This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kabbalah on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Cleanup : -Shorten and remove least notable uses of Lilith in popular culture section.
Copyedit : -Patai and Hurwitz have two sources and it's confused which source is being called upon in the notes. For example, no note should read Hurwitz p. xx but instead read Hurwitz (1980) p.xx or Huritz (1992) p.xx
-There are missing page numbers from many sources. -This article is using the NOTES - REFERENCES style of annotation so the <ref name="NAME"/> inline notations for sources with multiple pages listed in the Reference section is not used and need to be edited to a <ref>Author (DATE) p. xx</ref> style.
-Check on capitalization and individualism throughout. If it is a common demon lilitu then it's lower case if it's the Lilith it's upper case. In each usage what are we talking about? Is it THE Ki-sikil-lil-la-ke? Is it Lilu or lilu? Is it ever Lilitu or should it alwasy be lilitu? Is it Ardat-lil or is there ardat-lil's? There is consistency in Hurwitz's book but not across sources.
Lilith or Lilitu appears to be a Mesopotamian or Syriac tradition that was incorporated into Hebrew folk and mystical rabbinical thought over centuries of Jewish contact with foreigners. I don't know that Lilith has anything to do with a serpent in any tradition, especially because she would have become before the Fall if she were an actual character in Genesis, and might not have anything to do with the Serpent if she is just something incorporated later. Lilith is regarded as the first wife of Adam in some traditions and in others as an immortal demonic spirit that seduces men and murders children that exists beyond the garden of Eden, even until present times.
With this background, which picture do you think is more appropriate to depict Lilith? The first is a Rossetti image of Lilith looking into a hand mirror while combing her hair in what appears to be a sort of pre-Victorian setting. The second is another 19th Century Romanticized image of Lilith, this time a nude with a snake wrapped around her body. User:Ian.thomson claimed that the latter was more appropriate because it was in line with the myth than the Rossetti image because of its association of the character with a snake and nudity in the Garden of Eden. I personally think the latter is gratuitous and potentially offensive, although I can respect Wikipedia's policy on censorship. Beyond this, I don't think the Collier painting is necessarily better than the Rossetti one.
If Lilith is an immortal demon or is regarded as such in myths, then why is there a problem portraying her in whatever her setting is there? Speaking strictly about the tradition about her in the Garden of Eden, it may be more appropriate than not to have her nude. But she isn't necessarily restricted to that setting, and even if she was, why would she have a serpent from a later act? How does one even determine which is better through consensus?Nanib (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Nanib (talk), I think the snake is supposed to symbolize Lilith's sinfulness and her status as a demon, connected to Satan.Kiko Gonzales (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, what do you think of this one as a title image? A variant of it was removed from the title area of the article because it was regarded as not being accepted widely by experts as the character by the one who removed it. If the character is a non-Hebrew myth originally that was assimilated into certain mystical traditions in the first place, then would the depiction of a of a deity the concept of Lilith is believed to have descended from or may be at least related to be better or worse than any 19th Century Romantic image? Whatever happens with the title image, this should probably be added somewhere. (Nanib (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC))
Long story short - I like all of these - but would prefer an ancient (or at least pre-1500) illustration that closely connects to the Lilith myth. The Burney relief, especially the photo here, is great, but it seems to require too much explanation that it is, or is related to, Lilith. FWIW, I wrote most of the Lady Lilith article and am absolutely in love with that painting, especially the later version, but it is a Victorian expression of an ancient idea. Similarly I like the Collier version, but it's too slick and modern (not even Victorian in style!) to express the ancient idea. BTW, I am a dirty old man and have no objection to including it further down in the article. I seem to remember that the snake is associated at least indirectly with Lilith, but among these three, I guess the best is Burney. Let's look for something else though. Smallbones (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
