Lilith
CapnBaigan
mentioned Lilith. The Christian bible doesn't mention her or the other woman
made after her but before Eve. A friend says that some of the stuff from the
Jewish bible was chopped out from the christian one because they were deemed to
be not "from God". Does anyone know if Lilith was in any of the ancient texts,
before some "reasonable" people decided what was "from God" and what wasn't?
Christopher B Siren
If you look at the first two chapters of Genesis you'll find that there
are two stories where man and woman are created. In the first chapter,
God makes man and woman at the same time. In the second chapter, man is
made from dust and woman, Eve, is made from his rib. These two accounts
led to the idea that there was a first Eve, prior to the Eve that is the
mother of Cain and Abel.
[AFAIK, This idea shows up in some Talmudic writings and Midrash from
around 200 BCE to 200 CE - the new Testament was written between about 50
CE and 150 CE, but the canon wasn't settled on until around the time of
the Nicean council -- the mid-300's CE.]
Prior to this confusion, there had existed a Sumerian demoness or type of
demoness, called lilitu, who either became adopted by or was the
etymological antecedent for the Hebrew "Lilith". For the Hebrews, Lilith
was originally a demoness who was held responsible for crib death.
[The Mesopotamian lilitu may go back as far as around 2500 BCE - I'm not
sure. I don't know when Lilith first shows up as a Hebrew demoness,
probably by around the Babylonian captivity (mid 7th century BCE)]
Sometime between 800 CE and 1000 CE, _The_Alphabet_of_Ben-Sira_ was
written, combining these two traditions. There, for the first time,
Lilith is named as the first Eve, stating that she left Adam because
she refused to be treated as an inferior to Adam (particularly, in bed).
Because she refused to return, she is made to kill 100 of her children
every day.
For more information, see:
Alan Humm's Lilith page at:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/lilith.html
Patai, Raphael _The_Hebrew_Goddess_ Third Enlarged edition. New York,
KTAV Publishing House, 1978. (Also: Wayne State University Press,
1990.)
Schwartz, Howard. _Lillith's_Cave:_Jewish_Tales_of_the_Supernatural_.
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740
cbs...@hopper.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
Gord's Greyhawk: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/gordmain.html
UNH Observatory: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/observatory.html
Bryan Gardner
that the Priestly account in Genesis speaks of Lilith (man and woman on
the same day) whereas the Yahwistic account speaks directly of Eve,
though Adam does exclaim 'At Last!" when Eve is produced. Also, in the
Priestly account man and woman are told to be fruitful and multiply
while the Yahwistic account says that they were naked but unashamed,
possibly meaning they didn't know about Sex.
The midrash of Zohar speaks of Lilith in more detail.
An excellent book on the subject is Raphael Patai's _Hebrew_Goddess_
(re?)published in 1990 (I think)
Hope that helps,
Bryan
Keebler411
the story of Lilith because of the Lilith Fair.
>>I have read several books, some I bought, some from the library, which have
>>mentioned Lilith. The Christian bible doesn't mention her or the other
>woman
>>made after her but before Eve. A friend says that some of the stuff from
>the
>>Jewish bible was chopped out from the christian one because they were deemed
>to
>>be not "from God". Does anyone know if Lilith was in any of the ancient
>texts,
>>before some "reasonable" people decided what was "from God" and what wasn't?
>
Lilith is mentioned in one of the ancient Jewish texts, I don't remember which
ones. These texts say that Lilith was created as the first woman but God
banished her from Eden because she refused to be subservient to Adam, so she
got kicked out to wander. Than God made Eve. Lilith than had children, but
because these children were demons someone(I can't remember if it was God or
some mortal who went after her) went and killed them. This made her so
distraught that she went insane and went into a cycle of seducing men, having
children than killing the children and eating them. (I can't remember the last
part of the story exactly so please feel free to correct me.)
Keebler411
http://members.tripod.com/~keebler411/
Christopher B Siren
Isaiah 34:14 - and this mention is under dispute, considered by many to
refer to a literal "screach owl" and not to the demoness.
>Many people believe
>that the Priestly account in Genesis speaks of Lilith (man and woman on
>the same day)
This is considered the "first Eve" in most earlier sources that comment on
it and is not identified with Lilith until the "Alphabet of Ben-Sira",
written in 800 CE-1000 CE.
