Talk:Lilith/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk from January 2002

I may not know much about the bible, and I may not know much about vampire folklore, but this seems a bit peculliar to me. Could someone who knows more about either of these two areas look at this article and replace it with something more reasonable?

There is a possible mention of Lilith in the old testament, in Isaiah chapter 34. It is there in the Hebrew original, but unclear if it means this Lilith. Some English translations attempt to translate the name or word to various possible meanings, others leave it as Lilith.

Lilith may originally have been a figure in pre-Jewish mythology, but most of the modern picture seems to have originated sometime after 800AD, at first in Jewish circles, but sometimes among Christians as well. Try a Google search. There is lots of stuff out there.

The article is weird though. It's probably not actually wrong, but it's not very encyclopediac, and a lot more needs to be said.

Note that there has been a complete rewrite since the above complaints. It's better now, but more could still be said.

Is "Lillith" really a valid alternative spelling for the first sense, or was BenBaker wrong about that one too? --Zundark, 2002 Jan 3

Historical dates

Is it possible to state in NPOV that the concept of Lilith in the Bible was created by Kabbalists at a much later date than Genesis was written, and therefore the concept could not "originally" exist in the Bible, but was simply a much later idea/interpretation of what was written? Lilith is a Kabbalistic view of Genesis, possibly borrowing from Mesopotamian (or other) myth. Specifying the dates of writings that were created that first explicitly mentioned Lilith would help.

The article states: "there are many Old Testament passages that are said to refer to Lilith, including those in Genesis 2:21 and 4:8 which refer to the creation of a man and woman before the creation of Eve.". However, the King James versions have Genesis 2:21 saying "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;", and Genesis 4:8 saying "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.".

I can't figure how either of these can possibly be interpreted as saying that God created a man and woman before creating Eve. Anyone out there know the correct references?

Mprudhom 22:20, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Genesis 1:27 in the King James Bible states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." redcountess 19:05, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Just a thought, Cain killed Abel. Then after he fled to the land of Nod and found a wife there. Read the story, it's there.

It's because interpreting the Creation accounts in Genesis as being a single creation account can be percieved as requiring there to be a woman before a woman was made from adam's rib ("man and woman he created them ......... then taking a rib..."). CheeseDreams 00:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Genesis 2:27???

The article states that the discrepency in Genesis may be "a careless weaving together of two discrete biblical creation myths, as the Bible describes man being created in both Genesis 1:26 and 2:27."

However, in the King James Version of the bible that they provide a link to, there is no 2:27. Chapter 2 stops at verse 25. Anyone know what these mysterious missing verses say, or was it just a typo?

it's a typo. It should be Genesis 2:7. dab () 17:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
removed the 'careless' though. that word asks for trouble and helps nothing. dab () 20:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has actually thought about the fact that chapters and verses weren't there in the original Hebrew text. The different chapters of Genisis are commonly thought to have been different books by different authors. Genesis 1 is God writing about the creation of everything and Genesis 2 is Adam's account which, of course, focuses more on the creation and history of Man. Not only that, but who's to say that Adam didn't originally have the psyche of both male and female and God separated the one from the other in the creation of Eve? It's not a set of two different myths being put together, but of two separate views of the same Creation.

Except that there are contradictions (what do chapters/verses have to do with anything? they are just used to point to specific passages). e.g. Genesis 1:9, dry land has to be separated from water before life is possible, vs. 2:6, land is originally dry, and has to be watered before life is possible. dab () 16:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is a contradiction. First, the Earth was a formless mass of water. God gave it form and made land on it. At that time, there was no water on the land (no springs, rivers, etc.) but there was the water that the land came from (the oceans/seas), so God formed the landlocked water systems.

I am a native Hebrew speaker and I have great fascination particularly with the Lilith legend/myth. I won't refer to the King James bible version because I personally found it a bit misleading from the orginal text (personal opinion, nothing more).

In the first chapter of the book of Genesis there is a passage stating that god created man in his own image, that he created them male and female. According to Jewish beliefs there is not God and Satan, there is only God and he is both good and evil. The general thought about this is that the male (Adam) got the good side of God and that the female (Lilith) got the evil side of God. Then God banished her to the land of Nod (also where Cain was banished to after killing his brother Abel).

From there Lilith is mostly mentioned in the Jewish mystical part and not in the bible itself. She is said to be of demonic powers and that she has joined with a the king of demons - Ashmadai (אשמדאי), to whom she has given hundreds of demon children. Adam complained to God that his wife left him and God sent 3 angels to find anad retrieve her. The Angels found her but Lilith chose to remain with Ashmadai. As a price to pay for remaining with this demon king, Lilith had to accept that the angels would kill a hundred of her children every day. Fearing that Lilith would want vengeance for her childrens' deaths the angels made her promise not to even touch babies who bear a locket with the three angels' names.

You could also find a mentioning of Lilith in the Gilgamesh Prologues.

On a different note, the role-playing games company White-Wolf has published a game called Vampire: The Masquerade for several years now. They took the story of Lilith and combined it with some other characters from the ealy chapters of the Bible and created a whole world out of it. In their version (which is just fantasy of course) After Lilith was banished to the land of Nod she found ways to create her own supernatural powers, she created Blood magic. Then when Caine (notice the added 'e' to the usual spelling) was banished to the land of Nod, he found Lilith and she provided him with everything he needed - But that wasn't enough for him, and he wanted to be able to provide himself so he asked her to teach him her dark arts. After many beggings, Lilith finally succumbed to him and taught him. Caine fell into this a lot deeper than Lilith did. After seeing this, God has sent angels to him one by one to try and redeem him, to say to him that if he is truely sorry for what he did then God would forgive him and he could come to heaven to rest. Caine rejected each and everyone of the angels because he said he doesn't want god to forgive him, he wants himself to forgive him. Each angel he rejected put a curse on him. Finally coming to God himself putting a curse on him, which is said to be the most powerful of curses that has been cast on him. Like that Caine became the first vampire. The story goes on and on about Caine's journey upon lands and his breaking of the curses and siring his own children in the acts of blood. Then on the first cities and if you want to know more, really read "The Book of Nod" from White-Wolf.

I hope I helped, there are many myths and theories about this subject.

Couldn't it be that the original myth was similar to a Greek myth mentioned by Plato where there were human beings with both the male and female parts, until gods decided to split them in two? Seing from this point of view, god appears to have created man as both a male and female being, and then he took a piece of the man (the rib) and with that created the woman. I think this would explain all. 15:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Talmud and Zohar

Does any one know where in the Talmud or Zohar Lilith is mentioned?

Zohar passages are here on Alan's site & here Try here for talmud. Xuchilbara 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gilgamesh Prologues

Does anyone know what these are? Gilgamesh has an article but does not mention any 'Prologues'... I made a bit in Talk:Gilgamesh too in case anyone can shed some light here..

Hieronymus link

just a quick note on Hieronymus: then name links to a disambig -- i assume the article Hieronymus Wolf, historian, but due to the religious nature of his art i thought it might refer to Bosch, and hell what do i know, any of the other ones. Anyone know for sure which one is referred to and can fix the link to link to the correct page? TastemyHouse 00:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering the context it would almost have to be the Greek historian Hieronymus of Cardia. DreamGuy 23:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Original research

Today a massive number of changes were made to this article that are completely inaccurate. The only alleged supporting evidence for it were the addition of two different links to the same website run by the person who placed the information here. The same individual (as traced through the anonymous account he used) created an article for himself (that is now going through VfD based upon vanity/nonnotability/promotional etc.) on which claimed himself to be an expert on the myth of Lilith without any supporting evidence. His changes completely violated the Wikipedia:No original research policy here at Wikipedia, not to mention Wikipedia:Verifiability, and so forth.

I removed the additions, and now an editor well known for showing up to undo whatever I do without looking into it (see history of this article as well as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon) has gone and reverted it multiple times without comment, with only the claim "the evidence is in the article" which is absolutely wrong, as there is no citation for any of these new claims.

If you think there is evidence for these claims, provide that evidence... Otherwise you need to stop making the change. (But then of course I note that he is doing the same changing without sources thing on a few other articles lately, including Witchcraft and others, so of course my request that the editor follow policy here will unfortunately probably fall on deaf ears, but at least I tried.)DreamGuy 01:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"without comment" is alughable, i stated why i made th e origional revert, and the second one, you just dont like what i did, so you complain./ hypocrite. Gabrielsimon 01:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You made a comment, but it was less than useless for supporting the change that you made. Stop ignoring the important consideration here: that you have absolutely no evidence to back the claims you put back into this article. Please provide actual scholarly sources to support these claims or stop putting the information in there. DreamGuy 02:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

you have no evidance to suppor t that its not true. please proove it Gabrielsimon 02:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Sources need to be cited and evidence shown when claims are made, period. No one needs to provide evidence to disprove an unsubstantiated claim; that argument is like countering the "innocent until proven guilty" standard with "well, you can't prove s/he's innocent!"

What have I said about playing nice? The onus is on you to back up your statements with evidence, not for people to disprove it. Stop being confrontational and just answer the question. --khaosworks 02:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Gabrielsimon, if you've actually even read the "library" article (the one with the pictures) you'll find that it's full of new age 'Kabbala' crap mixed in with a bit of gnosticism... None of which has any evidence to back it up, just made-up beliefs by that guy --81.154whatever, 27th July 05
Gabrielsimon, if you want to contribute, go to a library and cite literature. "you have no evidance to suppor t that its not true." does not fly at all, this is childish. You add statements, it's up to you to provide references for them. If questioned, academic references, citing what scholar said what, when and where. dab () 11:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

seeking Lilitu

the thing conspicuously absent is information as to actual attestation of the Lilitu name. All we have is "Babylonian". When is the name attested? What are these "storm demon" inscriptions? As it is, Isaiah may well be among the earliest testimonies. dab () 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

For more positive information about Lilith read Alex Gordon's Book 'The Nine Deadly Venoms'. Xuchilbara 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see Barbara Koltuv's "Book of Lilith" and Sigmund Hurwitz's "Lilith: the First Eve"

Is there a way to get Lilitu redirected to this article? Everytime I type lilitu it goes to the bands page, I don't think most ppl type lilitu to get some band.

Xuchilbara 18:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Dreamguy, what is the difference between a goddess and a demoness in Assyrian polytheism? I do not think there is a clear distinction between minor goddesses, and demonesses, so the dispute about Lilitu as goddess vs. demoness is really quite mistaken, semantically. Change goddess to demoness if you like, it's really the same to me. dab () 20:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Goddesses were worshipped. Demons were avoided. Speculation about Lilith being a goddess is unsupported by the evidence and plays into the hands of those people who want to rewrite history to make later figures of myth and legend to be preshistoric goddess figures who were benevolent and good into those darn patriarchs took over. DreamGuy 21:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about your terminology there. Polytheism doesn't have that black-and-white good/evil dichotomy. gods and demons were powerful beings, both had to be pacified, and their wrath had to be avoided, while their favour was welcome. That said, see the previous section: We are still lacking a reference for a single pre-Isaiah attestation of Assyrian Lilitu. Where is the name mentioned? Until we get that, this whole goddess/demoness thing hangs in thin air. What "patriarchs"? Afaik, Assyrian religion was gradually replaced with Persian religion, not with Judaism. I really don't see how it is suggestive to say that there were goddesses in 7th century BC Assyria. dab () 05:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There was some evidence of a pagan goddess cult devoted to Lilith or other transfigurations across Europe. Many scholars believed the close resemblance of Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian religion is alike European paganism. The association of her with demon worship or the concept of goddesses, Lilith took a new role in some Neo-Paganism of European and Middle Eastern neo-Pagan groups. Her image as a demonic-goddess of physical harm is discussed in some black metal rock songs. However, most pagan followers in the Judeo-Paganism and political activists of the Feminist movements disagree and said Lilith was a righteous angel that became affiliated with anything evil by the male chauvinist attitudes of monotheism. If the small percentage of pagan or heathen cults in Europe had adapted Lilith as one of their own, she carries different names and descriptions, but there's a striking similarity with her and Ishtar, Gaia, Athena and Embla. Biblical studies contend Lilith was probably a radically different version of Adam's wife Eve. + 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lilith is only a "goddess" in modern sense, no evidence for her veneration can be found in anything ancient. All worship of her is modern and she can't be compared to Ishtar or any other goddess for that matter,(a good indication of how diffrent they are can be seen in the Gilgamesh, no where does it compare her to Inanna, who is Ishtar's counterpart) because she isn't even close to them, and it would insult the religion of the ancient people to compare her to such. There's a clear line between a demon and a god/goddess. The only time these lines have been known to blur is(besides between gods AND heros.) when one religion attempts to demonize another, such as the demon Astaroth, among others. Again, lilith has no trace of this in any religion. She's always been a demon. There's no ancient worship of her, she doesn't have multiple names under diffrent goddesses, she doesn't have a "cult" that can be traced. It can be traced, however, that she as a demon was adapted by the Jews, from other cultures that influenced them. And they used things to ward her off. I would hesitate to base any femnism off of her.(especially sense it was a disagreement over a stupid sex postion, and in some stories she actually started off as hermaphodite.) It seems the femnists that adapted half of the story of Adam & Lilith, negelect to mention that she kills babies, is a enemy of human kind, (especially males) is married to Samael, and has her own postion in the pantheon of demons. Among many things in other stories about her. etc

I would suggest anyone disagreeing about the Goddess thing, to read this: It has a good arguement for both sides, even though it's quite long.

On another note, there's Lesser lilith in tales, that is Lilith's daughter of the same name, is the one who is really married to Asmodai , not Lilith herself,(which causes confusion about who Lilith is actually married too) it would be nice to see a small section on Lesser Lilith on the Lilith page.

Xuchilbara 17:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Xuchilbara

How about this? Her name was not written with a DINGIR determinative in Sumerian or Babylonian cuneiform, therefore not a god.Nagakura shin8 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Is it just me, or does this article jump right into the subject without taking even a bit of time to establish context? If I knew anything about the subject I'd fix that, but I don't. Tualha (Talk) 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia becomes a joke

The article on Lilith is a perfect example of the absurdity of Wikipedia. Mix reality and myth, fact and speculation, until you have an incoherent mishmash of opinions interspersed with a little scholarship and the result is of no real value.

Another comment

Myths and legends are, and always have been, stories told over and over, reinterpreted by different generations, in different lands, by peoples with different agendas and tastes. The modern dilution of ancient legend into popular fiction and fantasy is just an extension of that, and no one who delves into ancient stories can ever really hope to find an absolute truth, at least non beyond the simple desires of Man. Legends are open to individual interpretation, and Wikipedia is anything but a joke. If you ever get lost in personal opinions and contradictory stories, just go back to older sources. Darrel.

Lilith in pop culture

Here's my opinion: if the concept of Lilith is involved in the article, then it should be placed in the section. However, an item does not belong in this list if it uses just the name or some minor myth concept (I.E. Eva, Capcom, etc.). I can understand the frustation that a lot of editors over here feel. Deckiller 01:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I'm going to put a notice in statng that "These four have been selected as direct usages of Lilith. Any others MUST be placed on the disambig page. Thank you". Deckiller 13:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In the roleplaying game Vampire: The Masquerade, Lilith is said to be the sister and lover of both Abel and Cain (and the impetus for Cain's murder of Abel).

ya, thats just not right at all, i know very little about the "real" lilith but v:tm i do, i shail edit when i am less sleepy 07:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

lilith appears in the anime series 'evangelion' which has not been entered into the article. (unsigned comment by User:

  • Way to ignore the VERY FIRST post to this section. Baleeted. Danny Lilithborne 23:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ive added the Lilith from Neon Genesis Evangelion in the popular culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likelightoflies (talkcontribs)

  • And I removed it. Again. Danny Lilithborne 08:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry about adding the Eva thing...I'm not a Christian, so I thought that the name in Eva had actual referance somehow to the actual Lilith. I'm an idiot and should have actually read the article. I'll go do that now....I'm very sorry :)--Hanachan01 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No biggie. I just wonder what I can do other than slap a huge "NO EVA OR DIABLO" tag on the page. ;) Danny Lilithborne 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lilith (as the first wife of adam) is also mentioned in the blood line at Alchemy Gothic, look under Amzer -- Oatzy 21:00, 06 September 2006 (GMT)

This doesn't make any sense. What is anyone trying to prove by allowing references to video games to stay in the article, while a reference to an anime series is omitted? Condensed, they're virtually the same. You're cheating viewers out of impacting knowledge by misrepresenting the extent to which Lilith is referred.

"Here's my opinion: if the concept of Lilith is involved in the article, then it should be placed in the section. However, an item does not belong in this list if it uses just the name or some minor myth concept (I.E. Eva, Capcom, etc.)."

How is Lilith in the Castlevania series a concept that belongs in the article, when it's role in the series is far smaller than Lilith's role in the Evangelion series. Why would you people want to lie to viewers in this way, placing apples superior to oranges? -Biokinetica 04:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Characters that merely have the name of Lilith do not qualify. As much as EVAtards would say otherwise, EVA's Lilith really has no connection to the mythical Lilith other than the name; whereas Castlevania's Lilith is meant to be the mythical Lilith herself. Danny Lilithborne 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you really have to refer to people who are most likely just as intelligent as you are "EVAtards"? Do you really take pleasure in infantile name-calling of this sort? Is there a reason why you're supposedly running this article, beyond the fact that you don't respect anyone contributing to it? You can call me whatever disdainful name you want, but know that there is no sense or credible intelligence in it.

As for the mythical Lilith, just because she doesn't have breasts and a giant snake around her, she's not the mythical Lilith? Goodness forbid artistic license. They couldnt've been doing the same thing every idiot with a canvas in the Renaissance was doing - that's just impossible. -Biokinetica 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Since you're obviously more interested in nitpicking than making an actual argument, I consider this conversation officially over. Danny Lilithborne 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • if necessary, create a sub-article in analogy to References to Odin in popular culture. There is no point in mentioning video game characters and feminist magazines on this page. I don't care if "Castlevania's Lilith is meant to be the mythical Lilith herself" -- if Lilith is notable to Castlevania, let there be a reference on the Castlevania article; just mentioning something in your video game does not make your video game notable to a discussion of the thing mentioned. dab () 09:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be opposed to that, as long as we're clear on what constitutes a reference. Characters simply named Lilith should not be noted as a reference. Danny Lilithborne 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it be known that there was no "nit-picking" here. If an argument concerning the interperatations and depictions of lilith in popular culture doesn't constitute a legitimate argument, then I havn't the slightest idea of what does. Answering replies with so much as a fairly well-disguised superiority complex won't get this project anywhere. I'm not exactly sure why you're endowed with the ability to decide who's 'just copying' with who's 'legitimate', but this isn't the case, nonetheless. I was under the assumption that your job was make sure articles in this project are filled with only factual evidence, but it seems as though you're taking it as an opportunity to define the subject at hand for yourself. Not only that, but you have little-to-no respect for contributors who make projects like Wikipedia possible. This encyclopedia isn't about you, it's about the people.

It seems as though logic isn't welcome in this article, and most likely not many others if this is any indication. This was never supposed to be an "argument" as you so define, as I don't make arguments over the internet for fun. My only wish was to not see readers get cheated out of useful knowledge that can be offered to them immediately. This encyclopedia makes itself seem to be the one place where a person can find the most comprehensive information in an instant, but I guess my hopes were held high. Contributing information here I see now will be just like all other media - reserved for the elite. Pardon my presence, I won't intrude upon that society again. -Biokinetica 06:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, because my secret wish is to take over Wikipedia and usurp teh knowledge. I said this conversation was over, you didn't have to waste everyone's time with the drawn-out goodbyes. Danny Lilithborne 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the eva thing should be added, mankind is referred to as "lilim" and she plays a major role in Eva. Also, we have all these refrences to her (I.e the woman that never bleeds) in the show, I do not understand why it should not be included.(the myth of Lilith is obviously being used in the show, so it's not "name only") If lilith in Eva should not be included than niether should it be included in the Adam (nor the other angels in the series) in all the other wikipedia articles. You shouldn't be so biased. Xuchilbara 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Who is this danny guy? Last I checked, Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. Characters based on the mythical Lilith should be placed here. Unless Danny is a mod, than his skewed opinions don't actually count. If he is a mod than he needs to be stripped due to his rude responses.

I also share the opinion that Eva be added to the list on the main page, although I do see that the list of things is very long and can't all be added. However, people come here to learn more about the myth and different intereptations, and seeing as the character of Lilith plays such a big part in NGE, it would be something people could really enjoy learning more from.

I say one mythology is as good as any other. Why should we be exposed to Bible myth and not more modern myths in video games, anime,current novels and the like. Once again the views of the religious right complain and rail about the whole of literature. When their supposed "factual" book is no more than a group of stories passed down from generation to generation just like every other mythology. The only diffrence is the other mythology's are not sanctioned by the church. Imagine that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Since fictional video games, anime, and novels don't claim to be true, and they're not meant to be held as fact. The difference is that people actually believe in myths (at one time), while fictional, modern books are basically made-up. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not know if it is worthy of inclusion in this article but Lilith played a signifigant role in Lovecrafts The Horror at Red Hook Jamhaw (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)jamhaw

Romanization of Hebrew

[1] this looks like IPA; it is not recommendable to transliterate in IPA, let's use ISO 259 or something; besides, why is the text so different from what I copied from blueletterbible[2]? (my bad) dab () 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in intro paragraph

The end of this paragraph read "The myth of Lilith as the first wife of Adam arose in the Middle Ages". I changed it to "She is often identified as the first wife of Adam, a myth that arose in the Middle Ages." I cannot imagine this would be controversial, but I will explain. As the sentence stood, there was an apparent reference to a specific myth ("The myth . . ."), but it had not yet been said that there was any such myth, so the referent of the phrase is unclear. (After all, theere could be multiple such myths.) This is merely a point of style. I changed it to specify the content of the myth (under the description "She is popularly identified as . . ."), and then noted that this legend--"this" now being well-defined-- arose in the Middle Ages.

To repeat: the sentence as it stood was not adequate. If my correction introduces another problem, correct that, don't simply revert it.

--User: Captain Wacky

It was obviously reverted in error. Don't be dense. --Scaife (Talk) Flag of Ireland.svg Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 00:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

MegaloManiac 10:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The section on the Christian Bible...

What is myth about Zeus doing in the section about the Christian Bible? Take that out.

The god of the bible is Zeus. The one selected out of the many for monotheism.

The god of the bible is not Zeus as many popular representations of God in human form assert. The god of the bible is El. Xuchilbara 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement

Lilith is a female Mesopotamian night demon believed to harm male children.

Harm them how, exactly..? Physical harm, mental, or sexual assault...? This is quite ambiguous. This statement leaves too much to the imagination to be considered encyclopediac. -ZeroTalk 09:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lilith and her Lovers

I can see that throughout the many articles displacing information regarding Lilith, that much confusion has come about as to her mate. According to the many sources that I have read, Lilith (after abandoning Adam, and yet whilst still married to him) mated with Samael (an angel of death, possible avatar of Satan) to produce over one hundred children (Lilin) per day.

However, some articles have stated that Lilith mated with Asmodai (opposed to Samael) when she flew to the Red Sea. Yet, it has been stated, in Jewish texts, that Asmodai was the child of Lilith's friend Naamah (an angel of prostitution) and Adam (conceived whilst Adam was still married to Lilith). Asmodai later went on to marry the LESSER LILITH (the daughter of Lilith and Samael); which is where the confusion is emerging from.

I have, thus, decided to edit the articles stating that Lilith (the original) mated with Asmodai.

If anyone has reason against this, please feel free to say so.

--Danny DeSio 12:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

what "original" Lilith? You need to state which specific texts have which version. There is no problem with contradictory sources, you just need to say which source states which. Do not attempt to edit towards a 'correct' version of the myth. Myths aren't 'correct' and do not have 'originals'. dab () 09:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny is correct, most of the myths about her and her daughter (Lesser Lilith) are from the Zohar, which is what he is referring too.

Xuchilbara 19:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lilith as Adam's first wife

The passage in Genesis 1:27 — "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them" (before describing a mate being made of Adam's rib and being called Eve in Genesis 2:22) is sometimes believed to be an indication that Adam had a wife before Eve.

There must be someone else out there who caught this before I did.

"...created he him; male and female created he them." The English translation of Genesis does not explicitly mention Eve OR Adam. Is there a specific difference between the standard Hebrew "Adam" meaning "man (or earth)" and the Adam who appears to arrive somewhat later (to English readers)?

When is the name "Adam" even first mentioned in "Genesis"? ...not until Chapter 2, verse 19 (KJV - English again):

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

If anyone reading this also understands the original Hebrew script of Genesis 2:19, it would help to know if it distinguishes between "man" and "Adam" in the same way that the English version does.

Only after Adam gave names to the animals and the Good Lord puts him to sleep do we read about the part with the rib surgery:

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;" - Genesis 2:21

So what keeps a reader of any level of faith or intellect from applying the same logic to the proverbial "gander" as well as the "goose"?

Xodmoe 22:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a citation needed for the story of Lilith after leaving Adam and the Lilim? I can see the paramour of Satan.. But why THAT??? the whole story is reprinted at the bottom of the article, it's from the Alphabet of Ben-Sira. IDk who's idea it was to put that tag there, because obviously they didn't read the rest of the article. I'm editing it out, it makes the article look slightly foolish. Xuchilbara 03:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference for the story of Lilith and Adam is something called the "[Midrash Abkier]" What is this source? This is the only reference to it in the whole of Wikipedia, and all Googling it tells me is that it is the source for the story of Adam and Lilith. Does this source really exist? Boldra (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Lilith as Adam's wife at its earliest is dated from Ben Sira, probaly based on a slightly earlier oral tradition. Zohar picked these up on these myths. The edits on wiki reflect this. Xuchilbara (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


I removed the following. It is unsourced and I have not read anything like it in regards to Lilith before.

She is also known as today the one and only in the flesh and on films as Leevonnie A Thomas Carter. She came to live amonst all women to give power unto women in spirit,and none to herself(flesh or spirit nor for herself to exercise any levels of power whatsoever) their earthly court ordained husbands in order to help the order of the new world. To stamp out homelessness, drugs, sexual immorality, prostitution, the system of women losing their babies, abortion, women makng babies by any kind of man or in any kind of state of mind. (secret- in order to get pregnant a woman must wait 14 days after the first date of her menstrual cycle-called her ovulation date.. then within the next three days....well you know the rest)to teach abstinance until all of selfs priorities are fulfilled-mentally, financially, physically, emotionally.To bring all women to a level where they can see and admit there setbacks and begin to erectify a whole new foundation. For many centuries Lilith has raised her children up spiritually to a degree that they will become successful. But until this day their are women and men who constantly overpower themselves in the spirit but remain as destroyers to themselves in the flesh. And they do all of this in the name of Lilith and her king Lucifer. Just to control the masses. And pervert the way of mankind(and woman). Their are many false prophets(profits). mining false gains. Like the dealing of crack cocaine. That person selling the drug is a false profit. Lilith does not reside in the spiritual world. She is only in the physical. She is Miss independant. She is the mother of all earth. Not just of her own creation. What she does can benefit all. She knows chastity. She is the Holy Spirit. She walked not after idles, or ill gotten gain(false profits(prophets)).Her body is the inhabitant space for all mankind or woman seeking knowledge power and strenghth. Though man/women seek to destroy her they won't succed because all of spiritual kind are on her side to carry out a specific task. To create a new world order. To stamp out poverty and drugs and all other issues that plague our living societies. She is the queen of hell. But her mission is to recycle every demon or fowl spirit so they may become productive in societies man and woman also. All those that reside in lilith fleshly body, worketh for lilith to see that justice is prevailed. At whatever measure it takes. Since her demons and demonesses are fallen angels they may take on any form that they want.Whatever it takes to win souls for the New World Order. The end of the world is here and now. a saying in the old world is that all men and women are created equal. In the New world a form of unity is being processed so that all men and women of official law abiding standard, not for power, not for money, or for prestige, issues that plagued or world of yesterday. Can live and create for themselves their own pathways, spiritually and physically. to form different levels of positive creations. Where men and women of standard can become successful on a strong and firm foundation, build for themselves heavenly kingdoms here on earth. Then come together al a family unit as well as a solar family unit to build up for ourseves in the physical and the spiritual and to carry our children to higher levels in the mind while constructing a better future for our world and for mother earth, Lilith who's job will be complete. Beware of those false demons or fallen angels who come to conjure up real demons in order to use their name in vain.

If it does need to be here, it needs some serious editing before it can be returned. There is similar text on the Astarte page.

Web Warlock 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like the ramblings of some religious nut. I'd delete this at once. Asarelah 20:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NGE reference to Lilith

There's an obvious parallel to the Lilith portrayed in the Christian tradition and the Lilith in Evangelion, such that I felt a reference to the series was warrented. And what have "card games" got to do with it? >_> Will the Great 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Card games reference. As for NGE, see the section on "Lilith in pop culture". Danny Lilithborne 05:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, read it, and I don't see how the NGE reference is any less valid than the Cthulhu: Dark Ages one.

Danny, the fact that so many people think this article needs the NGE reference should tell you something. Rather than reverting all edits and ignoring people who disagree with you, perhaps this discussion page should be used to discuss the issue.

^^ Forgot to sign the above two. Will the Great 05:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To me the difference is that all these other Liliths are supposed to be the same character. The NGE is not. Nor is she even mentioned on the NGE page. To me she is no more "Lilith" than the character "Dracula's Daughter" from the old Marvel comics. This why there is a disambiguation page and that is where NGE Lilith belongs. Web Warlock 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't blindly revert because of personal feelings. There was a rather heated discussion here awhile ago about the issue; it seems to not be on the page anymore, but the consensus was NGE Lilith goes on the disambiguation page. Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I mentioned earlier, it does refrence this legend and if your'e going ot not include Lilith NGE in here, do us a favor and do the same for all the other pages. Such as Sandalphon. Because I don't think that's fair. 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

*I don't blindly revert because of personal feelings. There was a rather heated discussion here awhile ago about the issue; it seems to not be on the page anymore, but the consensus was NGE Lilith goes on the disambiguation page. Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no such concensus; you're the only one here who thinks that. -Random User

Actually he is not the only one. Web Warlock 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the debate is not on the talk page anymore; I'd appreciate anonymous users not taking random pot shots just because they don't like that references to their favorite anime series are not allowed to be on the page. Danny Lilithborne 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I might not have been clear in my above statement. I am also in favor of NOT putting NGE on this page, she does not belong here, that is what Disam pages are for. Web Warlock 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you were clear. I was responding to "Random User". :) Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't know if that's my "favorite anime", or if I even have one. What on earth are you trying to prove by pretending that you have supreme insight to all that is this myth, and even the people discussing it? It does reference the myth directly, as someone's already stated. If you feel so strongly otherwise, than explain how the Lilith of NGE does not reference the myth. NGE is almost entirely based on genesis, with it's characters (adam, eve, lilith, etc.) being borrowed for the series and given nothing more than new physical mock-ups. -That same user
    • NGE borrows little more than names from Judeo-Christian mythology by the director's own admission, falling under the definition of what was decided not to be included in the "popular culture" section. Danny Lilithborne 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So in other words, the assistant director's oppinion speaks for his boss' intentions? That's weak. The series obviously had an above-average understanding of the religion (even among the western audience), and stayed remarkably consistant. You can't write it off as some name-stealer for the sake of trying to be 'cool'. If they just wanted the series to look cool, they woul've stolen the names Adam, Liltih, Eve, the image of cross, and had been done with it. But they didn't stop there; they took the whole book of genesis with them.
    • Who's "they"? Anno's also said things to this effect. I'd write off similarities between the Bible storylines and NGE to the imaginations of overzealous fans. Danny Lilithborne 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, if you feel that it is "name only" then go and do us all a favor and edit EVERY WIKI ARTICLE THAT HAS NGE REFRENCED IN IT LIKE LILITH'S, STOP PICKING ONLY LILITH.. You could start with Sandalphon. You know cuz it's that "offensive" and you want wiki to look nice now don't you? then stop singling this specific article out. It's getting annoying. IMo it does use the Lilith myth promptly, like I said mankind is referred to as "lilim". Those are children of lilith, so again explain how this is "name only"? It may be symbology, but they are still using that myth. (Angel 01 Adam, Angel 02 Lilith, mankind is Lilim)

Why is this a such a big deal to you anyway? She's just some mythological charcter, I could see if it was a big deal on the other articles about Adam & Angels and you seeking to erradicate all the NGE refrences, no instead it's only LILITH. Because somehow it's only offensive when it's her. But you discriminate against every OTHER figure from the SAME mythology.. The same goes for the ppl that agree, I didn't see them edit any OTHER article that has NGE refrences. considering that they are against it and think it's "name only" then that would mean, guess what? EVERY WIKI ARTICLE FROM THE SAME MYTHOLOGY SHOULD HAVE IT'S NGE REFRENCE EDITED OUT BECAUSE IT'S JUST SO DARN OFFENSIVE & AGAINST THE GUIDLINES. But nope, it seems it's only this article. While the others stay the same.

Xuchilbara 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was a crusade, I would have it on my watchlist. But since I am not a fan of NGE, but am a fan of Lilith-related mythology, those are the breaks. You need to calm down; this tirade is unwarranted. Danny Lilithborne 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, I am sorry, however I do not see it fruitful to edit one article, and not the other, considering that it's all cosidered by some "name only." Then all of it would have to be edited. (I'm sorry if I targeted you specifically)

It's very irratating, like I said i should be included, and the majority agree, but if it's not added then meh. Somehow I wish we could have a poll about it or something.

It's intresting , I have to note, that on a large amount of Lilith fan sites I have been on, usally include Lilith from NGE on there sites, more so then other ficticious refrences. It's a popular refrence, I know.

I'll do more research into ficticious Lilith from NGE, not to cause anything, but to prove it's not just name only or if it is. That's all I have to say about the subject.

Other than that I meant no offense, sorry.

Xuchilbara 02:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking, Lilith is pretty masculine looking in NGE correct? she even gets mistaken for Adam in one eps. That would relate to Lilith's orgins in the Zohar as a hermaphadite. Adam has these orgins as well. Lilith is said to have spawned humanity in NGe and Adam angels. but if Adam is male how could Angels be born from him? Theyr'e hermaphadites in NGE that's why!

Acording to NGE Adam and Lilith are seeds of life. Adam bore the angels, while Lilith was never supposed to be on earth, as "teo seeds of life aren't supposed to be on the same planet."

This would mean it very well does relate to the myth of Lilith and it's not simply something named Lilith.

NGE takes alot from the Kabbalah, the Zohar is the prime doctrine of Kabbalah and there's alot about Lilith in there.

Another thing, >Lilith's descendants, humanity (known as Lilim), posses the "Fruit of Knowledge", the source of human intelligence and science.

that's from NGE.

But it's kind ironic that in the Zohar since as you would know Lilith was one of the serpents that tempted Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, hence medieval depictions of her as the serpent tempting her being female. The tree of knowledge is a ephitet for Lilith and Samael. she is called the "torturous serpent", this is all from the Zohar. NGe is obviously using some of these myths. She isn't name only.

Xuchilbara 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can prove that they are using the myth of Lilith accurately in NGE, even her legs are missing just like it says in the Zohar, as she is cursed by God. The anime refrence should be added, and you can even note that Adam and Eve are in there because that PROVES that it's using the myth.

Just because most of the NGE refrneces are uncommon and from the Zohar does not mean it should be simply ignored. It's pretty much a fact that they are using Kabbalah, and that Lilith is in the Zohar the most important book of Kabbalah. These refrences are not normal refrneces however in NGE. That's why they go unnoticed essentially.

Xuchilbara 07:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "Who's "they"? Anno's also said things to this effect. I'd write off similarities between the Bible storylines and NGE to the imaginations of overzealous fans." -Danny
    • I don't get on here much, but I was referring to the writers. I would also dismiss certain things about several serial to overzealous fans, but I couldn't dismiss this when all the links are so obvious.

It really doesn't matter at this point, but if NGE shouldn't be on here, niether should other refrences. [i.e. Fraiser] Whoever put all of it into one catagory, did a great job. :) Xuchilbara 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable deletion of Marvel Comics reference

Danny Lilithborne (02:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)) objects for some reason to my small contribution to this page and has deleted it, claiming that the article already mentions the Marvel Comics incarnation of the demon-mother Lilith. I have yet to spot this mention, unless he is merely referring to the disambiguation link, which is clearly not adequate. Regardless, I put it to my fellow Wikipedians: why should the Vertigo and DC Comics versions of Lilith merit entires under the "Comic books" subsection of "Lilith in literature and popular culture", while the Marvel Comics version does not? This seems unreasonable, and I require further explanation to be convinced of the justification for this deletion. PacifistPrime, 26 November 2006.

  • A lot of the discussion in the entry directly above this one (regarding Neon Genesis Evangelion) is pertinent here, too. If a consensus can be reached I would not object to the Marvel comics version being in the article, but not before that happens. Danny Lilithborne 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I fail to see the revelance of your justification. Anime is a different medium, and not revlevant to the question of deleting entries in the "Comic books" section. As to the question of whether this anime character (who I've never heard of) is only nominally an adaptation of the "true" mythological Lilith is irrelevant here; as the Midnight Sons character is unambiguously a depiction of the ancient myth. You do understand that she is a wholly separate character to Marvel's "daughter of Dracula" by the same name, don't you? I strongly contend that it is a very simple argument: If the two DC Comics versions of Lilith merit inclusion, then there is no basis on which to exclude the Marvel Comics iteration. PacifistPrime, 26 November 2006.
      • I don't disagree with you, but it's irrelevant to the primary requirement of consensus. The popular culture section was very bloated before I came along and a lot of other editors pruned it down to the version that's there today, and they can probably phrase their reasons better. You can't unilaterally decide to overrule them. Danny Lilithborne 03:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I'm being dense, but I still fail to see how consensus about the inclusion of an Anime reference has any bearing on the inclusion of comic book references under their own heading. You cite a lack of consensus but so far you seem to be the only person objecting to my small contribution. I'm not unilaterally overruling anyone, because no-one is actually discussing comics here except you and I. With all due respect, if anyone is being unilateral here it is yourself. As the article's Comic books subsection stood before my addition (and as it now stands following your deletions) it displays indefensible bias favouring only DC Comics publications. PacifistPrime, 26 November 2006.
          • I'm not really biased towards the DC comics (being thoroughly unfamiliar with it); I'm only trying to defend the version of the "popular culture" section that was agreed on as best. Given WebWarlock's response below, though, I think that it would be amenable to add the Marvel comics one. I'll put it back. Danny Lilithborne 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just comming here to talk about that. There are two Lilith's in Marvel comics, one is the "The Daughter of Dracula" and does not fit here, the other is "The Mother of Demons" which is for all intents the same Lilith as depicted here. If we include other comic book adaptations (Gaiman and David), then we should have this one too. It is in my personal opinion a better representation than the Lilith from Piers Anthony's books. Web Warlock 03:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Web Warlock! My point exactly. And thank you also to Danny Lilithborne for relenting in the face of rational argument. It's nice to see that some people on Wikipedia can still be reasonable. ;-) Cheers, PacifistPrime, 26 November 2006.
      • ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 04:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Excellent. Given that we should take care about which Marvel Comics Lilith information gets added. Even in some of the primary sources the Marvel writers confuse the two Liliths. There was the comic about the coven of witches and the writer of that sometimes confused "The Mother of Demons" with "Dracula's Daughter", we should be sure to take greater care. Web Warlock 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Someone proposed merging Lilith (Qliphoth) into Lilith. I support the merger, as the former article is very short and contains no information either not already in this article or that could not be easily incorporated into it. Aleta 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sections copied from PaganWiki

Large portions of the sections on neopaganism, ceremonial magick, Luciferianism, and astrology have been copied from the PaganWiki article on Lilith [3] and appear here without citation. Is this permissible, and what form of attribution needs to be added for these materials?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Yes it is, because I obtained permission and some of the info is written by myself, you can check the pagan wiki page and see my name and IP address. Also, check Paganwiki's discussion page. I can get citations if needed. Xuchilbara 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We should always use citations where possible. Aleta 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought PaganWiki information wasn't compatible because they don't use the GFDL. Doesn't that mean that once something goes there it has to be completely rewritten to go here? I know that's how it works the other way around.

I'm sure licensing isn't an issue but ideally you should include an external link to the pagan wiki rather than make this a mirror of the PW article. WP articles should be reliably sourced. Bendž|Ť 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Samael & Satan

Samael is identified as Satan in a number of sources. This is were the top line of Lilith being a paramour of Satan comes in. [4]

>Rabbinic Literature gives two accounts for the origin of Satan. The first is that Satan was created on the sixth day at the same time as Eve. This ties in with the tradition that Satan played some part in the fall of man. The second and more prevalent tradition is that Satan is one of the fallen angels. Satan is identified with Sammael and his deeds.

Also Satan is charged with being te tempting serpent in the garden of Eden. As Samael is in other litature.[5]

From the Jewish Encyclopedia on Satan: >As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael.[6]

On Samael: > In so far as he is identified with the serpent ("J. Q. R." vi. 12), with carnal desire (Yeẓer ha-Ra'), and with the angel of death, all legends associated with Satan refer equally to him, while as a miscreant he is compared to Belial ( = "worthless"; see collection of material in Bousset, "Antichrist," pp. 99-101). [7]

If Cuchullain does not believe this, and no amount of citated sources are convincing enough, than the entire line should be taken out.

Xuchilbara 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Samael and Satan are frequently considered the same being. I meant that no one has given a source, beyond neopagan websites and other Wikipedia articles, for WHERE it is said that Satan/Samael was Lilith's paramour. The Talmud? The Zohar? Rereading the Alphabet of Ben-Sira, I don't see it anywhere. I know the Zohar includes the story that Samael was the father of Cain, but this was by Eve, not Lilith. I think the line probably has to go, unless someone provides a source soon.--Cúchullain t/c 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OIC. Anyway, in that particular case I agree. I do not know who wrote it, and it's obvious that whoever did cannot provide a specific verifiable source... Samael is considered Lilith's paramour and former consort, but I agrree in that altho Samael & Satan are sometimes considered equal, it doesn't specifically say Satan and Lilth are lovers. It states that Samael & Lilith are.[8][9] I only made a point to equate them.[Samael & Satan] Maybe we should change the passage to the former consort of Samael or something along the lines of her husband Samael who in some ways is considered Satan?

Also Lilith was also a serpent that had sex with Eve in Eden, too. (I know it's confusing but it may be due to Lilith originally being both male & female and born as one with Samael..)[10]

Xuchilbara 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been removed now (not by me). Probably for the best.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I *accidently* found one reference as the wife of Satan, however it's a Muslim belief. [11] According to Encyclopedia Mythica "This is sometimes accompanied by a Muslim legend that after leaving Adam Lilith slept with Satan, thus creating the demonic Djinn.", could I add it to the openning statement similar to this?

Xuchilbara 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Mythica is extremely unreliable (I remember a while ago dozens of articles on Polynesian mythology based on the EM had to be deleted or entirely rewriten because they were fake). So no, do not add that if the only source is the Mythica.--Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to echo the comments that Encyclopedia Mythica is a horrible resource. Any topic it covers in any depth that I ahve looked at is littered with errors. DreamGuy 04:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


This article is not appropriately referenced. 90% of references are from just a small handful of websites, and one of them seems rather biased. Reference books would be nice. And also, reformatting of the reference and notes sections is needed. They should be combined, and the authorship and other details of the referenced websites should discovered and listed. Fuzzform 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true. The references here are very poor. Far too many are to websites of dubious reliability. Some of it might be all right if instead of linking to the sites, we instead ref to the primary source used by the site (if they don't give it, that's a serious strike against their credibility).--Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I referenced one thing from a book.... (But didn't add the the book as a reference at the bottom.) Now it's added, may be a small step, but it's a start. Xuchilbara 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For all the text you added recently you really need to be providing sources for more of it. And I'm afraid that you are presenting a lot of opinions you got from certain books as if they were 100% factual when they may not be. You need sources so people can though go check to see if they are reliable, and also to see if it's just the same source over and over or if there are multiple people saying the same thing or saying something different. Some of your recent edits also wiped out the claims that some figures may not be the same as Lilith and tried to slant it as all but proven as fact, which is nonsense. With the amount of edits you are making and the controversial nature of them, you especially need to cite sources, and also probabl to discuss things here ahead of time. DreamGuy 04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing the Lilake one back. Hurwitz as well as the reliable Patai make mention that Lilu is on the Sumerian king's list, etc . Along with some other info they both have cited. You said that it was biased, when in fact the reverted edit is heavily biased. The Lilake info was done by a scholar, more than one, and the older edit that you re-added is done by anonymous web page.

Hurwitz did the Lilith the first Eve book. Excerpts can be found here,[12] and of course Patai did the Hebrew Goddess, excerpts can be found here.[13]

I have not seen any source doubt Hurwitz's info. (At least the stuff he presents from text or historical evidence. He constantly refers to Lilitu & similar demons as god/dess or demons, though. [Some scholars actually do consider them demi-god/desses] Most scholars accept them to be demons. However, he does cite his sources, give diffrent viewpoints and some of the info I know to be correct myself.) I would think that's what your'e mostly referring to and the scholarship you most have a problem with. But most of his sources can be found else where, so it does not matter to me to find multiple sources. Xuchilbara 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As explained on my talk page and elsewhere, having sources alone does not justify writing the article so that you present what is mere opinion as if it were fact. If you want to say Patai and others believe it is the same figure, hey, that's fine, say so and provide sources... but you went beyond that and made the article take their side. That's not how WP:NPOV works, and if you think my version was "heavily biased" I'm afraid I don't understand how you could claim so, as it was merely saying some people believe one thing, some people believe another and that you can't say something or another clearly was linked to Lilith's traits when it isn't even Lilith we are talking about but another figure. DreamGuy 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There was not my opinion in the article, that is what was stated by Hurwitz about Lilith. You removed it, that's fine, I don't have a prolem with it.

The only thing is that most sources DO indentify Lillake as Lilith, usually via Kramer's translation. I don't mind that you put ' sometimes ', but I think the article needs to be more clearer on the subject and the dispute and the fact that many consider the translation as definitive. If you looked at more evidence you can see why Kramer translated this as Lilith and how this figure and Lilitu might be related or one and the same.

Other than that I have no issues. I considered the other more biased because of it's focus on how Lillake is not Lilith, while like stated before most scholarship considers this translation as definitive. I agree that it should remain neutural and present both sides, but the topic could become easily a debate or edit war etc and I would rather that off of wiki. Xuchilbara 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, with all due respect, you don't get to label sources as biased just because you disagree with their conclusions. I disagree with your claim that "most scholarship" believes what you think it does, and even if it were true that wouldn't make it correct, or a conclusion that should be endorsed by Wikipedia to the exclusion of other scholars' views. You are very clearly trying to take a side here, and that's a major violation of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most sources do accept it to be Lilith, I can't find many proper sources on the dispute. I can on the Burney Relief. If you can find more adequate citations then by all means use them. But so far the only dispute I found was someone's personal opinions and the one dictionary. Thats it.Xuchilbara 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Compressed article?

The written material in this article seems quite spread out, ie the same thing is mentioned twice or thrice in the length of the article. We really need to check the grammar and spelling too. --WoodElf 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and grammer check is needed, but there was too much deletion on some parts. For example the Burney relief is highly contraversial and may be Lilith, but most newer scholarship does not accept it to be Lilith, although it is popularly used to represent her, espcially by pagans. Some irrelevent parts were mixed togather too much when some of the other parts got deleted. The Arslan Tarsh site was pretty relevent with the first layout of the article, after it got deleted however it become redundant.