per Wikipedia:Relevance of content what ideally is needed is an illustration which relates to the article subject. For better or worse the article subject is a female demon which was credited in the Talmud with causing wet dreams, so does lend itself to semi-erotic depictions of dirty (probably young, manga-minded) men. Connection to the "night bird" in the list of egg-laying tree dwelling birds in Isaiah is in itself tendentious, the theories of the 1880s connecting the demoness of the Talmud to any earlier Mesopotamian goddess are highly speculative, connection to the Burney Relief is now rejected. The image by Rossetti despite the title has little more to do with the Talmudic legend than any of Rossetti's other paintings for Leyland. So at this point, until someone provides a Jewish-Talmudic picture, the Collier 1892 is probably as near to the subject as any. And, note, a lot of Hurwitz' content in this article is based on the speculations of 1890s scholarship, so nearer to Collier than to Rossetti. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Rossetti to Leyland: "The painting focuses on Lilith, but is meant to be a "Modern Lilith" rather than the mythological figure." In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree - but that shouldn't mean it couldn't be included lower down in the article. Having done some very quick research - a google image search - there is some evidence that the snake in the garden was Lilith or at least part human female http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/CSNs/CSNs_V_StCentr_04.html (from the Sistine Chapel) and a similar one on a capital at Notre Dame de Paris. There's also a huge amount of stuff suggesting that some stuff here might be fan-cruft for the new pop idol of the hour - Lilith. e.g. vampire Lilith, lots of Collier type Lilith with snakes. No reason not to explore the various re-emergences of Lilith as long as they are documented in (very) reliable sources. But lets not concentrate on that or push somebody's fave new fantasy. Smallbones (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
How about using this cropped image instead, at least temporarily?
I think we'd be best served by not swapping photos more than once a day. Everybody agreed? Smallbones (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
An article about so ancient a subject is ill-served by an image of an interpretation by either 19th century English painters (Rossetti or Collier). Lilith has influenced all sorts of literature and art (western and non-western) with supporting images. The article needed a section on Lilith in Western art to complement the Western literature section so I made one (diff). That is where relatively recent images from western art belong. Rossetti is more famous than Collier, so in a section on Lilith in Western Art, Rossetti's is the more relevant illustration, especially since more of the text is devoted to his work and his supported by Rossetti's poem. Therefore, I was Wp:BOLD and returned the Burney Relief to the top of the article, and used the Rossetti painting in the new 'Western Art' section (diff). I hope this gives a better historical balance to the topic (and a more appropriate place to display the painting than as the lead image). Whiteghost.ink 03:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
See Smallbones comment. Bold is one thing. Unilaterally resolving a Talk topic is another. The article has been returned to status quo, see Wikipedia:Reverting "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established..." see also WP:NPOV in relation to Burney reflief, and WP:Undue in relation to Rossetti. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is not about a modern artwork, but rather about an ancient mythological entity. The lead image should reflect that. The Burney Relief has been the consensus lead image for some time, you do not get to come in an override a long-standing consensus. Yworo (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
But the Burney relief doesn't depict Lilith at all. It depicts Ishtar. If we couldn't find a public domain image for the Gilgamesh article, would it be acceptable to use a picture of Hercules? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
According to who? The article says it is under debate, and has a whole section about it being identified with Lilith. There is disagreement, but no disproof. Yworo (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The article here points out the problems with the Lilith identification, namely that it was based on assumptions and bad translation (or reading translations in ways the translators, such Gadd, said were incorrect), that this would be the only depiction of Lilith ever. As the article here puts: That this initially misread single line of evidence was taken as virtual proof of the identification of the Burney relief with "Lilith" may have been motivated by the existence of a Hebrew demon "Lilith" which is given the epithet of a "screech owl" in the English Bible.
In other words, the entire argument for Lilith is based on connecting one misread line with one possible translation and interpretation of a single Bible verse.
Because of this, it would be WP:OR or even inaccurate to use the image.
Read further, under the subsection Ereshkigal. Even the British Museum acknowledges that the image may depict Lilith. Just add clarification to the caption, that is has been identified by some sources as possibly representing Lilith. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That's hardly evidence in favor for identifying the relief with Lilith, or else they wouldn't prefer the identification with Ereshkigal. Again, the identification is based on a misreading of an outdated translation to identify it with a possible reading of a possible translation of the Bible. You have not addressed this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have to address this, that would be original research. The article on the Burney Relief currently list several academic positions on the matter of identification with Lilith. The sources disagree, but no source has been provided which states that all modern scholars now reject the identification. Until that's provided, it is you using original research to try to exclude the image. One scholar's opinion that is was a misidentification does not disprove the identification, it is simply one of several opinions that have varying weights and followings. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It turns out that the sentence you quoted (That this initially misread single line of evidence was taken as virtual proof of the identification of the Burney relief with "Lilith" may have been motivated by the existence of a Hebrew demon "Lilith" which is given the epithet of a "screech owl" in the English Bible.) was itself original research, cited only to a translation of Isaiah and not to any source that stated there had been a misreading. In other words, it was an editorial opinion of some Wikipedia editor and I've removed it from Burney Relief. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The identification with Lilith is traced back to one misreading of an outdated translation. It is not some later naysayer's claim. The misreading is the entire basis for the original identification with Lilith, which the later sources repeat. That is not OR.
The identification with Lilith is inconclusive at best, an error otherwise. Nothing discredits the Ishtar or Ereshkigal interpretations, but plenty discredits the Lilith interpretation.
Re new post, there's still the issue that "Gadd, the original translator, writes: "ardat lili (kisikil-lil) is never associated with owls in Babylonian mythology" and "the Jewish traditions concerning Lilith in this form seem to be late and of no great authority." The translation they cited pointed out that their interpretation was faulty before they made it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's only got to do with the owl imagery, which is not the only basis for the identification. You yourself are engaging in original research here. If you want to say or imply that the identification was entirely based on a mistranslation, you will need a citation for that. That one of several reasons for an identification has been disproved does not invalidate the other reasons for the identification. Nowhere does the Burney Relief article say that the identification has been disproven or even that it has been rejected by most modern scholars. If you actually have some support for these more extreme claims, be sure to add them to Burney Relief, along with citations. Yworo (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yworo, it's not an extreme claim to say that it has been rejected by most modern ANE scholars.
LILITH?In the 1930s, scholars identified the voluptuous woman on this terracotta plaque (called the Burney Relief) as the Babylonian demoness Lilith. Today, the figure is generally identified as the goddess of love and war
— Bible Review Vol 17 Biblical Archaeology Society - 2001
This article seriously needs a title image. I would suggest the one with her and the snake as the best one (I think it was painted by Collier), since it is a little more obvious who she is, the ancient image proposals are generally too uncertain as to what they represent for it to be appropriate. The notion that it is offensive seems kind of silly to me, offensive to who? Prudish Victorians? Nudity is pretty standard on Garden of Eden depictions and the serpent ensures that it was acceptable to a Victorian audience, I don't really see how it can be particularly offensive to the general modern audience. I really think this issue ought to be resolved one way or another Threadnecromancer (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
The Collier one is fine. Wasn't it here for years previously? The Burney Relief absolutely should not be the main image because modern scholarship rejects that it is Lilith. DreamGuy (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed an image (a dark scan of the Collier painting) that an editor had added to the lead section, in spite of the hidden text at the top of the article, “This article does not have a lead picture[,] as consensus of discussion. See the Talk Page.” From a perfunctory reading of the discussion here, I don’t actually see where a consensus was declared, but I nevertheless took the hidden text’s word for it, so to speak. The addition of the image was tagged as a “mobile edit”; I’ve read that hidden text can’t be seen when using Visual Editor (for technical reasons, I haven’t used Visual Editor yet), so maybe hidden text doesn’t show up when editing from a mobile device either.
The consensus actually seems to be the other way round. It is ridiculous for an article like this not to have a lead picture. Threadnecromancer (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
You'd need to notify all of those in the previous discussion - the whole point was to get an image which has something to do with the subject, rather than later romantic mythology. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer an ancient image, but the consensus was to either remove or downplay the Burney Relief and that we needed somethiung at the top. There's a lot to this character, and this is just as valid as any other image lacking something better. It also has YEARS of consensus behind it. Coming back years later and removing it serves no purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of a correct ancient image, can we at least find a Kabbalah/Jewish image? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
How is that more appropriate? Lilith is relevant to more than just the Kabbalah, and if you compare this with similar articles you will see similar lead pictures. The article on Abraham uses a Mediaeval Christian image, the article on King Saul uses a Renaissance Dutch Christian painting. Perhaps most decisively, the article on Eve uses a Renaissance painting as the lead image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have learned new-world-encyclopedia is considered biased/problematic, and it is run by a rather controversial sponsor. Though I cannot say for sure if some of their information about the difference between Lilitu, and Ardat Lilitu might have been accurate or not.
what is the difference between a angelic spirit and a Lilith like creature woman (Lilen) and its lovely daughters (Lilien) or wildlife kind of spirit? and also known all together as a (Lilien) or seven Fruits or daughters from the Guardian Angels from god
Ok so the title of the section is basically this years installment or volume of the Mythology of the Lilitu which is distinct from Lilith which we are discussing which actional there are two kinds of definition of Lilitu there's even there's the seed other wise known as the crown made of a woman's ovaries is a Lilitu Ovary and the mother fruit its Lilith (Mythology) which is distinct from its other Seed which then becomes its daughter fruit or the nymph spirt of goddess types like pleades that were with Zeus and what not. Zeus was just a Innocent god man like any other of the angelic spirits which seem to be in a whole another classification on that hand as the angelic-like but not angelic Lilitu transformation types into sub types of her Lilitu self into manifestations or "parts" as it was known in colonial German American rather than "Lilitu things" in English which mean of a greater Liliet. disctinct from its actual human looking kinds of fruit. and the reason why i think this is becasue there clearly has to be some kind of transformation of reproduction spirit sub particles that are quantamly linked or Quantamly entangled with human DNA also known as Katra which is a small piece of a spirit or even a angelic being like the one god like us Catholic beilive in and the different kinds of heaven Angels some how over that ancient time period of pre Jan 1st 1500 CE. But the thing is Lifeforms particals from Plants and Animals come from DNA from particals comprised of Earth/Carbon, Wind/Air/Oxgen, Hydrogen/Water as well as Heart element/Iron(Blood) as well as the rest of the basic 5 elements that comprise the bigger element known as Life. but the 7th element is Space but space is empty but life needs space to grow. so basically from about Jan 1st 1500 CE and the start of the Modern Ages which are of course the more recent millennia like in the Jesus Era and early post Jesus era also known to christian as the since her first appearance around circa 4,000 BC by the Hebrews, the ancestors of the contemporary Jews. once these Hebrews discovered this strange dream monsters these Hebrews knew of the power of wisdom from noe where in matarial known as pre-cognitive dreaming also known as future dreaming. these Akashic records according to one of the worlds more recent victims known as Edgar Cayce circa 1930s and 1940s CE eras. all these good people fall prey to the Snake woman from the Jude-Cristians of the past 6,000 years but probably more like 3,000 years since Soloman who was a actual authenticated case of multiple reports of dream knowledge by the kings of Salomon and his Son David but Saul never met Lilith becasue he was of average intelligence only not nearly as wise as Solomon and his son and grand son King David was.
The basic entire religious argument or Urination match as it is known in Scotland. The basic argument is as follows Should the diferent transformation types that make up the entire Lilien be more distinct from the concept of Lilitu which currently as of the spring of 2016. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)