>whereas the Yahwistic account speaks directly of Eve,
>though Adam does exclaim 'At Last!" when Eve is produced. Also, in the
>Priestly account man and woman are told to be fruitful and multiply
>while the Yahwistic account says that they were naked but unashamed,
>possibly meaning they didn't know about Sex.
>
>The midrash of Zohar speaks of Lilith in more detail.
Not in the translation that I have (Daniel Chanan Matt)
Christopher B Siren
keebl...@aol.com (Keebler411) writes:
>
>Lilith is mentioned in one of the ancient Jewish texts, I don't remember which
>ones.
She shows up in a number of ancient sources, but it is a middle ages
source where she first appears as Adam's first wife.
>These texts say that Lilith was created as the first woman but God
>banished her from Eden because she refused to be subservient to Adam, so she
>got kicked out to wander. Than God made Eve. Lilith than had children, but
>because these children were demons someone(I can't remember if it was God or
>some mortal who went after her) went and killed them. This made her so
>distraught that she went insane and went into a cycle of seducing men, having
>children than killing the children and eating them. (I can't remember the last
>part of the story exactly so please feel free to correct me.)
According to the "Alphabet of Ben-Sira", she left Adam when he refused to
treat her as an equal (particularly as a lover). Adam complained to God,
who sent his angels to bring her back on the condition that if she refused
then she'd have to kill her children, who were also lilit demons. She
refused to return, saying that it was her role to kill infants. (prior to
her association with being Adam's first wife she had been understood to be
the demoness reponsible for crib death.) Putting an amulet with her name
on it around an infant's neck is supposed to remind her of her own
children and thus, spare the child. It's only relatively recently that
she's been associated with seduction... some sort of convergence with
lamia and succubus legends I think.
John / Linda
Lilith the Demoness http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mythology/11732
Lilith - a Feminist? http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mythology/12382
Mythology Editor
Suite101.com
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/mythology
CapnBaigan <capnb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990622174159...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
PSmith9626
Lilith was a sumerian goddess who was demoted to demon by the jews. In
jew ish mythology she steals boy children when they are very young.
Sort of a jewish morrigan.
best
penny
PSmith9626
Levy-Strauss
Personally , I am waiting on christ.
penny
Christopher B Siren
I think calling her a Sumerian goddess is a little misleading. It is
possible that she may have been a goddess in the pre-literate times, but
in the extant literature and artwork, lilitu-demons appear strictly as
demons - not objects of veneration (beyond the appeal to not kill the
infants and that sort of thing) and not as goddess-like characters in any
of the mythological tales. A Lilith character does appear in the
"Inanna and the Huluppu tree" segment of "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the
Underworld", roosting in Inanna's tree, being a bit of a nuisance to her.
It is my understanding that this identification is now under dispute (see
Alan Humm's page).
CapnBaigan
book published by White Wolf entitled Revelations of the Dark Mother. Is this
story anywhere near accurate to others that you all have read?
Christopher B Siren
It might help if you sumarized that story, but you'll be able to make a
decent judgement yourself if you check out all of the articles on Alan
Humm's Lilith site at:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/lilith.html
david eason
PSmith9626 wrote:
christ... becoming a demon?
Ragnar
Shayde
>well, one of the books that I mentioned that I had read about her from is a
>book published by White Wolf entitled Revelations of the Dark Mother. Is this
>story anywhere near accurate to others that you all have read?
White Wolf tends to take myths and legends and shape them for their
game world environment, distorting the origins somewhat, basically
logically extrapolating the origins to fit their game world.
Cal
gw...@wave.park.wy.us
>cbs...@unh.edu (Christopher B Siren) wrote:
>>In article <19990622174159...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
>>CapnBaigan <capnb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I have read several books, some I bought, some from the library, which
have
>>mentioned Lilith. The Christian bible doesn't mention her or the
other woman
>>made after her but before Eve. A friend says that some of the stuff
from the
>>Jewish bible was chopped out from the christian one because they were
deemed to
>>be not "from God". Does anyone know if Lilith was in any of the
ancient texts,
>>before some "reasonable" people decided what was "from God" and what
wasn't?
