here. I enjoy things that challenge my faith- The resurrection is one thing most Christians agrees would change their faith, and many would abandon it. I transitioned to Christianity from Paganism so Lilith is fairly familiar to me. But the existence of Lilith as the first wife, would cause problems in my faith and undermine the perfection of creation (in my opinion) so it is something I am interested in exploring.

[Jackson Richardson]

Thanks, steph, that’s jolly decent of you.

I can imagine the story of Lilith would go down well with a certain sort of feminist who rejoices at any representation at all of a strong woman, ignoring the fact strong women can be just as toxic as strong men.

Steph and Mona are in a far better position to judge what is sexist than a bloke like me, but the story Mona cites sounds just the sort of thing a man would come up with to show all women are evil unless they are a total doormat. (Although Lilith there is a nasty bit of work – she has no interest in a mutual, collaborative or complementary relationship – she want power.)

[Danik 2016]

I'd like to introduce a different perspective into the discussion, especially as the question was asked for a religious more than a literary reason. Without excluding the possibility of they being the product of religious revelations, one has to take into account I think that the Jewish/ Christian early myths about the origin of men, were mostly, if not all of them, male narratives. How difficult female access to sacred texts in much more recent times was, shows this story with its contradictions between the original story and the film.
Among other themes, Genesis poises tue question of gender relathionships from a male point of view.I have put myself some questions, how it would be if the narrative of Genesis had been the product of one or several female or even mixed gender narratives. I want to share them with you:
Would Adam be created before Eve?
Would Eve be represented as being created from the rib of Adam?
Would the downfall from Paradise be described the way it is? (Though she is created after a more submissive pattern, we have to agree thatEve's reputation in Genesis isn´t s0 much better than Liliths).
That said, I don´t consider myself a feminist only inasmuch I am for equal rights for both genders. A world without males and male points of views would be utterly boring

[Jackson Richardson]

When I did my diploma in Religious Studies I deliberately went for the Modern Theology module to a secular tutor, who was a Quaker feminist. She spent some time examining Genesis 1 and 2. She told us what she had heard from the Chief Rabbi of Ireland, who as she pointed out would be totally Orthodox.

He said that the spare rib wasn’t a single rib, but more what we would mean by a side of meat – ie half the rib cage.

That’s Genesis 2. A modern translation of Genesis 1 translates “So God created humankind in his image, male and female he created him.” (ie Humanity is created first, sexual difference is secondary.) So in both those versions, the woman is an equal of the man. At Genesis 3.16 the woman is told “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” but that is a consequence of the fall and not what God intends for humanity.

I don’t want to underestimate the sexist potential of the OT but it is not all bad news for women.

[Danik 2016]

That´s an interesting theory, Jonathan because it shows that the interpretation of Genesis is becoming more flexible.
About the rib question, I don´t think there is a concret difference if the woman was created of the rib, the half rib cage or the little finger of man. The problem for me is the underlaying idea that woman derived of man.
“your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you”- I have a very strong suspicion that this rule came from the religious leader of the time when this was written down. The matter of descendance was and probably still isof primary importance for the Jews. In times before the ADN test only a strict female faithfullness to her husband could guarantee that her children were really fathered by him.
Please, what does OT mean?

[Jackson Richardson]

Sorry, OT = Old Testament (or to be right on, the Hebrew Scriptures).

[Danik 2016]

Thanks!It´s pretty obvious but I do have a problem with all those acronyms, especially in a foreign language!

[Jackson Richardson]

At a Bible study group I was at, a woman priest (we have them in the Church of England) suggested that Proverbs 8 gives yet another creation story, one in which a female figure, Wisdom, plays a significant part:
http://tinyurl.com/j3m42ay

I think she was implying that Genesis 1 was abstract and male centred. I disagree with her if so and I may post later.

But for the meantime Proverbs 8 is worth a look.

[Danik 2016]

Here some more information about this translation:
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Revised-Standard-Version-Anglicised-NRSVA-Bible/
More important than that, the existence of woman priests in a Christian church shows how things are changing in this domain.
But I have an language question, Jonathan.Is "wisdom" a feminine word in English? Else how could one know that this figure is feminine?
The point I want to make is that there are several traditions and several authors that engendered the myth of creation of man and that most of the earlier traditions were indeed male centred. That has to do IMO with the positions men and women occupied in their communities.

[Jackson Richardson]

In English there is no grammatical gender at all, so wisdom as a word is neuter. * I imagine that in Hebrew wisdom is feminine and in the Proverbs passage is certainly referred to as "she".

The New Revised Standard Version translation was a revision of the Revised Standard Version mainly to take account of inclusive language. "Brothers" in Paul's letters is translated as "brothers and sisters". "Man" in the quote I gave from Genesis 1 is translated as "humankind".

