Whatever the reason many may be looking more at stories such as Lilith, its being left out of the Bible as a legend is a subject of immense complication and significance. George Washington and the cherry tree and certain manifestations of the story of Babe Ruth and the kid are regularly touted, but not necessarily wholly true, if true at all. Bunker Hill was really Breed's Jill, San Juan Hill was actually Kettle Hill. And Paul Revere wasn't alone warning the Colonists of the approach of the English. It's very obvious that much of history has been edited, and the question can be put about the book that's supposed to be more honorable than any history, the Bible. Bunker Hill was taught for generations, not because it was true but because it was there! Lilith was not tuaght, because it wasn't there. In a novel, a protagonist can receive a letter and rush out to confront the letter writer. It's not necessarily the case whether the protagonist bandaged a paper cut before doing so. As it is often described, it "doesn't advance the action". Much is the same with sanitized or altered history, certain facts don't promote the propaganda the history is there to maintain. The Civil War was because the North wanted to artificially impede Southern states from cobbling their own trade pacts with other nations, and many of the complaints Germany had with their treatment after World War I, which led to the rise in popularity of the Nazis, were valid! The events not mentioned in a novel didn't necessarily exist, the real causes of the Crusades did! Certainly, there isn't anything in the story of Lilth that promotes the overall import of the Bible, but, by the same token, there isn't anything about the Apostle Mark tripping over a stone that would do that, either. It is asserted that Lilith didn't exist, but did the Apostle Mark never trip over a stone? Did something never exist simply because, for other reasons, it was never included in a book? Mark Shea's answer is more in line with Lilith not being included simply because what those who decided what the Bible should say decided not to include it. A family album might not contain a picture of someone's weight gain or bad haircut, but does that mean they didn't exist? Isn't truth more valuable in the Bible than providing a united front? After this statement, that the Bible is concocted only to reflect positive aspects and not note what may be negative characteristics of its tradition, how can anyone trust it every again?