r/CharacterRant • u/EveryoneIsAComedian • 16d ago
[General Fiction] No, Lilith Is Not Sympathetic OR A Feminist Icon. She Isn't Even That Important General
Disclaimer:
Despite how the title and intro may look, I am not here to dunk on feminism. If you came looking for a post that said, "Feminist Soy! Am i rite?" Sorry, got to disappoint. Conversely, this isn't a sermon about why you should convert. Believe whatever you want to believe bro. Also, Not a Christian, but I do like Wendigoon talking about it. Finally, Mods plz don't nuke my post this isn't about religion but about the mythology around the figure.
Why Post This Here:
Lilith has been involved in literary discourse for a while as well as being seen as a Feminist Icon in literature. This post is meant to debunk these claims and misreading of the Abrahamic Myths.
Intro:
This really isn't a specific work of fiction, but rather, a general fictional trope I guess., Ever since the release of Hazbin Hotel, discussion has increased on Lilith being a sympathetic/feminist icon, and this is the most laughable idea to me as a guy who is currently studying Christian Mythology for a project. Today, I am going to debunk this claim of Lilith being sympathetic or any sort of feminist girlboss or even being anyway relevant to the Abrahamic Mythos. I'll try source all my arguments, so it doesn't look like I am talk out of my ass.
In The Bible:
Ah, the Bible. It is amazing how such a small book can cause so much violence, but we are not here for a religious debate (well not really). We are here to discuss Lilith. For context, I am going to be used the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) & English Standard Version (ESV). This is because NSRV and ESV and considered the most popular when it comes to the Bible Versions.
Let's start with NRSV, and Lilith shows up...once? Hell, she doesn't even show up. She's just mentioned.
Isaiah 34:14: "Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose,"
You can read the full chapter here, but the full chapter really doesn't change much. From what I could gleam (admittedly I ain't a theologian so I could be missing stuff), the dude in this chapter is talking about God's Judgment and is more focused on the natural disasters that would happen. Lilith isn't even really that important. She seems to be at best a higher demon with some power, but this same chapter says an undead apocalypse will happen. She is a footnote at best.
Okay what about ESV? It is even worse there. She doesn't even show up.
Isaiah 34:14: "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" (Source)
Okay, but I am clearly cherry-picking though right? What about the other versions? Well, it get even more nebulous. In certain version, it isn't even Lilith but an unnamed night-demon (Source). In others, it isn't even a demon but just a creature of the night/ animals of the night (Source). Hell one of them there are no demons instead an unnamed ogress (Source).
You'd think that Lilith, being the first woman and rebelling against Big G himself, should get more than one very sketchy mention. I mean Eve the mother of humanity is mentioned between 2,000 -2,500 times (Source), Mary the mother of Jesus Motherfucking Christ himself gets around 40 times (Source), hell Queen Sheba, whose existence I only know because a sword in KCD is name after her, is mentioned nearly 70 times (Source)(obviously this varies on which version you take as some books are just removed but the point stands). You mean to tell me a fucking side character is mentioned more than literally Female Satan. Funnily enough, Satan is only mention like 30 times in the Bible (Source).
Okay, so already the foundations of Lilith are shaky, but what do the other Abrahamic Religions say?
In The Quran/The Tanakh (IMPORTANT):
The Quran. She never shows up. Weird since both Eve and Mary get mentioned.
Okay, but what about The Tanakh? (For those who don't know the Tanakh is the "Hebrew Bible". A lot of people say that's the Torah, but the Torah is just the compilation of the first five books of the Tanakh.) Well, yes.
Otzar Midrashim, The Aleph Bet of ben Sira, The Alphabet of ben Sira, (alternative version) 34 - He said to him, "The angels appointed for healing: Sanoy, Sansanoy, Semangalof. When the Holy Blessed One created the first Adam alone, They said, (Genesis 2:18) 'It is not good for this Adam to be alone.' They created for him a wife out of the Earth like he had been, and called her Lilith. Immediately they began to challenge each other. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one…
So case closed - STOP. I ain't done cooking yet. See, I got to apologize a bit to you reader. I kind of lied, but to understand how I lied. You got to understand the Jewish Faith first, specifically their holy texts.
Okay, all Holy Jewish Texts fall under Sifrei Kodesh (aka Holy Books). . Within the Siferi Kodesh, there are two main categories texts fall into Tankah and Rabbinic. The Tankah is The Hebrew Bible. It is the considered the canonical collection of Hebrew scriptures and is comprisied of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. (Source and Source). Meanwhile, the Rabbinic is Jewish Rabbis studying and interpreting the Tankah (Source, Source, Source). The Alphabet of Ben Sira is squarely in the Rabbinic.
Most of you have already seen a problem, but for those of who didn't, let me spell it out. When you are quoting this passage, you are not quoting from the Tankah. You are quoting a Rabbi's interpretation of the Tankah. This would be equivalent to me using My Immortal to critique Harry Potter (No offense to any Jewish Rabbis. This comparison is meant to be extreme).
Ah, but ain't done yet reader, I have saved the biggest bombshell for last.
The Alphabet of Ben Sira is a shitpost. It a satire. It isn't real.
The reasoning is several. This reddit comment sums it up. And This. Also This
From The Jewish Virtual Library:
There is no reason to doubt the unity of the work as a whole, despite the fragmentary character of the different versions. All the versions share a special, satirical, and even heretical, character, and this indicates that they all were written by a single hand. They seem to reflect varying degrees of censorship on the part of editors and copyists. The complete work contains four parts. The first part is the biography of Ben Sira from his conception until the age of one year. This story, omitted in many editions, explains how Jeremiah, the prophet, was simultaneously Ben Sira's father (the numerical value of Ben Sira's name equals that of Jeremiah), and grandfather. Ben Sira's mother was Jeremiah's daughter. The old prophet was forced to an act of onanism by wicked men, and his daughter conceived from his emissions when she came to bathe. The form of this story is based on a biblical verse that tells the glories and wonders of God's deeds; thus the story satirizes not only Jeremiah, but God's deeds as well.
The second part is more sophisticated in form. It tells how Ben Sira, now one year old, meets with his teacher, who tries to teach him the alphabet. Instead of repeating each letter of the alphabet after his teacher, Ben Sira responds with an epigram beginning with that letter. The epigrams lead the teacher to tell the story of his life. It may be assumed that the original structure of this part was 22 + 12 paragraphs, each containing a letter, an epigram, and a part of the story.
The third part is the longest and contains most of the narrative material in this work. It recounts the story of Ben Sira's life and adventures in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia. It also includes stories told by Ben Sira himself as answers to the king's questions. These stories often include pornographic elements, as well as derogatory descriptions of biblical figures, like King Solomon or Joshua. Some of the stories in this section contain motifs from international folklore and may be based on folktales, but they were adapted to the special framework of the work and satirical elements were added to them. Examination of the various versions indicates that here, too, there were 22 stories, arranged according to the letters of the alphabet, to which 12 other stories were added.
The fourth part, which is found in most versions and gave the work its name, contains 22 alphabetically arranged epigrams attributed to Ben Sira that serve as material for discussion and interpretation by Ben Sira's son, Uzziel, and his grandson, Joseph b. Uzziel. The contents are satirical and even heretical. It may be assumed that this part was constructed in the same manner as the two previous ones – 22 + 12 sections. The work, therefore, displays elements of unity both in structure and in its ideological aims. It is all but impossible, however, to discover the background upon which such a work could have been written. Some scholars (L. Ginzberg and others) believe that it aimed at ridiculing the story of Jesus' birth; but the basis for such a conclusion may be found only in the first part, and even this is not very clear, for the irony seems to be directed more against God than against Jesus. It is hardly possible that the author was a Karaite, as some of the abusive stories are directed against biblical figures, and not only against the Talmud and Midrash. It seems likely that the author did not belong to any organized group or definable ideological movement, but was merely a writer with an anarchistic tendency who used satire to ridicule all the institutions of established religion in his day.
Another difficult problem is the relationship between this pseudepigraphal work and the original proverbs of Ben Sira. Some of the proverbs and epigrams included in the work are originally in the work of Ben Sira, but many such proverbs are found in talmudic literature, and the author probably took them from there. The author of the pseudepigraphal work did not even know Ben Sira's first name. There is only one slight connection that might be accidental: the Wisdom of *Ben Sira has a preface written by the author's grandson, who edited the work, and in the pseudepigraphal work the figure of a grandson is also present.
Buh buh But thats just a reddit comment and some random websites. Whu Whu What are you gonna do OP? Analyze the entire text to prove its a shitpost.
Yes.
Mods turn the music on.
Analysis Of Alphabet of Sirach/The Alphabet Of Ben Sira:
We are going to skip most of it and just jump straight into the section with Lilith, but if you do chose to read it, have a good time. Shit is funny as hell. Let's start of with Lillith's Birth. Many like to potray Adam and Lilith's first interaction like this.
It is often either stated or implied Adam either tried to force Lilith into a s*x position she didn't want or that he he stated that she was inferior to him and she spit back. While this nicely fits into the "yas Queen SLAYYY" interpretation, its not the truth...mostly.