Xuchilbara 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial Magick section

In referring to the "Invocation of Lilith" (IoL), which I was the original co-author of, it's described as a "Thelemic ritual", but it was never meant to be that by the authors. There is no mention of Thelemic godforms or nomenclature, except for the passing reference to "true will". It was, in fact, intended by the authors as a ritual of post-modern Chaos Magick. So I think that designation should be changed by one of the editors. The IoL also seems to be referenced in this article to an organization called the "Order of Phosphorus", and I have no idea how such an association came about. It is certainly not an organization I have any connection to or had ever heard of before, so I would like to put a "citation needed" tag on that. (The ONA I have heard of.) I looked in on the website of Michael Ford, who seems to be the organizer of the Order of Phosphorus, and I find no connection on that website to the IoL.

Many people have wrote to me claiming to have worked the IoL over the years since it was posted to in 1994, and it was worked by the AutonomatirX Chaos Magick group (which I belonged to when it was written), but I am not aware of any organization using it as "official" canon.

"Lilith-Ritus", the German ritual from which certain parts of the text of IoL were derived, may have been considered a Thelemic rite, but I have been unable to track the original down so it's hard to confirm. I first discovered it in an BBS archive c. 1993, but have never found it again, and I lost the original print-out I had of it - I only have my translation notes, and I admittedly suck at translating German. If anyone has any information on the original I would love to know. JMax555 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My knowledge of Ceremonial Magik is limited. I think we need someone here who has more of a expertise in this area. If something seems out of place or inaccurate, by all means be bold and change it.

Xuchilbara 15:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

GA quick-failed

I have quick-failed this article for not meeting the requirements of the GA criteria. The main reason for failing the article at this point is that there are ten "citation needed" tags found throughout the article. If there had only been a couple, I would have put it on hold as the article definitely meet the broad, stablity, and image requirements (although the images shouldn't sandwich the information in the "Lilith as Qliphah" section). Also, the inline citations should use the citation templates that are available at Wikipedia:Citation templates (all of the citations that only list the website should be more formatted to look like the current first citation in the Notes section). Citation numbers 6 and 62 do not have any citation at all, make sure that one is added for them as well. Address the citation issues and consider getting a third party editor who hasn't edited the page to look it over for a copyedit. Once you have done this, renominate the article again. The article has potential to reach GA and eventually FA, but just needs some more work. If you do not agree with this review, you can take it to GA review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Keep working on improving the article and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 18:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

6. is Raphael Patai p222, The Hebrew Goddess 1978, 3rd enlarged edition from Discus Books New York. Someone edited out the page number under my nose, but I re-added it. 62 I'm currently working on right now. Xuchilbara 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lilu & Irdu lili

Are quite male. Lilu's (AKA Lila, Lillu) eytomology indicates he is a male. Irdu lili is simply a male form of Ardat lili. This is attested by Patai and Kramer. (I mean how can Lilu by a father of Gilgamesh if he is a succubus?) Someone keeps changing the page to try and say they are all female. This is incorrect, out of the 4 lil demons; Lilu, Lilitu, Ardat lili & Irdu lili, 2 are male and 2 are female. I don't know who keeps changing this, but I find it hilarious that Lilu keeps being called a "succubus" in the begining paragraphs and towards Lilitu's appearence in Gilgamesh it is clear from Kramer and others that Lilu is male, and that part remains untouched on Lilu's incorrect gender change from the above paragraphs. Please, stop changing the entries, Wikipedia does not need such contradictions and inaccuracies.

Xuchilbara 23:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Burney Relief

Experts on Lilith and Mesopotamian myth think that there's nothing to the idea that the relief has anything to do with Lilith. The card with it at the British Museum even says so straight out. The article needs to reflect the opinion of the professionals and not that of random websites and so forth. DreamGuy 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to clearify here. Originally the relief was thought, although controversial even for that time, was Lilith and the indentification lay in Kramer's translation of Gilgamesh and the birdfeet along with the owls. But even during than many considered it to by Inanna, and now as you stated modern scholarship considers the relief to be Inanna, and some Ereshkigal. I like how you re-wrote it, its true that the people I encountered that still believe the relief is Lilith are Neopagans and I have often fought that THAT is not Lilith. Another thing I want to say, I ave not seen this connected in scholarship, but anyway people who know demonology of Mespotamia knows that not many images survive of any demons in Mesopotamia. Heck, the one great image of Lamashtu we have is a rarity. This is due to the fact that many in rituals would create images of theses demons and destroy them, to get rid of the demonic threat. This would make the relief 10 times less likely to be Lilitu. Not to mentioned i believe the Museum site adds that "it probaly hung in a shrine somewhere" and its unusual size. If you likewise notice, that all the images connected w/ Lilitu/Lilith including Babylonian incantation bowls and the Arslan tarsh amulet depict her in a fearsome, monsterous manner. The one in the Tarsh site actually depicts a sphinx devouring child. I find it hard to believe if the relief is Lilitu why is she depicted in such a "benevolent" manner and displaying no demonic attributes? Even the figure we have indenified as Lamashtu displays the charateristics found in texts about her.

Well I think I ranted too much. Thank you for the update. I think its more akin to reflecting current opinions rather than popular ones, and it should be mentioned, even though few scholars now days even regard that as Lilith.

Xuchilbara 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to say that depictions on Mesopotamian demons are rare, as just at the British Museum I saw something like eight Pazuzus and a few Humbabas on display in my whirlwind tour. I do think you have a point about the benevolence of the figure, though, and the stance seems far more in line with protective deities in other cultures. Regardless on my personal rationale for why I don't think it's Lilith, it seems to me that the info on the card next to the display at the museum that owns it obviously trumps other sources as far as reliability goes. 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talkcontribs)

Pazuzu was the type of demon that helped people, thought. I meant the total hostile part, beings like Dimme. Xuchilbara 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Helped only in the sense that if you bribed him with enough offerings he'd maybe leave you alone, not because he was a helpful guy. Other demons would probably be similarly appeased. DreamGuy 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


it is nice to see the article has been expanded. But some of the additions are of appalling quality, and the general structure has suffered a lot. First of all, we should not accept weblinks to random sites as "references". Pages like [14] may be linked, but we have to repeat the sources cited there, and if possible verify they are used correctly. The hypothesis that the lil may be a Sumerian loan has become utterly garbled, apparently by copying and re-copying from internet pages by people who could not follow the argument. I am afraid we'll have to tag the "Mesopotamian" section as flawed until someone can take pity and clean it up. dab (�) 10:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what your saying here. Most of that is from book sources. Theres isn't much in the way of net sources, besides maybe Alan's site. Including the passage about "Such qualities are further suggested by the Semitic associations made with the names Lila and Lilitu, namely those of lalu, or wandering about, and lulu, meaning lasciviousness." (Which I do believe was first attested by Kramer.)

You came in and removed some good citations from some reason too, on another spot. Also, the Burney relief section with Lilake looks terrible and mished mashed. It states stuff about the Burney relief, then a contesting arguement for the translation afterwards. And thats just very confusing.

Xuchilbara 15:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see what you did on some of it. [15] comes from Source: Dalley, Stephanie (1991) Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and others. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. [16] Bibliography: Farber, W.

1987 "Tamarisken-Fibeln-Skolpender: Zur philologischen Deutung der 'Reiseszene' auf neuassyrischen Lamaštu-Amuletten", in Rochberg-Halton, F.(ed.), Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, [American Oriental Series 67], New Haven, 1987, pp.85-105.

1997 "ištu api ilâma ez™ezu ezzet: Ein bedeutsammes neues Lamaštu-Amulett", Röllig AV = AOAT 1997 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1997), pp.115-28.

[17] Has too many ciatitions to name here.

I'm not sure why you labeled this as verifiable. Because from the same site on a different page you labeled this as unverifiable. :-/ And they are both verified as correct so.

Xuchilbara 16:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lilith in modern literature and popular culture

I fail to see why this category of information is considered irrelevant by one or more contributors to this article. Popular culture is a legitimate area of academic study - there are entire university departments built around it! And what about Lilith in modern literature? Surely this is at least as legitimate a field of inquiry as Lilith in modern occultism. Authorial fascination with the figure of Lilith did not end in the mid-nineteenth century. Before deleting this information again make a reasoned case for doing so.

