Why did the Christians cut Lilith out of the Creation Myth?

[Darth Servo]

Adam Fucks Lilith, Lilith doesn't want to be fucked, so she kicks his ass

THAT'S why she isn't in mainstream Bible.

[jegs2]

Even the strongest female characters in the bible were still subservient to their husbands. She risked her own life just by entering the presence of her husband, the king.

From what I gather, anyone who entered the Persian King's presence without permission found their lives forfiet. The queen was but another subject. Besides, it those days, all women were second or even third-class citizens. Suvservience of women to men was not exclusively a Judiastic trait -- in fact, women being looked as anything but second-class citizens is a relatively modern phenomenon...

[Darth Servo]

From what I gather, anyone who entered the Persian King's presence without permission found their lives forfiet. The queen was but another subject. Besides, it those days, all women were second or even third-class citizens...

So? The F***ing queen is treated the same as an ordinary citizen. This actually makes sense to you in a system that supports the notion of royalty?

In a democracy, the heads of state should not be above the law anymore than the people, but with royalty, its a whole different story. The king doesn't even think enough of his own wife to treat her any better than a pesant?

[Utsanomiko]

Ahh, good thing The king knows he's above god's Commandments; When you rule over the people, you can murder anyone you want.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Even the strongest female characters in the bible were still subservient to their husbands. She risked her own life just by entering the presence of her husband, the king.

From what I gather, anyone who entered the Persian King's presence without permission found their lives forfiet. The queen was but another subject. Besides, it those days, all women were second or even third-class citizens. Suvservience of women to men was not exclusively a Judiastic trait -- in fact, women being looked as anything but second-class citizens is a relatively modern phenomenon...

Which is precisely why I tend to look on the "Lilith" story with suspicion. Someone waaaay back writes the creation myth in a time when women are subservient. 2,000 years go by. The Sexual Revolution (and a few other "revolutions") comes along. And suddenly, Lo and Behold! we discover that for 2,000 years, it was all wrong! The real Original Woman was a badass! Skepticism being the rule on such subjects, I find the timing of this "discovery" highly suspect.

[Stravo]

Even the strongest female characters in the bible were still subservient to their husbands. She risked her own life just by entering the presence of her husband, the king.

From what I gather, anyone who entered the Persian King's presence without permission found their lives forfiet. The queen was but another subject. Besides, it those days, all women were second or even third-class citizens. Suvservience of women to men was not exclusively a Judiastic trait -- in fact, women being looked as anything but second-class citizens is a relatively modern phenomenon...

Which is precisely why I tend to look on the "Lilith" story with suspicion. Someone waaaay back writes the creation myth in a time when women are subservient. 2,000 years go by. The Sexual Revolution (and a few other "revolutions") comes along. And suddenly, Lo and Behold! we discover that for 2,000 years, it was all wrong! The real Original Woman was a badass! Skepticism being the rule on such subjects, I find the timing of this "discovery" highly suspect.

No what it reflects is a time back in ancient days when there was only oral history there are some scholars that contend that women ran the show in the deep dark past and that man took over and became the rulers. The revolution came and men wanted to do what they could to wipe out the memory of the matriarchal society and created the rebellious Lillith who was punished for getting out of line by a male god. These same men then went on to show that women were responsible for the fall of man by being seduced by the serpent. Even the name woman - "Woe unto man" The mystery surrounding women was changed to be dangerous, the monthly cycle looked on with loathing and disgust and the outright trampling of women, converting them into nothing more than property.

[jegs2]

So? The F***ing queen is treated the same as an ordinary citizen. This actually makes sense to you in a system that supports the notion of royalty?

In a democracy, the heads of state should not be above the law anymore than the people, but with royalty, its a whole different story. The king doesn't even think enough of his own wife to treat her any better than a pesant?

Yes. Sorry, but they didn't have modern value systems and our ethical standards 5000 years ago. So yes, for the most part, all women regardless of their rank among other women were treated as lesser people than men. The queen did outrank those who were not the king, but in those days the king's word was unquestionable law.