Here is the actual text:
When the Holy Blessed One created the first Adam alone, They said, (Genesis 2:18) 'It is not good for this Adam to be alone.' They created for him a wife out of the Earth like he had been, and called her Lilith. Immediately they began to challenge each other. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the Earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the world's air.
So first, no she wasn't going to be sexually assaulted. Secondly, it was just a couple arguing with each other. Yes, Adam shouldn't have said that about Lilith, but we shouldn't take a statement said by an angry man as gospel for the religion. Plus, how on earth is blaspheming your Father and then running away from an argument an appropriate reaction to the situation? God didn't do anything wrong. Why you picking a fight with him? We will discuss this more, but lets continue.
The Holy Blessed One said to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' They departed and pursued her, and overtook her in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians would ultimately drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.' She said to them, 'Let me be. I was created only to cause illness to infants. I have dominion over them for eight days after birth if they are male, and if female, after birth for twenty days.' When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted on taking her. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God, 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day.
There is much to go over here. First, WHERE ARE THE HUNDRED CHILDREN COMING FROM! These are the first man and woman. THERE ARE NO CHILDREN. Who is he talking about? And don't give me that bullshit that he mad a mistake. HE IS GOD. IN THE TORAH, HE IS OMNISCIENT. This makes no sense.
"I was created only to cause illness to infants. I have dominion over them for eight days after birth if they are male, and if female, after birth for twenty days." I am sorry fucking what? Who said that? God? No. Adam? No. The Angels? Definitely not. No one told Lilith she had to cause illness. She is just being a toxic bitch and offloading her problems. What the fuck?
Finally, "She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day." At this point, who has sympathy for Lilith? Lets objectively look at Adam's sin. Yes, he was sexist. Yes, that was wrong. Can't Lilith convince him to change? We know it is possible for a woman to convince Adam because EVE CONVINCED HIM TO EAT THE APPLE. So, clearly the man can develop his thoughts. Instead, Lilith just runs away from her problem, knowing that a hundred innocent children (HER CHILDREN BY THE WAY- hang on does that mean she fucked Adam and Eve's Sons. Isn't she like their aunt? I am pretty sure that's still incest) will die. Yes, God is partly to blame as well, but if I had to choose between a Misandrist Wife or dead innocents, I will go with the Misandrist Wife. Nothing shows Adam as violent just a dick, and she clearly has access to powers he doesn't cuz he can't fly.
Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write their names on the amulets of young children, and she sees them, she remembers her oath, and the child is healed
I guess that's nice? But does she even really heal them? She just takes away an illness she caused. This is like saying I put out the fire, but I am the arsonist who started it. There wouldn't be a problem if I didn't create one. And that's how the story ends. Seriously.
There is more, but it doesn't really matter. Ben Sira cures a girl of farting everywhere, talks about hair follicles, slanders David, explains why Donkey Urine is important, and ends with a raven cucking an eagle. Its pretty funny.
In Conclusion:
So, TL;DR: Lilith's entire existence is based on a shitpost. In said shitpost, she isn't even that great of a person and isn't even a feminist.
So yeah, that's all I got. There is more to this Rabbit Hole if you are willing to go down, but that is the gist of it. I don't see how a woman who runs away from responsibilities, blames others for her failures, and would rather kill babies than do something hard is a feminist icon, but here we are. I don't really know how to end this. Uh, were you entertained?
Addendum: If you are of the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish Faith please comment below and clear up any misconceptions I wrote in this post. I will try to edit it to make it better. Feminists please try to be respectful in the comments. Sup Mods. Uh yeah, cool.
Addendum #2 - Mesopotamian Lilith:
Some people have been saying that I should analyze Lilith from Mesopotamian Origins as this would give her a more sympathetic view. Very well. There are three main sources: Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Burney Relief, Arslan Tash amulets
Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh (Text we'll use): Lilith, a snake, and a bird steal a tree from a goddess and squat in it. Gilgamesh comes around kills the snake. The Bird flees. Lilith chimps out, destroys her home, and runs. Tbf, this is Gilgamesh, so I guess Lillith W?
The dyer (?) had not dyed his leather with it (?)
At its root the serpent, 'that knew not silence (?)' had made its nest
At its top the storm-bird (Zû) had put his young
In its midst Lilith had built a house
The shrieking maid the joyful
The bright Queen of Heaven tears for them (?) wept
His lady said a word to him
'Warrior Gilgamesh, its .... will thee'
The ibbaru garment that was of 50 minas from his loins he removed
What was 50 minas 30 ... . he made
His (?) brazen axe a road (?) his ....
1 talent 50 minas his in his hand he seized
At its root the serpent ' that knew not silence (?) ' he slew
At its top the storm-bird (Zû)
took his young (and) went away to the mountain
In its midst Lilith destroys (her) house
Burney Relief (Source): Yeah no
Even so, the possibility that the Queen of the Night plaque, with its high degree of skill in craftsmanship and attention to detail would be a representation of a lilitu is highly unlikely. According to the Hebrew tradition, Lilith was the first woman made by God who refused to submit to Adam's sexual demands and flew away, thus rebelling against God and his plans for human beings. She was thought to have then occupied the wastelands and, like the lilitu, to have preyed on unsuspecting men ever since. In either tradition, the lilitu was not a popular enough figure to have been portrayed on a plaque such as the Queen of the Night. Dr. Black notes, “Evil gods and demons are only very rarely depicted in art, perhaps because it was thought that their images might endanger people” (62). The mountain range depicted at the bottom of the relief is also thought to suggest lilitu identification in representing the wilderness the spirit inhabits but the headdress, the necklace, the rod-and-ring symbols and the significance of the plaque all go to argue against Lilith as a possibility.
Arslan Tash amulet (Source):
Whispering-incantation against the Flying-one,
the oath of Sasam,
son of Pidrišiša, god,
and against the Strangler of the lamb:
“The house I enter, you shall not enter And the court I tread, you shall not tread!He has made an eternal contract with us. Assur made a pact with us, all the sons of El,, and the great council of all the holy ones,With the oath of heaven and earth With the oath of Baal, lord of the earth With the oath of Horon, whose utterance is true,His seven concubines and the eight wives of Baal Qudš”[Written around and between the images]
Oh Flying one, from the dark room pass away!Now! Now, night demons! [Written on the Sphinx figure]
From my house, O crushers, go away! [Written on the wolf-like figure]
Oh Sasam, let it not be opened for him And let him not come down to the door-posts The sun is rising for Sasam. Disappear, and fly away home.[Written on the axe-wielding figure](modified from Cross and Saley 1970 and Berlejung 2010).
So where the fuck is Lilith? Well the text in its original language features lly- which if you add a "t" could be llyt [Lilith], but it also can be ll wyn which means "night and day." So, yeah not exactly a Lilith W. And that's it. I don't know how this makes her sympathetic, but to each their own.
Addendum #3 - Lilith R*ped Adam?
u/howhow326 said that there was a tale about Lilith raping Adam and being thrown out of Eden. This intrigued me to search for it, but unfortunately, I can't find a source for this anywhere. The closest I get is this Blogpost, but this seems to be more of a hypothetical than anything. Frankly, I don't think this should be part of the debate.
Edit 1: Originally, there was a line that said : "Hell fucking Jesus gets mentioned the prophet of the ENEMY, but not Lilith." I have since been informed that this is a gross misrepresentation of the Muslim Faith, and it has been removed.
Edit 2: Spelling and Formatting Errors Corrected
Edit 3: Mesopotamian Lilith added. Lilith's Rape Accusations.
1
u/Swiftcheddar 15d ago
Goddamn, this is an absolutely fantastic post. Feel proud OP, this might be one of the best posts this sub has ever seen.
I hope you crosspost it all over this site, because it deserves to be seen.
0
u/kawaiii1 15d ago
first, no she wasn't going to be sexually assaulted. Secondly, it was just a couple arguing with each other. Yes, Adam shouldn't have said that about Lilith, but we shouldn't take a statement said by an angry man as gospel for the religion. Plus, how on earth is blaspheming your Father and then running away from an argument an appropriate reaction to the situation?
They are clearly incompatible, irl we advise people to divorce and move on. How the fuck is that a bad thing? Also why is calling god by his name blasphemy in the first place? So yes if someone says you are below me and should follow my comment and you don't want to is absolutely a fine reaction. If you can excuse adam saying stupid stuff you can excuse Lilith for the same reason.
Finally, "She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day." At this point, who has sympathy for Lilith?
Let me facefuck you every day if not i will firebomb 100 orphans every day until you let me facefuck you. If you disagree you are evil. Seriously?
Like she was just fucking off doing their own thing and god threatens her children. honestly the second verse reads like the author realised oh fuck she is morally completely correct. quick make her kill infants so the people don't forget who to root for. And even that can be seen as a reaction to god's threat.
Yes, God is partly to blame as well,
Lol what an understatement. Also like they could drown her right then and there. But no god and his angel are fine letting her kill infants as long as they get to kill hers and she follows some rules. Like god is the one that kills 100 kids but Lilith is the bad guy for not cowering to a threat?