[Jackson Richardson]

A good case could be made that the very first image for God in the Bible is a female one. It comes in the very first verse of that priestly account in Genesis 1.

The usual translation is along the lines of “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (King James, Authorised Version) But there is a suggestion that the words “moved upon” can mean “brooded”. In other words the Spirit of God is compared to a mother bird on her nest.

Here’s two very different takes on that idea.

In The Message, modern street wise Biblical paraphrase we have

First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don’t see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God’s Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss

And at the start of Paradise Lost, Milton invokes the Holy Spirit

And chiefly thou Oh spirit, that dost prefer
Before all temples the upright heart and pure,
Instruct me, for thou knowest; thou from the first
Wast present, and with mighty wings outspread
Dove-like satst brooding on the vast abyss
And mad'st it pregnant:

[Ecurb]

In many species, male birds brood (sit on the eggs). Gerard Manly Hopkins chips in on God's propensity for brooding:





The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

[Danik 2016]

In English there is no grammatical gender at all, so wisdom as a word is neuter. * I imagine that in Hebrew wisdom is feminine and in the Proverbs passage is certainly referred to as "she".

The New Revised Standard Version translation was a revision of the Revised Standard Version mainly to take account of inclusive language. "Brothers" in Paul's letters is translated as "brothers and sisters". "Man" in the quote I gave from Genesis 1 is translated as "humankind".
Inclusive language sounds very up to date, Jonathan. One can notice how the interpretation shifts depending on which group it addresses and the respective positions of men and women in that group. Just for comparison, I don´t know anything about a similar inclusive movement in the Catholic Church yet.

[Danik 2016]

Jonathan and Ecurb,
I have still not learnt how to quote more than one text on the same page, so this answer goest to both.
The fact is that English has this interesting possibility of gender concealment represented by the article "the". I call it concealment and not neutrality because the gender lurks behind the article. But it leads to very literary and ideological results this shifting between genders in a way a language where gender is more marked can´t.
A brooding bird fathering/ mothering the world is a powerfull image!

[Jackson Richardson]

I hadn’t noticed the parallel image in Hopkins and Milton. Hopkins must have known Milton, but manages to sound Hopkins-y where Milton sounds Miltonic.

Milton was no proto feminist, given his three wives, and his Spirit manages to be both brooding, (which is a characteristic female activity) and making pregnant (which is a rather male thing to do).

But my point in quoting the verse was to suggest that even if Genesis 1 was written by men, it does not assume male superiority. The Spirit brooding is one possible example (although the translation is ambiguous) but the real clinch is Genesis 1.27 “So God created humankind in his own image, male and female he created them,” where the female is equally formed in God’s image.

[Calidore]

I have still not learnt how to quote more than one text on the same page

See the quote-+ button to the right of the reply with quote buttons? Click on that to check off each response that you want to reply to, and all will be quoted in your reply box.

[Danik 2016]

Thanks a lot Calidore!

[Danik 2016]

But my point in quoting the verse was to suggest that even if Genesis 1 was written by men, it does not assume male superiority. The Spirit brooding is one possible example (although the translation is ambiguous) but the real clinch is Genesis 1.27 “So God created humankind in his own image, male and female he created them,” where the female is equally formed in God’s image.
Yes, you are right. I looked up several on line Bibles in English and one in Portuguese and the texts are sometimes identical. This text is in fact equalitarian. There is a possibility that the text about Adam and Eve was written by a different author.
Take a look at these links:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm
https://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.php

[Jackson Richardson]

That first link gives the standard academic view of the composition of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). The second link looks very dubious fundamentalist protestant special pleading.

Individual authors are not that important in this case - the important thing is the text has been accepted as canonical by a community.

The general non-fundamentalist academic view would be there are two seperate creation accounts, one in Genesis 1 and one in Genesis 2.

Incidentally, when in holiday in Italy I once came across a Bible in my hotel bedroom. In the Italian translation there was a footnote to point out the creation accounts in Genesis were not to be taken as literal history or science. This footnote was with the authority of the Italian Conference of Bishops, whose head would be the Pope himself.

[Danik 2016]

I have read the Bible mostly in the catholical and the Lutheran version (my mother is Lutheran) but I never studied it from a religious point of view. I was not aware of these theories on authorship until I looked for it in internet.
You are right: more important than the issue of the authorship is what is accepted as canonical. As both narratives from Genesis are accepted one might say that the account shifts between an equalitarian and a more sexist version. As for the brooding bird maybe it is above gender diversity, as it is a primal, unified entity that engenders the more diferentiated and divided beings and forms of the universe.
I never studied the verses of the Bible but, when still at the university, I enroled in a course about the Old Testament offered by the Department of Hebrew.It verified the historical veracity of the facts stated in the OT. For example, was Abraham a historical character, where or how long did he live. What me impressed mostly was to learn that the prophecies where written down after they had been fulfilled. For me this was a revelation, Until then I had taken the Bible absolutely literally.

