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 Childrens 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)




.

[JehovahsWitness]

LILITH (): 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 Quran as Literature and Culture pp. 173-182.

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

TH bible isnt written in Sumerian, it was written in Hebrew.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Your quotations (I have no idea WHY the first one is there, perhaps you can enlighten me, it looks like part of a definition of what a concordance is. What am I missing here?) does not establish or support your point at all. Where does STRONG express his thought that the King James rendering was "incorrect".



JW

[Miles]

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.

Sure it does. It says, here is another example of the Bible's lack of veracity.

Consider:

ve-rac-i-ty
/vrasd/
noun: veracity
conformity to facts; accuracy.
Similar: truthfulness

So far, looking at the use of "lilith" in Isaiah 34:14 all that's come forth is a lack of "conformity to facts;" (there are no actual facts, only many variations on a theme") "accuracy" (lacking facts, accuracy becomes moot) "truthfulness," (without facts truth can't be ascertained), but plenty of controversy, contention, dispute, and rebutting. So it does speak to the Bible's veracity, but in the negative.

There are less trustworthy translations. However, the most popular translations (NIV, NRSV, NLT, KJV) tend to be popular because they are reliable.

I've always heard that the success of any Bible version is dependent on either entrenched habit or explicit marketing. Bible publishers devise each new version so as to appeal to the theologies of specific denominations. Hence, when the new version comes out those churches to whom it is targeted adopt it as thee Bible to trust and have, and in turn convince their followers to shell out for a copy. As it stands, the most popular Bibles are

King James Version (55%)
New International Version (19%)
New Revised Standard Version (7%)
New American Bible (6%)
The Living Bible (5%)
All other translations (8%)
(Source: Wikipedia)

They all translate the word as some kind of night animal.

No they don't. The NRSV says:

Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest."

The only remotely popular translation that doesnt 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.

Your leaving out The Living Bible, which says:

"The wild animals of the desert will mingle there with wolves and hyenas. Their howls will fill the night. There the night-monsters will scream at each other, and the demons will come there to rest."

And I don't buy any contention claiming "night-monsters" are some kind of animals. For all anyone knows they could be some kind of supernatural specter floating about.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

I'm sure some do, but what we are concerned with is what BIBLE scholars (those that translate scripture) do.

... NJB, NRSV, Watts and Wildberger all render this as a proper name 'Lilith'...

Your source notes four (4) translators have opted for rendering "lillith" as a proper noun. From a sample on https://biblehub.com (by no means exhaustive) twenty-three (23) do not.

... IPS and NAB as 'the lilith' and the others variously as 'night creatures' (NIV), 'night monster' (GNB) and 'the nightjar' (REB).

Indeed most modern translators do opt for rendering Isaiah 34:14b as some kind of animal (bird) rather than treating the word as a proper noun. Some opt for "night monster" (which arguably does not have to be mythical in nature) and other simply transliterate (which remains neutral without inference to the reader).

In short if we are looking for a consensus amongst biblical translators, it certain is not that lillith in Isaiah 34 should be treated as a proper noun or that it allures to a particular woman mythical or otherwise.

New International Version
Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also lie down and find for themselves places of rest.

New Living Translation
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.

English Standard Version
And wild animals shall meet with hyenas; the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; indeed, there the night bird settles and finds for herself a resting place.

Berean Study Bible
The desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and one wild goat will call to another. There the night creature will settle and find her place of repose.

King James Bible
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.

New King James Version
The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the jackals, And the wild goat shall bleat to its companion; Also the night creature shall rest there, And find for herself a place of rest.

New American Standard Bible
The desert creatures will meet with the wolves, The goat also will cry to its kind. Yes, the night-bird will settle there And will find herself a resting place.

NASB 1995
The desert creatures will meet with the wolves, The hairy goat also will cry to its kind; Yes, the night monster will settle there And will find herself a resting place.

NASB 1977
And the desert creatures shall meet with the wolves, The hairy goat also shall cry to its kind; Yes, the night monster shall settle there And shall find herself a resting place.

Amplified Bible 1965 (rev 2015)
The creatures of the desert will encounter jackals And the hairy goat will call to its kind; Indeed, Lilith (night demon) will settle there And find herself a place of rest.