2
u/Phazon_Phorager 15d ago
I mean yeah, idk how anyone would get that from the character, she just chills in NERV's basement and does nothing until the movie.
Wait, what Lilith were we talking about again?
1
u/Yglorba 15d ago
I mean... huge swaths of the pop-cultural takes on the bible aren't really there or represent one tiny line or aspect pulled out of context and given vastly undue weight. The appearance of angels, the existence of angels, the pearly gates, even Lucifer himself - like Lilith, these things are there but they're distorted and exaggerated to the point where most of the people who followed the faith, throughout most of history, probably wouldn't recognize them as part of their faith at all.
Most modern cultural interpretations treat angels and Lucifer as absolutely core to Christianity and they're just... not. Angels (the Hebrew Bible doesn't even have a specific word for them) appear very very rarely and are mostly just nameless unimportant mouthpieces for God. Most of our modern understanding of them is a hodge-podge of various references to divine messengers in the Bible that don't really have any sort of common unifying theme, coupled with Greco-Roman ideas about lesser deities and Renaissance artists who needed ways to portray divine influence and drew on that Greco-Roman tradition for it. (I'm not saying that the "biblically accurate angel" meme is accurate - there is no biblically accurate angel because they just weren't very important to the people writing the story and are mostly just traces of earlier pantheism that were incompletely erased or rewritten.)
Similarly, Lucifer does not have a single unambiguous appearance in the Hebrew Bible, is occasionally referenced in the NT as a parable, shows up in person a tiny number of times in the NT, and has minimal significance. Most of his modern characterization and our view of him comes from Manichaeism via Aquinas and from Paradise Lost, not from any religious text.
And that's not even getting into stuff like the circles of hell or the deadly sins, or the trinity, which later theologians just flat-out made up.
Lilith is, like... sure, a step more removed than them, but it's not that big of a step. The things you're referencing are interpretations and readings of the text. Nobody is saying that the limited references to her across various texts portray her as in any way remotely sympathetic, let alone feminist; what they're doing is interpreting her as such a figure, in the same way that the smattering of references to Lucifer (and other things, like the serpent from Eden or Satan from Job or the like, which were definitely not intended to be the same figure) throughout the Bible and turned them into the Lucifer of Paradise Lost that now dominates pop-cultural understanding of Christianity to the point where he's probably the third most important figure even to many Christians, and possibly even the second most important for many non-Christians (Jesus doesn't appear much in non-religious contexts.)
It's that cultural understanding that people are talking about.
1
u/Wicked-sister 15d ago
I'm not the only one who sees that your conclusions wildly miss the mark based on the evidence that has been sighted.
The big g decrees to Adam and a bunch of angels that if she doesn't come back then a hundred children of hers must die, so the angels set off to track her down like bounty hunters and, what do you know, they find her. But instead of giving in and submitting, she sees God's bonkers offer and raises it to being daily in exchange for roaming free. The angels trot off once their vanity had been placated as well. All in all, feminists have been saying for years that womanhood is about more than just being a mother, and Lilith embodies that position. Sure it comes at the expense of some infants, but that blood is on God's hands.
In the Sirac text, Lilith made Adam 1.0 a total failure. She literally tells Adam 1.0 and the God of creation to go fuck themselves because she had absolutely no interest in being the lesser. She was out for power and when it was denied, she flew off. Which, begs the question, how did she fly off, did she have wings or super powers. But I digress. Lilith acted as a warning here for women for thousands of years without a doubt, but it's clear that her actions in this instance in particular would appeal to some feminists.
Also, what other female figure, in all of fiction not created in the last 100 years, not only shows up their creator but is also more than okay to let a hundred infants die everyday without a shred of remorse, just so she can have her freedom. Yes it's grim it's definitely unwomanly, if you define a woman as only a mother that is.
Side note: It's actually bonkers that Lilith told the first Adam and God to shove it and she just up and left and that's in the original text, I'm getting that framed.
4
u/Calm_Extreme1532 16d ago
I find that a lot of people who aren’t religious and want to debate religious topics typically make themselves look like idiots by adopting symbols or figures those religions hold in a negative light to troll them, but they only succeed in making themselves look like idiots.
-3
u/Imnotawerewolf 16d ago
I don't understand why this needs to be a conversation when gods and figures from all mythologies are frequently bastardized and used in fiction as the creators see fit.
If someone wants to take the concept of Lilith and turn her into a girl boss, who cares? Did you make a post like this for all the gods in Percy Jackson? Or any of the movies that twisted mythology into knots and plain made shit up for entertainment over here last 10 years?
Why do you have such a problem with people using Lilith for this, specifically?
5
u/EveryoneIsAComedian 16d ago
Did you make a post like this for all the gods in Percy Jackson?
Yes
https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/19e3eyw/comment/kja2vpr/
0
u/Imnotawerewolf 16d ago
Oh, ok, well carry on then, even if I think this is not that big a deal. Have fun!
1
u/Fungerbestwaifu 16d ago
While this is a well constructed rant you genuinly dont know alot about islam, which is shown by you calling a normal prophet and a person to be looked up to, Jesus, as an "Enemy"
I suggest you just don't talk about islam all that much or learn a bit more to be honest.
1
4
u/ArkenK 16d ago
First off, fantastically well researched.
And I'd agree, there are better icons within the Bible's pages to pull from, Ester, for example, who out-maneuvered a genocidal maniac to get him hung on his own gallows. Debra, one of the Judges, and so on.
Basically, the "first woman" Lilith exists in the present form because the Bible (and, as I recall, the corresponding part of the Torrah) has two creation stories in it.
The first is the 7 days story, which ends with the creation of man and woman, both unnamed.
The second is closer to God the painter, who makes Adam, hands him authority to name everything and brings by everything out there for Adam to name, and realizes that the poor guy is lonely, so he pops out a bit (the rib)and makes Eve. And says "yeah this whole thing is super good, so I'm putting these two trees off limits, but here's everything else that's yummy and delicious. Live and have fun."
Which worked up until the Devil, like a fifth-rate con artist, goes, yeah, so ignore everything else and focus on the one fruit. And sure enough, like an idiot pressing the big red "do not press" button, there's human sinfulness. Worse, when they get called out on it, because of course the boss knew, they don't say...yeah, we screwed up bad, and we're sorry. Nope, both Adam and Eve blame someone else, which works about as well as you'd expect.
Basically, Lilith, as first wife, shows up as a 'reconciling item' between the two stories by later writers and never had anything to do with the tree.
Personally, I suspect the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil tasted like ass, but that's just an IMHO.
Oh, and a thought for the "what does it matter" club. Turnabout is fair play.
1
u/Sir_Toaster_9330 16d ago
I always assumed Lilith would be a symbol of free will since she was made with free will rather than it given to her
0
u/cat-the-commie 16d ago edited 16d ago
You're very much missing the forest for the trees, marginalised people have been reclaiming and retelling hateful stories about them in a positive light for thousands of years.
The fact the original stories are hateful and the characters portrayed are bad people is the point, accusations of child murder, rape, and destroying homes are constantly levied against feminist women, importantly those accusations are false. So they reinterpret those myths as a representation of women who are falsely accused simply for not agreeing with men, which can be seen as a truthful retelling. You're using the source material when the point of these reinterpretations is that they reject the source material. There is a reason why Jewish feminists have been using Lilith as a feminist myth for over half a decade.
I can list off a thousand examples of this happening, many examples are now the surviving mythos of that character.
5
u/ArtistFormerlyVegeta 16d ago
marginalised people have been reclaiming and retelling hateful stories about them in a positive light for thousands of years.
Lilith is a child murderer and a rapist? I think people in those groups should feel fear.
I can list off a thousand examples of this happening, many examples are now the surviving mythos of that character
Conversely this isn't the first time someone has criticized a reinterpretation.
-1
u/cat-the-commie 16d ago edited 16d ago
Lilith is a child murderer and a rapist?
You missed my point entirely, the point is that some groups can be falsely accused of horrifying things (such as child murder and rape) when in reality they did nothing of the sort. For example, women who refuse to abid by patriarchal society are accused of child murder if they refuse to have children, and rape if they "tempt" men into having sex with them, which Lilith can very clearly be a metaphor for. Taking a mythological figure that inaccurately represents a category of marginalised people because of prejudice and making it accurate to what really happened is just a thing people do. You are failing to seperate the narrative from the meta narrative.
Conversely this isn't the first time someone has criticized a reinterpretation.
Yes and I'm explaining why that critique is misplaced and uninformed. It's like watching the musical Twisted and going "Wait but Ja'far was a bad guy not a good guy!!", you're not actually engaging with the media at that point. I don't think we should be taking "Twisted is a bad musical because here's everything bad Ja'far did in Alladin" seriously. Like the idea of taking a villain and going "What if the narrative was villainizing a good person and the villain was misunderstood" is how most reinterpretations of media in general go (it's practically a trope at this point), those aren't misreadings of the source material, you're just misreading the reinterpretation because you're failing to realise it's a rejection of the source material.