--snipping liberally so the post isn't any longer than necessary--
>For more information, see:
>
> Alan Humm's Lilith page at:
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/lilith.html
While this person has what I feel is an excellent grouping of all sorts
of information about Lilith, those who are in the mood for
speculation on this topic should note that my post of 16 April 98,
which was the culmination of my own personal cumulative
research of the topic, is not located at this cited site. Because some
may be interested, I'm here reposting my article, "The
Question of Lillake - A Little Story." Please -- Enjoy! <g>
Repost follows:
I've been trying for a long time now to realize who Lillake (Lilith)
originally was. I've come up with a rather radical notion. I hope you
enjoy my story (and this is for you, Kim Burkard; more power
to you, girl! <g>) Here's my latest and best theory -- and what it's
based upon:
We know scant little about the Sumerian view of Lillake. We find that a
tree ("the huluppu tree") has been transplanted by Inanna from the banks
of the Euphrates to her garden in Uruk. The following is the
translation by Kramer in his _The Sumerians_:
The tree grew big, its trunk bore no foliage,
In its roots the snake who knows no charm set up its nest,
In its crown the Imdugud-bird placed its young,
In its midst the maid Lilith built her house -
The always laughing, always rejoicing maid -
The maid Inanna - how she weeps!
.......later.......
Her brother, the hero Gilgamesh,
Stood by her in this matter,
He donned armor weighing fifty minas about his waist -
Fifty minas were handled by him like thirty shekels -
His axe of the road -
Seven talents and Seven minas - he took in his hand,
At its roots, he struck down the snake who knows no charm,
In its crown the Imdugud-bird took its young,
climbed to the mountains,
In its midst the maid Lilith tore down her house, fled to
the wastes.
The tree - he plucked at its roots, tore at its crown, . .
..................
He then gives the tree to Inanna and she makes him the pukku and
mikku from it, which he subsequently looses in the netherworld. The
stump of the tree is made into a throne.
..................
Note that in the newer edition, wherein Wolkstein joined Kramer in
the effort, Imdugud-bird was reinterpreted as Anzu-bird. I don't know
why this was done, but it is odd since it tends to conflict with the Zu
bird of the Marduk story. It is apparent, however, that the bird in the
story is large. I say that because "the tree grew big," and large
birds, such as eagles, ravens, and great owls, nest in the tops of tall
trees. We don't ordinarily find small birds nesting there.
Also, it's my understanding that the original Sumerian word of our
concern is "Lillake," not "Lilith."
In seeking who Lillake was we concern ourselves with this original story
that talks about: a big tree with no foliage on its trunk that had
been transplanted from the banks of the Euphrates to the garden
of the most important goddess of Sumeria (Inanna), a large female bird
nesting in the top of the tree, a female snake that can't be charmed
(thus not a cobra) nesting within the base of the tree, and some other
sort of being called "Lillake" which has set up a home in the "midst" of
the tree.
When we speak of beings living in a big tree, we are reminded of the
famous World Trees of various other stories belonging to cultures with
other pantheons of gods and goddesses. One that springs quickly to mind
is about the Yggdrasill tree of the Norse culture. In that tree there
also lives a serpent at the base, and in the tree running messages back
and forth from base to top lives a squirrel. I'm not going to suggest
that Lillake is a squirrel, however. What I *am* going to suggest is
that the big tree in Inanna's garden was not a World Tree.
The same Jews who began the demonization turning Lillake into a
horrid being our contemporaries call Lilith also told a radically
different story about a garden. They call their garden Gan Eden,
and say it represents where people go when they die. In the story
of Gan Eden there are *two* important trees, one which gives the
knowledge of good and evil (wisdom) and one which gives immortality
(eternal life). It seems obvious from the Jewish story that because man
(Adam) ate of the forbidden fruit of the first tree, he and his lady
were expelled from the garden (and thereby lost access to the second
tree and immortality - supposedly). The serpent told Eve the fruit
would not cause her to die. Indeed, it did not, since being expelled
from Gan Eden caused man and woman to live.
In our Sumerian story the lady in question is not the mate of man
(Gilgamesh), but is the goddess who owns the garden (and who
in another story did try to seduce the man, but was spurned for playing
the field). The man is questing to try to find a way around death (his
having been terribly stricken by the grief of losing his best friend).
The goddess will help him get into the nether regions by making two
needed objects for him called "pukku and mikku."
She'll make these objects from the wood of the tree. Thus, in
order to fulfill his quest, Gilgamesh must chop down the big tree.
He begins by killing the snake; then the bird flies away to the
mountains, Lillake tears down her "house" and flees to the
"wastes" (wilderness - desert - *out* of the garden), and the man chops
down the tree.