Oh, and after battles, the victorious soldiers would walk about and kill any surviving enemy soldiers, and then they would enslave or kill the conquered people. Many years later, the Romans were a bit more civilized about things...

[Utsanomiko]

Raoul, what exact time frame are you suggesting that Lilith was 'discovered'? And by who? The only people Lilith was hidden from during the last several centuries were your averave Christians. there have been countless references and representations of her in mythology an old texts. It's like saying Asmodeus was 'suddenly' discovered in the last century with the Book of Tobit.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'm with Tom. Why can't we just take the original scripture of the Bible and translate it. Then we will have the True Story. Oh, but this would not work. It would go totally against the Christian faith. Bah.

That reminds me of something. If the Bible had been changed in the past, how could it be literal Word of God? That's some food for fundie thought.

[Utsanomiko]

That's some food for fundie thought.

That's a contradiction of terms and you know it, bucko.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I'm with Tom. Why can't we just take the original scripture of the Bible and translate it. Then we will have the True Story. Oh, but this would not work. It would go totally against the Christian faith. Bah.

That reminds me of something. If the Bible had been changed in the past, how could it be literal Word of God? That's some food for fundie thought.

Here's more food for thought: Am I mistaken, or was the culture in which the original text was recorded not also patriarchal? If so, why would one patriarchal religion create this character as an object lesson and another using the majority of the same text omit it?

From the sources I've researched, Lilith was a medieval demonological figure which sprang from rabbinical legend; here's a quote from www.lilithgallery.com/library:

Lilith (or Lilitu) has over 100 names and variations in myths ranging from Ancient Sumeria to Jewish Mysticism to tribal Malayasia to the Third Millenium. She is perhaps the most identifiable incarnation of historical feminism and men's fear of feminist idealogy (Judeo-Christian men used female icons to increase feminine demonification, essentially by lying and spreading rumours).

All of the results I've had time to examine so far reveal either similarly ideological pages, or outright fictions based on the "Mother of Vampires" motif. I have so far seen no results which quote passages from the DSS that mention Lilith, or indicate where to find such passages.

[Utsanomiko]

Yes, technically she and Lucifer had thousands of demons, succubi, and such together. that's where the Mother of Vampires thing of Rabbinical legend comes from.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Lilith comes from the Talmud not the Old Testament.

Precisely. A more complete discussion of Lilith, from www.http://www.lilithmag.com/resources/ ... rces.shtml

All You Ever Wanted to Know about Lilith!
LILITH SOURCES
by Judy Weinberg
(from the premier issue of LILITH Magazine, Fall 1976)
If we were able to trust all the rabbinic and kabbalistic sources available to us concerning Eve's alleged predecessor, Lilith, we would be forced to believe that she is a "fiery female spirit" who, although frigid, passionately seduces men in their sleep, and who, although sterile and childless, kills one hundred of her demon children daily. Dozens of conflicting Lilith traditions exist. If we are to discover and establish a meaningful image of Lilith, these different traditions must be disentangled strand by strand. While this entire task is not possible within the limited scope of this brief overview, we can begin it.

The first available version of the Creation story which associates the name Lilith with a "first Eve" is included in the Alphabet of Ben-Sira , a work probably written sometime in the Gaonic period (600-1000 C.E.). This account merges into two separate and distinct traditions-that of the Lilith of the Talmud and that of the "first Eve" of the midrash (legends).

Lilith in the Talmud: The personality called "Lilith" in the Talmud shows no connection with Adam at all. From the four specific references to Lilith in the Babylonian Talmud, we learn only that she is a wild-haired and winged creature with nymphomaniac tendencies (Erubin 100b, Niddah 24b, Shabbat 151b); and the mother of demons (Bava Batra 73a ).

Such a characterization of Lilith may have been drawn from the single Biblical mention of "lilith" (Isaiah 34:14):

The wild creatures of the desert shall meet with the jackals , the goat demon shall call to his fellow, the lilith shall also repose there and find for herself a place of rest.
Commentators have often translated "lilith" as "night-monster," associating the name with layil, the Hebrew word for night; thus, Rabbi Hanina forbids men to sleep alone in a house at night lest they fall prey to her (Shabbat 151b). (The Akadian "lilitu," a female spirit wind, is probably a more accurate etymology, however.)
"First Eve": The midrash (legends) of Genesis Rabbah discusses a "first Eve" but does not mention Lilith. According to Rabbi Hiya, she "returned to dust" (22:7). Judah, son of Rabbi Hiya, states that in the beginning God created Eve for Adam, but when Adam saw her being made with sinews and blood, he grew disgusted and became alienated from her. Thereupon God caused this first Eve to return to nothingness and proceeded to create a second Eve for Adam (18.4).

Two separate and distinct beings-Lilith of the Talmud and Eve 1 of the midrash-came together into one, to become Lilith, Adam's first mate. We can see this process of integration in the Alphabet itself. In the beginning of this account, Lilith is characterized as a woman (ishah). By the end of the story, however, her children are called demons (sheydim) and she herself has powers that can only be warded off by the mystical means of an amulet. Thus, having equated his protagonist with Lilith of the Talmud, the author was forced to assign her the characteristics attributed to her by that work.

Lilith in Kabbala: The various and often contradictory accounts found in subsequent kabbalistic literature of different periods seem to interweave the scant references of earlier Jewish sources with later myths culled from outside influences. Lilith's image depicted in medieval kabbalist literature is complex and evil.

Let us first examine the kabbalistic myths of Lilith's creation. The Alphabet account is the only version of the story in which Lilith is an independent being, for she was created out of materials similar to Adam's.

The Zohar (the central work of Jewish mysticism) develops a theory that Adam originally comprised both male and female elements. This is based on Talmudic and midrashic statements that "Adam, who was the first man, had two full faces" (Brachot 61a, Erubin 18b). Rabbi Samuel ben Nachman said: "When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first man, he created him as a hermaphrodite." Rabbi Levi said the same thing:

When man was created, he was created with two body fronts, and He sawed him in two, so that two bodies resulted, one for the male and one for the female (Lev. Rab. 14:1).
The Zohar picks up on this theme of Adam's bisexuality but now draws the connection with Lilith:
The female was attached to the side of the male until God cast him into a deep slumber... God then sawed her off from him and adorned her like a bride and brought her to him, as it is written, "And He took one of his sides and closed up the place with flesh. " I have found it stated in an old book that the word "one" here means "one woman" to wit the original Lilith, who was with him and conceived from him. Up to that time, however, she was not a help to him, as it is written, "but for Adam there was not found a helpmeet for him." (134b).
Other references in the Zohar describe Lilith as a competitor to "the female affixed to his side."(see III 19a, II 276b, I 19b).
Yalkut Re'uveni, a seventeenth- century collection, mostly of kabbalistic legends, no longer allows the first woman equal origins with Adam, as did the Alphabet of Ben Sira. A commentary on Gen. 2:21 states:

"In the beginning when the Holy One, blessed be He, created [the first] Eve, he did not create her out of flesh, but rather of the filth of the earth and the sediment." Adam, however, was only made from the earth.
Kabbalistic tradition has numerous portrayals of Lilith as a demon, often linking her to other such female spirits as Naamah, Machlah and Agrat. In fact, Lilith is often confused with them. Yaalkut Re'uveni claims, for instance, that both Lilith and Naamah had intercourse with Adam and brought forth "plagues to the world." However, elsewhere the Zohar identifies Naamah as "the mother of demons" while Lilith, it seems, only functions as their governess:
Naamah "goes forth and makes sport with men and conceives from them through their lustful dreams."...[The offspring] all go to the ancient Lilith who brings them up. She goes out into the world and seeks her little ones and when she sees little children she cleaves to them in order to kill them and insinuate herself into their spirits (Zohar III, 76b).
The implication from this and other sources is that Lilith has no children of her own. On this point, Gershom Scholem cites Torat HaSheydim (15th -16th century) which states that of the four demon queens, only Lilith is unable to give birth; because she is frigid she blots the face of the earth. These revelations are quite astonishing when one recalls all of the literature on Lilith's children.
Lilith the Child Slayer: The tradition of Lilith as a slayer of children is seen in the midrash in Numbers Rabbah: "...like Lilith, who, when she can find no strange children, slays her own" (16:25). This Lilith seems to resemble the Babylonian demon Labartu or Lamashtu, for the child-slayer image has no foundation in the Talmud and certainly no connection with the first Eve. Since scholars differ widely as to the dating of Numbers Rabbah, it is difficult to determine whether the author of the Alphabet based his portrayal of Lilith as the evil spirit who harms babies on this source, or whether both drew from a common antecedent. In any case, the unity of the motifs of promiscuity and child-slaying does not occur until the time of the Zohar (see Zohar 119b).

Lilith's character, then, is a maze of contradictions, interweaving a variety of legends and traditions. If we isolate all the strands of demonology, separating the various interpolations of Lilitu, the wind spirit; Labartu, the child-slayer; Lamashtu, the Greek Lamia; Lilith, the night -demon; we are left with the story of the first Eve, who may or may not have claim to the name Lilith in the first place.

Stripped of the overlay of medieval mysticism and demonology this Lilith emerges as an independent spirit. Had she succeeded in her battle with Adam for equal rights, Lilith might today represent that spark of original creativity in whose image women could retrace and recreate their history. Instead history plunged her into the depths of demonhood. Only in the twentieth century, which has no use for sheydim, may the Lilith, who has been obscured by the mists of demonology these thousands of years, be revealed today as the first woman on earth, equal to man and a free spirit.

If the above sources are correctly interpreted by the author of this document, then my suspicions are correct: Lilith was not omitted from the Bible, because indeed -- as appears to be stated above -- she never appeared in it to begin with. She is merely a Rabbinical demonological figure resurrected to serve as an ideological mascot.

[Clone Sergeant]

The concept of a male dominated religion usurping a female dominated one isn't limited to Judeo-Christian religion. Many of the Greek myths are designed to put down the religion of the female oriented Pre-"Greek" culture.

The best example I can remember is of Medusa or the Gorgans. Supposedly, they were originally Pre-Greek gods. They are considered "ugly" by the greeks because of the cultural values they represent.

The only good thing about this is the Greeks absorbed the previous culture's pantheon of gods as opposed to merely calling them false. Many of the Greek goddesses are essentially "transformed" from their Pre-Greek "forms", Athena being the most obvious. Her mother was a Pre-Greek goddess transformed by Zeus(consuming her) into a form that fit Greek values. This merging was essentially a compromise between the two belief systems and allowed them to live together.

As opposed to the centuries of conflict between religions in the middle east because each group thinks they are the only way.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

The concept of a male dominated religion usurping a female dominated one isn't limited to Judeo-Christian religion. Many of the Greek myths are designed to put down the religion of the female oriented Pre-"Greek" culture.

The best example I can remember is of Medusa or the Gorgans. Supposedly, they were originally Pre-Greek gods. They are considered "ugly" by the greeks because of the cultural values they represent.

The only good thing about this is the Greeks absorbed the previous culture's pantheon of gods as opposed to merely calling them false. Many of the Greek goddesses are essentially "transformed" from their Pre-Greek "forms", Athena being the most obvious. Her mother was a Pre-Greek goddess transformed by Zeus(consuming her) into a form that fit Greek values. This merging was essentially a compromise between the two belief systems and allowed them to live together.

As opposed to the centuries of conflict between religions in the middle east because each group thinks they are the only way.

As I hope I've demonstrated with the previous post, it is wise to investigate claims of "pre-historic matriarchies" for signs of political revisionism. I tend to regard them with the same attitude I would reserve for stories of ancient Pharoahs who owned Dodge Vipers, especially if I saw the GM logo on it, to overextend a metaphor.

[Enforcer Talen]

Nope!

Eve came later

In the Orthodox versions she's still there.

She's still in the Jewish and Islamic versions too.

Genesis
God creates Adam & Lilith
Adam Fucks Lilith, Lilith doesn't want to be fucked, so she kicks his ass
God Banishes Lilith, makes Eve as a replacement.

Lilith Shacks up with God's other Outcast Lucifer.
Eve and Adam get banished
Cain kills Abel
Cain gets Banished
Eve and Adam have 90 more kids

60 Years into Cain's immortal exile he runs into Lilith.
Cain and Lilith get together and found the first true city.
(As well as found the tendancy for Violence/Revenge/wars of conquest in humanity)

that *would* make more sense then cain getting it on with sisters.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

They also omitted Og from the sriptures. He was the only Nephilim to survive the flood, because the waters only went up to (iirc) his waist. There was even a part of the Noah's Ark story that said he sat on the Ark and demended to be fed oxen. Don't know what god did about that one.

Lilith was cool; I've got a game design that features a lot on demons, and I am *so* going to use her.

The Flood waters only went up to Og's knees, Utsanomiko.

God, I love Judeo-Christian mythology. Don't get that in any of your stupid post-Reformation cults.

[Frank_Scenario]

I'm noticing quite a few comments on matriarchal, prehistorical societies popping up here and there. According to Stephen Clark, the consensus amongst anthropologists is that no such societies exist or have ever existed, although the idea lives on in popular discourse. He may be wrong, but his statements jive with what little I know of the field (from some acquainances). This means Raoul Duke is right on in his commentary about political revisionism.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I'm noticing quite a few comments on matriarchal, prehistorical societies popping up here and there. According to Stephen Clark, the consensus amongst anthropologists is that no such societies exist or have ever existed, although the idea lives on in popular discourse. He may be wrong, but his statements jive with what little I know of the field (from some acquainances). This means Raoul Duke is right on in his commentary about political revisionism.

Thanks for the vote of support, Frank. It's one of those times, lately, when I'm feeling shaky in my confidence, and a friendly voice in the crowd is always appreciated.

[Utsanomiko]

It still doesn't address Lilith's ommision from Jewish myth, which not only explains why Christians can pretend she was invented in the last century, but the myth aspect was the thread's opening topic.

And besides, since when hasn't practically everything of Judeochrisianity changed between the OT and the middle ages, or made total 108-turns with rewrites? Or just simply omissions of the mythologies themself (which turns a religion into a cult, in my book)?

Angels have been depicted as having 1, 2, 3, 14, or 22 pairs of wings, or none at all, and have ranged in numbers from millions to a handfull to none at all. Demons have either been in the millions, with numerous head-demons such as Asmodeus, Mammon, or Baal serving under Lucifer, or they've all been lumped into one single Devil. Hell, even god has gone through so many fucking changes between books, myths, and scriptures that it's hard to tell if they're even the same deity. Lilith's mythologies might not be clear-cut between different texts or centuries to define a single, uniform, timeless 'Lilith', but neither are any other aspects of this religion.

[Frank_Scenario]

It still doesn't address Lilith's ommision from Jewish myth, which not only explains why Christians can pretend she was invented in the last century, but the myth aspect was the thread's opening topic.

Well, it hardly seems fair to blame modern Christians for not considering ancient Jewish myths that are no longer considered by most Jews. I'd imagine that the reason people don't recall the Lilith myth is the same reason that most people don't recall Zoroastrian mythology (and there are some Zoroastrians around).

And besides, since when hasn't practically everything of Judeochrisianity changed between the OT and the middle ages, or made total 108-turns with rewrites? Or just simply omissions of the mythologies themself (which turns a religion into a cult, in my book)?

Well, I don't know what rewrites you're talking about. To my knowledge, (good) modern translations of the Bible are astonishingly close to the ancient texts. Undoubtedly there have been awful translations, but the NKJV, NIV, and NAS are all highly accurate. The practice of Christianity (and Judaism I imagine) has changed considerably, but that's not a rewrite.

Angels have been depicted as having 1, 2, 3, 14, or 22 pairs of wings, or none at all, and have ranged in numbers from millions to a handfull to none at all. Demons have either been in the millions, with numerous head-demons such as Asmodeus, Mammon, or Baal serving under Lucifer, or they've all been lumped into one single Devil. Hell, even god has gone through so many fucking changes between books, myths, and scriptures that it's hard to tell if they're even the same deity. Lilith's mythologies might not be clear-cut between different texts or centuries to define a single, uniform, timeless 'Lilith', but neither are any other aspects of this religion.