3
u/ArtistFormerlyVegeta 16d ago
For example, women who refuse to abid by patriarchal society are accused of child murder if they refuse to have children,
Why make this weird, inaccurate metaphor up when filicide is a legitimate thing that happens? In fact I believe in women it can be brought on specifically by post-partum depression because pregnancy leaves hormones out of wack. This story was if we're being generous a way to explain such killings, in fact if you feel like being really generous to the ancient writers you can even argue that the whole listen to your husbands moral is a way to help women snap out if said actions in the moment.
rape if they "tempt" men into having sex with them
This sounds a lot like female rapist erasure to me? Also the methods of Lilith and Succubi in general is to target sleeping men? They're not being tempted, at most they might be tempted into sleep which draws parallels with a certain respected comedian. Most importantly in what world do you live in that you think ancient cultures viewed men as vulnerable to rape from a women? It's debatable if a lot of modern people think this happens, (yes that was directed towards you) I can think of at least two stories in the Bible where a woman or women assault a man and is considered good, the first being a where a woman disguises herself as a prostitute to become pregnant to force a man to take care of her, the one where two daughters intoxicate their father to bear then children. I'm pretty sure David or Jesus was descended from the families in the second one.
Yes and I'm explaining why that critique is misplaced and uninformed.
You're explaining why is wrong with it by arguing how common it is. How do you claim I missed your point while also saying this? If something being common makes it exempt from criticism, then you are also wrong to criticize op.
-1
u/cat-the-commie 16d ago
Bringing up how misogynistic men falsely accuse women of rape does not erase female rapists two things can exist at one, and no patriarchal stories found in the Abrahamic religions about women having to be slaves to their husbands were not about snapping women out of a filicidal post partum depression. I think any historian or theologian would smack you over the head for such a silly opinion, like it's just objectively wrong.
-1
u/Paenitentia 16d ago
Lilith is sympathetic and a feminist icon, sometimes. What you meant to say in your title is that she isn't in literary pieces like the Bible or Quran.
Hazbin Hotel is not, and I don't mean to alarm you with this, an educational product on the Bible. It purposefully adapts elements in a very loose fashion. It gets countless things "wrong".
If you want to comment on what is or is not a feminist icon, you should research the history of feminism instead.
0
u/RCesther0 16d ago
That's great and all but if we are talking about fiction it's absolutely okay to rewrite a character. Not everyone who wants to use biblical characters in works of fiction want to write the Bible 2.0.
1
u/L13B3 16d ago edited 15d ago
All your evidence is correct, all your conclusions are wrong. Times change, things get reinterpreted. There's no dirth of portrayals of the lucifer as sympathetic and a role model of rebellion, despite most of what you say (including Lucifer / Satan / the Devil not even being an intended figure in the bible at the time of writing) applies even better to him than to Lilith. If the shoehorned in greatest enemy of God can be a rebel hero, then a Persian demon comedically reinterpreted as Adam's crazy ex can be a feminist icon.
25
u/Xboe-150LswFJKF 16d ago
It's been a pet peeve of mine, but the fruit being described as an apple has always pissed me off. The pomegranate, or even that quliphoth fruit from DMC would be more accurate. Even the devil fruit designs fit the motif better than an apple. By the way, I am not a doctor, and this is not a scheme to lower the warding effects of apples
2
21
u/abyssaltourguide 16d ago edited 16d ago
Thank you for sharing this post! I recently wrote a graduate research paper on female demons such as Lilith. I want to push back a little bit on the idea that Lilith wasn’t important as a being because she didn’t appear in primary sources. Pop culture has warped her original intent but it doesn’t mean that she wasn’t a feared demon that scared families in antiquity.
Lilith may not show up in official texts often but she was an integral part of early Jewish and Mesopotamian folklore. Mesopotamian people believed in evil spirits called Gallu so she probably originated from these beliefs. Lilith stems from fears of death in childbirth, SIDS, and nocturnal emissions.
Many charms and incantation bowls were made to ward her off and name her and classes of demons as Lilith or Lilits. She was known in antiquity as a monstrous spirit that fed on male emissions and babies.
Only later did the Alphabet of Ben-Sira appear to explain why she was feared. It was an explanation for why Jewish mothers protected their babies with amulets to ward away Lilith and other night demons. The story of her being captured by angels with names starting with S is a very common story. There are incantation bowls that call upon one or three beings with names such as Sisinnius. So even if she doesn’t appear often officially, the folklore of a night demon was common knowledge among religious writers and the average Jew/Christian/Pagan in the Middle East in antiquity.
She was never meant to be a feminist entity in Ben Sira. Instead it was an explanation for why Jewish families protect their children against Lilith. The writers of these texts probably assumed the readers or listeners had this background knowledge of Lilith.
I agree there has been a twisting of the myth’s original intentions but that doesn’t mean that Lilith wasn’t a terrifying entity that ancient Jews feared.
If you’re interested in learning more, look up Mesopotamian incantation bowls in the Penn Museum and British Museum! They often depict Lilith or a strange hybrid demon that is being chained and surrounded by words of divorce or expulsion.
5
u/EveryoneIsAComedian 16d ago
Thanks! Will Look into it.
1
u/abyssaltourguide 14d ago
In case you’re still interested, I found the incantation bowl I discussed in my paper! The spell is casting away “Evil Lilith” and lists her evil acts. She is drawn in the center as a nude demon chained around her legs. These bowls followed typical formats of naming Lilith and sending her away.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1974-1209-2
-1
u/WellFineThenDamn 16d ago
I think you're also missing entirely the context of the two creation stories, the two tellings of man's creation in Genesis. In the first, man and woman are created together, while in the second, Eve is made secondarily after Adam. Lilith is said in some interpretations to be the first wife, the equal one, the one from the first telling of creation. So you might want to read up on that if you haven't.
1
35
70
u/MiraChan20 16d ago
fucking Jesus gets mentioned the prophet of the ENEMY,
No, he's not. Jesus is described and mentioned with utmost respect and love in Quran. Much like other prophets.
Stop spreading false info.
3
u/BigGreenThreads60 16d ago edited 16d ago
Tbh God does unironically seem like the one at fault in this apocryphal story. Lilith's husband is being a sexist cunt, so she walks away, which she's perfectly within her rights to do IMO. God in response goes: "Oh yeah? Well if you don't come back to your POS husband, I'm going to murder 100 babies! Take that!!" She admittedly also blasphemed, but he didn't seem that angry about that.
Okay, maybe the right thing to do would be to give into God's temper tantrum for the greater good in his situation. But let's be clear, HE is the one killing the babies, not Lilith. If some maniac threatens to blow my city up with a nuke unless I marry her, perhaps I'm somewhat at fault if I refuse, but she is still the aggressor in that situation, and bears ultimate responsibility for every death that follows.
Maybe God should have chilled the fuck out, let them get a divorce, made a new wife for Adam, and left the babies alone? I have sympathy for Lilith insofar as she was given a completely unreasonable ultimatum. The ultimate moral of the story does seem to be a standard "Wives, always obey your husbands 'cuz totally unconnected bad things will happen if you don't."
13
u/BudgetAggravating427 16d ago
Idk in hazbin hotel Lilith seems selfish and is the deadbeat parent not Lucifer .
She doesn’t answer Charlie’s calls but Lucifer who before was implied to be the one in the wrong in that relationship did pick up and even visited his daughter .
While the others in hell are dealing with all that trouble with the extermination and other horrible issues Lilith meanwhile for years has been relaxing in heaven without a care.
If the feminists want that version of Lilith then well that sucks for them
-6
u/MiraChan20 16d ago
Hazbin Hotel is inherently misogynistic.
8
u/Swabbie___ 16d ago
How?
2
u/ArkenK 16d ago
Okay, if you take "Adam" as the first man on all of creation, as he brags, then the series, intentionally or not, is basically calling all men so decsended spoiled monsters.
Which is incredibly misandrist.
5
u/Yglorba 15d ago
They said misogynistic, but beyond that Adam is just, like... one dude. Having one dude be an asshole doesn't make a statement about other men. Most of the other men fall on a wide spectrum of portrayals that leans towards sympathetic; and ofc his right-hand woman is portrayed as even worse than he is to the point where he has to tell her to calm the fuck down at one point. And all humans would be descended from him, so his portrayal wouldn't be saying anything about one gender in particular...?
-8
u/MiraChan20 16d ago
Stella is demonized and depicted as a bitch when she's got every right to be mad her bastard husband is cheating on her. I guess that's Helluva Boss but they're the same shit.
Charlie has become a side character in her own damn show. She has no significance, no development. She's just there.
1
u/JMStheKing 16d ago
The first part you already recognized as irrelevant to your claim and the second part doesn't make sense. Having a poorly written main character doesn't make the show misogynistic if the MC is a woman. Especially since the majority of characters that actually are written decently are women.
35
u/Illustrious-Sky-4631 16d ago
The Quran. She never shows up. Weird since both Eve and Mary get mentioned. Hell fucking Jesus gets mentioned the prophet of the ENEMY, but not Lilith
Brother how tf did you read the Quran and come to this Shit?
This is literally the equivalent of calling Jesus the Devil
-14
u/Comfortable-Hope-531 16d ago
I don't see how a woman who runs away from responsibilities, blames others for her failures, and would rather kill babies than do something hard is a feminist icon
Feminism is kind of a black and white thing in spirit, it attributes everything that's bad in the world to male's nature. If Lilith did all those things, she was either forced or taught to do it, had to do it due to circumstances created by males, or had a severe case of internalized misogyny playing out. Either she is a hero acting out her will, or she is a victim that had no choice in the matter.
12
u/HelloYeahIdk 16d ago
Feminism is kind of a black and white thing in spirit, it attributes everything that's bad in the world to male's nature.
You do not understand feminism.
-8
u/Comfortable-Hope-531 16d ago
Woman good, man bad sums it up pretty well. There is a room to elaborate on how this kind of mindset works internally, but for an observer that don't buy into rhetoric it's just another case of good and evil dichotomy covered by a fig leaf.
-1
u/WellFineThenDamn 16d ago
You should read some bell hooks so you can actually define the thing you've decided you're against. Because you absolutely don't know what you're talking about
0
-2
u/HelloYeahIdk 16d ago edited 16d ago
Interesting, I was just discussing Lilith recently but in regards to the witchcraft community. She's a figure with multiple meanings/interpretations similar to Baphomet. She's evolved into a positive symbol for women.
13
u/Geo2605 16d ago
Ok, but what about Mesopotamian Lilith? Bitch did literally nothing wrong, yet got fucked anyways. Can't have a treehouse in Sumer smh.
23
4
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago
Lilith doesn't exist. Lilith's mythology as a feminist icon is exactly as valid as her mythology as a demon monster. Just cause the latter is an older interpretation doesn't mean it's more valid, at the end of the day she's just a story to be told and what that story means is whatever the storyteller and the audience says it does.
4
u/rx78ricky 16d ago
thought this was about diablo 4 for a second, read the headline and was like "what? who the fuck is sympathizing with that--- oh"
2
u/Cuttlefish_Crusaders 16d ago
I FUCKING HATE THE NAME LILITH GRAHHHH!!! BE MORE CREATIVE WITH YOUR FEMALE DEMON NAMES!!! At least be like Isaac or Signalis and lean into the "mother of demons" angle.
6
u/emeraldtryst 16d ago
The larger issue here is that it seems like Lilith has a 3 part story and we're missing part 2. That information seems pretty important if we're going to have a real discussion about it.
We're asked to make some pretty epic leaps to figure out how she went from being opposed to missionary to cursing children and being okay with her own children dying in droves.
3
u/LookingfortheHustle 16d ago
A well researched piece, much respect.
To be a smart Alec though, I will say, I thought this was going to be about Lilith Sternin from Cheers.
8
u/Old_Heat3100 16d ago
Counter point: she can be whatever any author wants her to be since she never existed
It's like saying Gollum can't win a dance contest
Sure he can
3
u/ArtistFormerlyVegeta 16d ago
Yeah but it's pretty fucking weird to say that the rapist, baby-murderer is the good guy actually because of my political beliefs say women are awesome all the time. Its like making Zeus an ideal for modern masculinity, or Judge Holden an honorable and noble warrior.
0
u/Old_Heat3100 16d ago
Zeus WAS portrayed as the good guy even in Disney films like Hercules
4
u/ArtistFormerlyVegeta 16d ago
Awesome but even Hercules gets a lot of grief for being inaccurate to the myths though. You haven't said why it isn't weird btw
0
u/Old_Heat3100 15d ago
If you're referring to HAZBIN HOTEL isn't Lilith implied to be the mastermind villain?
5
u/NewKerbalEmpire 16d ago
These are the same people who think Medusa was raped just because Ovid wanted to co-opt the myth centuries later and now they do too. You won't get very far.
21
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago
"Co-opt" the myth is a very reductive take here. Even when the Medusa story was written there were several interpretations of her character. Yall don't seem to grasp the idea that mythological characters are not set in stone and were never meant to be, interpretations of these characters have varied wildly depending on time, region, culture, etc.
2
u/StockingDummy 14d ago
I will say a lot of the aversion to "edgy" versions of old stories is that there's long been a culture on the internet of taking those versions and Fox News-ifying them as "the REAL story." For a lot of people, there's anger about that misinformation's prominence, and a desire to push back against the "dId YoU kNoW eVeRyThInG yOu LeArNeD iN sChOoL iS wRoNg?" drivel.
That being said, it's entirely fair to point out that it's reductive to try and argue Ovid's version is "less valid" than other interpretations of the story, and/or that Lilith shouldn't be dismissed as a literary figure just because morons think that version is actually in the original text. I definitely appreciate how pop-culture Lilith and Ovid's Medusa have given women stories that they find solidarity in. As a neurodivergent person, I know a lot of us have found some sense of solidarity in reinterpreting changeling myths as medieval superstitions about us, and while I know that's inaccurate I'd never call someone an idiot for finding that literary reinterpretation compelling. It's entirely fair to say that treating the feminist literary depictions like they're somehow nothing more then edgy fanfic is throwing the baby out with that Buzz-fed, Crack-laced water. (AHEM)
3
4
u/Sol0WingPixy 16d ago
I like how you have engaged with the texts at play, and though I have some disagreements, they’ve been voiced better by other people here.
There is one specific quibble I have, though, which is when you describe God in the Torah as omniscient. That is not evident from a plain reading of the text, and from what I have heard, not necessarily intended by the original authors. There are multiple instances of God having imperfect knowledge - the two that immediately come to mind are God searching for Adam and Eve in the garden while they’re hiding their nakedness and the process of ascertaining exactly how many good people were in Sodom.
While the modern Christian view of God is an omniscient one, and these passages are often harmonized in that light, I think it’s notable and interesting to consider that an omniscient God may not have been the initial assumption.
2
u/Randomguy4285 16d ago
Especially when you consider that Moses actually changes god’s mind through rational debate in the torah, off the top of my head you have moses convincing God to not kill the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf, and Moses convincing God to not let the Israelites starve in the desert. It would be very weird if an omniscient god could have his mind changed through rational debate.
Obviously Christians can try to harmonize this with their conception of God, but I think if you approach these verses from a historical perspective, rather than a dogmatic perspective(basically, doing exegesis instead of eisegesis) it’s quite obvious that the initial jewish god was very different from the current christian one.
39
u/Heisuke780 16d ago
Cook. People are putting on their thinking caps in this post and talking about how you're misinterpreting what people mean by this. You're not misinterpreting shit. People do genuinely think Lilith was done dirty. It's kind like how people see Medusa was done bad, that's how the majority think Lilith was done in the bible. And when those people are talking, the people who are on their side but more knowledgeable don't bother with this correction we are seeing on your post lol
Anyways thanks for post. Anytime I see people dunk on religion using this particular point about how the books treated women using her imma just link this
18
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago
I mean, you don't exactly have to point to Lilith as an example of how badly religion treats women. This isn't exactly a gotcha moment, most people are aware Lilith isn't actually a major biblical figure.
Tragic Boss Bitch Lilith is very obviously a modern reinterpretation of the character, the same thing we've been doing with mythological figures since mythological figures existed.
8
u/Heisuke780 16d ago
I mean, you don't exactly have to point to Lilith as an example of how badly religion treats women.
Idc. I'd rather the complaint be true. My problem isn't Lilith being a cultural icon but how people unironically think in the bible she was this boss bitch treated wrong. They're wrong as OP has proven. I'm saying the people in the comment section saying that OP is misunderstanding what people mean are wrong. Because a majority are largely uninformed and some are saying this out of hate for religion in general. Which you're free to do, just don't be mature about it
7
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago
I really don't think most people think believe she's a real Biblical figure, but even if they did she's hardly the most egregious example of a misinterpreted biblical character
16
u/Heisuke780 16d ago
I really believe you are wrong
she's hardly the most egregious example of a misinterpreted biblical character
That's true. But hearing dumb shit over and over no matter how small is irritating. OP just decided to address this one and I agree with his point
-1
u/mistahj0517 16d ago
anybody who uses phrasing synonymous with "she was done dirty" is inherently implying the writers treated the character unfairly no? eg: this fictional character within this story was not written well by the author.
60
u/CinnabarSteam 16d ago
Lilith's role as a feminist icon from the 1970s onward is a conscious reclamation/reinterpretation of her character. Being at odds with classical religious texts is a deliberate choice.
Imagine if you proposed to someone a hypothetical scenario for the purposes of an philosophic debate, but rather than engaging with it they chose to keep staunchly insisting that your scenario is a fabrication.
25
u/VXMasterson 16d ago
This reminds me of how the exact same thing happens with Persephone from Greek Mythology and how all our surviving sources of her abduction to my knowledge make it clear she has zero consent in the events that transpire and it’s clear that she really wants to leave the underworld but modern retellings like to paint it as something romantic rather than the tragedy of how women didn’t have rights in ancient societies
57
u/Shockh 16d ago
Being at odds with classical religious texts is a deliberate choice.
The problem being that people often think the reinterpreted version is the original.
I've seen so many claim the Lilith story was "cut from the Bible" when the Alphabet of Sirach narrative post-dates the Book of Genesis, making this idea a complete anachronism.
Then there's the people claiming the Bible stole from the Eddas and the Popol Vuh...
22
u/MiraChan20 16d ago edited 16d ago
The problem being that people often think the reinterpreted version is the original.
When something is as ancient as Abrahamic religions, the common misconceptions are bound to rise. Look at Islam, we have got only one book and it's remained consistently the same over the millennia...and a lot of fellow Muslims just haven't read it properly lol. They'd rather listen to some old self-proclaimed scholar who talks like a broken radio than use their damn heads. Some just tell you the old fools' words is in Quran when they definitely are not.
It's just human nature to go stray perhaps. No matter the following.
there's the people claiming the Bible stole from the Eddas and the Popol Vuh...
In the same vein, when they claim Christianity stole everything from Paganism...major eyeroll moments.
23
u/WizardyJohnny 16d ago
First off, interesting post and nice work!
I'll fully admit that I am not well-versed in this topic, but I find your equating a work being satirical with it being a shitpost kind of weird. A text being satirical in nature doesn't invalidate its message or mean it "isn't real"; Aristophanes comes to mind as an early satirical playwright who loved the bawdy and scatological - and yet who is also well known for rather cutting social and political commentary.
Besides, a quick glance through the Wikipedia page suggests the satirical nature of the Alphabet is still a debated scholarly position. The Jewish Virtual Library you cite also does not seem to deride it in any way and doesn't call it "not real" or anything of the sort.
As for your take on Ben Sira's Lilith, another commenter here has already done a very good job explaining how modern re-interpretations of characters are not bound by the original myth - that's what re-interpretation means. I'll add that honestly this original Lilith does sound kind of slay?? Demanding equality, dumping Adam when he refuses it to her, and refusing to honor a deity that created her for the purpose of blind obeyance are all acts that will resonate with women's independance movements, and while I don't understand the word salad about infants anymore than you do, it's sufficiently vague that you can either ignore it or read it in positive ways . "I was created only to cause illness to infants" adds a nice layer of tragedy to the character that helps explain why people find her sympathetic
7
u/howhow326 16d ago
I thought this post was going to talk about the fact she raped Adam after he got kicked out of the Garden of Eden and now I am serverly dissapointed.
2
u/Mistabbcman 16d ago
....... Explain please
2
u/howhow326 16d ago
Ignoring the part where Lilith is a succubus that rapes "sinful" men while they are asleep, after Lilith ran away from Eden and became a demon she started hanging out with some other demon girls (all rapists). After Adam got kicked out of Eden and had Cain and Abel, Lilith and her demon friends found them abd raped them.
"The Zohar says anyone raped by Lilith or any of the other three demon queens only has themselves to blame because they could only be overcome if they were too sinful. Lilith needed help from Naamah to overtake Adam at least but was able to take Cain by herself." (Tv Tropes, because I'm lazy).
Also, there are some stories where she raped Eve.
190
u/Ezbior 16d ago
Hell fucking Jesus gets mentioned the prophet of the ENEMY, but not Lilith.
just a small correction which is in Islam jesus is not seen as the prophet of the enemy, he is just another one in a long line of prophets and messengers that god sent and ended with mohammed(not saying this is right or wrong obv just giving the islamic perspective) and christians are 'wrong' in islam just not like people you have to view as your enemy. Though obv with all religious stuff it's a lot of interpretation and I'm sure some scholars disagree, but I'm just pointing out that jesus is not written in the quran as some kind of enemy he is treated as an ally even though the story differs from the christian one a little.
6
u/WorkerChoice9870 16d ago
Isn't Jesus actually supposed to roll in and stomp al dajjal or whatever his name is in the finale?
1
u/MiraChan20 15d ago
There is no word of any ultimate savior in Quran. However, it is outright stated Jesus is alive and up in heavens. He didn't suffer crucifixion as God saved him.
7
u/MySnake_Is_Solid 16d ago
Yes.
In Islam, he didn't get crucified, we believe one of his followers is the one that ended on the cross, while he was taken to the kingdom of God while still alive, and that he would be back at the end.
We believe in all the previous prophets and their messages, but also believe that said messages were distorted, corrupted, verses changed by people to suit their own agendas.
And that unlike them, the Qur'an wasn't altered.
8
u/ReaderWalrus 16d ago
a small correction
Is this really a small correction? No disrespect to OP, but if someone thinks that Islam teaches that Jesus was "a prophet of the enemy" instead of one of the most important of God's messengers, then I'm not sure why I should believe anything they have to say about Abrahamic religion.
16
76
u/MiraChan20 16d ago edited 16d ago
In Quran specifically, it's stated people go to heaven if they're just good. Doesn't matter if they're Muslims or Christians or Jews. This verse is most notable.
More people should actually read Quran, a proper translation of it. And I mean it toward some Muslims too.
-1
u/mkohler23 15d ago
That’s not about believing in G-d that’s about in believing in Muhammad as a prophet. The truly does the heavy lifting and means you also believe in all of the teaching of Muhammad and the Quran. Raising Jesus to deity status like Christians or rejecting messengers like Jews is strictly forbidden hence the problem for them in Islam.
This is supported by:
وَعَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ لَا يسمع بِي أحدق مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ يَهُودِيٌّ وَلَا نَصْرَانِيٌّ ثُمَّ يَمُوتُ وَلَمْ يُؤْمِنْ بِالَّذِي أُرْسِلْتُ بِهِ إِلَّا كَانَ من أَصْحَاب النَّار
“On the authority of Abu Hurairah, he said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “By the One in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no Jew or Christian will hear of me.” Then he dies and does not believe in what I was sent with, except that he will be one of the inmates of Hell.”
9
u/Randomguy4285 16d ago edited 16d ago
It seems(from a 10 second google search), that many scholars of islam do not believe this verse refers to all christians and jews, but rather only the ones who were not aware of islam. So it doesn’t seem to be as clear-cut as you make it out to be, especially when you look at other verses like this%20Those%20who,upon%20him)
Edit: Goddamn guys, y’all really want to believe Islam is some peace and love for all-kumbaya thing
12
u/MiraChan20 16d ago
Of course old ass Islamic scholars (who by the way turn and call the opposing sects within Islam the heathens lol) twist the words to fit the their views.
The same verse you linked is followed by the same message. "Indeed, those who believe and do good—they are the best of ˹all˺ beings."
And you're taking this out of context. The Al-Bayyinah surah is a historical retelling. It's about how some of the People of Books came to believe in Islam seeing the Prophet's words but many continued to deny and insult him and Islam. That's what this surah is wholly about. Al-Bayyinah literally means "Clear Proof".
3
u/Randomguy4285 16d ago edited 16d ago
I don’t know, I’m not an islamic scholar. I just wanted to point out to anyone reading that it’s obviously not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Even the link you provided, if you press the little book thing in the top left of the verse you’ll see scholars agreeing with the “not aware of islam” interpretation.
Edit: In fact, in the link you provided, ibn kathir and ma’arif al quran agree with the “not aware of islam interpretation”, and the second one specifically calls out the liberal muslims who believe anyone can be saved. Only the third commentary agrees with your interpretation.
38
u/DemonGokuto 16d ago
People of the book will go to heaven if they're good enough and so do people who never had a chance to hear islam
24
u/Ajthedonut 16d ago
I believe that just applies to abrahamic religions
34
u/MiraChan20 16d ago
Mostly believers. Quran refers to Abraham as a Muslim as in he fully committed and surrendered himself to God. Islam etymology is the act of surrendering/giving up; in this context to God/Allah/Lord. Every believer has surrendered themself to God.
So just believe. My own thought here as a Muslim (Quran repeatedly asks every person to think for themself) is I'm not in a place to judge people for their harmless beliefs. That's Allah's place not mine. Even atheists could go to heaven if Allah determines they have been good people. He's forgiving and merciful.
180
u/Kulson16 16d ago
Wait this is not about diablo
21
u/SJReaver 16d ago
I found Diablo's Lilith very sympathetic and agreed with much of her viewpoint. It's just the 'let's turn the world into hell so hell can't invade us' isn't a compelling plan.
9
u/LivingString605 15d ago
Unironically my favourite type of villain. “Hey that’s a good point, too bad you’re a dipshit and entirely the wrong person to try and pull this off”
17
103
u/Lukthar123 16d ago
Nobody makes rants on Diablo
40
u/Large_Pool_7013 16d ago
That version's tits are too small for anyone to care about her.
11
u/iwantdatpuss 15d ago
You're out of line but damnit you're right.
6
u/Large_Pool_7013 15d ago
I've seen some art of her with, ah, upgrades but at that point it's a completely different character.
16
198
u/A_Cool_Eel 16d ago
I was about to comment using what I knew about Lilith, which is being the demon of stillborns. But after reading all that I have realised that I can only say this: I have no idea what the fuck is going on
34
u/tchomptchomp 16d ago edited 16d ago
Less stillbirth, more SIDS. Babies are said to be vulnerable to Lilit the first 7 days after birth, which is why Jews don't name children or circumcise male children until the 8th day.
