Lilith

[Miles]

Seemingly, Lilith only appears in a single verse in the Bible. Isaiah 34:14


Sometimes depicted as a female with a proper name.

Isaiah 34:14
And desert creatures shall meet with hyenas, and a goat-demon shall call to his neighbor; surely there Lilith shall repose, and she shall find a resting place for herself.(the Lexham English Bible)

Other times as a thing.

Isaiah 34:14
Wildcats shall meet with desert beasts, satyrs shall call to one another; There shall the lilith repose, and find for herself a place to rest.
(New American Bible (Revised Edition))

Perhaps a bird.

Isaiah 34:14
The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. (King James Version)



So, what gives? What is it about Lilth that makes her important enough to mention and subsequently depict.

. . . . And very often not important enough to mention at all?



Isaiah 34:14
Desert animals will live with the hyenas there. And wild goats will call to their friends. Night animals will live there. They will find a place of rest there.
(International Children’s Bible)

Isaiah 34:14
Wild animals and wild dogs will congregate there; wild goats will bleat to one another. Yes, nocturnal animals will rest there and make for themselves a nest.
( New English Translation)

Isaiah 34:14
Wild cats will live there with hyenas. Wild goats will call to their friends. Night animals will spend some time there and find a place to rest.
(Easy To Read version)

Isaiah 34:14
Desert animals will live with the hyenas, and wild goats will call to their friends. Night animals will live there and find a place of rest.
(Expanded Bible)

Isaiah 34:14
Desert animals will mingle there with hyenas, their howls filling the night. Wild goats will bleat at one another among the ruins, and night creatures will come there to rest.
(New Living Translation)




.

[Tcg]

What a fascinating claim.

Well spotted, apparently they are more closely RELATED to the humming bird. Duly CORRECTED.

JW

The hummingbird, which is diurnal rather than nocturnal, is an example of a a nightjar?


Tcg

I know! Surprising isnt it!


source: https://artsandsciences.fsu.edu/article ... amily-tree

Well, now that we have enjoyed this lesson in ornithology, all that is left is to establish a connection between this bird which may be an owl or a whippoorwill or a hummingbird and the Lilith of the bible.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

... this bird which may be an owl or a whippoorwill or a hummingbird

Tcg

CLARIFICATION: Researchers are not saying that the hummingbird is an example of a NIGHTJAR only that they are RELATED (see POST 10 interesting facts about Nightjars). viewtopic.php?p=1038507#p1038507






JW

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #12]

The Hebrew word is "liyliyth" but is better translated as "owl" or "night-demon."

The Lilith legend is ancient. The first remaining literary mention to Lilith is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh; Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree. She is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Song for a Sage. In some cultures she was considered a female winged-demon and a female Mesopotamian storm demon associated with the wind; a bearer of disease, illness, and death.

The development of the legends of Lilith occurred later in Judaism. Some Jewish scholars understood Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:21-22 as two separate events. Therefore, the commentators needed a story (midrash) to explain the differences in the Creation accounts. So, they explained that the first woman created was named Lilith (Gen. 1) and the second was named Eve (Gen. 2). In other words, Lilith is a made up myth! The creation of Lilith can be read in the Apocrypha in The Tales of Ben Sira; which is not in the Jewish canon. The Apocrypha is not an inspired book of the Bible.

This Jewish interpretation of Scripture is merely a "myth." Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 describe the same event. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a broad chronological description of creation and Genesis 2:4-25 a more detailed topical account of a part of creation; essentially the creation of man. There was only one creation. And seeing that Christ is the Creator (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2-3) and he mentions both accounts (compare Matt 19:4-5 to Gen 1:27 and 2:24), they describe the same event (as I said before).

As for the portrayal of “Lilith” as a female, there are similar things elsewhere in the Bible, I.e., the portrayal of wisdom as a very desirable woman throughout the book of Proverbs. And Isaiah’s prophecy is, inarguably, full of symbolism, and Isaiah 34 particularly so, along with Isaiah 35, as I said.

In consideration of all this, I will say that the apostle Paul says, "Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness" (1 Tim 4:7; cf. 1 Pet 5:8; 2 Pet 1:16).

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.

[Difflugia]

LILITH (לילית): Hebrew form of Sumerian Lilitu, meaning "of the night." In mythology, this is the name of a Mesopotamian storm demon associated with the wind and thought to bear disease and death. In ancient Semitic folklore, it is the name of a night demon. The oldest story considers Lilith to be Adam's first wife. In the bible, this is simply a word for a "screech owl." [ * ]

source: https://finejudaica.com/pages/hebrew_names.htm

Considering that your academic source is a gift shop, I'm not surprised that their etymology is a bit muddled.

Sumerian lilitu doesn't mean "of the night." In Sumerian, lil means "wind:"

Lil is most often translated as wind or spirit, and coupled with the connotation of Ki-sikil could be interpreted as the divine wind or spirit, which again would have its abode in a temple or other spiritual place."—Beth E. McDonald, "In Possession of the Night: Lilith as Goddess, Demon, Vampire," Sacred Tropes: Tanakh, New Testament, and Qurʾan as Literature and Culture pp. 173-182.

