Night-Monster
Night-monster
occurs in the margin of the Auth. Ver. at Isa 34:14, as the rendering of the Hebrew lilith’ (), derived, from layil (), night. The text has screech-owl, but the marginal reading is preferable. The word doubtless refers to the night-specters or ghosts, supposed by superstitious Hebrews to frequent the desert. The Sept. renders , which, as Bochart (Hieroz. pt. ii, lib. vi, p. 840) shows, refers, not to animals, but to ghostly appearances. (See also Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. p. 1140; Gesen. Conmment. in Isa 13:22; Isa 34:14.) SEE SPECTRE.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Night Monster
NIGHT MONSTER.See Lilith.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Night-Monster
ntmon-ster (, llth; Septuagint , onokentauros; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) lamia):
I.THE ACCEPTED TRANSLATION
1.Professor Rogers’ Statement
2.Exception to the Statement
II.FOLKLORE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
1.Paucity of References
2.References in Highly Poetical Passages
3.The References Allusive
4.Possibility of Non-mythological Interpretation
5.The Term Lilith.
I. The Accepted Translation.
The term night-monster’ is a hypothetical translation of the Hebrew term , llth, used once only, in Isa 34:14. The word is translated in the King James Version screech-owl, margin night monster, the Revised Version (British and American) night-monster, margin Lilith. The term night-monster is also an interpretation, inasmuch as it implies that the Hebrew word is a Babylonian loan-word, and that the reference indicates a survival of primitive folklore.
1. Professor Rogers’ Statement:
Concerning this weird superstition, and its strange, single appearance in the Book of Isaiah, Professor Rogers has this to say: The lil, or ghost, was a night-demon of terrible and baleful influence upon men, and only to be cast out with many incantations. The lil was attended by a serving maid, the ardat lili (maid of night), which in the Semitic development was transferred into the feminine lilitu. It is most curious and interesting to observe that this ghost-demon lived on through the history of the Babylonian religion, and was carried out into the Hebrew religion, there to find one single mention in the words of one of the Hebrew prophets (Religions of Assyria and Babylonia, 76, 77).
2. Exception to the Statement:
Exception is to be taken to this statement, admitting the etymological assumption upon which it rests, that lilith is a word in mythology, on the ground that the conception of a night-demon has no place in the religion of the Hebrews as exhibited in the Scriptures. It is certainly worthy of more than passing notice that a conception which is very prominent in the Babylonian mythology, and is worked out with great fullness of doctrinal and ritualistic detail, has, among the Hebrews, so far receded into the background as to receive but one mention in the Bible, and that a bald citation without detail in a highly poetic passage.
The most that can possibly be said, with safety, is that if the passage in Isa is to be taken as a survival of folklore, it is analogous to those survivals of obsolete ideas still to be found in current speech, and in the literature of the modern world (see LUNATIC). There is no evidence of active participation in this belief, or even of interest in it as such, on the part of the prophetical writer. On the contrary, the nature of the reference implies that the word was used simply to add a picturesque detail to a vivid, imaginative description. All positive evidence of Hebrew participation in this belief belongs to a later date (see Buxtorf’s Lexicon, under the word Talmud).
II. Folklore in the Old Testament.
Attention has been called elsewhere to the meagerness, in the matter of detail, of Old Testament demonology (see DEMON, DEMONOLOGY; COMMUNION WITH DEMONS). A kindred fact of great importance should be briefly noticed here, namely, that the traces of mythology and popular folklore in the Bible are surprisingly faint and indistinct. We have the following set of items in which such traces have been discovered: Rahab (, rahabh), mentioned in Job 9:13; Job 26:12; Isa 51:9; Tanin (, tannn), Isa 27:1; Leviathan (, liwyathan), Job 3:8; Psa 74:14; Isa 27:1; Eze 29:3; Job 41 passim; the serpent in the sea, in Amo 9:3; Seirim (, serm), 2Ch 11:15; Lev 17:7; 2Ki 23:8; Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14; Alukah (, alukah), Pro 30:15; Azazel (, aza’zel) Lev 16:8, Lev 16:10, Lev 16:26 Lilith (ut sup.), Isa 34:14, Isa 34:15.
A review of these passages brings certain very interesting facts to light.
1. Paucity of References:
The references are few in number. Rahab is mentioned 3 times; Tannin (in this connection), once; Leviathan, 5 times; the serpent in the sea, once; Seirim, 5 times (twice with references to idols); Alukah, once; Azazel, 3 times in one chapter and in the same connection; Lilith, once.
2. References in Highly Poetical Passages:
These references, with the single exception of Azazel to which we shall return a little later, are all in highly poetical passages. On general grounds of common-sense we should not ascribe conscious and deliberate mythology to writers or speakers of the Bible in passages marked by imaginative description and poetic imagery, any more than we should ascribe such beliefs to modern writers under like circumstances. Poetry is the realm of truth and not of matter of fact. In passages of this tenor, mythology may explain the word itself and justify its appropriateness, it does not explain the use of the term or disclose the personal view of the writer.
3. The References Allusive:
All these references are in the highest degree allusive. They exhibit no exercise of the mythological fancy and have received no embroidery with details. This is most significant. So far as our specific references are concerned, we are dealing with petrified mythology, useful as literary embellishment, but no longer interesting in itself.
4. Possibility of Non-Mythological Interpretation:
Every one of these words is sufficiently obscure in origin and uncertain in meaning to admit the possibility of a non-mythological interpretation; indeed, in several of the parallels a non-mythological use is evident. Bible-Dict. writers are apt to say (e.g. concerning llth) that there is no doubt concerning the mythological reference. The reader may discover for himself that the lexicographers are more cautious (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, in the place cited.). The use of Rahab in Job 26:12 is not mythological for the simple reason that it is figurative; the use of Leviathan in Isa 27:1 and Eze 29:3 comes under the same category. In Job 40 and 41, if the identification of behemoth and leviathan with hippopotamus and crocodile be allowed to stand and the mythological significance of the two be admitted, we have the stage where mythology has become a fixed and universal symbolism which can be used to convey truth apart from the belief in it as reality (see LEVIATHAN; Job, New Century Bible, p. 335; Meth. Rev., May, 1913, 429 ff). The sea serpent of Amo 9:3 is not necessarily the dragon or Tiamat, and the use of the term is merely suggestive. The term ser is in literal use for he-goat (Num 15:24, et al.) and is doubtful throughout. Ewald translates it he-goat in Isa 34:14 and Satyr in Isa 13:21. It means literally shaggy monster (Vulgate, pilosus). We do not hesitate on the basis of the evidence to erase Alukah (Pro 30:15, the Revised Version (British and American) horse-leech, by some translated vampire) and Azazel (Lev 16:8, etc.), interpreted as a demon of the desert, from the list of mythological words altogether. As ripe a scholar as Perowne (Proverbs, Cambridge Bible) combats the idea of vampire, and Kellogg (Leviticus, Expositor’s Bible, in the place cited.) has simply put to rout the mythological-demonic interpretation of Azazel. Even in the case of llth the derivation is obscure, and the objections urged against the demonic idea by Alexander have not altogether lost their force (see Commentary on Isaiah, in the place cited.). There is a close balance of probabilities in one direction or the other.
5. The Term Lilith:
One further fact with regard to llth must be considered. The term occurs in a list of creatures, the greater part of which are matter-of-fact animals or birds. A comparative glance at a half-dozen translates of the passage Isa 34:11-14 will convince any reader that there are a great many obscure and difficult words to be found in the list. Following Delitzsch’s translation we have: pelican, hedge-hog, horned-owl, raven, wild-dog, ostrich, forest-demon (ser), night-monster. This is a curious mixture of real and imaginary creatures. Alexander acutely observes that there is too much or too little mythology in the passage. One of two conclusions would seem to follow from a list so constructed: Either all these creatures are looked upon as more or less demonic (see Whitehouse, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), article Demon, with which compare West M. Alexander, Demonic Possession in the New Testament, 16), or, as seems to the present writer far more probable, none in the list is considered otherwise than as supposed literal inhabitants of the wilderness. The writer of Isa 34:14, who was not constructing a scientific treatise, but using his imagination, has constructed a list in which are combined real and imaginary creatures popularly supposed to inhabit unpeopled solitudes. There still remains a by no means untenable supposition that none of the terms necessarily are mythological in this particular passage.