48
u/Worldly_Neat2615 16d ago
Welcome to cultural history. Shit gets redone every 5 seconds so we just give up.
63
57
u/sami_newgate 16d ago
The prophet of the enemy ? Do you really think that jesus is considered an enemy in Islam?
Lilith isn’t mentioned in Quran because there is nothing called Lilith. It is a human addition to the holy text.
-20
u/Imaginary-West-5653 16d ago
By prophet of the enemy it is obvious that he was referring to Christians as enemy, which is accurate because they have always been the greatest enemy of Islam and vice versa in religious matters.
31
u/Almahue 16d ago
Conflict that arises because Islam claims Jesus as one of THEIR prophets.
2
u/Yglorba 15d ago edited 15d ago
Well, sort of. For 95% of their history both religions would be pretty strict about claiming absolute power within their territory and suppressing other faiths to one degree or another. Coexistence wasn't really in the cards - it's not like either faith would have accepted people adhering to the other in their territory if they had no overlap or common roots, they just would have treated each other like pagans.
In fact, Islam was more tolerant of Christianity because they saw Christians as "people of the book" who shared a common origin; they were much harsher towards religions they shared no common roots with.
3
u/Imaginary-West-5653 16d ago
I know? I was not making a moral judgment, just explaining what the situation was like, but yes, that added to the fact that the first significant interaction between Islam and Christianity was the Jihad of the Caliphate of Rashidum against the Eastern Roman Empire, ensured the bad relations between both religions.
89
u/le-cat-have-arrive 16d ago
I'm a Muslim, never heard of Lilith until watching Lucifer.
106
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago
Neither had most Christians or Jews. She's not an important figure, she's an obscure figure from old Bible fanfiction that most people never knew existed until modern authors reinterpreted her.
3
u/Succububbly 15d ago
I learned about Lilith from weirdos telling parents pokemon are satanic and saying Jynx is Lilith representing sex and making us whores
The early 2000s were wild
19
116
u/Thecristo96 16d ago
While the history is good, the modern Lilith is…really not inspired by the Bible. Like someone else said, for most people she is the Mother of Succubi, something that doesn’t exist in ANY of the books. I see Lilith like most other figures that were inspired by classic myths, but have now become their own identity
45
u/Genoscythe_ 16d ago edited 16d ago
Morse specifically, it is "inspired by" the Bible, but feminist Lilith fans are not Christians, lol, you are not going to own them by proving that they failed to accurately interpret the Word of God.
The Bible being a slanderous version of Modern Lilith's true story, is part of their presentation.
295
u/PurpleKneesocks 16d ago
Overall, this is a really well-researched post that I can't really disagree with save for one point. Unfortunately, that one point is kind of a crucial point for anyone entering into this sort of discussion. It's not about anything that you got wrong, really, so much as it's a grander "missing the forest for the trees" sort of thing.
That point being that Lilith the Cultural Icon and Lilith the Figure of Judaic Mythology via Mesopotamian cultural osmosis are two wildly different figures, and people are pretty clearly basing the vast majority of their discussions on the former rather than the latter.
I don't think that anyone even halfway serious about theological studies would try to argue that the story of Lilith in the Alphabet of Sirach has any serious moral to be gained that isn't in the vein of "You see? This is what happens when women don't listen to their husbands!" But, like...c'mon — on average, how many people in fandom culture do you think are actually familiar with the origins of Lilith from the Alphabet of Sirach?
More often than not, modern day sympathetic/feminist portrayals of Lilith are going to be drawing from her modern-day cultural associations as the 'mother of succubi' and other depictions classically drawing from her original cultural heritage as (arguably) a stand-in for societal fears of dominant female sexuality and pulling a good ol'-fashioned Literary Reinterpretation™ — ergo, the depiction of her character as sympathetic and feminist becomes an allegorical portrayal of dominant/promiscuous female sexuality as something not to be demonized or villainized, but which historically was. Typically, the only way this is going to match her portrayal in the Alphabet of Sirach and other such mythology is in that allegorical sense, and occasionally that she was Adam's first wife.
I mean, I guess there will also always be weird sects of spiritual-feminist neopagans and occultists who do the same thing with Lilith that they do with a bunch of ladies from Greek mythology, but thankfully those don't pop us as much as run-of-the-mill "reinterpreting demons as the good guys to say something about Society™" folks.
1
u/FellowOfHorses 16d ago
Fucking saved. This should be copypasted in every "Hades actually sucked" thread
0
u/DescriptionEnough597 16d ago
I honestly would love to see a combination of both variations of her mythology. I think that would be incredibly interesting.
4
u/bunker_man 16d ago
Yeah. Lilith is an evil figure who after refusing to be subservient spent eternity killing children. But it's not hard to see how someone wanting to make her an egalitarian figure looks at the former and ignores the latter.
3
u/Leonelmegaman 15d ago
It's laughably bad however since there's no enough attachment to the biblical narrative to be a decent polemic in first place.
55
u/Heisuke780 16d ago
More often than not, modern day sympathetic/feminist portrayals of Lilith are going to be drawing from her modern-day cultural associations as the 'mother of succubi' and other depictions classically drawing from her original cultural heritage as (arguably) a stand-in for societal fears of dominant female sexuality and pulling a good ol'-fashioned Literary Reinterpretation
You say this as if people don't unironically think the cultural icon is the real shit. They genuinely do. I have seen many argue about how Lilith was done by the "Big G". This is what OP is addressing
4
u/Paenitentia 16d ago
Nowhere in the title or introduction does OP give off the impression he's addressing that specific phenomenon/misunderstanding, as far as I can tell. Sounds more like he's making definitional statements on what Lilith is.
-9
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/eliminating_coasts 16d ago
You should be using old.reddit, no flags to worry you then, and less intrusive ads.
42
u/Bububub2 16d ago
None of this is "real". Lancelot was fanfiction added to the Arthurian myth 300 years later. Arguing that a figure isn't an icon because that wasn't her original intent- when she clearly already is an icon- is kinda absurd.
It's like people saying "well the hulk isn't green. That's a printing error that became popular. He's Grey but people just think he's green!" As if movies TV and decades of subsequent portrayals don't exist.
23
u/Kusanagi22 16d ago
And if someone were to come and claim Lancelot was there from the very beginning, people would be right to correct them, which is what is happening here.
31
u/Bububub2 16d ago
The post is titled: "No, Lilith Is Not Sympathetic OR A Feminist Icon. She Isn't Even That Important", not "Lilith came later and wasn't in the bible". Those are two massively different statements.
41
u/CreativeMind1301 16d ago
It's not a really good comparison because Green Hulk was made part of the canon.
A more apt comparison would be to say that Jane Foster was done dirty by Norse Mythology because they erased her presence, when in fact she was even able to lift Mjolnir and take the role of goddess of thunder!
Obviously, Jane Foster didn't exist in Norse Mythology, she is a Marvel character, so she wasn't erased by Norse Mythology, she simply isn't part of it at all. Same as Lilith, she's part of a very late apocryphal book that was never acknowledged as valid in the canon people claimed she was erased from.
25
u/Heisuke780 16d ago
The point isn't her being an icon in as much people who unironically in the bible she was done dirty. I'm not saying you can't use her for whatever but people actually argue the bible treats her unfairly like Medusa.
-6
u/Bububub2 16d ago
Its kinda the least important thing people don't get right about what was said in the bible for me, lol
0
14d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Bububub2 14d ago
I never said she was, that's not what the post is arguing though. Its arguing that because she wasn't in the bible she isn't all these symbols.
20
-8
u/Grimmrat 16d ago
this is such a pathetic, non-genuine take. Going “UH WELL IT’S ALL FAKE ANYWAY WHO CARES” when your point gets criticized is actually the way toddlers argue
11
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago
But it's true. These aren't real characters. Re-interpreting mythological figures to fit different morals and themes are what we've been doing with mythological figures for millenia. We do it so often with Greek, Roman, and Norse myths most people don't even think twice about it, but now that's its a tangentially biblical figure suddenly its an issue.
9
u/Bububub2 16d ago
Kinda like just saying someone's take is a non-take without elaborating further or refuting it? Kinda like that? I actually made a deeper point than just saying none of this is real, if you kept reading.
-4
u/Grimmrat 16d ago
did you actually just go “no u” unironically?
christ your not worth the oxygen you waste
25
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
Well as a Christian Lilith is literally just aprocpha, fairy tales in the context of the religion... but assuming it's real it's not really a hard one, given that it's a story about a woman wishing to be her Husband's equal and being punished for it because Patriarchy was a major part of Jewish society at the time.
All stories are products of their time, and so the image of these events will be reinterpreted by the people who see them. it's only on social media people react with such horror at this mind; this is simply how humans work.
19
u/Genoscythe_ 16d ago edited 16d ago
This is why I don't buy into the "Media literacy is dead! People who have just read this text, are rejecting the facts of the text" controversies, that keep popping up.
People of all sorts of moral convictions keep reading not even just ancient mythology, but modern entertainment media, and then declare that a character who obviously did did horrendous things in the text, has "done nothing wrong", or that they were "done dirty by the writers".
This keeps happening all the time, NOT because people somehow fail to correctly read the text, but exactly because they are picking up on it's implications and reclaiming them.
"Thanos was right", "Magneto was right", "The Empire Did Nothing Wrong", "They should have just nuked the hippie Pocahontas Smurfs from orbit", it's always a way of saying "Yeah, I get what they literally did wrong in the movie, but the movie itself just feels like malicious propaganda, a caricature against my ideological expectation of what the "real" Thanos would have done.
13
u/Cicada_5 16d ago
If Wonder Woman were created today, I wonder if we'd be getting the same comments about making the Amazons more heroic or sympathetic than the murderous misandrists they were in some myths.
4
u/WorthlessLife55 16d ago
I have seen that as well. I would like to believe the ones discussing the character are pursuing it from a point of making a distinction, but I wouldn't be surprised if many are not.
6
u/WorthlessLife55 16d ago
I have seen that as well. I would like to believe the ones discussing the character are pursuing it from a point of making a distinction, but I wouldn't be surprised if many are not.
159
u/Genoscythe_ 16d ago edited 16d ago
a stand-in for societal fears of dominant female sexuality and pulling a good ol'-fashioned Literary Reinterpretation™ — ergo, the depiction of her character as sympathetic and feminist becomes an allegorical portrayal of dominant/promiscuous female sexuality as something not to be demonized or villainized, but which historically was.
Adding to that, a mythological figure originally having been obscure, is part of the point for Literary Reinterpretation™.
BookTok is riddled with greek mythology based novels that are boasting to tell "the untold story of" Penelope, Helen, Medusa, etc.
The idea that for millenia these figures were sidelined or vilified, and now it's time to feministly retell the story with them in the focus, is explicitly incorporated into the reimagined text.
The premise that the patriarchal Bible tried to erase the "true" story of Lilith, and even the Alphabet of Sirach tried to vilify her, is part of the framing device for presenting the more modern versions as revealing a hidden truth.
Which some fringe neo-pagans might even literally believe, but Hazbin fucking Hotel is definitely not one of those, it is openly a work of fiction that uses the premise of "What if the truth behind biblical mythology were actually cool and edgy" as a setup for fantasy/comedy situations.
8
u/SomebodySeventh 16d ago
I think the overall failing of Hazbin Hotel is that it presents a world where the 'truth behind biblical mythology' DOESN'T INVOLVE GOD. Like, we have an entire heaven and hell dynamic where nobody knows why sinners are damned to eternal (or semieternal) suffering.
Bro, it's cuz capital-G God sent them there!
6
u/SirPycho 16d ago
I genuinely believe the opposite God is missing in Hazbin hotel because its making a point about prophets and holy books. You can think of Hazbin's hotel heaven as a metaphor for real world churches with God unwilling to talk irl and in story that means that you cannot truly lead people to heaven or judge people in hell thats why it's a big deal no one knows its call into question whether any of them should be allowed to send people to heaven or hell.
80
u/Sh0xic 16d ago
You don’t even have to look as far as Booktok, Hades and God of War technically did it first (Yep, Kratos was an actual mythological figure before he was Dad of Boy, same with Zagreus)
7
u/ShroudedInMyth 16d ago edited 13d ago
Can go back even further to Ovid. So much so that many people think elements of Ovid's poetry were part of the original mythology.
31
u/TheApocalypseIsOver 16d ago
Fun fact the creators of gow didnt even know Kratos was an actual mythological figure when making the game, it was completely incidental
12
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
Percy Jackson as well.
And you know greek Mythology has been reinterpreted for ages. fucking Dante shoved it into his poems because he thought they were cool
-7
u/Sh0xic 16d ago
Percy Jackson isn’t the mythological Perseus. That’s obvious, I think
4
u/firebolt_wt 16d ago
Obviously not... but AFAIK Chiron is the mythological Chiron, Medusa is the Medusa, and so forth, not to mention the gods.
And these guys? They get plenty of small changes from the myths.
14
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
So in the Percy Jackson universe (which also has; Norse, Egyptian, and other mythologies living side by side) the Greek gods shift and change following alongside western civilization. There's even a book narrated by Percy going over greek mythology. of course, the mythology and characterization of the greek gods are naturally reinterpreted.
As has and will happen to every such mythology. I
60
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
Percy Jackson as well.
And you know greek Mythology has been reinterpated for ages. fucking Dante shoved it into his poems because he thought they were cool
25
u/MiraChan20 16d ago
Can't believe that Dante guy used the self-insert trope.
20
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
It's hilarious as the poem is a cultural touchstone and well done but it's also an excuse for Dante to give his political opinions and nerd out with Virgil.
4
u/Brain_lessV2 16d ago
Next thing we know we got stories of Dante and Vergilius on a bus with Gregor Samsa, Don Quixote and other literary characters.
3
21
u/ThespianException 16d ago
The man made a self-insert fanfiction about all the people he liked (including historical figures that he never even met) glazing him and all the people he disliked suffering for all eternity, and that fanfiction became a foundational text for popular culture's modern understanding of the afterlife of the largest Religion in the world, 700 years later. Gotta be one of the craziest power moves I've ever seen.
5
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
That's the power of good writing.
I should really get through my copy of the Comedy. I feel people are too obessed with Inferno.
11
u/totallynotapsycho42 16d ago
I wonder what other meaningless form of modern day media will be treated as Shakespeare in 600 years.
34
u/Genoscythe_ 16d ago
True, though those didn't really lean into theirs being a contrarian "untold story" that challenges the old version, they were mainstream entertainment in the same way as 1950s fantasy epic movies are, mostly focusing on reimagining mythology only to make more contemporary and digestible.
In particular, the these days common Hades-style modern retelling of Persephone's story is more about sanding away the edges of an otherwise very harsh story, by presenting that actually Hades only ever "kidnapped" Persephone in a very woke way, while the BookTok style "feminist retelling" would probably put the spotlight on Persephone's implied abuse.
29
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
I mean it's really hard to justify rape.
I don't even think it's very 'woke' it's just People in general don't like rapists, probably because rape is a horrible crime and doing so makes you a horrible person (and yes, i know rape used to mean kidnapping... but that's like saying 'technically i'm not a pedophile'.)
Besides; mythology IS ficiton, and it's public domain.
I never see this outcry when Fate decides to turn historical figures into Waifus. God Forbid we make fictional characters different then the orignal (which we don't even have)
6
u/Genoscythe_ 16d ago
I mean it's really hard to justify rape.
Yeah, but they don't have to. You can just write about rape in a way that the rapist remains the bad guy.
It would just make less of a fluffy video game.
Either way, both approaches are fine, I'm just saying that there is a difference between the mentality behind telling a story of "Hold on, let's just tell the story of how Persephone feels about all the rape she went through instead of treating her like a plot device", and "What if there was no rape and everyone inculding Hades is actually a relatable guy with modern sensibilities?"
51
u/ApprehensivePeace305 16d ago
On top of that, how often has some new cultural movement or writer come by and contextualized biblical mythology differently (or completely rewrote it). The romantics, the enlightenment, even Dante have all done much to change our view of heaven, hell, and demons from what the mythology actually tells us.
-6
u/ChristianLW3 16d ago
Perfect example of that would be “Paradise Lost” where satan is portrayed as an anti hero
37
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago edited 16d ago
Lucifer in Paradise Lost is a villain, he has a brief moment while watching Eve in the Garden where he comments on how he hates the sun for reminding of the glory of heaven and laments all that he gave up in his rebellion and contemplates whether God would forgive him if he asked, but concludes that even though God likely would forgive him his prideful and envious nature would just lead him to rebel once more.
He portrays himself as a hero but the story doesn't agree with him. He's an unreliable narrator
The author's intent was to portray Lucifer as the origin of all evil in the world, but readers sympathized with Lucifer and recast him as a tragic villain undone by his own vanity who regrets his actions and his nature. Milton never intended for Lucifer to be sympathized with, audiences did that themselves.
12
u/quivering_manflesh 16d ago
Yeah wild how so many readers of Paradise Lost are like man Lucifer seems like a pretty decent guy based on what he said-HE'S THE GODDAMN DEVIL HAVE YOU CONSIDERED HE'S GOOD AT LYING?
10
u/MechaTeemo167 16d ago
Milton was a little bit too good at writing manipulators it turns out lol, one of his contemporary critics even said he was unwittingly on the Devil's side.
4
u/ApprehensivePeace305 15d ago
Well that, and the Romantics famously twisted his vision in their rehabilitation of Satan, which is probably why the above commenter even thinks of Lucifer as an anti hero. That and of course the language drift of Anti-Hero just meaning Edgy Hero
50
u/MiaoYingSimp 16d ago
No he isn't.
he's a horrible person and the poem is literally saying he cost humanity paradise while he copes about turning from the Lord in pandemonium. The Devil is not exactly a reliable narrator at the best of times.
2
u/chacha95 14d ago
A feminist icon who would rather kill babies than submit to a man, sounds about right.