Though later Jewish tradition (and perhaps Isaiah as well, for that matter) associated her with the Hebrew לַיְלָה, (laylah, "night"), Sumerian isn't a Semitic language and Lilith's Sumerian origin was probably as a wind or storm demon.

STRONG'S #

In Strong's notation, that means he thought it meant "a night spectre," but the KJV translated it "screech owl."





Strong thought that the KJV translated lilith incorrectly.

The Hebrew Word (lilith ) appears only once in scripture from the root 'luwl' (#3883); properly, a twist (away of the light), i.e. night.

“There is, however, no real evidence for insisting on a mythological interpretation of the word, and it is perhaps significant that most of the other creatures listed in Is. xxxiv are real animals or birds.” - The New Bible Dictionary (1962) p. 740

“... there is no reason to expect such a loan-word in any passage of the Old Testament where no ancient Vs.[Version] attests it.” - Professor G. R. Driver , The Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1959) Vol. XCI, p. 55

While I respect Driver's opinion (and I'd be interested to find any other instances where you would quote his scholarship), much more recent scholars disagree with him on this.

Lilith can be a night demonness since her name is similar to the Hebrew word for night, or she is a storm demonness in parallel with a Mesopotamian demonness (Watts 1987: 13-14; Wildberger 1982: 1347-49). NJB, NRSV, Watts and Wildberger all render this as a proper name 'Lilith'; IPS and NAB as 'the lilith' and the others variously as 'night creatures' (NIV), 'night monster' (GNB) and 'the nightjar' (REB). All of the latter gloss over the fact that this is a woman.

In any case Lilith is singular, an individual woman, and not a plural group as the preceding creatures in vv. 6-14b. Other than YHWH, she is the only named individual in the poem; the other proper names are for lands, Edom and Lebanon, or cities, Bozrah and Zion.—Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 34-35: A Nightmare/A Dream

As a goddess, or a figure connected with the goddess, Lilith represents the possibility of both good and evil balanced in an Indifferent divine figure which must be propitiated. Her name is linked to the Terra Mater, or Great Mother, figures of several cultures, including the Canaanite Balaat, the Sumero Babylonian Belit-ili or Belili, the Assyrian/Babylonian Lilitu, Al Lat and Al Uzza, and the Babylonian Ishtar or Inanna.11 In the Babylonian cult of Inanna/Ishtar, Lilith is characterized as a handmaiden of Inanna and, as such, may have been a temple harlot responsible for promoting the land’s fertility through sacred sexual intercourse.—Beth E. McDonald, "In Possession of the Night"

It's also worth reading the entire paragraph from which your source lifted the quotation:

The New World Translations renders the Hebrew (לילית) as "nightjar"

I'm sure it does.

[Difflugia]

The Hebrew word is "liyliyth" but is better translated as "owl" or "night-demon."

Who considers it "better?" You?

The Lilith legend is ancient. The first remaining literary mention to Lilith is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh; Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree. She is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Song for a Sage. In some cultures she was considered a female winged-demon and a female Mesopotamian storm demon associated with the wind; a bearer of disease, illness, and death.

Is it more "ancient" than Isaiah? If so, you're making my point for me.

In other words, Lilith is a made up myth!

I have no doubt of this.

This Jewish interpretation of Scripture is merely a "myth."

QFT

Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 describe the same event. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a broad chronological description of creation and Genesis 2:4-25 a more detailed topical account of a part of creation; essentially the creation of man. There was only one creation. And seeing that Christ is the Creator (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2-3) and he mentions both accounts (compare Matt 19:4-5 to Gen 1:27 and 2:24), they describe the same event (as I said before).

And I have no doubt you'll keep saying it. That has little bearing on whether the authors of the two accounts, later rabbis, or Isaiah would say that, though.

As for the portrayal of “Lilith” as a female, there are similar things elsewhere in the Bible, I.e., the portrayal of wisdom as a very desirable woman throughout the book of Proverbs. And Isaiah’s prophecy is, inarguably, full of symbolism, and Isaiah 34 particularly so, along with Isaiah 35, as I said.

There are also lots of human women that are portrayed as female, even when Isaiah is being symbolic.

In consideration of all this, I will say that the apostle Paul says, "Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness" (1 Tim 4:7; cf. 1 Pet 5:8; 2 Pet 1:16).

Far be it from Paul to indulge in irreverent, silly myths.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

The Hebrew noun lilith is a derivative of the word for night (li-Lit). In Isaiah it was probably meant to refer to animals of the night, such as an owl.

The character of Lilith wouldn’t become important in Jewish mythology until the book The Life of Adam and Eve, which was written in the first century AD. There is no evidence that Jewish thought had connected the name Lilith anyone important (goddess, demon, or other) in the pre-exile days of Isaiah.