Here we are reminded that in Sumerian belief there existed also *two*
trees, the guardians of the gate that led to Anu's realm. Their names
are Dumuzi (later called Tammuz) and Ningishzida (the father of Dumuzi).
There was also a lesser known goddess named Geshtin,
goddess of the vine. Dumuzi, the chief vegetation god, was Inanna's
mate. We recall the story of her escape from the Underworld Realm
belonging to her sister, Ereshkigal... and how her mate, Dumuzi, took
her place there, switching seasonally with Geshtin. Apparently
Ningishzida needed to stay to guard the gates of the Heavenly Realm
of Anu.
Note that Ningishzida resolves to Nin-gish-zi-da, or Lord Tree
Protecting Wisdom (IOW tree #1 of Gan Eden). Tammuz can be
seen to mean Spouse Tree (possibly Elm - see Halloran's Lexicon),
from Dam-mes (note that mes also means "young man, prince") -- or Dumuzi
can be seen to mean Complete Beautiful Soul, from Du-mu-zi.
Geshtin, or Gesh-tin, means Vine or Wine, and is formed from Gesh,
meaning Tree, and tin, meaning Life. Thus we see that Geshtin, the
vine from which wine is made, is literally the Tree of Life (IOW tree #2
of Gan Eden).
It seems that the tree in Inanna's garden is none other than her spouse,
Dumuzi. I say that not only because of the obvious
attachment in the other stories between Dumuzi and Inanna, but also
because of the *throne* that was carved from the stump of the tree in
the garden. Recall that when Dumuzi was found (in order to be called to
the Underworld to take the place of his lady, Inanna, who was at that
point in very dire straits), he was lounging about on his
*throne*. This, at the very least, ties Dumuzi to a *throne*. See also
that the possible "mes" part of the name, Tammuz, appears to denote a
young man, a prince, as well as a tree.
It's interesting that Inanna was willing to have her spouse, Dumuzi,
chopped down so that Gilgamesh could have the objects he required
for his foray into the nether regions. Even though she wailed about it,
one wonders what could get her to do such a thing. We know that
afterward she was so upset she went to dispute who should have
Dumuzi with her sister, Ereshkigal, in the Underworld. When Dumuzi was
called to the Underworld to take the place of his lady, by that time he
*was resting on a throne*.
But Dumuzi couldn't be in the Underworld all the year 'round. He could
be alive again in the middle realm when the season changed
and all the land was not parched dry by the summer heat, when the vines
had been cut back, when the fruits were mashed and fermented into wine,
when Geshtin could take his place. And probably there was no one who
needed the wine more than the people of the "wastes,"
the desert dwellers.
It's been suggested that a portion of Kramer's work is mistranslated.
It occurs when he says, "in its midst the maid Lilith." The Sumerian
syllables of that series of words are: ki-sikil-lil-la-ke. I take the
liberty of suggesting ki-si-ki-(i)l-lil-la-ke, which I translate as:
"In the place (in the tree) of long thin things to make carriers, the
Earth spirit (of that place) of abundance (aka Lillake)." This phrase
thus designates a vine used in basketry as that housing the spirit
called Lillake, the spirit of abundance. I can't think of any better
place in a garden to grow a fruit-bearing vine than on a tall tree with
no foliage on its trunk. And I can't think of a better image for the
Jews to focus their discontent upon than that of wine
(unless it be the Egyptian god Set, but that's another story <g>).
It only seems more logical to this woman of this culture to blame
mankind's choice to be inebriated rather than blaming the wine for
things like crib death, wet dreams, kidnapping, etc., etc., when
those events have occurred because someone was drunk. And it
makes a lot more sense to me than blaming a demoness who is
really a goddess.
For me, Geshtin is the obvious choice as the spirit of abundance
(Lillake), especially since there is also Asherah, the Phoenician
goddess symbolized by the stump of a tree, which scholars tell us
is the original form of the maypole (wrapped with strips of cloth or
ribbon, a vestige of Geshtin). There must have been a lot more
going on in those "groves" than we've been led to believe.
Sounds like fun! <g> "Let's go down by the grapevine, drink my Daddy's
wine, get happy!"