[mona amon]

I don't find the Old Testament all that misogynistic - well, except for the whole woman being a man's property to do with as he chooses thing, which pervades and transcends the Bible, and is the reflection of the attitudes of the time, and spills over into our own time (for me) every first Sunday of the month when we solemnly repeat in church the full ox and *** version of the ten commandments (the tenth commandment -"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.) I feel most of the modern sexist (and homophobic) attitudes of the Christian church come from the letters of Paul, so definitely a male author there. In all this Jesus stands out as a brightly shining contrast to the rest, treating women with perfect equality, never saying anything that could be construed as misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, or in any way intolerant, healing a woman of a gynecological ailment which would have made her perpetually unclean, and even fudging misogynistic Old Testament laws to benefit women.

Genesis 1 to 3 - I believe the theory that these stories evolved over the centuries and were passed on orally, so regardless of whether they were written down in their present form by a male author/authors, women surely had their say, and Adam and Eve turn out different, but pretty equal. Who was formed first seems an unimportant quibble as long as they were both formed in God's own image. After the fall they are given different dispensations - Eve is doomed to bear children with labour pains, and Adam to labour in the field and bring forth the fruit of the earth by the sweat of his brow - neither of them has it easy, neither is cursed more than the other. There's no getting away from the fact that God tells Eve that "your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you" - surely male author, but this is also softened by the fact that God is addressing Eve and not Adam, so it's more like a prediction ("that's what's gonna happen") rather than an order or permission to Adam to rule over his wife. Also, I see that God does not say anything about the woman's sin being greater because she sinned first. That too seems to come from Paul.

[Jackson Richardson]

That’s nice to hear, Mona. At least the ten commandments don’t stop you coveting another woman’s husband. (Sexist joke.)

Poor old Paul. He seems totally lacking in charm or any sense of humour, although his letters show us him trying to be diplomatic with congregations in difficult circumstances.

His regrettable comments on women were certainly not unique to him and are completely incidental to the most important part of his message, that God’s love, forgiveness and acceptance are irrespective of anything we have done to deserve them and are given as a free gift – grace.

And give Paul his due. He provides the verse that was cited over again in support of the ordination of women, Galatians 3.28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. That is from the New International Version, the preferred translation for fundamentalist protestants.

[mona amon]

Oh I love Paul! I think he's a compelling and charismatic personality as well as a great writer and thinker, and some of his epistles are among my favourite books of the Bible. The depth of my fervor and admiration is probably because of my complete volte-face regarding him. I used to regard him as some sort of misogynistic prig, and then I actually read him, and the scales fell from my eyes! Got to disagree with you about his lack of charm - his charisma and love for Christ and his fellow men (and women!) pervades all his writings and is of course best shown in his soaring paean to love in 1 Corinthians 13, and the concept of grace is a beautiful one. I know my admiration for him was not exactly evident in my previous post :D so I don't blame you for sticking up for him.

The sexist stuff only makes me smile, but unfortunately so many seem to take it as true and binding for ever. "You are all one in Christ Jesus" is all very well, but what about his diktat that women should not teach or have authority over a man? The church I belong to (Church Of South India) has been ordinating women for some time now, but the Roman Catholic church and some other denominations are I think still in the middle ages on this issue.


See the quote-+ button to the right of the reply with quote buttons? Click on that to check off each response that you want to reply to, and all will be quoted in your reply box.

Thanks, Calidore! All these days I used to select all and copy, and then reply to the next post. You have made my life easier. :)

[Danik 2016]

I sure love Paul too. Once he was convinced of Christianism he bravely fighted for it. It´s certainly not his fault if the ideological outlook has changed so much. As for his sense of humour, wasn´'t that a later invention much favoured by the Britons?
I´m very glad to learn that in some Christian orders women are already ordained and Bible texts revised to stress the equality of the genders. But, the way things are moving today, I shouldn´t wonder if there appeared a interpretation, stating that men where born of the rib or the womb of the first woman.
I think the important thing is about this is that men and women respect each other's and live with each other in harmony.
And in these our times of changing values I still don't know better rules to achive this than the ten commandments (with a slight edition of one of them to give men their due:D) and the Christian commandment of love.

[caddy_caddy]

This thread is very interesting ! I heard of this name before and was curious to know abt it . Thanks for the useful information