Contradictions in mythology are nothing new; the mythology of Judaism and, later, Christianity rose out of oral traditions; the stories were not supposed to be consistent. Also, most of the mythology is informed by surrounding cultures; the creation myth, for example, was written during the Babylonian captivity and is a response to the Enuma Elish, the creation myth of the time. Very few elements of the mythology have actually made it into the Bible; the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the non-canonical texts from 200 BCE-100 CE are where most of it comes from. In modern society, the Catholic church recognizes the Apocrypha, but no one recognizes the other bodies of work.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Nope!

Eve came later

In the Orthodox versions she's still there.

She's still in the Jewish and Islamic versions too.

Genesis
God creates Adam & Lilith
Adam Fucks Lilith, Lilith doesn't want to be fucked, so she kicks his ass
God Banishes Lilith, makes Eve as a replacement.

Lilith Shacks up with God's other Outcast Lucifer.
Eve and Adam get banished
Cain kills Abel
Cain gets Banished
Eve and Adam have 90 more kids

60 Years into Cain's immortal exile he runs into Lilith.
Cain and Lilith get together and found the first true city.
(As well as found the tendancy for Violence/Revenge/wars of conquest in humanity)

that *would* make more sense then cain getting it on with sisters.

Cain "getting it on" with his sister is distasteful to our modern values, but it is certainly not illogical in the circumstances of the story. If we regard the events depicted in the story as the truth, then we can say that Cain obviously fucked somebody, and only his direct female relatives were available.

As for the genesis of war, strife, etc., the standard biblical account explains that those are offspring of the first sin. Lilith is entirely superfluous to the standard Biblical account. This further reinforces the idea that she never appeared in it.

Thus, when you ask why she was cut out of the creation myth, you should really specify which creation myth you're discussing. The creation myths in which Lilith appeared are not the same creation myth predominantly subscribed to by modern people.

[Crayz9000]

I'm with Tom. Why can't we just take the original scripture of the Bible and translate it. Then we will have the True Story. Oh, but this would not work. It would go totally against the Christian faith. Bah.

Actually, there are a couple translations of the Greek Septuagint (originated in roughly 100 BC). One is by Sir Launcelot Branton (http://www.ccel.org/b/brenton/lxx/htm/i.htm) and the other is an ongoing translation by Greek Orthodox scholars (http://www.lxx.org) which is taking the New King James version and comparing it to the Septuagint.

But going back to the original subject of the thread, Sir Branton's translation of the Septuagint also has the inconsistency in Genesis:

27. And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.

15 And the Lord God took the man whom he had formed, and placed him in the garden of Delight, to cultivate and keep it.
16 And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which in the garden thou (Or, eat for food) mayest freely eat,
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall (Or, die by death) surely die.
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone, let us make for him a help (Gr. according to him) suitable to him.
19 And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and he brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called any living (Gr. soul) creature, that was the name of it.
20 And Adam (Gr. called) gave names to all the cattle and to all the birds of the sky, and to all the wild beasts of the field, but for Adam there was not found a help like to himself.
21And God brought a trance upon Adam, and he slept, and he took one of his ribs, and filled up the flesh instead thereof.
22And God (Gr. built) formed the rib which he took from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam.
23 And Adam said, This now is bone (Or, out of) of my bones, and flesh my flesh; she shall be called (Or, wife) woman, because she was taken out of (In the Heb. the reason of the name appears. She shall be called Issha because she was taken out of Ish) her husband.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall (Gr. be cemented) cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

However, there is no mention of Lilith here, so either Branton left it out or it simply wasn't in there to begin with.

[Crayz9000]

Thanks for the link, Raoul. There's some interesting information there, including a webpage that deals with Lilith and the medieval "Alphabet of Ben-Sira": http://www.hist.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ ... habet.html

Finally, here's an article that critiques the "Alphabet" Lilith account.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/ ... ilith.html