The context of this verse in Isaiah strongly points to the idea that Isaiah was referring to an animal of some kind. He mentioned two other animals in the same verse. Jackals (plural) and the wild goat (singular) were mentioned in the same verse and same context. Switching to a proper name, with no indication that he was doing so, seems unlikely.

Obviously anything is possible. However, because of the context of the verse and the fact that the name Lilith was absent from all Jewish writings up that point, it is far more likely that Isaiah was not using lilith as a proper name.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

The Hebrew noun lilith is a derivative of the word for night (li-Lit). In Isaiah it was probably meant to refer to animals of the night, such as an owl.

The character of Lilith wouldn’t become important in Jewish mythology until the book The Life of Adam and Eve, which was written in the first century AD. There is no evidence that Jewish thought had connected the name Lilith anyone important (goddess, demon, or other) in the pre-exile days of Isaiah.

The context of this verse in Isaiah strongly points to the idea that Isaiah was referring to an animal of some kind. He mentioned two other animals in the same verse. Jackals (plural) and the wild goat (singular) were mentioned in the same verse and same context. Switching to a proper name, with no indication that he was doing so, seems unlikely.

Obviously anything is possible. However, because of the context of the verse and the fact that the name Lilith was absent from all Jewish writings up that point, it is far more likely that Isaiah was not using lilith as a proper name.

Unfortunately, some Bibles do use Lilith as a proper name. Something that not only misleads readers, but now surfaces as one more warning sign as to the inveracity of the Bible, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.


.

[Difflugia]

There is no evidence that Jewish thought had connected the name Lilith anyone important (goddess, demon, or other) in the pre-exile days of Isaiah.

Considering that there's no pre-exilic evidence of the Bible in the first place, that observation is of dubious value

The context of this verse in Isaiah strongly points to the idea that Isaiah was referring to an animal of some kind.

It's attested nowhere else as the name of an animal, but is attested in Jewish and other writings as both the general and proper name of a deity/demon. Doesn't that "strongly point" to the idea that Isaiah was referring to a supernatural being?

He mentioned two other animals in the same verse. Jackals (plural) and the wild goat (singular) were mentioned in the same verse and same context. Switching to a proper name, with no indication that he was doing so, seems unlikely.

On the other hand, Lilith is an attested proper name in the writings of other contemporary Mediterranean cultures and was treated as such by Jewish readers of Isaiah. With that in mind, your argument offers an identical level of evidence that as the only other singular noun lacking a definite article, Sa'ir should be treated as an otherwise unattested proper name.

Obviously anything is possible.

And thence apologetic hope springs eternal.

[bjs1]

Unfortunately, some Bibles do use Lilith as a proper name. Something that not only misleads readers, but now surfaces as one more warning sign as to the inveracity of the Bible, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
.

This says nothing about the veracity of the Bible. There are less trustworthy translations. However, the most popular translations (NIV, NRSV, NLT, KJV) tend to be popular because they are reliable. They all translate the word as some kind of night animal. The only remotely popular translation that doesn’t translate the word as some kind of animal is the New American Bible, which avoids the controversy by transliterating the word but not treating it as a proper name.

[bjs1]

There is no evidence that Jewish thought had connected the name Lilith anyone important (goddess, demon, or other) in the pre-exile days of Isaiah.

Considering that there's no pre-exilic evidence of the Bible in the first place, that observation is of dubious value

No, there is enough evidence that most scholars agree that at least some of the Bible was written prior to the exile. The 34th chapter of Isaiah is consistently put in the group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah

The context of this verse in Isaiah strongly points to the idea that Isaiah was referring to an animal of some kind.

It's attested nowhere else as the name of an animal, but is attested in Jewish and other writings as both the general and proper name of a deity/demon. Doesn't that "strongly point" to the idea that Isaiah was referring to a supernatural being?

These Jewish writings would not be written until centuries after the 34th chapter of Isaiah was written. It is anachronistic to use these to interpret the meaning of Isaiah.

He mentioned two other animals in the same verse. Jackals (plural) and the wild goat (singular) were mentioned in the same verse and same context. Switching to a proper name, with no indication that he was doing so, seems unlikely.

On the other hand, Lilith is an attested proper name in the writings of other contemporary Mediterranean cultures and was treated as such by Jewish readers of Isaiah.

This is a surprising claim. What evidence is there that Jewish readers of Isaiah in or near to Isaiah’s day would have read Lilith as a proper name?

With that in mind, your argument offers an identical level of evidence that as the only other singular noun lacking a definite article, Sa'ir should be treated as an otherwise unattested proper name.

Doesn’t this serve to point out how silly this argument is? Sa'ir could have been treated a proper name. We could treat every noun that lacks a definite article as a proper name throughout the whole of the OT. Would anyone seriously suggest that is accurate way to translate the text? It is far more reasonable to treat nouns as nouns unless the context suggests that they are proper names. In this case, the context suggests that lilith is a noun, not a proper name.

Obviously anything is possible.

And thence apologetic hope springs eternal.

Anything is possible. Which is why we must look for what is most likely. In this case, it is most likely that lilith was not a proper name.