It seems the joke was on Adam/Gilgamesh. Adam ate the fruit of
Ningishzida, not realizing that his knowledge of (and ability to
perform) good and evil would apparently cause him to give up immortality
because he was choosing to live. Gilgamesh chopped
down Dumuzi, not realizing that he wouldn't have to eventually die
if he just drank the lifewater of the fruit of Geshtin growing on the
tree he was manhandling. And it looks as if the Jews placed their story
in the garden at the gate to Anu's abode (on the banks of the
Euphrates), while the Sumerian story occurred later after Inanna
moved Dumuzi and Geshtin to her garden at Uruk (since Gilgamesh,
aka Adam, is in this story, too). Leave it to the Jews *much later* to
write a story that only _seems_ to happen *before* the Epic that was
actually written long before the Jews ever existed. <g>
Hoping you found this story an enjoyable and even slightly enlightening
read...
------------end repost
Stey-yu.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen Saylor
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
PSmith9626
yes, it's inevitable when judeo/xian/islam is replaced by the next
religion.
I also collect dead languages--- I am working on english.
best
penny
david eason
PSmith9626 wrote:
> dear ragnar,
> yes, it's inevitable when judeo/xian/islam is replaced by the next
>
> religion.
> I also collect dead languages--- I am working on english.
> best
> penny
>
Dear Penny,
Come to New Zealand! We're working on killing English in record time!
Get this... teachers at school dont teach grammer any more. Even better, they
don't teach spelling - its how the word sounds thats important, not how its spelt.
This last one has only been around for a couple of years, but for the last 7? 8?
universities in all subjects been running introductory courses to bring people up
to an educational standard where they can cope with the system - ie what should
have been taught in school.
Good luck :-)
Ragnar
PSmith9626
And i thought my students here in the USA were poorly prepared.
Still, I often dream of moving to New Zealand.
It might happen.
best
penny
>Come to New Zealand! We're working on killing English in record time!
>Get this... teachers at school dont teach grammer any more. Even better, they
>don't teach spelling - its how the word sounds thats important, not how its
>spelt.
The world has gone to hell in a handbasket.
Lord Rutherford must be turning in his urn.
dbh...@my-deja.com
"John / Linda" <john...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> See these articles:
> Lilith the Demoness
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mythology/11732
> Lilith - a Feminist?
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mythology/12382
>
> Mythology Editor
> Suite101.com
> http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/mythology
>
> CapnBaigan <capnb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990622174159...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
which
> have
> > mentioned Lilith. The Christian bible doesn't mention her or the
other
> woman
> > made after her but before Eve. A friend says that some of the
stuff from
> the
> > Jewish bible was chopped out from the christian one because they
were
> deemed to
> > be not "from God". Does anyone know if Lilith was in any of the
ancient
> texts,
> > before some "reasonable" people decided what was "from God" and what
> wasn't?
>
find out much about in my book "Beliar's Babes" which is on-line (free)
at my website. Try Chapter 2 for starters.
Deborah S.
http://www.ncinter.net/~dsamson
Taliesin_2
--
--
"Philosophy is the attempt to catch a black cat in a
dark room, without the cat actually being there at
all." - Pablo Cruz ICQ: 9815080
Operator Taliesin_2 of #SacredNemeton on IRC PaganPaths
Maria Langsén
> Lilith is all over the Bible and specifically in Isaiah 34:14.
All over? Where? Could you please be more specific about her whereabouts besides in Isaiah 34:14?
/Maria
--
_____________________________________
Don´t go, WAOHH!!! for nothing.
Neferseti
Roman scholars as source material for the various renditions of Christian
Bible. The word Bible, after all, simply means "books." All Bible versions
are hatchet-jobs -- made from Latin abridgements of mostly Aramaic (and some
Hebrew) writings.
"Lilith" is of Hebrew origin, but she probably has roots in Sumer along with
many other obscure agricultural deities. I would think that various Gnostic
sects might have written about her though. Gnostic writings about Genesis were
more colorful and human than those homogenized nursery rhymes we've come to
accept as "authentic." Definitely she is not an official part of establishment
Christian monotheism.
Joe Jefferson
>
> I think there were several thousand texts. Only a few dozen were chosen by
> Roman scholars as source material for the various renditions of Christian
> Bible. The word Bible, after all, simply means "books." All Bible versions
> are hatchet-jobs -- made from Latin abridgements of mostly Aramaic (and some
> Hebrew) writings.