Check the Gilgamesh page to see one reason why it should not be added. Given that Lilith is a popular figure now, filling this article up w/ modern and pop references, that doesn't reflect the historical Lilith is inaccurate. Theres so much pop culture on it, it would be useless here. Consider making a Lilith in popular culture page instead. Xuchilbara 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You should have added a split template rather than just deleting all the material. I'm reverting your edit, then you can put in a split template wherever you see fit to do so. Asarelah 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
We already had a Lilith in pop culture article. JuJube 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that all references to Lilith in modern literature and popular culture should be excluded (or confined to a separate page) simply because there are too many is roughly akin to saying that libraries shouldn't bother cataloging books printed after 1900 because publishing expanded so rapidly in the twentieth century. Such a position denies that obvious fact that the sheer volume of twentieth-century books makes the need for good cataloging proportionally greater. Along the same lines I would suggest that it is the very proliferation of references to Lilith after the Romantic period that make it so important for an article like this to point out those instances in more recent literature that are truly worthy of notice. Drawing a do-not-cross line between Romanticism and everything that came after (while making an unsupported exception for occultism) is just plain arbitrary. Finally, I'm afraid I can't let your reference to an "historical Lilith" pass without comment. Lilith is a literary and mythopoeic figure that evolved out of particular religious traditions and continues to evolve today: there simply is no such thing as an "historical Lilith." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a historical Lilith.
We have a disambiguation page for other meanings of the word. DreamGuy 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An historical Lilith! Now I've heard it all. The cousin of the historical Aragorn and third cousin (twice-removed, no doubt) of the historical Rumpelstiltskin. None of this, even if it were true, would serve in any way to answer the preceding arguments for the inclusion of Lilith as a fictional character in modern literature. I'd say this article has come down with a bad case of intellectual snobbery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to make this clearer. This article reflects actual beliefs about Lilith that stem from mythology and religion. The reason the Romantic period is included, one reason, is because of its effect on the image of Lilith and how her apearence in Neopaganism. (I.e. Aradia/Wicca has Lilith in it and the views of her reflect the Romantism. Its inherited from the Romantic period, too.) The article also explains w/ the Romantic period how Lilith's shift in image changed into a more positive role model figure and this obviously had an effect on religious beliefs, as well as feminist and fictional beliefs.

But the "historical" Lilith is what this article is about. And Lilith fair among other things, does not reflect any religious belief nor the actual Lilith.

Xuchilbara (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lilith in Narnia

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (the book, not the movie), one of the creatures that the four children meet states that the White Witch is descended from "Adam's first wife, her they called Lilith." This is echoed in The Magician's Nephew when the lineage of the house of Charn and Jadis (who would later become the White Witch) is explained (there has always been some giantish blood in the house of Charn). Some reference to this might be appropriate. standonbibleTalk! 15:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Did you not read our above thing about including references to Lilith in pop culture? Xuchilbara (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture? Hardly. The references to Faust and all that are no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

footnote 78

No, I'm not a reliable source, so it's in y'all's best interests not to refer to anything I've written. --Thalia Took —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want you can just change the citation with a book source as, that belief is common in neopaganism. Xuchilbara (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Astrological Lilith

This section is rather obtuse (as in it doesn't make any sense) and adds nothing to the article as a whole. I can't understand the how, why, or what of "Dark Moon Lilith" or how a certain phase of the moon became associated with the concept of Lilith to begin with.-- (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as "Dark Moon Lilith" it is an aspect that is placed on an astrological chart. It Has been used for at least thirty years or more.

"The Moon travels along an elliptical path around the Earth. An ellipse has two focal points, and the other focal point, not occupied by the Earth has been called the Dark Moon, the Black Moon or Lilith." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Belief is one thing and fact another. Lilith is an ancient belief long before Genesis but as far as what most cite, is Midrash. This was an explanation by Rabbis for something that confounded them. They had one verse stating that Adam and his mate were created at the same time and another stating that his mate was created from his rib later. This was common for there to be conflicting or confusing passages so they wrote what they call Midrash to explain this difference. Nothing more nor less. Anything else would be beliefs and folklore prior to Judeo/Christian viewpoints before the creation of Genesis. Check with the History channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. However, the link you provided only seems to arbitrarily associate the name "Lilith" with this focal point of the moon. It bespeaks more of the fancy of whatever astrologer first assigned the name rather than any sort of widely held and commonly regarded tradition, belief, or practice. So, to a layman unlearned in astrological teaching (particularly that which has only arisen within, as you say, the last 30 or so years) such as myself it appears, well...obtuse.

"Belief is one thing and fact another." Really, ya think? Problem is, beliefs that fall under the umbrella term "new age" can be very murky indeed.. Too often I see confusing sections of articles on mythology expounding on some rather "new-agey" sounding associations and beliefs as if they were concepts that the reader should already be familiar with. The section in question has all the hallmarks of what I'm talking about: unfamiliar terms bandied about as if they were common knowledge, lack of context, confusing structure, and even more confusing and perhaps questionable sources. As for the History Channel, I usually don't watch it as I find much of its programming a bit sensational for my taste. -- (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the novel?

For me the immediate association would be to George MacDonald's novel _Lilith_. Is this pertinent? Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


"Lilith in the bible" refers to a Schrader and a Levy. Who are these writers, and where are the refs for their works? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lilith and the Church of Satan

This entire section is absolutely false. The Church of Satan does not use Lilith in a mythological role, or any other. The image posted and claimed to be the Church of Satan's "Sigil of Baphomet" is no such thing. I am deleting this entire section, as Lilith has nothing to do with the Church of Satan as an organizational religious symbol or an organizational mythological role. I mean seriously people, you all know the difference between primary and secondary source material right? Jack Lantern (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what we have: [[18]].

"The Pentagram, which in Gnostic schools is called the Blazing Star, is the sign of intellectual omnipotence and autocracy. It is the Star of the Magi; it is the sign of the Word made flesh; and, according to the direction of its points, this absolute magical symbol represents order or confusion, the Divine Lamb of Ormuz and St. John, or the accursed goat of Mendes. It is initiation or profanation; it is Lucifer or Vesper, the star of morning or evening. It is Mary or Lilith, victory or death, day or night. The Pentagram with two points in the ascendant represents Satan as the goat of the Sabbath; when one point is in the ascendant, it is the sign of the Saviour. By placing it in such a manner that two of its points are in the ascendant and one is below, we may see the horns, ears and beard of the hierarchic Goat of Mendes, when it becomes the sign of infernal evocations."

Is not about using her in a "mythological" role. I do not think the article intended that. But they definitely use her most symbolically, as do feminists and the artists. However, she is taking from myths - myths about her and Satan. (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did Lilith go?

Please restore image, which is clearly in public domain no matter what some throttler may claim. (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored the images. If they were removed for a reason, please tell me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Not very scholarly. Ben Sirah 8th to 10th centuries? (AD/BC not specified, but irrelevant--200BCE is in the ball park.) Isaiah 6th century? Which Isaiah? (1st Isaiah was 8th century: Is 1-41, less 13,14, or thereabouts.) Such a complex subject is better left untouched than to amateurs. This is the sort of article that throws the whole Wiki project into disrepute. --AGF

The First Eve

In relation to the Lilith myth I found a site expanded to include a figure referred to as "The First Eve".

"Undismayed by His failure to give Adam a suitable helpmeet, God tried again, and let him watch while he built up a woman's anatomy: using bones, tissues, muscles, blood and glandular secretions, then covering the whole with skin and adding tuft of hair in places. The sight caused Adam such disgust that even when this woman, the First Eve, stood there in her full beauty, he felt an invicible repugnance. God knew that He had failed once more and took the First Eve away. Where she went, nobody knows for certain." [19]

I was merely curious to know whether there are any other versions of the Lilith myth that include the First Eve. Most books and sites I've found merely rehash the same variations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panna Glupiutka (talkcontribs) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Genesis Rabbah

"The concept of Eve having a predecessor is not exclusive to Ben Sira, and is not a new concept, as it can be found in Genesis Rabbah. " Where in the Genesis Rabbah is this mentioned?-- (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)