The Creation of a Temptress:
Lilith and the Changing Nature of Eve
At the heart of religious studies as an academic endeavour is comparison. The two traditions have greatly dissonant interpretations of the characters within their shared elements. One such character is Eve, a woman who is an integral part of the creation story of both traditions, and who has been used as a justification for the holding of skewed views about the female gender as a whole. The character of Lilith has played an integral role in the difference interpretations of Eve that have been made by authorities in the Jewish and Christian communities.
The Tale of Lilith and Eve
The story, as related in the Midrash, the Talmud, and the eleventh century Kabbalistic scroll The Alphabet of Ben Sira,[1] unfolds in this manner: In the beginning, Yahweh created the first male and first female humans from dust,[2] and they were named Adam and Lilith. Lilith was of the opinion that, because she had been created at the same time as Adam, from the same material, and by the same deity, that she was an equal to the male. Specifically, she refused to engage in intercourse while in the missionary position, as she found it demeaning.[3] Adam attempted to convince her, but Lilith pronounced the secret, ineffable name of God, turned herself into a demon, and left Eden.
Adam was, obviously, rather distressed by these occurrences, so he went to Yahweh and spoke with him about Lilith's leaving. Yahweh sent three of His angels, Gabriel, Rapheal, and Uriel, to find Lilith and convince her to return to Eden. The angels went forth, and found Lilith on the banks of the Red Sea. Lilith adamantly refused to return, claiming that she was no longer a suitable wife for Adam, and that she would now spend the rest of her days murdering the children of Man. The angels responded by telling Lilith that unless she did return, they would kill 100 of her demon children every day from thenceforth.[4]
Meanwhile, in Eden, Yahweh decided that "it is not good for the man to be alone,"[5] and so he decided to make another woman. He cast a spell upon Adam which caused the First Man to fall into a deep sleep. While he slept, Yahweh took a rib from Adam's body and created a woman, who would later become known as Eve. Lilith, when she heard of this, was infuriated that she would be replaced so easily. So, she took the form of a Serpent, and re-entered the Garden of Eden. Within the Garden, there were two trees that Adam and Eve had been commanded not to eat from: the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Eternal Life.
The Serpent went to Eve, and convinced her to eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve ate the fruit, and convinced Adam to do the same. When Yahweh became aware of this, he cast the man and the woman from Eden, punishing them to life on earth.[6]
Two Eves or One?
If it is to be proved that qualities of Lilith are found within the Christian understanding of Eve, it is first essential to prove that the Christian understanding of Eve differs somehow from the Jewish one, and also to explain what could have caused this to occur.
One of the main differences between the understandings of Eve in the two traditions concerns the nature of Eve in regards to the concepts of good and evil. The Christian Eve is characterized by decietfulness, and deviousness. St. Augustine referred to Eve as a "temptress",[7] and other theologians such as Tertullian and St. Paul have made similar condemnations. This is a departure from the Rabbinical understanding of who and what Eve was; the Eve that they developed in the Midrash was "a 'light-headed,' irresponsible, and easily manipulated female."[8] Although neither characterization of Eve is a positive one, the two are greatly different. Christian theologians saw in Eve a force of evil, while the rabbis interpreted her as a guileless and ultimately innocent creature.
It was the interplay of several different doctrines that resulted in the Christian view of Eve, one of which was the notion of original sin, developed in the fourth century C.E.[9]. If the first sin was eating from one of the forbidden trees, then it was woman who was responsible for the loss of paradise. This was not a doctrine familiar with the Jewish understanding of sin, which they believed resulted from the presence of the yezer-ha-ra (a destructive shadow self that each individual has),[10] or by the Watcher Angels of Genesis 6 wedding themselves to the daughters of mankind.[11] In general, the story of Adam and Eve carries a great deal more importance to Christians than it does to the Jews, who concentrate more on the roles and teachings of the prophets.
The centrality of the tale of the Fall is, once again, based on doctrine stemming from the early Church fathers. Christ was interpreted as a 'new Adam', who was leading the spiritual creation of a new race of mankind. St. Paul argues that "Adam . . . was a pattern of the one to come."[12] In order to increase the importance of this new Adam, the first Adam would have to be devalued, and shown to be the cause of suffering on Earth.
We are presented, then, with two traditions that greatly disparate views on the nature of the mother of mankind. The question, however, is whether this was solely the result of the patriarchal influences of the early Church fathers, or is there perhaps another explanation?
Qualities of Lilith found in the Christian Eve
Taking the undoubtedly negative view of women that were held by the early Church fathers and using it to justify their view of Eve is a simplistic view which makes several logical errors. To argue rests upon one of two premises: 1) that the scriptures and doctrines used by the Church fathers were developed within a cultural vacuum, or 2) acknowledging that there were influences upon the early Christian Church by other groups (specifically Jewish ones), but that these influences did not share the patriarchal world-view of the Christians. To argue the first point would be bad scholarship, if nothing else. Both Biblical and secondary sources provide evidence for the patriarchal nature of Jewish society at the beginning of the common era.[13]
Part of the reason for this shifting nature of Eve could be explained by the Christian abandonment of the "secondary" (Strack & Stemberger 123)[14] religious sources of Judaism (the Talmud and Midrash especially). Strack and Stemberger argue that these sources are the "essence of the Torah"[15] (Strack & Stemberger p.142), and that without them, a proper understanding of the books of the Torah cannot be made. Virtually all of the doctrines concerning Lilith are contained within these documents, which add a greater level of depth to the material within the canonized bible. Without these sources, the figure of Lilith as known to the Jews was decimated, replaced with a snivelling succubus and crib-demon.
While the extant figure of Lilith was excised from the developing tradition, history has shown that it is frequently harder to excise something from the living, practiced parts of a tradition than it is to remove it from the official documents. It appears that this is the case with the first wife of Adam; the removal of the Talmud and Midrash effectively eliminated her from the tradition. Her character, however, still filled a psycho-social need that existed within the community. As a result, her character was mixed with that of Eve.
One rather important issue concerning the Fall of Mankind is where the blame can be placed. Within Judaism, the blame is laid solely upon the serpent; Eve was the characteristic witless innocent who was seduced and decieved by a figure of evil and led astray from God's law. Apocryphal texts go so far as to suggest that Eve had been possessed by the Serpent; Cain was said to have been born "after the Serpent mounted Eve and injected filth into her,"[16] possibly meaning that he was born after the exodus from the Garden. The case has been made that the Serpent in the Garden was Lilith herself; she was one of the few creatures who can be proven to have existed within the mythological timeline at that point, and she had a motive. Also, the Zohar lists the concubines of the demon Samael, amongst which is Lilith; and it is said that "the female of Samael is the Serpent."[17] Within the Christian framework, the culpability for the first sin is laid flat at the feet of Eve. St. Paul went so far as to remove all blame from Adam, stating that "it was the woman who was decieved and became a sinner."[18]
One of the "Liline" qualities that the Christian interpretation of Eve incorporates is the focus upon her sexual nature. Rabbinical literature states frequently the belief that Eve was a pure, innocent creature.[19] It is because of these qualities of her that the Serpent is allowed to manipulate her into eating the fruit of life. Contrasted with this is Lilith, a woman whose very character is determined in relation to her sexual practices. Where does the Christian Eve fit along this dimension? Despite there being no evidence to support it within Genesis, Christian theologians routinely define the sin of the Fall of Mankind to be a sexual one.[20] Eve, then, is said to 'seduce' Adam within the Garden, and is referred to as a 'temptress' because of this. Once again, we see a feminine character being defined solely on the basis of her (supposed) sexual practices, and then having that one characteristic become her defining one.
All religions exist in a state of constant evolution. The evolution of any one faith can take on a variety of forms, including changes to doctrine, practice, and the changing nature and needs of the community which the religion serves. At the same time, however, it is important for the group to retain a certain degree of tradition and decorum, in order to keep the movement grounded. This is the situation which we have seen with Lilith; her character was allowed to dissolve, and then became absorbed into Eve due to the proximity of their myths. The argument is not that either of the traditions has a more 'correct' interpretation (in either a moral or interpretive sense), merely that such a difference does exist, and offering a possible explanation as to the nature of that difference. The knowledge of this syncretism is also problematic for the proponents of a "great goddess" theory; believing that similarities exist between religions as a result of those religions interacting with one another is, in most instances, somewhat more parsimonious than assuming the existence of a pre-historical matriarchal society.
Endnotes
[1]. Schwartz (1987) p.340.
[2]. Genesis 1:26
[3]. Graves & Patai (1964) p.65
[4]. Wenkart (1998) p.108
[5]. Genesis 2:18
[6]. Genesis 3:17-19
[7]. Armstrong (1993) p.124
[8]. Cantor (1998) p.17
[9]. Armstrong (1993) p.123
[10]. Reik (1960) p.45
[11]. Evans (1968) p.16
[12]. Romans 5:14
[13]. For further discussion on the nature of patriarchy in Judaism, please see Cantor (1995), Jewish Men/Jewish Women
[14]. Strack and Stemberger (1992) p.123
[15]. Ibid p.142
[16]. Patai (1981) p.456
[17]. Ibid p.461
[18]. 1Timothy 2:13
[19]. Patai (1981) p.456
[20]. Phillips (1984) p.25
References
Armstrong, K (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballentine.
Blau, J.L. (1965). The Christian Interpretation of the Cabala in the Renaissance. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat.
Cantor, A. (1998). "Lilith, the Woman who would be a Jew." in Dame, E., Rivlin, L., & Wenkart, H. (ed). Which Lilith?. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. p.15-22.
Evans, J.M. (1968). Paradise Lost and the Genesis Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Graves, R., & Patai, R. (1964). Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York: Doubleday.
Henkart, W. (1998). "Feminist Revaluation of the Mythical Triad of Two Women and One Man; Lilith, Adam, and Eve." in Dame, E., Rivlin, L., & Wenkart, H. (ed). Which Lilith?. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. p.103-112.
Patai, R. (1981). Gates to the Old City. Detroit: Wayne State University.
Phillips, J.A. (1984). Eve: The History of an Idea. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Reik, T. (1960). The Creation of Woman. New York: George Braziller, Inc.
Schwartz, H. (1987). "Jewish tales of the Supernatural." Judaism, 36, p.339-351.
Strack, H.L., and Stemberger, G. (1992). Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.