This is very decidedly incorrect. The Old Testament was written in
Hebrew, except for a brief section in Daniel which is in Aramaic. It was
translated into Greek (not Latin) by Jewish scholars during the 2nd and
3rd centuries BC. This Greek version, called the Septuagint, was adopted
by Christianity. Modern translations of the Bible utilize the
Septuagint, the Masoretic text (the standard Hebrew text, marred
primarily by the fact there the oldest manuscripts only date from the
tenth century AD), and the Dead Sea Scrolls, with other ancient versions
providing assistence in translating difficult passages.
The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, and many good Greek
manuscripts still exist. The various writings of the apostles were
officially collected together in AD 397 at the Third Council of
Carthage, but all they did was to ratify the canon that had been in
usage for more than two centuries prior to that. And in any case, the
entire NT exists in manuscripts from well before this conference, making
it impossible to claim that anything was added or removed. English
translations of the NT have for the past few hundred years been taken
directly from the Greek and not from Latin.
Where Latin comes into it is with a version called the Vulgate (so
called because it is in the common or "vulgar" language of Latin),
traditionally attributed to St. Jerome. This was the standard Bible used
for most of western history, but it is not the basis of any English
translations in use today.
Remember that neither Greek nor Hebrew is a particularly obscure
language, and that the manuscripts from which our Bible was translated
are on public display in museums, with facsimile copies readily
available. A bad translation, abridgement, or "hatchet job" would be
impossible to conceal from the thousands of non-religious
archaeologists, historians, and linguists who would be more than happy
to write books proving that modern translations of the Bible are not
reliable. They may not believe the Bible is the word of God (the
majority of them don't), but no reputable scholar today will deny that
the Bible we have today has been accurately and completely preserved
since the time of the apostles.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated May 27th, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Aris Katsaris
Neferseti <nefe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990705200713...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> I think there were several thousand texts. Only a few dozen were chosen
by
> Roman scholars as source material for the various renditions of Christian
> Bible. The word Bible, after all, simply means "books."
The greek word 'Biblos' translated in English as 'Bible' doesn't mean
"books". It means "book".
Aris Katsaris
B J Kuehl
> Also there exists over sixty texts known as the Pseudepigrapha, written
> primarily between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. which describe people and events
> contemporary to the action in the Old Testament and which did not make it
> into the canonical version. However, none of the surviving Pseudepigrapha
> I have seen (e.g. the 2 vol. James Charlesworth edition) contain
> references to Lilith.
It depends upon how literally you take references to Lilith.
II Baruch 10:8
I will call the Sirens from the sea,
And ye Lilin[1], come ye from the desert,
And you Shedim and dragons from the forests:
[1] lilin = night demons
BJ
Humble Beginnings
Interesting to note that Adam never really did have HIS way with any of them, at least as much as patriarchal societies have believed, anyway.
Happy Go Lucky
contains 1 + 2 Maccabees, therefore OT stuff, Bel and the Dragon, based on a very
old Hebrew myth, therefore pre-Christ, additions to a couple of books of the
prophets, OT again. Generally it has been accepted that the Apocrypha was taken
out of the Holy Bible, and then became the Apocrypha, when old Billy, Milton, and
good ol' King James did their new English translation.
Christopher B Siren wrote:
> In article <3781B4...@primenet.com> Joe Jefferson
> <jjst...@primenet.com> writes:
> >Neferseti wrote:
> >>
> >> I think there were several thousand texts. Only a few dozen were chosen by
> >> Roman scholars as source material for the various renditions of Christian
> >> Bible. The word Bible, after all, simply means "books." All Bible versions
> >> are hatchet-jobs -- made from Latin abridgements of mostly Aramaic (and some
> >> Hebrew) writings.
> >
> >This is very decidedly incorrect. The Old Testament was written in
> >Hebrew, except for a brief section in Daniel which is in Aramaic. It was
> >translated into Greek (not Latin) by Jewish scholars during the 2nd and
> >3rd centuries BC. This Greek version, called the Septuagint, was adopted
> >by Christianity. Modern translations of the Bible utilize the
> >Septuagint, the Masoretic text (the standard Hebrew text, marred
> >primarily by the fact there the oldest manuscripts only date from the
> >tenth century AD), and the Dead Sea Scrolls, with other ancient versions
> >providing assistence in translating difficult passages.