Christian Standard Bible
The desert creatures will meet hyenas, and one wild goat will call to another. Indeed, the night birds will stay there and will find a resting place.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The desert creatures will meet hyenas, and one wild goat will call to another. Indeed, the screech owl will stay there and will find a resting place for herself.

American Standard Version
And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster shall settle there, and shall find her a place of rest.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And spirits shall hold meetings in it, and an evil spirit shall call to his fellow. There a female night demon is rested, and she has found rest for herself

Brenton Septuagint Translation - 1844
And devils shall meet with satyrs, and they shall cry one to the other: there shall satyrs rest, having found for themselves a place of rest.

Contemporary English Version
Wildcats and hyenas will hunt together, demons will scream to demons, and creatures of the night will live among the ruins.

Douay-Rheims Bible pub 1610 (most recent dating 1810)
And demons and monsters shall meet, and the hairy ones shall cry out one to another, there hath the lamia lain down, and found rest for herself.

English Revised Version
And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster shall settle there, and shall find her a place of rest.

Good News Translation
Wild animals will roam there, and demons will call to each other. The night monster will come there looking for a place to rest.

GOD'S WORD Translation
Hyenas will meet with jackals. Male goats will call to their mates. Screech owls will rest there and find a resting place for themselves.

International Standard Version
And desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and goat-demons will call out to each other. There also Liliths will settle, and find for themselves a resting place.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And the wild-cats shall meet with the jackals, And the satyr shall cry to his fellow; Yea, the night-monster shall repose there, And shall find her a place of rest.

Literal Standard Version
And desert-dwellers have met with howlers, "" And the goat calls for its companion, "" Surely the night-owl has rested there, "" And has found a place of rest for herself.

NET Bible
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 Heart English Bible
And the wildcats will meet with the hyenas, and the wild goat will cry to his fellow. There too, nocturnal animals shall settle, and shall find themselves a place of rest.

World English Bible
The wild animals of the desert will meet with the wolves, and the wild goat will cry to his fellow. Yes, the night creature shall settle there, and shall find herself a place of rest.

Young's Literal Translation
And met have Ziim with Aiim, And the goat for its companion calleth, Only there rested hath the night-owl , And hath found for herself a place of rest.


source: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/34-14.htm

[Difflugia]

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.

I agree, but that's not what I was arguing against. Your claim was that there's "no evidence Jewish thought had connected the name Lilith anyone important (goddess, demon, or other) in the pre-exile days of Isaiah." Though parts of the Bible are likely pre-exilic or exilic, all of our evidence for it is post-exilic. You're making an argument from silence for a period from which all we have is silence.

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.

Again, you're making an argument from silence when we have no information at all. You made the positive claim that Lilith didn't enter Jewish religious thought until after Isaiah, but you don't actually have any evidence of that.

The evidence that we do have is that Isaiah uses the otherwise unattested word "lilith" in a grammatical context consistent with a proper name. Furthermore, the name is known in a parallel form in surrounding cultures with whom the Judahites had contact. You're trying to make the argument that we must discount the evidence we have because of evidence that we not only don't have, but have no reason to expect.

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

We don't have any evidence at all about how they read it in Isaiah's day. All of the readers that we do have evidence for, however, read "lilith" as referring to a supernatural creature, whether as a proper name for an individual or common name for a class of demons.

Doesnt 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?

Yes. That's why I'm suggesting that we not use that method. Suggesting that "lilith" is a common noun because "sa'ir" is one is exactly as invalid as suggesting the reverse. As you say, nobody should seriously suggest that.

It is far more reasonable to treat nouns as nouns unless the context suggests that they are proper names.

As a statistical argument, I guess. If we have no other information about an apparent noun, it's more likely to be common.

In this case, the context suggests that lilith is a noun, not a proper name.

It doesn't, though. We already have attestation of "lilith" as referring to a goddess or demon in nearby cultures. If we're going to make a statistical argument, then I'd think that would carry much more weight than appearing with a presumed common noun.

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.

Perhaps, but you haven't actually offered any evidence of that. To the contrary, all of the evidence that we actually have is that lilith is a proper name. Your argument is that the connection isn't sure enough to overcome your presumption, but you haven't reasonably justified the presumption.

[John Bauer]

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.

