Buy: The Mysterious Book of Genesis - Lilith, Enoch & Other Strange Studies: An Anthology on Amazon for only 99 cents
Lilith, Genesis and Zoroastrianism by Moncure Conway 1893
The difference between the account of the creation of man in the first chapter of Genesis and that in the second was recognised by the ancient Jews and gave rise to various theories. The most important was that of Philo, who explained it by his doctrine of the Logos, or "Second God," through whom the Supreme Father created all things, and in whose image the man of Genesis i was ideally formed. Philo maintained that mortal nature could be fashioned in the image of the Supreme Father. Adam, formed in Genesis ii, he describes as "the visible man, in his likeness to the conceptual model"; that is, to the Logos-man of Genesis i,—"the incorporeal and spiritual man, in the likeness of the archetype, and as representing a higher character, the divine Logos, the first principle, the prototype, the original measure of all nature." The less learned and unphilosophical Jews, however, simply concluded that Adam had a first wife—the "female" of Genesis i—Eve being his second wife. This first wife became associated with a mysterious being, whose name, Lilith, first appears in an ancient Babylonian record, and is found in Isaiah xxxiv, 14, rendered "screech-owl" in the old version and "night-monster" in the revised version. I have explored the many curious legends of the enchanting Lilith in my "Demonology and Devil-Lore," but may here say that, according to Jewish tradition, her creation at the same time with the man (Gen. i), and without indication of inferiority, led to a quarrel between the two as to headship, which resulted in Lilith's leaving Paradise and wedding Sammael (Satan). Eve was then created for Adam, and it was probably to assert her inferiority that the "side" of Adam was interpreted as his rib. This folk-lore could not be unfamiliar in the Ghetto at Rome, and, consequently, among the Christians. It has long been understood that the Jewish notion that it was Lilith who assumed the form of the serpent in Eden, is represented in Michel Angelo's painting in the Vatican; where the serpent has the breast and head of a woman, and there is little reason to doubt that the woman present at the man's creation, alluded to in my previous paper, is meant for Lilith.
Eden is of Oriental origin. The wondrous garden of the Hindu deity Indra,—like Yahve, a rain-god,—is called in Sanscrit udyan; and there is good reason to believe that this word is related to the Persian Heden— the birthplace of Zoroaster. Our word "Paradise" is from the Persian (Zend) pairideza. The story of the Fall of Man, in Genesis, closely resembles that of the first man and woman, Meshia and Meshiane, in the Persian legend. There was in this (Persian) garden a sacred tree, Hom (related to the vine soma, of Hindu mythology), which was reserved by the gods, who from it derived immortality. Meshia and Meshiane were persuaded to eat of this sacred Hom, "tree of life," by Aeshma-deva (now Asmodeus), described in the Zend-Avesta as "the two-footed serpent of lies." (In John viii, 44, it is said the devil "is a liar and so is his father.")
In the Sistine Chapel the eye wanders from the panels of Lilith and Eve and Adam to the great painting of the Last Judgment. There is seen "the second Adam," as the "Lord from Heaven," consigning the wicked to hell. His face is full of wrath. Beside him is his mother, her face full of compassion, her hands crossed beneath his uplifted, menacing arm: she seems trying to restrain him. There is but one woman in all that heavenly hierarchy. The loss of that woman from Protestant altars may partly account for its hard dogmas and cruel history.
A lady told me that she once tried to console a poor Scotch woman who had lost her little boy, but the sobbing mother said: "What troubles me is that they be all men-folk up there (in Heaven) and won't know how to do for him." Protestants ridiculed the late Pope a good deal for his promulgation of the Virgin's immaculate conception, but they themselves have been steadily recalling the Madonna into their religion, and she may be seen reappearing in the Protestant pictures of Jesus, with feminine face, his hair parted in the middle and flowing down in soft locks; also in the renewed assertion of the tenderness and compassionateness of Christ, represented to the Catholic world in the Madonna. Were Michelangelo to reappear as an English or American artist and paint the severe and angry Christ of his Last Judgment, his picture would not be tolerated by cultured Christians.
Madonna Mary, as a mother of God, is really descended from Eve, as the mother of Cain (Yahve's son), from whom is traced the genealogy of Joseph, Mary's husband. Of course, in the first century nothing had been heard of the miraculous conception of Jesus. Paul declares Jesus to be the seed of David, and as Joseph alone—not Mary—was descended from David, the story of the conception by the Holy Ghost was evidently unknown to him. It was indeed essential that the Messiah should be legitimately descended from David, and so the New Testament genealogies have made it out. But the idea of Jesus as Messiah passed away before the idea of the Divine Man, which was essential to the inclusion of the Gentiles, who knew not any "Messiah." It was also essential to the moralisation of the new faith. The Messianic idea was an expression of Jewish aristocracy. It had nothing to do with morals. If the genealogy from Yahve to Joseph be examined, it will be seen that the continuation of the divine family in the earth is by no means associated with the preservation of virtue. Murderous Cain and Lamech, drunken Noah, mendacious Abraham, tricky Jacob, treacherous David, are eminent fruits on the family-tree of Yahve. Indeed, the aim and purport of this colony of demigods on earth would appear to be the propagation of Yahve's dominion in the world by the clan of his devotees.
