Was Eve really Adam's first woman?

Shimmer

I checked out this really cool book from the library called Don't Know Much About the Bible. It talks about a Hebrew legend recorded in the medieval Alphabet of Ben Sira regarding a Lilith who was Adam's first wife, who preceded Eve. In this version, Lilith is created from the earth, as Adam was. In the Talmud, Lilith was also made out of dust, but her crime was even more specific: she balked at the way Adam wished to make love, with the man on top. When Adam refused Lilith's demand that she be regarded as his equal, she walked out on him. Then she uttered the unspeakable name of God and was sent to live with the demons, becoming a demon herself.

Lilith doesn't appear in Genesis, and the only biblical reference to this mystery woman is a single line in Isiah that mentions her as a female demon. A Canaanite demon called Lilitu who tormented men may have inspired the Hebrew Lilith, and the figure has been traced back even further to Babylonian mythology. The Lilith demon was later depected as a slayer of infants and women in pregnancy and childbirth who came out at night and drank human blood. In essence, Lilith was the first vampire, predating Count Dracula by thousands of years.

Scholars who approach the Bible from a "feminist" viewpoint suggest that Lilith was actually created before Eve, but male authors then introduced Eve as her opposite. In their view, Eve was more acceptable as the docile and dependent woman, a kind of biblical Betty Crocker. These feminist readings celebrate Lilith as headstrong, self-reliant, even sexually aggressive---a biblical version of rock and roll's Madonna. That is totally at odds with how women were viewed in the male-dominated society of the ancient Near East. In any case, if you stick to Genesis, there was no Lilith and Adam never had to choose between Betty Crocker and Madonna.

I wanted to post this story because I thought not only was it interesting, but I also wanted to throw out the question: Guys, if you had to choose between marrying Betty Crocker or Madonna, which one would you choose? And Gals, same question but in reverse, lets say Ward Cleaver or the male version of Madonna.(Couldn't think of anyone)

Shimmer

badboy

Geneticists have worked out that the `genetic' Adam and Eve didn't live at the same time.

Amazing

HI Shimmer:

"That is totally at odds with how women were viewed in the male-dominated society of the ancient Near East."

There may be all sorts of reasons for this story. I find it difficult to believe that in a male-dominated society that they would let such a story be written. The ability to write was not universal and often confined to scribes. Also, if Adam was pissed off a Lilith, then he would just not mention her, ever.

Actually, credible historians will tell you that the Hebrew families were not male-dominated as modern feminists like to claim. Example is that of Sarah who stood her ground with Abraham. The Jews in my family speak of the powerful and dominating role Jewish women play in family life that exceeds the male role.

Finally, maybe this can be seen from a future perspective, when researchers and historians in the 30th or 40th century find a copy of the 21st century National Enquirer, and take it seriously, as though it was some credible news journal. Perhaps some story about an ancient Lilith was little more than soem creative writing by some Scribe who had too much time on his hands.

As far as modern men choosing between Betty Crocker and Madonna, I think most men would like a combonation ...

Bodhisattva

Badboy -

Not so fast. The "Adam" and "Eve" identified by geneticists were the most recent common male ancestor and common female ancestor, not to only or the earliest. If genetic Eve came later, than genetic Adam's only wife (or if he had more than one, his mother) would be a common female ancestor for all of us, just not the most recent.

Say Jack marries a woman, has children, divorces her, and then marries her cousin, who shares a grandfather and grandmother. A child of the first marriage and a child of the second would be related like this, barring further complications: Their most recent common male ancestor would be Jack, and their most recent common female ancestor would be their mothers' grandmother. But the grandmother of the childrens' mothers would be married to another common male ancestor - the grandfather of their mothers. If the family tree had branched as much as possible, this would have been their most recent common male ancestor given that their mothers were cousins, but sometimes the branches cross, as with ex-wife's-cousin-marrying Jack.

This is what the geneticists were looking for - the most recent common male ancestor, and the most recent common female ancestor, that they could trace based on the Y-chromosome for males and Mitochondrial DNA for females. Genetic Adam, coming before genetic Eve and being forefather to all of us, necessarily identifies a common foremother: His only wife, if he had only one, or his mother. But since the father-provided Y-chromosome traces back much further than genetic Eve's time, which is identified by Mitochondrial DNA passed on only by the mother, apparently genetic Eve was not a one-guy sort of lass.

patio34

Hi Amazing,

You said:

Actually, credible historians will tell you that the Hebrew families were not male-dominated as modern feminists like to claim. Example is that of Sarah who stood her ground with Abraham. The Jews in my family speak of the powerful and dominating role Jewish women play in family life that exceeds the male role.

Oh pul-leaze!! Not to be rude, but that is patently untrue. I have to go to work now, but what comes off the top of my head is that the man in Jewish society:
Could have multiple wives, while the female was executed for "adultery"
The male was the owner of the wife
He could divorce her at will, but not vice versa
He could take female sex slaves as booty from war

For more, look at skepticsannotatedbible.com, I think that's the site.

All intelligent people are confrontational.--HBO's Winston Churchill

patio34

She couldn't inherit property. Oh there's sooo much more, but i gotta run! Women were truly second-class citizens.

patio34

Oh and how about the one that if she were raped, then she could be PUT TO DEATH if she didn't scream!! How's that for fairness? Please do NOT tell me the WTS or apologists' view on that piece of brutality.

Then too she could be raped/seduced (whatever!) and the penalty differed by whether she was marriageable or not. The recompense had to go to her FATHER and HE decided whether or not she would marry the guy. Oh yeah, women were treated fairly--just like slaves and pets were!

I can not believe you made such a comment, Amazing. Maybe you haven't had your coffee yet this morning . . .

patio34

The specific list at skepticsannotatedbible is
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women_list.html

patio34

now i'm going to have to drive to work instead of walking. Oh well...

In re-reading your post, Amazing, i want to note that my comments were directed towards the Jewish women in the 2000 years of Bible history (you did say historians comment). Modern Jewish families are not in the same ballpark at all. After all, there are laws against treating people the way the OT prescribes.

MrMoe

Shimmer,

An interesting myth I have been meaning to investigate. What is the story of Lilith based upon - as in what type of documented stuff? Other than the one-liner in the bible?

Kisses,
Moe

Was Eve really Adam's first woman?

Share this