>
> Also there exists over sixty texts known as the Pseudepigrapha, written
> primarily between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. which describe people and events
> contemporary to the action in the Old Testament and which did not make it
> into the canonical version. However, none of the surviving Pseudepigrapha
> I have seen (e.g. the 2 vol. James Charlesworth edition) contain
> references to Lilith. However, it is my understanding that Lilith does
> appear (as a demon, not as first Eve) in the Midrash, the Biblical
> comentaries written between 70 C.E. and 1200 C.E. and possibly within the
> Talmud, written between 300 C.E. and 500 C.E.
>
> >The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, and many good Greek
> >manuscripts still exist. The various writings of the apostles were
> >officially collected together in AD 397 at the Third Council of
> >Carthage, but all they did was to ratify the canon that had been in
> >usage for more than two centuries prior to that. And in any case, the
> >entire NT exists in manuscripts from well before this conference, making
> >it impossible to claim that anything was added or removed. English
> >translations of the NT have for the past few hundred years been taken
> >directly from the Greek and not from Latin.
>
> Well there are the Apocrypha - the New Testament version of the
> Pseudepigrapha. They include the Gnostic gospels and other works which
> didn't make it into the New Testament canon, which may have been mostly
> solidified by 200 C.E., but was still under dispute before then. Lilith
> doesn't show up in any surviving Apocryphal text either.
Happy Go Lucky
other instances where this happens, but this is the one that I can think of off
the top of my head. In Revelation, or Apocalypse, the traditional fourth horseman
of the Apocalypse rides a pale horse. This is wrong. In the original Greek, the
fourth horse is referred to as "chloros", thus he's green. When good old King
James hired his friendly neighbourhood writers to put the Bible into the King's
English, they decided that a green horse was too farfetched for the common people
to grasp and therein changed it to pale.
Joe Jefferson wrote:
> Neferseti wrote:
> >
> > I think there were several thousand texts. Only a few dozen were chosen by
> > Roman scholars as source material for the various renditions of Christian
> > Bible. The word Bible, after all, simply means "books." All Bible versions
> > are hatchet-jobs -- made from Latin abridgements of mostly Aramaic (and some
> > Hebrew) writings.
>
> This is very decidedly incorrect. The Old Testament was written in
> Hebrew, except for a brief section in Daniel which is in Aramaic. It was
> translated into Greek (not Latin) by Jewish scholars during the 2nd and
> 3rd centuries BC. This Greek version, called the Septuagint, was adopted
> by Christianity. Modern translations of the Bible utilize the
> Septuagint, the Masoretic text (the standard Hebrew text, marred
> primarily by the fact there the oldest manuscripts only date from the
> tenth century AD), and the Dead Sea Scrolls, with other ancient versions
> providing assistence in translating difficult passages.
>
> The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, and many good Greek
> manuscripts still exist. The various writings of the apostles were
> officially collected together in AD 397 at the Third Council of
> Carthage, but all they did was to ratify the canon that had been in
> usage for more than two centuries prior to that. And in any case, the
> entire NT exists in manuscripts from well before this conference, making
> it impossible to claim that anything was added or removed. English
> translations of the NT have for the past few hundred years been taken
> directly from the Greek and not from Latin.
>
Christopher B Siren
<sa...@666.not!!!> writes:
>The Apocrypha is not a New Testament thing that didn't cut it. The Apocrypha
>contains 1 + 2 Maccabees, therefore OT stuff, Bel and the Dragon, based
>on a very
>old Hebrew myth, therefore pre-Christ, additions to a couple of books of the
>prophets, OT again. Generally it has been accepted that the Apocrypha
>was taken
>out of the Holy Bible, and then became the Apocrypha, when old Billy,
>Milton, and
>good ol' King James did their new English translation.
Well, actually, you're right only if you play strictly according to Luther
who first classified the books you mentioned (as well as Tobit) as
Apocrypha. The Roman Catholic church considers those books to be
"deutero-canonical" and still includes them in their Bible as they were in
the original Greek Septaugint. The Apocrypha are split into Old Testament
Apocrypha, which are Luther's Apocrypha, and New Testament Apocrypha,
which are the works I mentioned in my original post, and which did not
appear in the Septuagint. See pp. 10-33 of _New_Testament_Apocrypha_
Vol. 1, ed. Wilhelm Scheneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson for further
discussion of the formation of the canon.
>Christopher B Siren wrote:
>
>> In article <3781B4...@primenet.com> Joe Jefferson
>> <jjst...@primenet.com> writes:
>> >Neferseti wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think there were several thousand texts. Only a few dozen were chosen by
>> >> Roman scholars as source material for the various renditions of Christian
>> >> Bible. The word Bible, after all, simply means "books." All Bible versions
>> >> are hatchet-jobs -- made from Latin abridgements of mostly Aramaic (and some
>> >> Hebrew) writings.
<clip>
Taroya
Sheesh, and I thought the Eubonics ideas was bad.
Taroya
Christopher B Siren
>Christopher Siren wrotes:
>> Also there exists over sixty texts known as the Pseudepigrapha, written
>> primarily between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. which describe people and events
>> contemporary to the action in the Old Testament and which did not make it
>> into the canonical version. However, none of the surviving Pseudepigrapha
>> I have seen (e.g. the 2 vol. James Charlesworth edition) contain
>> references to Lilith.
>
>
>
>II Baruch 10:8
>
>I will call the Sirens from the sea,
>And ye Lilin[1], come ye from the desert,
>And you Shedim and dragons from the forests:
>
>[1] lilin = night demons
Alas, I was relying mostly on memory and the index to the Charlesworth ed.
of the Pseudepigrapha and don't have a concordance. Do you know of any
other occurances of "lilin" therin? The footnote attached to that
occurance in my edition refered only to one Rabbinical source.
B J Kuehl
>>II Baruch 10:8
>>
>>I will call the Sirens from the sea,
>>And ye Lilin[1], come ye from the desert,
>>And you Shedim and dragons from the forests:
>>
>>[1] lilin = night demons
>
> Alas, I was relying mostly on memory and the index to the Charlesworth ed.
> of the Pseudepigrapha and don't have a concordance. Do you know of any
> other occurances of "lilin" therin? The footnote attached to that
> occurance in my edition refered only to one Rabbinical source.
So far as I'm aware, that is the only reference in the Pseudepigrapha
to anything about the lilin.
BJ
MWM
is Buddhism. It's only the near east loonies (Christians, Jews, etc.) that
puts the local manifestation of the energies (the ethnic inflection) over
the universal.
PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990624014633...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
PSmith9626
Tibetian Buddism is full of demons that were gods of the previous
religion.
Some were ,of course , the demons of the
previous religion.
Mainstream buddism has no supernatural enties, so it doesn't have the
option.
The scandinavians ( to chose one example) turned the old cythonic gods
into demons ( evil frost giants, nasty trolls etc.).
best
penny
>Mr. Levy-Strauss is not allowing for syncretism, the best example of which
>is Buddhism. It's only the near east loonies (Christians, Jews, etc.) that
>puts the local manifestation of the
afraid not, too bad, would that it were so.
Gleason
and finally the infant Dionysus taking the throne of Zeus and wielding the
thunderbolt.
I suspect they are hinting at an evolution in consciousness. When
Saturn/Kronos ruled, men lived naturally, without law, under Zeus/Jupiter
they developed laws and reason, Dionysus/Bacchus represents a new step up in
consciousness. This may be why the neoplatonists claim man has a threepart
soul, and Triptolemus was thrice daring.
The Kabbalists also recognize three breaths, nephesh-animating the sensual
and emotional nature, ruach-which is part divine and bears reason, and
neshamah-the breath of the righteous.
Each step up in consciousness must defeat the prior rulers- so the Corpus
Hermeticum says the battle is two against one-the sensual appetites in
league with the selfish ego appetites trying to defeat the embodiment of the
Christ or Horus.
h9626 wrote in message <19990710015756...@ng-bd1.aol.com>...
Aris Katsaris
Gleason <ker...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:zmNh3.334$Hg4...@news.flash.net...
> and finally the infant Dionysus taking the throne of Zeus and wielding the
> thunderbolt.
What's your source for this? I admit I have not heard of it.
Aris Katsaris
Mark Gerard Miller
>Mr. Levy-Strauss is not allowing for syncretism, the best example of which
>is Buddhism. It's only the near east loonies (Christians, Jews, etc.) that
>the universal.
As if one religion is significantly loonier than any other. One would think
someone posting in alt.mythology would realize just how loony are people of
all religions. The gods evoke loony behavior. And if you want *really*
loony, look at the stories of the gods and goddesses themselves.
Mark Gerard