Notwithstanding our demonstrations of the incredible character of the miraculous birth-legend of Jesus, it may be seen in another light. It represents, I believe, a much higher idea than the genealogical Jesus, from which it relieved the whole conception of religion. It superseded a tribal Messiah with a human-hearted, woman-born being, in whose divinity a paternal deity was represented, a Father of the whole human race. This larger and moral idea of the deity is indeed visible in some poetic passages of the Old Testament, especially in the deity who spares Nineveh, but it has not prevailed against the hard theological system, the rigid assertion of supremacy of the "chosen people."
The legend of Adam and Eve and the serpent is not alluded to in the Old Testament after its narration in Genesis, because it was imported by the Jews at a late period, and how much else they imported it is difficult to say; but they would appear to have projected into the legend of man's creation their Abrahamic and Noachian theology, according to which their tribe was both by covenant and miraculous generation the family of God. For the miraculous conception of Isaac by Sarah reappears in that of the first child, Cain, and in the first-born of God, by Mary. Whether this larger idea, surrendering tribal supremacy, was evolved from Persian importations, is a question involving extended exploration of Persian scripture and analyses of Christian and Jewish apocryphal books,—such as "The Wisdom of God" and "The Book of Enoch,"—the Writings of Philo and the Enostic Books. This is not necessary for my present purpose. There is danger in pressing too far striking analogies between religious and phonetic resemblances of names, words, and legends. As fingers resemble fingers all over the world, so some similarities must be expected in religions and mythologies, though of independent development. So far as we have gone, however, there is little difficulty in distinguishing Persian elements in the Judaic-Christian system. When we enter the Zoroastrian temple we find in their natural place and relation, figures which in the Old Testament are mixed, as if in a curiosity shop. Adam and Eve are introduced, and the Fall reported, only to be referred to no more, and Satan figures only in Job, a book adapted from other lands. And, what is of great significance, important figures, which, in the Jewish mythology, are personalities, with individual interests and characters, like men and women, are in the Persian system known only by their functions. In Judaic mythology the Fall of Man does not affect the human race at all; but in Persia it is fundamental, and was so ages before it was adopted as the foundation of Christianity.
The difference between the account of the creation of man in the first chapter of Genesis and that in the second was recognised by the ancient Jews and gave rise to various theories. The most important was that of Philo, who explained it by his doctrine of the Logos, or "Second God," through whom the Supreme Father created all things, and in whose image the man of Genesis i was ideally formed. Philo maintained that mortal nature could be fashioned in the image of the Supreme Father. Adam, formed in Genesis ii, he describes as "the visible man, in his likeness to the conceptual model"; that is, to the Logos-man of Genesis i,—"the incorporeal and spiritual man, in the likeness of the archetype, and as representing a higher character, the divine Logos, the first principle, the prototype, the original measure of all nature." The less learned and unphilosophical Jews, however, simply concluded that Adam had a first wife—the "female" of Genesis i—Eve being his second wife. This first wife became associated with a mysterious being, whose name, Lilith, first appears in an ancient Babylonian record, and is found in Isaiah xxxiv, 14, rendered "screech-owl" in the old version and "night-monster" in the revised version. I have explored the many curious legends of the enchanting Lilith in my "Demonology and Devil-Lore," but may here say that, according to Jewish tradition, her creation at the same time with the man (Gen. i), and without indication of inferiority, led to a quarrel between the two as to headship, which resulted in Lilith's leaving Paradise and wedding Sammael (Satan). Eve was then created for Adam, and it was probably to assert her inferiority that the "side" of Adam was interpreted as his rib. This folk-lore could not be unfamiliar in the Ghetto at Rome, and, consequently, among the Christians. It has long been understood that the Jewish notion that it was Lilith who assumed the form of the serpent in Eden, is represented in Michel Angelo's painting in the Vatican; where the serpent has the breast and head of a woman, and there is little reason to doubt that the woman present at the man's creation, alluded to in my previous paper, is meant for Lilith.
Eden is of Oriental origin. The wondrous garden of the Hindu deity Indra,—like Yahve, a rain-god,—is called in Sanscrit udyan; and there is good reason to believe that this word is related to the Persian Heden— the birthplace of Zoroaster. Our word "Paradise" is from the Persian (Zend) pairideza. The story of the Fall of Man, in Genesis, closely resembles that of the first man and woman, Meshia and Meshiane, in the Persian legend. There was in this (Persian) garden a sacred tree, Hom (related to the vine soma, of Hindu mythology), which was reserved by the gods, who from it derived immortality. Meshia and Meshiane were persuaded to eat of this sacred Hom, "tree of life," by Aeshma-deva (now Asmodeus), described in the Zend-Avesta as "the two-footed serpent of lies." (In John viii, 44, it is said the devil "is a liar and so is his father.")