That was the point I intended to make. (This is why I read the entire thread before posting.) Sure, I guess it could be a proper name here, but that just seems so unlikely. This passage is talking about jackals, ostriches, desert creatures, wild dogs, wild goatsand suddenly Lilith? That's rather incongruous and seems unlikely. The NET translates this verse as "nocturnal animals will rest there," providing a note here which says in part (emphasis mine),

The precise meaning of (lilit) is unclear, though in this context the word certainly refers to some type of wild animal or bird. The word appears to be related to (laylah, "night"). Some interpret it as the name of a female night demon, on the basis of an apparent Akkadian cognate used as the name of a demon.

It is less jarring and makes more sense if it's referencing jackals, ostriches, desert creatures, wild dogs, wild goats, and nocturnal animals. See, that flows. In the Songs of the Maskil (Dead Sea Scrolls) it talks about the Instructor being bent on frightening and terrifying "all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers," and so forth (Wise, Abegg, and Cook 2005, 527). See, Lilith makes sense here contextually, being included among spirits, demons, howlers, and so forth. Perhaps a case could be made that it should be Lilith in Isaiah 34, but that comes with a heavy exegetical burden.

~~~

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 ...

Given that you're responding to what bjs1 said, let me fix that for you: "It's attested nowhere else." Period. That is its one and only occurence in the Bible. Since there does not exist a semantic range for this term in Scripture, we must pay close attention to the relevant context. Sure, we can look at extra-biblical material too, but that's after we've made a coherent attempt to translate it with contextual consistency.

~~~

The Apocrypha is not an inspired book of the Bible.

Since "apocrypha" is plural, that ought to say, "The Apocrypha are not inspired books of the Bible."

_________________________
References:

Wise, M. O., Abegg Jr., M. G., and Cook, E. M. (2005). The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev. ed. San Fransisco, CA: HarperOne.

[Difflugia]

Given that you're responding to what bjs1 said, let me fix that for you: "It's attested nowhere else." Period. That is its one and only occurence in the Bible.

That is an interesting bit of sleight of hand. "Attested nowhere else in the Bible" and "attested nowhere else" are very far from equivalent.

Since there does not exist a semantic range for this term in Scripture, we must pay close attention to the relevant context. Sure, we can look at extra-biblical material too, but that's after we've made a coherent attempt to translate it with contextual consistency.

"Contextual consistency" is certainly important, but the rest of Isaiah (including "First Isaiah") shows foreign literary influence, including other Akkadian loan-words. Ignoring that larger context in favor of what amounts to an aesthetic judgement seems a recipe for misunderstanding and mistranslation.

[William]

I wonder if Lilith is somehow related to Sophia? [are the mythologies connected?]

As legend would have it...

[Diagoras]

[Replying to William in post #39]

Certainly interesting to learn a bit about Gnosticism from that link, thanks.

Given the wide range of ideas and philosophies that existed contemporaneously in the first and second centuries AD, it would be surprising to not find references to gnostic concepts in biblical writing.

There must be numerous other examples in the bible where references to non-Christian beliefs have been made. And plenty of opportunities to draw different inferences from them, depending on ones own beliefs.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #39]

Certainly interesting to learn a bit about Gnosticism from that link, thanks.

Given the wide range of ideas and philosophies that existed contemporaneously in the first and second centuries AD, it would be surprising to not find references to gnostic concepts in biblical writing.

There must be numerous other examples in the bible where references to non-Christian beliefs have been made. And plenty of opportunities to draw different inferences from them, depending on ones own beliefs.

Exactly. Most Christians do not care to admit such, as it lessens the importance of their religion - which has been designed to dominate the world stage [a world they also claim is ruled by Satan] so they do not even deem it necessary to evaluate their own religion and expose its flaws for what they are.

[Which is specifically why I create the thread "The Doctrine of Satan"]

It is my informed opinion that the bible is a collection of writings by authors who came from various directions of belief, not all of them in agreeance - which is why it is easy enough to glen different interpretations from the script, as is clear to us when we observe how Christians argue about the bible and cannot come to any mutual place of agreement together. They tend to sort themselves into 2 major opposing categories with some aspects overlapping between those...I speak to this in the thread I created to examine the phenomena ... "The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife"