1
lilith and original sin nate’s question: My crazy crazy friend told me me that in one version version of of the Christian Christian creation creation myth, there there were were some some other humans created by God that were not descended from Adam and Eve, and were thus free from from original original sin. sin. Is my my friend friend crazy? it seems that your friend isn’t crazy (at least not for this reason), but perhaps misinformed. it’s an important distinction to make that christian myth is not jewish myth and from what i’ve been able to find, the “alternate creation” myths involving adam, eve, and other first humans fall mostly into the realm of non-canonical jewish folklore. these ancient jewish legends are not a part of the torah, or the talmud, but belong,at least in part, to a special collection of rabbinical writings known as the aggadic midrashim. these are essentially jewish fairy fairy tales. tales. the particular myth your friend referred to is most likely the lilith legend. it’s a myth of several strands and traditions woven together over the last 4000 years. although the full story, as we know it today, wasn’t compiled until medieval times, some elements are older than judaism itself. it’s a long and confusing history, but i’ll outline the basics, as i understand them. first, the story: in this context, there is confusion as to whether it was yahweh or elohim who created the world, the garden, the animals, and humans, so here i will use only the generic title, “god.” god decided to create humans. this might have been his first mistake. he created the first humans together, both from the same dust of the earth (adamah). in the minds of the writers in the very male-dominated hebrew culture, this was the first mistake. it seems that the marriage between adam and lilith was less than perfect and their relationship is only known for two things: fighting and sexual incompatibility. the last big fight that adam and lilith ever had was about sex. adam demanded that lilith, being the inferior inferior female female that she she was, lie lie beneath beneath him during during sex. lilith refused refused to take a submissive role, as they were both created equally from the same dust. so she uttered the ineffable name of god (quite a contradiction of terms, it would seem), flew away and made her home near the red sea. water in general and the red sea in particular were thought to attract demons of all sorts. lilith was chased down by the three angels, senoy, sansenoy, and semangelof, who ordered her to return to adam in the garden. she was told that if she refused, 100 of her demon babies would would die each each day. she she refused. refused. she also also swore swore to bring death and suffering suffering to mothers and children for the rest of her existence. (keep in mind that this is long before eve, the serpent and the tree, the fruit and the fall – most importantly, before the
2 punishment of death was inflicted for the original sin.) thus, lilith’s oath would affect humanity indefinitely. lilith wasn’t entirely unreasonable about the situation. she told the angels that people could protect their children by hanging amulets above their cribs and inscribing the names of the three angels either on the door or the walls. interestingly, the amulets were inscribed with the words, “adam and eve. out lilith!” or sometimes simply “lilit abi,” meaning “lilith begone.” this is thought by some to have become the much later english word, “lullaby.” this is the basic outline of the lilith legend. it is a complexly evolving myth, however, with many variations of its theme. i’ll ouline some of these within the context of their cultures and time periods of origin. first, though, it is helpful to understand the origins of the lilith legend. the above, “completed” story is actually a medieval kabbalistic conglomeration of individual jewish folk tales which took over 3 millenia to weave together. the alphabet of ben sirah is the earliest surviving document to tell the tale in its completed form. origin and etymology long before lilith was adopted into jewish lore, she was a well established figure in mesopotamian mythology. she is traced as far back as sumer, to roughly 2000 bce. here she is mentioned in the sumerian prologue to gilgamesh as lillake. there is dispute as to whether this is actually referring to lilith, or whether the similarity of names is coincidence. most scholars agree on this being at least a proto-lilith. a tablet, known as the burney relief, contemporary with the gilgamesh prologue, depicts a nude, winged woman standing on lions and surrounded by owls. significantly, she is holding a ring and a rod, both symbols of power. the relief suggests that already by this time, she was a figure of importance, having command over the natural world. the sumero-akkadian word “lil” means wind or storm. thus the goddess ninlil was literally “lady air.” also from this period were the lilu, a vampiric breed of demons known to prey on newborns and pregnant women. belili (aka belet ili, and canaanite balaat) was the “bright queen of heaven” or “divine lady” of sumer. there is debate as to which of these is the root of the lilith legend, but it is clear that one or the other evolved into the later babylonian-assyrian lilitu. lilitu is one of a triad of demons mentioned in babylonian incantations, and undoubtedly the immediate precursor to the hebrew lilith. there is dispute as to whether, at this point, lilitu was considered a demon. some think she may have been a goddess or simply a spirit until her adoption into hebrew culture. more than any other period in their history, it was during the babylonian captivity that the jews came into contact with many alien deities, concepts, and legends. this was likely when the assyrian lilitu became the hebrew lilith. it is probable that when the exiled jews came into contact with a this assyrian spirit they did their best to demonize her even more than she already was. this is a stark example of syncretism, especially common within ancient judaism. according to patai and graves, lilith typifies the anath-worshiping canaanite priestesses who were allowed prenuptial promiscuity which was unequivocally forbidden in deuteronomy. at this time of intense national and religious introspection, it was common
3 for the jews to attempt to distance themselves from other cultures, especially the canaanites and the babylonians. using the babylonian lilith as a representative of canaanite indiscretion worked to demonize both cultures quite effectively. evolution within judaism it is speculated that the midrashic hebrew connection to lilith arose from a need to reconcile the two contradictory creation accounts in genesis. gen 1:27 portrays man and woman being created simultaneously, with no mention of the rib. gen 2:22 shows god first creating man, and as an afterthought creating woman from man’s rib. the lilith legend fits into this discrepancy perfectly. the unnamed woman in the first account is thought to have been lilith and the woman of the second account is named as eve. again, this is not written in the talmud or the tanakh, but comes from the later midrash based on a much earlier oral tradition. the lilith story itself is far older than the idea of adam having a first wife, and both are older than the ben sirah alphabet which ties the two together. through mistranslation, lilith was thought to have derived from layil, the hebrew word for night. thus, lilith, as she became hebraicized, came to be known as a night demon. much confusion has been generated by the translations and mistranslations of the name lilith in the bible. the only biblical reference to lilith is in isaiah 34:14. the new american standard bible translates lilith as “night monster” while the king james version translates it as “screech owl.” the nasb: the desert creatures will meet with the wolves, the hairy goat also will cry to its kind; yes, the night monster will settle there and will find herself a resting place. the kjv: the wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. neither translations are considered accurate by scholars, but both have at least a slight plausible connection. as i mentioned above, the sumerian lillake tablet depicts her as having mastery over (or at least association with) owls. however, this is all speculation, as exact translation is difficult due to the fact that lilith is a babylonian loan word having no hebrew equivalent. so, as lilith entered hebrew consciousness, she came to embody most or all of the above attributes. where lilu or lilitu was originally a type of spirit, lilith was now very definitely a specifically named female demon. to further add to the legend, another thread was woven
4 in. this one was an older rabbinical tale involving a lilith named panzai who was known to prey on children. this tale probably originates with the vampiric lilu, who were also known to torment children. these came together in the completed tale of adam’s non-submissive first wife, lilith, a night demon who preyed on children and pregnant women. the evolution of her tale didn’t stop with her introduction into judaism, however. biblical allusion led to talmudic tradition which, in turn, led to kabbalist mystical tradition. this was the period (11th to 13th centuries ce) that brought about the apotheosis of lilith. it was the kabbalistic writings that promoted her from being a mere night-demon to being the consort of samael (lit. poison of god), the demon of death. in some texts, she was the wife of adam and in others, the wife of satan. more than one kabbalistic passage alludes to her being the wife of god himself. the kabbalistic history of lilith is essentially a compilation of alternate versions of her story. as mentioned previously, the major strands of the lilith legend were tied together in the alphebet of ben sirach, which was a medieval kabbalistic text thought by some to be religio-political satire. other mystical hebrew texts in which lilith are mentioned are the zohar, buxtorf’s lexicon talmudicum, and sefer raziel. the treatment given lilith in these texts could fill volumes, and the complexity of her character is enough to deter me from offering a more complete description. parallels in other cultures far from being confined to jewish tradition, lilith has her counterparts in several other cultures as well. most notably, hieronymous of cardia identified the greek lamia with lilith, drawing a clear comparison between the two. lamia was a libyan queen who was deserted by zeus, and robbed of her children by hera. lamia took revenge by robbing other women of their children. the etruscan version of lamia/lilith was lenith. arabic translators render the word in isaiah as “ghul” which would later become the english word ghoul. arabic legend tells of lilith, after leaving adam, going on sleep with satan and creating the djinn. in zoroastrian culture she is thought to have been the mother of arhiman, who would become the model for the later hebrew concept of satan. in later christian mythology the lilim as a class of demons went on to become the harlots of hell, or the succubi. significance in sexuality perhaps the most profound aspect of the lilith legend is the wealth of far-reaching sexuality and gender related implications. it is not surprising that lilith has come to represent repressed womanhood. it requires only a cursory examination of her story to see that the mythological jewish struggle to define lilith is representative of the historical jewish struggle to define sexuality. lilith is a woman who is defined by both her physical beauty and her spiritual depravity. according to baring and cashford, lilith represents the iron age polarization of the great mother into both the life-giving and the death-bringing aspects of her nature. her sexuality is explicit in her long hair, her naked, pointed breasts, and her general carnal relation to
5 humanity. her connection to feminine subjugation is often made clear by depictions of her marked genitals and chained ankles. she is the very essence of every early hebrew woman who simply didn’t know her place in socio-sexual politics. the mantra with which she is associated, “i will not lie below” was representative of every wayward thinking (read: nonsubmissive) woman of the time. it is quite revealing to examine the similarities and differences between lilith and eve. seen in this way, lilith is the first, unsuccessful attempt at the creation of woman, with eve being the obvious model for “proper” femininity. lilith: created from the dust of the earth, like adam associated with infant death (murderer) thought she was adam’s equal eve: created from adam’s rib – implies subservience associated with motherhood (nurturer) understood her place to be beneath adam (note: despite that eve was the “good one” of the two, she is still only as “good” as the patriarchal jewish mindset would allow her to be. that is why she is still responsible for the fall from grace, for sin, and for deviant sexuality (as the first to eat the fruit). she is a female who is worthy of reverence as the mother of humanity, but she is still only female. a female who needs to be controlled by her morally superior husband. in fact, according to philo, it wasn’t her disobedience but her mere existence that represented humanity’s fall from the higher male spiritual principle. in this, she teaches a poignant lesson in ancient jewish sexuality. ) lilith came to embody everything that could be wrong, perverse or dangerous in sex. she was the personification of sexual impurity. as such, she was associated with infant death, miscarriages, barrenness, menstruation (which is, of course, inherently evil), impotence, female hysteria, carnal temptation, and even male nocturnal emissions. this latter attribute would be exaggerated in the later folklore involving the demonic succubi. popular belief was that the only way one could protect against these curses of lilith was to perform the act of procreation in pure holiness. in this way, people could find protection from god for their virtue. so the answer to your question is yes. there was one “person” believed to have escaped the taint of original sin, and by avoiding that particular sin was somehow freed from the curse of death as well. ironically, this creature went on to become the model of amorality in general, and vicious femininity in particular. her wicked ways (read: free will) led to her immortality and her eventual association with all things carnally evil. despite that the zohar succinctly refers to her as “the ruin of the world,” she is uncorrupted by sin… or at least human sins involving trees, gardens, snakes, and death.
6 This page is a resource file with Biblical references, personal interpretations, and original insights. The file is a good overview of what Lilith might mean to the modern woman. Note: These writings are not by Jennifer Spinner, the editor of this webpage. This text's original author reference is Ms. Melanie Faithful.You can email her HERE If visitors know of other Lilith sources, this site's webmistress Jennifer would appreciate other references & texts as well to supplement this page. eMail Jennifer . \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\LILITH/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The author of this address is Melanie Faithful Lillith and Eve I feel I should briefly explain why I am standing in front of you in the first place this evening. This came about from an impromptu Sunday School class of a handful of women. We were discussing the creation story and Barbara Rogers started in with a million questions and thoughts on Adam and Eve. Then somehow Lillith entered the conversation. And so did Ann VanDervoort. At this point someone said this would make a great topic for a women?s dinner and the next think I knew someone volunteered my name and I said OK. We are hoping that perhaps each month we can celebrate and explore other women of the bible. So now I begin. Eve and Lillith. Lillith and Eve. One of these women you probably know--or at least think you know. And the other one is not just Frazier Crane?s girlfriend on Cheers--although when you know more about Lillith you will understand why that character was perfectly named. As I think about these women I must admit a bit of trepidation in discussing them with you this evening. As I explained to Gerald and Lorinda and Cathy Berry this week while walking at the park--this is not a politically correct subject. And how do I stand in front of the women of the church in the hall named after the venerable Bishop Otey and describe in detail the intimacies that even most high school health teachers don?t? reach in sex education? But considering the fact that sex sells--perhaps I will have a captive audience tonight. Because sex is a big part of what these two women represent in both historical cultures and modern ones. First, I want to make it perfectly clear. I am no biblical scholar. And I am no serious student of Jewish history. I am simply fascinated by the intersection of feminism and religion, and this fascination has lead me to Lillith and Eve. Let me introduce you first to the woman you may not know. Her name is Lillith. And she is in Hebrew midrash the first wife of Adam. Yes that is right, Adam?s first wife--before Eve. But before we go into that in detail let me go on a slight midrash tangent. Is there anyone
7 here who can explain ?midrash?? The best way I can describe ?midrash? is ?and now you know the rest of the story.? It is Jewish tradition that is not actually in the bible. Midrash is the story that explains things about the bible and your faith, but is not actually in the scripture. You can think of it as ? historical fiction? or legend. And we even have somewhat similar stories in Christian tradition. Remember the movies Ben Hur and The Robe. If our churches took those stories seriously they would be considered midrash. Remember the story of the dogwood blossom and the crucifixion. That is Christian midrash. And there is a trend in feminist literature for feminist christian midrash. Here is an example, a book written from the perspective of Jesus?s twin sister. If these sorts of stories were taught in church Sunday school classes and seminaries for serious consideration, they would be midrash. Here is how the story of Lillith came to be. There were several rabbis, studying and working over their Hebrew bibles. They were confounded with a scriptural problem in Genesis. Here is their problem: Genesis 1:26-28 Genesis 2:5-8 Genesis 2:20-23 Imagine how confounding this must be to the rabbis. There are two different stories here. One says God made male and female --BOTH in God?s image, at the same time on the 6th day. The other longer story takes place AFTER the first sabbath. Adam is made first, then God makes Adam --and these words are a personal challenge to me--God makes Adam a ? Helper suitable for him.? Imagine how frustrating this discrepancy was to the Hebrew scholars. For them it was crucial that all scripture be in harmony. Biblical inerrency is not just a 20th century fascination. To the rabbis, it seemed perfectly clear, even logical, that this must be two different stories. And if these are two different stories, then it can be neatly explained if God actually created two different women at two different times. At this point Lillith entered the picture. She was known before in the Babylonian Talmud, as a wild-haired and flying nymphomaniac mentioned in Isaiah 34:14. The dessert creatures shall meet with the howling wolves , the hairy goat demon shall also call to its kind; Yes, Lilith (the night monster) shall settle there and shall find herself a resting place. Sometime between the years 600-1000 a.d. we find the first written story referring to Lillith as the "First Eve.? And what they said about this first Eve is actually pretty entertaining. Here are a few interpretations of what happened to Lillith: According to Rabbi Hiya, she "returned to dust." I guess God said ?oops? maybe this is NOT good. Or, another story states that in the beginning God created the first Eve for Adam, but when Adam saw her being made he was grossed out by the blood and guts and didn?t want to have anything to do with her. And since he wouldn?t touch her, God caused this first Eve to disappear. However, these stories are not the version that we most often associate with Lillith. For that, I read from The Story of Lilith The Alphabet of Ben Sira Question #5 (23a-b)
8 After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone' (Gen. 2:18). He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith began to fight. 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 in 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 air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent three angels to bring her back. "Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, fine. If not she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.' "'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.' "When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted she go back. 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. Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write the angels' names on the amulets of young children. When Lilith sees their names, she remembers her oath, and the child recovers." Different stories give different versions, but here is Lillith in a nutshell: Created as a full and equal partner to Adam. Refused to procreate missionary style. Was brash enough to utter the ineffable name of God. Left Eden of her own free will before ?the fall.? (which incidentally means that since she left the Garden of Eden before the apple incident she still has eternal life.) Enjoys a lascivious lifestyle of sleeping with demons, giving birth to thousands of evil children everyday. Men sleeping alone are subject to her visits--which are to be avoided since an incident with Lillith is a missed opportunity for healthy Jewish procreation. (and I hope I am making this clear in a socially acceptable way.) Crib death is Lilliths revenge for her own slaughtered children. Today, Lillith has become the symbol of the Ultimate Uppity Woman, especially in Jewish feminist circles. Hence the recent megastar rock tour headlined by women called ?the Lillith Fair?. Modern feminists have chosen her to represent all they did not get from the traditional Eve story. Which leads me to--the traditional Even story. Who is this woman called Eve? And is her traditional story really all that traditional? Perhaps it is time to look at Eve again. I was told as a small child that Eve was the reason that there was sin in the world. I was told as a small child that Eve was a bad woman.
9 I was told as a small child that if Eve had behaved then men would not have to work for a living and women would have painless childbirth. I was told as a small child that if Eve had behaved then we would all have eternal life. Amazing isn?t it? Is this similar to what you were told? And something about this story-and all this heaping upon Eve really bothered me, but I could never quite put my finger on it. When I was a young mother I finally figured out what bothered me. As a mother of young children, new people in the world, I was in charge of their environment. I spent lots of time putting up baby gates and moving dangerous cords and covering electrical outlets. And if there was something very tempting for my children that was dangerous for them, then I would simply take it away. I did not leave prescription drugs laying around. I removed all shiny sharp objects from their hands. To take a fascinating but dangerous object--like a piece of broken glass--set it in the middle of their playroom and then say DO NOT TOUCH is silly and cruel. To do that is asking for trouble. It is setting up your child for failure and disaster. But isnt that what happens in the Garden of Eden? Someone here has a bumper sticker--is it Missy Woolridge, that says Eve Was Framed. And when Eve was framed, essentially all women were framed. Then I thought a lot about this woman Eve. For many years I was angry with her for bringing on original sin, painful childbirth, yadda yadda yadda. Thinking of this woman had actually and unconsciously made me ashamed of being a woman. But I suggest we can be empowered by this same Eve if we turn the tables a bit. Here are characteristics of Eve that we can gleam from the story in Genesis: Independent: Adam had told her not to eat of the tree. (Remember--God told this to Adam before she was created. There is no record of God saying this directly to Eve.) Eve did not automatically obey just because Adam told her the way of the world. Thirsty for knowledge: Eve ate from the tree because she craved wisdom. Lover of beauty: The tree was a delight to the eyes. Connoisseur of good food: Eve saw that the tree was good for food. Proactive: Eve was the leader. Adam was the follower. An active, independent woman, thirsty for knowledge, appreciating beauty and good food. That is the Eve I came to see. I hope you can see her too. And learn from her. And honor the Eve in yourself that pops out now and then.
My thought from other sites: Adam and Eve discovered “original sin” when they partook of the fruit from the Tree of Wisdom. They became ashamed and covered themselves because they realized their sexuality. How could Adam have been ignorant of sexual desire if he had demanded his first wife, Lilith, lay beneath him for sexual relations?
10 Also, what if our menstrual cycle is more of a “sacrifice of pain” that we as spiritual and physical creatures chose to make to demonstrate the sanctity of birth; the pains we are willing to go through in order to bring more souls to this world? Could it not be a twin to the Messianic story of pain and suffering for the greater good? And therefore is something to be worshipped and honored instead of a curse of Eve’s original sin?
****************
Lilith went back to Adam for a short time and bore him 3 sons, Shedim, Lilin, and Rauchin? ****************
The Genesis Factor by Stephan A. Hoeller The following article was published in Quest , September 1997. It is presented here with permission of the author.
SOME YEARS AGO, Elaine H. Pagels, the noted religious historian, had the importance of the Book of Genesis brought to her attention in a most unusual manner. She was in Khartoum, in the African Sudan, holding a discussion with the then foreign minister of that country, who had written a book on the myths of his people. A prominent member of the Dinka tribe, her host told her how the creation myth of his people relates to the whole social, political, and religious culture in that part of the Sudan. Shortly after this conversation, Pagels was reading a Time magazine in which several letters to the editor took issue with a particular article on changing social mores in America. To her surprise, four of the six letters mentioned the story of Adam and Eve--how God created the first human pair "in the beginning," and what kind of behavior was therefore right or wrong for men and women today. Stimulated by her conversation in Africa, she quickly recognized that many people, even those who do not literally believe it, still return to the archaic story of creation as a frame of reference when faced with challenges to their traditional values. Pagels realized that, like creation stories of other cultures, the Genesis story addresses profound and basic questions. Americans and Dinka tribesmen are not so different after all; both look to their creation stories when attempting to answer such questions as, what is the purpose of human beings on earth? How do we differ from each other and from animals? Why do we suffer? Why do we die?
11 Recent events on the intellectual scene have served to affirm these insights. Autumn of 1996 brought a considerable revival of interest in Genesis. Foreshadowed by a series of semi-informal conversations at Manhattan's Jewish Theological Seminary, led by Rabbi Burton Visotzky, the major event of this revival became a much publicized television series entitled "A Living Conversation," devoted entirely to the Book of Genesis. Hosted by Bill Moyers, himself an ordained Southern Baptist minister who had later shifted his allegiance to the more liberal United Church of Christ, the series raised high expectations in many quarters. A number of recent books have also dealt with the Genesis story. Robert Alter, one of the most recent translators of Genesis, said: "Moyers has hit upon an idea whose time has come. At this moment of post-cold war confusion about where we're going as a civilization, with all kinds of murky religious ferment, it makes sense to do some stocktaking. Let's go back to the book that started the whole shebang." Moyers's panelists included Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, a Hindu, a Buddhist, and several agnostics. Not included, however, were persons who could represent Gnostic Christianity, one of the most ancient and at the same time most timely and creative approaches to the interpretation of the Bible. Nor was there any appreciable mention of Gnostic views in the cover story of Time magazine (October 28,1996), which followed upon the television series, or in several books published in the ensuing months. Had the recent revival of interest in Genesis occurred fifty or sixty years ago, this omission might have been understandable. Sources offering alternative interpretations of the Book of Genesis then were few and far between. All this changed, however, after 1945, when a veritable treasure trove of Gnostic scriptures was discovered in the Nag Hammadi valley in upper Egypt. This discovery would transform the character of biblical studies forever. The Nag Hammadi scriptures contain numerous creative variants of biblical teachings. A Different View of Adam and Eve
William Blake, the Gnostic poet of the early nineteenth century, wrote of the differences between his view and the mainstream view of holy writ: 'Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white." The same words could have been uttered by Gnostic Christians and their orthodox opponents in the first three or four centuries A.D. The orthodox view then regarded most of the Bible, particularly Genesis, as history with a moral. Adam and Eve were considered to be historical figures, the literal ancestors of our species. From the story of their transgression, orthodox teachers deduced specific moral consequences, chiefly the "fall" of the human race due to original sin. Another consequence was the lowly and morally ambivalent status of women, who were regarded as Eve's coconspirators in the fateful deed of disobedience in paradise. Tertullian, a sworn enemy of the Gnostics, wrote to the female members of the Christian community thusly: . . . you are the devil's gateway. . . you are she who persuaded him whom the devil did not dare attack. . . . Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on your sex lives on in this age; the guilt, necessarily, lives on too.
12 The Gnostic Christians who authored the Nag Hammadi scriptures did not read Genesis as history with a moral, but as a myth with a meaning. To them, Adam and Eve were not actual historical figures, but representatives of two intrapsychic principles within every human being. Adam was the dramatic embodiment of psyche, or soul, while Eve stood for the pneuma, or spirit. Soul, to the Gnostics, meant the embodiment of the emotional and thinking functions of the personality, while spirit represented the human capacity for spiritual consciousness. The former was the lesser self (the ego of depth psychology), the latter the transcendental function, or the "higher self," as it is sometimes known. Obviously, Eve, then, is by nature superior to Adam, rather than his inferior as implied by orthodoxy. Nowhere is Eve's superiority and numinous power more evident than in her role as Adam's awakener. Adam is in a deep sleep, from which Eve's liberating call arouses him. While the orthodox version has Eve physically emerge from Adam's body, the Gnostic rendering has the spiritual principle known as Eve emerging from the unconscious depths of the somnolent Adam. Before she thus emerges into liberating consciousness, Eve calls forth to the sleeping Adam in the following manner, as stated by the Gnostic Apocryphon of John: I entered into the midst of the dungeon which is the prison of the body. And I spoke thus: "He who hears, let him arise from the deep sleep." And then he (Adam) wept and shed tears. After he wiped away his bitter tears he spoke, asking: "Who is it that calls my name, and whence has this hope come unto me, while I am in the chains of this prison?" And I spoke thus: "I am the Pronoia of the pure light; I am the thought of the undefiled spirit. . . . Arise and remember . . . and follow your root, which is I . . . and beware of the deep sleep." In another scripture from the same collection, entitled On the Origin of the World , we find further amplification of this theme. Here Eve whose mystical name is Zoe, meaning life, is shown as the daughter and messenger of the Divine Sophia, the feminine hypostasis of the supreme Godhead: Sophia sent Zoe, her daughter, who is called "Eve," as an instructor in order that she might raise up Adam, in whom there is no spiritual soul so that those whom he could beget might also become vessels of light. When Eve saw her companion, who was so much like her, in his cast down condition she pitied him, and she exclaimed: "Adam, live! Rise up upon the earth!" Immediately her words produced a result for when Adam rose up, right away he opened his eyes. When he saw her, he said: "You will be called 'mother of the living', because you are the one who gave me life." In the same scripture, the creator and his companions whisper to each other while Adam sleeps: "Let us teach him in his sleep as though she (Eve) came to be from his rib so that the woman will serve and he will be lord over her." The demeaning tale of Adam's rib is thus revealed as a propagandistic device intended to advance an attitude of male superiority. It goes without saying that such an attitude would have been more difficult among the Gnostics, who held that man was indebted to woman for bringing him to life and to consciousness.
13 The Western theologian Paul Tillich interpreted this scripture as the Gnostics did, declaring that "the Fall" was a symbol for the human situation, not a story of an event that happened "once upon a time." Tillich said that the Fall represented "a fall from the state of dreaming innocence" in psychological terms, an awakening from potentiality to actuality. Tillich's view was that this "fall" was necessary to the development of humankind. The Serpent of Wisdom
The sin of Eve, so the orthodox tell us, was that she listened to the serpent, who persuaded her that the fruit of the tree would make her and Adam wise, without any deleterious sideeffects. It was Eve who then seduced the righteously reluctant Adam to join her in this act of disobedience, and thus together they brought about the fall of humanity. A Gnostic treatise, The Testimony of Truth, tells a different story. While repeating the words of the orthodox version of Genesis, the Gnostic source states that "the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise." After extolling the wisdom of the serpent, the treatise casts serious aspersions on the creator: "What sort is he then, this God?" Then come some of the answers to the rhetorical question. The motive of the creator in punishing Adam was envy, for the creator envied Adam, who by eating the fruit would acquire knowledge (gnosis). Neither did the creator seem quite omniscient when he asked of Adam: "Where are you?" The creator has shown himself repeatedly to be "an envious slanderer," a jealous God, who inflicts cruel punishments on those who transgress his capricious orders and commandments. The treatise comments: "But these are the things he said (and did) to those who believe in him and serve him." The implication clearly presents itself that with a God like this, one needs no enemies. Another treatise, The Hypostasis of the Archons, informs us that not only was Eve the emissary of the divine Sophia, but the serpent was similarly inspired by the same supernal wisdom. Sophia mystically entered the serpent, who thereby acquired the title of instructor. The instructor then taught Adam and Eve about their source, informing them that they were of high and holy origin and not mere slaves of the creator deity. What, one may ask, motivated the Gnostic interpreters of Genesis to make these unusual statements? Were they purely motivated by bitter criticism directed against the God of Israel, as the Church Fathers would have us believe? Many contemporary scholars do not think so. These contemporary scholars suggest that the unfavorable image of the creator contrasted with the favorable one of Adam, Eve, and even of the serpent alludes to an important issue not frequently recognized. The orthodox interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, tend to emphasize the distinction between the infinite creator and his finite creatures. Humans and animals are on earth, while God is in heaven, and never the two will meet. The orthodox have held, with Martin Buber, that the human's relationship to God is always "I and Thou." In the Gnostic position one can discern a keynote that is reminiscent of the attitude of certain other religions, notably Hinduism, which rather declares: "I am Thou."
14 The Gnostics share with the Hindus and with certain Christian mystics the notion that the divine essence is present deep within human nature in addition to being present outside of it. At one time humans were part of the divine, although later, in their manifest condition, they more and more tended to project divinity onto beings external to themselves. Alienation from God brings an increase in the worship of deities wholly external to the human. The Gospel of Philip, another scripture from Nag Hammadi, expresses it well: In the beginning God created humans. Now, however, humans are creating God. Such is the way of this world-humans invent gods and worship their creations. It would be better for such gods to worship humans. True God, False God
When discussing the story of Noah and the flood, author Karen Armstrong (A History of God, 1993), as a panelist on Moyers's program, asserted that God is "not some nice, cozy daddy in the sky," but rather a being who decidedly behaves frequently "in an evil way." With his actions in connection with the flood, Armstrong said, God originated the idea of justifiable genocide. Hitler and Stalin, one might deduce, acted on the instruction of such stories as that of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah when instituting the holocaust and the camps of the Gulag. Had the panelists called on Gnostic scriptures, they could have quoted many precedents for Armstrong's criticism of the vengeful God of the Old Testament. The Gnostic Hypostasis of the Archons, for example, states that the cause of the flood was not the turning of humans to wickedness, causing God to repent of his creation, as the "official" version of Genesis declared. Quite the contrary, people were becoming wiser and better, so an envious and spiteful creator decided to wipe them out in the flood. Noah was told by the creator to build an ark and place it atop Mount Seir-a name that does not occur in Genesis, but in one of the psalms referring to the flood. Noah's wife, unnamed in Genesis but called Norea by the Gnostics, is a special person, possessing more wisdom than her husband. Norea is the daughter of Eve and a knower of hidden things. She tries to dissuade her husband from collaborating with the schemes of the creator, and ends up burning down the ark which Noah had built. The creator and his dark angels then surround Norea and intend to punish Norea by raping her. Norea defends herself by refuting various false claims they make. Ultimately she cries out for help to the true God, who sends the golden Angel Eleleth (Sagacity), who not only saves her from the attack of the creator's dark servants, but also teaches her regarding her origins and promises her that her descendants will continue to possess the true gnosis. There are other scriptures of the Nag Hammadi collection that repeat or refer to the story of Norea, including the Apocryphon of John and The Thought of Norea. The former does not mention her by name, but states that Noah's descendants were wise ones who were hidden in a luminous cloud, adding significantly, "[This was not] as Moses said, 'They were hidden in the ark."' In the latter it is not only one angel but "three holy helpers" who intercede on her behalf.
15 It is quite apparent that the creator god who visits humanity with the disaster of the flood is not identical with the "true God" to whom Norea calls out for help. Viewing the character of the deity of Genesis with a sober, critical eye, the Gnostics concluded that this God was neither good nor wise. He was envious, genocidal, unjust, and, moreover, had created a world full of bizarre and unpleasant things and conditions. In their visionary explorations of secret mysteries, the Gnostics felt that they had discovered that this deity was not the only God, as had been claimed, and that certainly there was a God above him. This true God above was the real father of humanity, and, moreover, there was a true mother as well, Sophia, the emanation of the true God. Somewhere in the course of the lengthy process of pre-creational manifestation, Sophia mistakenly gave life to a spiritual being, whose wisdom was greatly exceeded by his size and power. This being, whose true names are Yaldabaoth (child of the chaos), Samael (blind god), and also Saclas (foolish one), then proceeded to create a world, and eventually also a human being called Adam. Neither the world nor the man thus created was very serviceable as created, so Sophia and other high spiritual agencies contributed their light and power to them. The creator thus came to deserve the name "demiurge" (half maker), a Greek term employed in a slightly different sense by philosophers, including Plato. To what extent various Gnostics took these mythologies literally is difficult to discern. What is certain is that behind the myths there are important metaphysical postulates which have not lost their relevance. The personal creator who appears in Genesis does not possess the characteristics of the ultimate, transcendental "ground of being" of which mystics of many religions speak. If the God of Genesis has any reality at all, it must be a severely limited reality, one characterized by at least some measure of foolishness and blindness. While the concept of two Gods is horrifying to the monotheistically conditioned mind, it is not illogical or improbable. Modem theologians, particularly Paul Tillich, have boldly referred to "the God above God." Tillich introduced the term "ground of being" as alternative language to express the divine. The ideas of the old Gnostics seem not so outdated after all. The Mysteries of Seth
Almost anyone today could declare that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. The third son is more difficult to name; he is Seth. The third son was provided by God as a replacement for the slain Abel, according to Genesis. He was sired rather late in life by Adam, for Adam is said to have been 130 years old at the time. The historian Josephus wrote that Seth was a very great man and that his descendants were the discoverers of many mysterious arts, including astrology. The descendants of Seth then inscribed the records of their occult discoveries, according to Josephus, on two pillars, one brick, the other stone, so that they might be preserved in times of future disasters. In the treatise The Apocalypse of Adam, the Gnostics presented us with a scripture that tells not only of Seth (and his father) but of the future of the esoteric tradition of gnosis in ages to come. It begins:
16 The disclosure given by Adam to his son Seth in his seven hundredth year. And he said: "Listen to my words, my son Seth. When God created me out of the earth, along with Eve your mother, I went along with her in a glory which she had seen in the aeon from which she came forth. She taught me the word of Gnosis of the eternal God. And we resembled the great eternal angels, for we were higher than the God who created us." After thus informing us once again of the spiritually superior status of Eve, the scripture goes on to recount how the creator turned against Adam and Eve, robbing them of their glory and their knowledge. Humans now served the creator "in fear and in slavery," so Adam stated. While previously immortal, Adam now knew that his days were numbered. Therefore, he said he now wanted to pass on what he knew to Seth and his descendants. In the prediction it becomes apparent that "Seth and his seed" would continue to experience gnosis, but that they would be subject to many grave tribulations. The first of these would be the flood, during which angels would rescue the Gnostic race of Seth and hide them in a secret place. Noah, on the other hand, would advise his sons to serve the creator God "in fear and slavery all the days of your life." After the return of the illumined people of Seth's kind, the creator would once again wrathfully turn against them and try to destroy them by raining fire, sulfur, and asphalt down on them-an allusion, perhaps, to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Once again many of the Gnostics would be saved by being taken by great angels to a place above the domain of the evil powers. Much later there would be a new era with the coming of the man of light ("Phoster"), who would teach gnosis to all. The Apocalypse of Adam concludes with this passage: This is the hidden knowledge of Adam which he gave to Seth, which is the holy baptism of those who know the imperishable Gnosis through those who are born of the Logos, through the imperishable Illuminator, who himself came from the holy seed (of Seth) Jesseus, Mazareus, Jessedekeus. These names, which are obviously versions of the name of Jesus (they are found in other scriptures also), identify the culmination of the Gnostic tradition in the figure of Jesus. The "Race of Seth" is thus a biblical metaphor for those following this tradition. In the Gnostic book Pistis Sophia, Jesus identifies himself as coming from the "Great Race of Seth". Old Answers to New Controversies
The current interest in Genesis raises many serious questions. Not a few of these have been illuminated by the neglected light shed by the scriptures quoted earlier. Not unlike the old Gnostics, today's questioning scholars and laypersons are provoked by Genesis to critiques and even to inventions of new variations on the ancient theme. Consider how deeply the social conditions of many countries have been influenced by the picture the orthodox version of Genesis presents concerning Eve and, by implication, women in general. Any of the several scriptures of the Nag Hammadi collection would shed an entirely different and more benign light on these issues.
17 Secondly, consider the political implications of the story of Genesis. Elaine Pagels, in her fascinating book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (1988), pointed out that the long-held attitude of the Christian church of submitting to greatly flawed systems of secular government was usually justified by the "fallen condition" of humanity as first described in Genesis. Following largely the interpretations of Saint Augustine, most Christians felt that even bad governments were to be preferred to liberty because humans are so corrupted by Adam and Eve's original sin that they are in capable of governing themselves. The libertarian fervor of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that gave rise to the American and French revolutions was clearly not motivated by the spirit of Genesis. The statement that "all men are created equal" does not occur in that scripture, but sprang from the inspiration of the American revolutionaries, who drew from Hermetic, Gnostic, and similar non-mainstream sources. Thirdly, there remains the terrifying problem of the character of the God of Genesis. Agreeing with Karen Armstrong, we find Jack Miles, in his provocative book God: A Biography writing: "Much that the Bible says about him is rarely preached from the pulpit because, examined too closely, it becomes a scandal." Perhaps we may need to take a second look at the Gnostic proposition that the creator mentioned in Genesis is not the true and ultimate God. The unfavorable potential present in the Book of Genesis did not go unnoticed throughout history. Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, a religious teacher prominent in the years after A.D. 70, warned that the Genesis story of creation should not be taught before even as many as two people. Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, wrote that many of the narratives in the Old Testament were "rude and repellent." He certainly included those in Genesis. The Dinka tribesmen of the Sudan have a point. The creation myth of any culture has a profound effect on the attitudes, social mores, and political systems that prevail. So long as the Book of Genesis remains a basic text for Jews, Christians, and Muslims we can expect the societies within which these religions flourish to be influenced by this book. Still, there is some hope on the horizon. Although the Gnostic alternatives to the content of Genesis are still usually neglected, as indeed they were on television and in the press last year, some prominent figures of our culture are beginning to take notice. To mention but one such figure, Harold Bloom has become one of the most prominent voices calling attention to the creative character of the Gnostic alternative to mainstream religion. His books American Religion (1992) and Omens of Millennium (1996) have made a powerful case for the timeliness and perennial value of the positions taken by Christian Gnostics, Jewish Kabbalists, and Sufi mystics, all of whom are inspired by a common gnosis. It may be useful to conclude with an incisive and in our view definitive statement from the pen of this scholar: If you can accept a God who coexists with death camps, schizophrenia, and AIDS, yet remains all-powerful and somehow benign, then you have faith, and you have accepted the covenant with Yahweh.... If you know yourself as having an affinity with the alien or stranger God, cut off from this world, then you are a Gnostic, and perhaps the best and strongest moments still come to what is best and oldest in you, to a breath or spark that long precedes this Creation.
18