In the Sistine Chapel the eye wanders from the panels of Lilith and Eve and Adam to the great painting of the Last Judgment. There is seen "the second Adam," as the "Lord from Heaven," consigning the wicked to hell. His face is full of wrath. Beside him is his mother, her face full of compassion, her hands crossed beneath his uplifted, menacing arm: she seems trying to restrain him. There is but one woman in all that heavenly hierarchy. The loss of that woman from Protestant altars may partly account for its hard dogmas and cruel history.
A lady told me that she once tried to console a poor Scotch woman who had lost her little boy, but the sobbing mother said: "What troubles me is that they be all men-folk up there (in Heaven) and won't know how to do for him." Protestants ridiculed the late Pope a good deal for his promulgation of the Virgin's immaculate conception, but they themselves have been steadily recalling the Madonna into their religion, and she may be seen reappearing in the Protestant pictures of Jesus, with feminine face, his hair parted in the middle and flowing down in soft locks; also in the renewed assertion of the tenderness and compassionateness of Christ, represented to the Catholic world in the Madonna. Were Michelangelo to reappear as an English or American artist and paint the severe and angry Christ of his Last Judgment, his picture would not be tolerated by cultured Christians.
Madonna Mary, as a mother of God, is really descended from Eve, as the mother of Cain (Yahve's son), from whom is traced the genealogy of Joseph, Mary's husband. Of course, in the first century nothing had been heard of the miraculous conception of Jesus. Paul declares Jesus to be the seed of David, and as Joseph alone—not Mary—was descended from David, the story of the conception by the Holy Ghost was evidently unknown to him. It was indeed essential that the Messiah should be legitimately descended from David, and so the New Testament genealogies have made it out. But the idea of Jesus as Messiah passed away before the idea of the Divine Man, which was essential to the inclusion of the Gentiles, who knew not any "Messiah." It was also essential to the moralisation of the new faith. The Messianic idea was an expression of Jewish aristocracy. It had nothing to do with morals. If the genealogy from Yahve to Joseph be examined, it will be seen that the continuation of the divine family in the earth is by no means associated with the preservation of virtue. Murderous Cain and Lamech, drunken Noah, mendacious Abraham, tricky Jacob, treacherous David, are eminent fruits on the family-tree of Yahve. Indeed, the aim and purport of this colony of demigods on earth would appear to be the propagation of Yahve's dominion in the world by the clan of his devotees.
Notwithstanding our demonstrations of the incredible character of the miraculous birth-legend of Jesus, it may be seen in another light. It represents, I believe, a much higher idea than the genealogical Jesus, from which it relieved the whole conception of religion. It superseded a tribal Messiah with a human-hearted, woman-born being, in whose divinity a paternal deity was represented, a Father of the whole human race. This larger and moral idea of the deity is indeed visible in some poetic passages of the Old Testament, especially in the deity who spares Nineveh, but it has not prevailed against the hard theological system, the rigid assertion of supremacy of the "chosen people."
The legend of Adam and Eve and the serpent is not alluded to in the Old Testament after its narration in Genesis, because it was imported by the Jews at a late period, and how much else they imported it is difficult to say; but they would appear to have projected into the legend of man's creation their Abrahamic and Noachian theology, according to which their tribe was both by covenant and miraculous generation the family of God. For the miraculous conception of Isaac by Sarah reappears in that of the first child, Cain, and in the first-born of God, by Mary. Whether this larger idea, surrendering tribal supremacy, was evolved from Persian importations, is a question involving extended exploration of Persian scripture and analyses of Christian and Jewish apocryphal books,—such as "The Wisdom of God" and "The Book of Enoch,"—the Writings of Philo and the Enostic Books. This is not necessary for my present purpose. There is danger in pressing too far striking analogies between religious and phonetic resemblances of names, words, and legends. As fingers resemble fingers all over the world, so some similarities must be expected in religions and mythologies, though of independent development. So far as we have gone, however, there is little difficulty in distinguishing Persian elements in the Judaic-Christian system. When we enter the Zoroastrian temple we find in their natural place and relation, figures which in the Old Testament are mixed, as if in a curiosity shop. Adam and Eve are introduced, and the Fall reported, only to be referred to no more, and Satan figures only in Job, a book adapted from other lands. And, what is of great significance, important figures, which, in the Jewish mythology, are personalities, with individual interests and characters, like men and women, are in the Persian system known only by their functions. In Judaic mythology the Fall of Man does not affect the human race at all; but in Persia it is fundamental, and was so ages before it was adopted as the foundation of Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment