Genesis 6: The Marriage of the Sons of God with Daughters of Men and the “Giants”

I think there is a tendency among us to want to just skip over the initial verses of Genesis 6, because they really are difficult to understand and have a very “mythological” feel to them. Have a look:

Genesis 6:1–5 (KJV)

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

What in the world is this passage on about? Who are the sons of God who married the daughters of men? Who are these giants and these famous mighty men of old? Like I said, we usually tend to skip these verses instead of trying to sort out what’s going on here. But anciently, these verses were quite important, and we see them forming a more central part of larger narratives in some of the Jewish and Christian pseudepigraphal literature.

First of all, the expression “daughters of men/Adam” is straightforward. What kind of men these were will be addressed shortly.

The identity of the “sons of God” is a much more complicated issue. The Hebrew text has b’nei ha-Elohim, which is a title commonly used to refer to the class of beings known today as “angels”, but literally means just what it says “sons of (the) God” (or, alternatively, “sons of the gods”). The “angels” were originally conceived as divine beings or gods who were subordinate to the Father Deity, and members of the Divine Council. Later Jewish theology would not allow for multiple gods, so by the time the Septuagint was compiled, the sons of God became simply “messengers” (angel = malak = messenger).

Many ancient sources, most notably 1 Enoch 6-19, but also other texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Midrashim, and other Jewish literature associate the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen. 6 with the fallen angels (sometimes called “the Watchers”) that rebelled against God and brought, unauthorized, heavenly secrets to Earth. Following this tradition, it was these divine beings who married the dau(ghters of men (human women) and whose offspring were the giants.  This story, with its rebellious divine beings who are imprisoned and giant offspring, is reminiscent of the story of the Titans of Greek mythology (Richard Bauckham argues that 1 Enoch likely didn’t borrow from Greek mythology, but that both must have had a common source).¹

An alternative to this tradition is one that many Christians later adopted, that the “sons of God” in the story refer to human beings of the line of Seth. In the Christian retelling of Genesis known as The Cave of Treasures (probably 6th cent.), while Cain and his family went further down the primordial cosmic mountain to dwell, Seth and his family remained further up, near the gates of the Garden of Eden. While the descendants of Cain were known as the “children of men”, the Sethites were referred to as the “children of God.”  From the text of The Cave of Treasures:

And lasciviousness and fornication increased among the children of Cain, and they had nothing to occupy them except fornication–now they had no obligation [to pay] tribute, and they had neither prince nor governor–and eating, and drinking, and lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and dancing and singing to instruments of music, and the wanton sportings of the devils, and the laughter which affordeth pleasure to the devils, and the sounds of the furious lust of men neighing after women. And Satan, finding [his] opportunity in this work of error, rejoiced greatly, because thereby he could compel the sons of Seth to come down from that holy mountain. There they had been made to occupy the place of that army [of angels] that fell [with Satan], there they were beloved by God, there they were held in honour by the angels, and were called “sons of God,” even as the blessed David saith in the psalm, “I have said [Fol. 12b, col. 1], Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” (Ps. lxxxii. 6.)

Meanwhile fornication reigned among the daughters of Cain, and without shame [several] women would run after one man. And one man would attack another, and they committed fornication in the presence of each other shamelessly… And Satan had been made ruler (or prince) of that camp [Fol. 12b, col. 2]. And when the men and women were stirred up to lascivious frenzy by the devilish playing of the reeds which emitted musical sounds, and by the harps which the men played through the operation of the power of the devils, and by the sounds of the tambourines and of the sistra which were beaten and rattled through the agency of evil spirits, the sounds of their laughter were heard in the air above them, and ascended to that holy mountain.

And when the children of Seth heard the noise, and uproar, and shouts of laughter in the camp of the children of Cain, about one hundred of them who were mighty men of war gathered together, and set their faces to go down to the camp of the children of Cain. When Yârêd heard their words and knew their intention, he became sorely afflicted, and he sent and called them to him, and said unto them, “By the holy blood of Abel, I will have you swear that not one of you shall go down from this holy mountain. Remember ye [Fol. 13a, col. 1] the oaths which our fathers Seth, and Ânôsh, and Kainân, and Mahlâlâîl made you to swear.” And Enoch also said unto them, “Hearken, O ye children of Seth, no man who shall transgress the commandment of Yârêd, and [break] the oaths of our fathers, and go down from this mountain, shall never again ascend it.” But the children of Seth would neither hearken to the commandment of Yârêd, nor to the words of Enoch, and they dared to transgress the commandment, and those hundred men, who were mighty men of war, went down [to the camp of Cain]. And when they saw that the daughters of Cain were beautiful in form and that they were naked and unashamed, the children of Seth became inflamed with the fire of lust. And when the daughters of Cain saw the goodliness of the children of Seth, they gripped them like ravening beasts and defiled their bodies. And the children of Seth slew their souls by fornication with the daughters of Cain. And when the children of Seth wished to go up [again] to that holy mountain [Fol. 13a, col. 2], after they had come down and fallen, the stones of that holy mountain became fire in their sight, and having defiled their souls with the fire of fomication, God did not permit them to ascend to that holy place. And, moreover, very many others made bold and went down after them, and they, too, fell.

I apologize for the rather graphic nature of that story, but it is a very interesting alternative to the fallen angels tradition. The “sons of God” in this narrative are not angels, but humans who, through their adherence to their oaths of righteousness have been exalted to the status of angels (sons of God). Those who decide to descend from that exalted place and break their covenants (by being unchaste, engaging in loud laughter, etc.), become fallen and are not permitted to ascend again to their previous blessed state.

While some argue that this second retelling of the story is very late and could not have been the original tradition, there are a number of aspects of it that are quite ancient, especially the use of the term “son of God” to refer to mortals. Just as an “angel” (malak) could refer to both divine and human messengers, the term “son of God” could refer to either a divine or human being. While the more modern theological perspective creates an unbridgeable gap between the divine and human, this division was not nearly so pronounced anciently.  It is likely that both heavenly and earthly beings could be seen as sons of God.

We know that the Davidic kings, as in other ancient cultures, were considered to be sons of God (Ps. 2:7; 109:3 LXX; 2 Sam. 7:14). Israel (the Israelites) as a whole are sometimes referred to as children of God (Deut. 14:1; Deut. 32:5–6, 19–20; Isa. 43:6–7; Isa. 64:8; Jer. 2:27; Mal. 2:10).  The idea that righteous humans are referred to as “sons of God” is not uncommon and is very ancient.  Similar ideas are perpetuated through the intertestamental period, and the usage, of course, is well known in the New Testament, where the righteous may become children of God through Christ (e.g. John 1:12; Philip. 2:15; Rom. 8:14;  1 Jn. 3:1–2). Compare this with similar ideas in LDS Scripture: Moro. 7:26, 48; Moses 8:13, 21; 3 Ne. 9:17; D&C 11:30; D&C 34:3; D&C 76:58.

So which story is the “true” one? I really don’t know. Theologically, I side with the Sethite story because I don’t believe that divine noncorporal beings could mate with humans. However, I am quite partial to the Enochic literature and am reluctant to discount its narrative so quickly.  The story of the Watchers in the book of 1 Enoch, as we now have it, on the other hand, is quite surely not the most ancient version of the story, and may have taken an older tradition regarding the fallen angels and reworked it to fit the context we read of in Genesis 6.  However, I think the story of the Watchers, the fallen angels, should belong to a different part of the history.

But what about the giant offspring? That certainly sounds like it would fit the mythological tone of the Enochic literature!  However, if we look at the ancient texts, we see that we should likely not understand the “giants” to have been beings of extraordinary size that could have resulted from the pairing of divine and human beings. While it was common anciently to view the gods as beings of extraordinary size (and their offspring could have had similar dimensions), that may not be what we are looking at here.  We get the term “giants” in this passage from the Latin rendering of the Greek Gigantes, which means “earthborn.” However, the Hebrew term used, Nephilim, has to do with their status as “fallen.” They could have been fallen because their fathers were the fallen angels, because of their great wickedness, or simply because they were already dead (being from a previous and ancient generation from the perspective of the author), which seems the most likely interpretation.

The passage goes on to say that these “fallen ones” were the mighty men (gibborim) of old. Gibborim is a term usually used to describe mighty warriors or famous hunters, like Nimrod (Gen. 10:8). So, while this all the subject of much dispute and is very obscure, the “giants” of Genesis 6 may have been much less “mythological” than the text and some traditions make them out to be.  In my current humble opinion, I would say that they were likely not enormous creatures that resulted from the marriages of angels to humans, but were the offspring of those human saints who married outside of the covenant. They were known for their great skills as warriors and hunters. Again, I could be wrong on this, but that is what makes most sense to me at this point.

Note how the version of the story in Moses 8 generally follows this view, reworking the Genesis account in important ways:

13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.

14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice.

(Note how the troublesome “sons of God” is not used here, but it is made clear that both the men and women are mortals. Furthermore, the “daughters” are the daughters of Noah’s sons, who marry men of the world. The perspective here is quite different.)

18 And in those days there were giants on the earth, and they sought Noah to take away his life; but the Lord was with Noah, and the power of the Lord was upon him.

(Giants are mentioned here, but the emphasis is not on their size, but on their violent nature.)

19 And the Lord ordained Noah after his own order, and commanded him that he should go forth and declare his Gospel unto the children of men, even as it was given unto Enoch.

20 And it came to pass that Noah called upon the children of men that they should repent; but they hearkened not unto his words;

21 And also, after that they had heard him, they came up before him, saying: Behold, we are the sons of God; have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men? And are we not eating and drinking, and marrying and giving in marriage? And our wives bear unto us children, and the same are mighty men, which are like unto men of old, men of great renown. And they hearkened not unto the words of Noah.

(The men who have married the “daughters” consider themselves to be sons of God, but it is nowhere indicated that they are anything but mortal. They claim that their children are mighty men (not giants), like them of old — perhaps this declaration is in response to warnings that they would be less so.)

The House of Noah

We saw above that Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, were called “sons of God” because of their righteousness. We read that Noah walked with God, as had Enoch. The biblical narrative seems to relate Enoch’s walking with God to his ascension/translation (Gen. 5:24).

As I said above, I don’t want to focus on the Flood story, but on the “house” of Noah. Noah became, essentially, a new Adam, the father of the human race after the Flood had destroyed all the rest of the human race.  As an aside, it is interesting to note that this is taking place, according to the biblical record, over 1500 years since the Fall of Adam. In 1500 years (especially if most people lived for hundreds of years before dying), there would likely have been many millions of people on the earth.  If some people worry about over-population now, just think how the world would be if the Flood hadn’t taken out 99.99% of that early population!  But if Noah and his sons “walked with God”, how did the world get so wicked again, so fast?



The first act of post-diluvian unrighteousness recorded in the Bible is the story of Ham uncovering the nakedness of his father Noah, which was followed, oddly, by Noah cursing Ham’s youngest son, Canaan. While the nature of the act (seeing his father “uncovered”) is rather obscure, there is no reason given for why Ham’s son is cursed and not Ham himself. This has been a source of debate for scholars.  The summary given in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (under “Canaan” is helpful:

The fourth son of Ham and the father of Sidon and ten other families of the Canaanites (Gen 10:6). When Noah learned what Ham, his youngest son, had done (seeing his father uncovered and telling his brothers of it); Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham (Gen 9:18–27). According to the curse, Canaan would be a slave to Ham’s brothers, Shem and Japheth. For a discussion of the meaning of the name Canaan, and the peoples and lands encompassed by that term, see CANAAN (PLACE). Two problems emerge from the mention of Canaan in Genesis 9: why is Canaan cursed rather than the apparent perpetrator Ham; and what is the implication of the curse for Canaan and his descendants?

A composite text, in which the narrative and the curse were originally distinct (the “youngest son” of 9:24 would then refer to Canaan, rather than Ham, and would be connected with the curse which follows) and preserved in two separate traditions, might explain origins (Neiman 1966: 133; Westermann Genesis 1–11 BKAT, 650–51), but does not explain the present text. Some have attempted to solve the problem of why Canaan was cursed by eliminating two Hebrew words in vv 18 and 22 (“Ham, the father of”), so that Canaan, rather than Ham, becomes the principal actor in the narrative (Gunkel Genesis HKAT 3: 69–70; Skinner Genesis ICC, 182; Schottroff WMANT 30: 148 n. 3; von Rad Genesis OTL, 135). But this lacks textual support. The same is true of attempts to portray Ham as involved in incestuous relationships with his mother (Bassett 1971: 235) or with his father (Phillips 1980: 41). Commentators have noted how these (and other similar explanations of sexual misconduct) were intended to symbolize the sinful practices of the Canaanites (Cassuto 1964: 154–55; Wenham Genesis 1–15 WBC, 201). The emphasis upon the identification of Ham as the father of Canaan has led to the suggestion that Ham learned how to do the evil deed from Canaan (Jacob 1934: 262–65).

Older explanations which observe Noah’s blessing upon his sons (Gen 9:1) as irreversible have been used to explain Noah’s inability to curse Ham. It has further been suggested that since Ham was the youngest of Noah’s sons, the curse would be transferred to the youngest of Ham’s sons, Canaan (cf. Cassuto 1964: 153).²

While this doesn’t sound especially ethical or appropriate, it seems that perhaps Canaan was cursed with regards to the priesthood because Ham already had the priesthood, so it was denied to his offspring.  From other sources we see Ham as not merely (and apparently innocently) seeing his father’s “nakedness”, but as trying to take from him his priesthood authority, as represented by his special priestly garment, said to be the garment that God made for Adam after the Fall.  You have probably read or heard of this story from Hugh Nibley or other LDS authors. I realize that I just posted something on this from Jeff Bradshaw’s book, but just recently I also came across this tradition again while reading a book by a non-LDS author. In his section on “The Garments of Adam and Eve”, Howard Schwartz in Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, retells the Jewish traditions about the passing on of Adam’s priestly garment:

When Adam and Eve were first created, they were clothed, body and soul, with garments of light. Some say those garments of light were made entirely of clouds of glory. Others say they were made of holy luminous letters that God had given them, which shed radiance like a torch, broad at the bottom and narrow at the top. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, the garments of light were replaced by garments of skins, as it is said,”And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). It is said that these garments were created during twilight on the sixth day of Creation, just before the first Sabbath. Some say that they consisted of a hornlike substance, smooth as a fingernail and as beautiful as a jewel, while others say that they were made of goats’ skin or the wool of camels. Still others insist that they were made of the hide of the serpent who led them astray in the Garden of Eden.

Adam handed down the garments to Seth, and Seth to Methuselah, and Methuselah to Noah, who took them with him on the ark. And when they left the ark, Ham, the son of Noah, bequeathed them to Nimrod, although others say that Nimrod stole them. When Nimrod wore Adam’s garments, his outward appearance was that of Adam, and the creatures were humbled before him and would bow down, thinking he was their king.

The garments came into the possession of Esau when he defeated Nimrod, and it was this garment that Jacob wore when he went to his father, Isaac. For that day Esau had not put them on, so that they remained in the house. Rebecca then took the best clothes of her older son Esau, which were there in the house, and had her younger son Jacob put them on (Gen. 27:15). Isaac smelled the smell of Esau’s garments, and therefore he blessed Jacob.

Some say that the repentance of Adam and Eve earned a different set of garments for them, garments of light. At the End of Days, God will dress the Messiah in such a garment, which will shine from one end of the world to the other. And the Jews will draw upon its light and say to the Messiah, “blessed is the hour in which the Messiah was created.”

This is an example of what might be called a “chain midrash”, because it links together the chain of the generations, from Adam until the Messiah. Other similar midrashic traditions are found about the staff of Moses, the book that the angel Raziel is said to have given Adam, and the glowing stone known as the Tzohar. Sometimes there are contradictory lines of descent, as in the case of Adam’s garment. According to one account in Midrash Tanhuma, the garment was diverted into the hands of the evil king Nimrod, while in an opposing account, it was transferred from Noah to Shem to Abraham, who passed it down to Isaac. Isaac is said to have given it to Esau, his firstborn, but Esau entrusted it to his mother, Rebecca, when he saw his own wives practiced idolatry. And, as is reported in the biblical account, Rebecca took the beloved garments of her son Esau and gave them to Jacob, at the time he received the stolen blessing.

According to Sefer ha-Zikhronot, the garments of Adam and Eve were among eight things created on the first day of creation. Other sources describe them as being created at twilight on the sixth day of Creation. As is apparent, there were alternate explanations about the nature of the garments of Adam and Eve. Genesis 3:21 seems to clearly state that they were made of the skins of animals, while in the midrash they are also described as consisting of a hornlike substance. The notion that their original garments were made of light derives from the word or, which when spelled with an aleph means “light,” while when spelled with an ayin means “skin” as well as “leather.” It is spelled with an ayin in Genesis 3:21, but Genesis Rabbah 20:12 states that in the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir, the or in the biblical verse was written with an aleph. Zohar 2:229b explains that they were originally garments of light, not of skin, for when Adam was about to enter the Garden of Eden for the first time, God dressed him in garments of light, of the sort used by the angels in paradise. Indeed, the light of Adam’s garments was more elevated than their own. Had he not been wearing those garments, Adam could not have entered the garden. And when he was driven out of Eden, he required different garments, so the Lord made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them (Gen. 3:21).

A variant of this myth has Noah’s son, Shem [Melchizedek], giving the garments to Abraham, who wears them when he takes Isaac to Mount Moriah to be sacrificed. Later they were inherited by Isaac, who gave them to his Firstborn son, Esau. These were the garments Jacob put on when he pretended to be Esau in order to receive his father’s blessing. Thus when Jacob entered the room, Isaac smelled the fragrance that he had smelled when he was tied upon the altar.

Rabbi Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin (1823-1900) proposes that the sin of Adam and Eve, followed by their repentance, brought them to a more exalted state than before the sin, symbolized by their receiving new garments, replacing the garments of skin with garments of light. This is a surprising view of the role of sin and repentance in stimulating spiritual growth. Rabbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad, known as Ben Ish Hai, asserts in Ben Yehoyada that Torah study has the power to reverse the process, changing the garments of skins back into garments of light.³

Sorry for that huge and rather repetitive diversion. My point, I guess, in sharing that (besides the fact that it is really cool) is to show that there was a tradition that the sin of Ham was that of stealing the garment of the priesthood. This unauthorized usurping of priesthood authority apparently led to Ham’s descendants assuming that they had the priesthood when they, in reality, did not.

Click for Larger Image

It is interesting that in some traditions Nimrod becomes the possessor of the garment, and that because of its influence he is recognized as king. Nimrod considers himself to be a god and becomes the king of Babylon, where he sponsors probably the greatest post-Flood sin up to that point, the building of the tower of Babel, a great ziggurat temple, with which he hoped to steal further authority from God (that’s my understanding of it, anyways).

To put in a finishing thought, we see that God blesses those who who are faithful to their covenants with him. They are the children of God — exalted, held in a blessed state, and permitted to bear the priesthood authority of God to enhance their lives. However, when they insist on breaking those covenants, exercising unrighteous dominion and usurping the authority of God, they will lose their blessings and be left to falter in their fallen state.

1. Although elements of Greek Titan mythology have been identified here and in Gen 6:1–4 (Kraeling 1947, who separates the gibbōrı̂m from the Nephilim), the presence of a common source for the traditions of 1 Enoch and those of the Greek world is more likely (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter WBC, 50–53, 248–49). Speiser (Genesis AB, 46) identifies this source as Hurrian. Kilmer (1987) has sought to identify the Nephilim with the apkallu of Mesopotamian tradition. Freedman, D. N. (1996). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
2. Freedman, D. N. (1996). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
3. Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, 437-438

TEXT: 1 Enoch 1-36 = Book of the Watchers. Esp. chs. 14-15 – Enoch’s vision of the Heavenly Temple• Genesis 5-6 (in Hebrew). (You should probably look at these passages first for this post to make sense.)

Readings:
• Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Charlesworth, 1 Enoch 1:5-89.
• The Apocalyptic Imagination, John J. Collins, ch. 2
• M. Himmelfarb, “From Ezekiel to the Book of the Watchers,” in: Ascent to Heaven, 9-28

Additional Readings: A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, chapters 1-2.

Paradise Lost by Gustave Dore

Comparing 1 Enoch 6-7 to Genesis 5-6

In class, Dr. Orlov had us look at the similarities between 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch 6-7 and Genesis 5-6 (see links above–the Enoch link uses R.H. Charles’ translation, which I don’t think is as good as the translation in Charlesworth).  They are presenting the same basic story, but Enoch has many more details. Gabriele Boccaccini (of Univ. of Michigan) believes Gen 6 is an abbreviated version of the more ancient Enoch/Watchers tradition–the author/compiler of Genesis is acknowledging the known story for his audience.

Gen 5-6 is quite faithful to the Enochic story. Did Genesis provoke this tradition, or was it borrowing from an older tradition? Perhaps both Gen and Enoch are based on an older tradition (I favor this theory).

We looked at Gen 5-6 in Hebrew. Where our English translation has God, the Hebrew text alternates between the term elohim and ha-elohim (the definite article). So what we should have is God and the God–or, more likely–God and the gods (or divine beings or angels).  In the Dead Sea Scrolls, ha-elohim seems to refer to angels.

When it says “elohim” without the article “ha”, it is referring to God (according to James VanderKam–Enoch: A Man for All Generations)  We see ha-elohim (angels) and Elohim in the same verse (5:24). This is not a mistake–this is a deliberate differentiation.  This alternating between the two terms goes on throughout the whole story.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. 

p `~yhi(l{a/ Atßao xq:ïl’-yKi( WNn<¨yaew> ~yhi_l{a/h’*-ta, %Anàx] %Leîh;t.YIw:

In the first instance of “God” in this verse, the Hebrew has “ha-elohim”. The second instance, it is simply “elohim”. Why the difference? According to VanderKam, the verse should say: 

And Enoch walked with the angels (watchers); and he was not, for God took him.

This is what we see in 1 Enoch. Before Enoch is taken up into heaven, he is already in frequent contact with the angels. Going back to Gen 5:22–Enoch walked with the ha-elohim (angels, not God).  In verses 22 and 24–Enoch walked–the Hebrew verb is halach.  Dr. Orlov suggested that this can be translated as “he went to and fro, back and forth”. He was making repeated trips. Going back and forth on behalf of the angels. 

 So verse 24 is appears to be summarizing the story in 1 Enoch where Enoch is going back and forth on behalf of angels– God took him up into heaven and he intercedes on behalf of the Watchers.

Gen 6:11–Instead of stating that the Earth was corrupt in the face of God (liphnei ha-elohim), it makes more sense to say: the Earth was corrupt in the presence of the angels. This fits the Enochic story that the angels came to the Earth and it was corrupted by their presence.

A personal note: I believe that the preceding points are good evidence that if Genesis is not paraphrasing from an older Enochic tradition, then at least both of them are borrowing from a related older tradition. Does that mean, then, that we should incorporate the story of Semihaza, Azazel, and the other Watchers coming down to Earth and marrying human women–giving birth to giants–into our belief system? Should we accept it as reality or as “gospel truth”? Not necessarily.

It is interesting to note that some early Christians (as can be seen by early texts such as The Cave of Treasures and the Armenian Adam and Eve accounts) believed that the “sons of God” referred to in Genesis were the sons of Seth, the righteous son of Adam. The sons of Seth are referred to as the sons of God and even “angels.” So, when the story speaks of the sons of God coming down to marry the daughters of men, some Christians believed that it was the sons of Seth coming down from their land (which was on the mountain of God just below Eden), breaking their covenants, and mingling with the daughters of Cain. Could this be the correct understanding of what is happening in Gen. 5-6? Or were the early Christians just mixing the Genesis and Enochic accounts? It is hard to know. However, I tend to like this version of the story.

Furthermore, Dr. Orlov suggested that the Enoch story that we have may have been a Second Temple embellishment of an older tradition, aimed at creating polemics against the Zadokite priests of the second temple, whom the Enochic writers saw as corrupt. When the story speaks of angels descending from heaven to marry the daughters of men, it may simply be a metaphor for the corrupt temple priests marrying foreign women outside the covenant. This is a theory put forward by some scholars, including David W. Suter in Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch.  So, while the Enochic tradition and the story of the Watchers is something to take seriously and something we must deal with, it is possible that the story that we have in 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch is not the original tradition.

Further Items of Interest in 1 Enoch 1-36 (The Book of the Watchers)

While you can read the whole story on your own (following the link above), I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to post here one of the most exciting parts of the Enoch story–his ascension into heaven and vision of God on His throne in the heavenly temple. This takes place beginning in ch. 14:8:

And the vision was shown to me thus: Behold, in the vision clouds invited me and a mist summoned me, and the course of the stars and the lightnings sped and hastened me, and the winds in the vision caused me to fly and lifted me upward, and bore me into heaven. And I went in till I drew nigh to a wall which is built of crystals and surrounded by tongues of fire: and it began to affright me. And I went into the tongues of fire and drew nigh to a large house which was built of crystals: and the walls of the house were like a tesselated floor (made) of crystals, and its groundwork was of crystal. Its ceiling was like the path of the stars and the lightnings, and between them were fiery cherubim, and their heaven was (clear as) water. A flaming fire surrounded the walls, and its portals blazed with fire. And I entered into that house, and it was hot as fire and cold as ice: there were no delights of life therein: fear covered me, and trembling got hold upon me. And as I quaked and trembled, I fell upon my face. And I beheld a vision, And lo! there was a second house, greater than the former, and the entire portal stood open before me, and it was built of flames of fire. And in every respect it so excelled in splendour and magnificence and extent that I cannot describe to you its splendour and its extent. And its floor was of fire, and above it were lightnings and the path of the stars, and its ceiling also was flaming fire. And I looked and saw therein a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun, and there was the vision of cherubim. And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so that I could not look thereon. And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun and was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold His face by reason of the magnificence and glory and no flesh could behold Him. The flaming fire was round about Him, and a great fire stood before Him, and none around could draw nigh Him: ten thousand times ten thousand (stood) before Him, yet He needed no counselor. And the most holy ones who were nigh to Him did not leave by night nor depart from Him. And until then I had been prostrate on my face, trembling: and the Lord called me with His own mouth, and said to me: ‘ Come hither, Enoch, and hear my word (the translation in Charlesworth has “Come near to me, Enoch, and to my holy Word”).’ And one of the holy ones came to me and waked me (Charlesworth: “lifted me up”), and He made me rise up and approach the door: and I bowed my face downwards.

This chapter is great in that it presents to us a vision of heaven, and the heavenly temple in particular. The heavenly temple is divided into three sections–a courtyard, delineated by a wall of crystal and tongues of fire; a more glorious first house, or hall, with crystal and fire, and the heavens and cherubim depicted on the ceiling; and an inner house, more glorious than Enoch can describe, with fire on both floor and ceiling. In this inner sanctuary, Enoch sees the throne of God (which is described with expressions similar to the merkavah chariot throne in Ezekiel) and an anthropomorphic God sitting on the throne. He is granted the great privilege, despite his fear, of remaining in God’s presence and speaking with Him.

Also, there is a neat explanation of the Tree of Life in chapters 24 and 25:

…And fragrant trees encircled the throne. And amongst them was a tree such as I had never yet smelt, neither was any amongst them nor were others like it: it had a fragrance beyond all fragrance, and its leaves and blooms and wood wither not for ever: 5 and its fruit is beautiful, and its fruit n resembles the dates of a palm. Then I said: ‘How beautiful is this tree, and fragrant, and its leaves are fair, and its blooms very delightful in appearance.’ 6 Then answered Michael, one of the holy and honoured angels who was with me, and was their leader. 25:1 And he said unto me: ‘Enoch, why dost thou ask me regarding the fragrance of the tree, 2 and why dost thou wish to learn the truth?’ Then I answered him saying: ‘I wish to 3 know about everything, but especially about this tree.’ And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit 4 the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgement, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation 5 for ever. It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King.

 Another interesting line is in ch. 17:

And they took and brought me to a place in which those who were there were like flaming fire, and, when they wished, they appeared as men.

This is indicating that the glorious, luminous angels can sometimes hide their glory and appear as normal human beings. Joseph Smith had similar things to say about divine beings being able to, or having to, hide the fullness of their brilliant glory so that mortals could look at them. Another interesting observation here is the belief, in the Enochic literature, in the capacity that both angels and humans have to traverse between the heavenly and earthly realms. This is a motif that does not generally appear in the Old Testament. Angels come down from heaven, but mortals do not ascend there. 

Other Random Notes:

Sacred Time

Enochic time is reckoned according to the solar calendar–Judah (after the Exile) went to the lunar calendar. Enochic literature advocated solar calendar as more authentic–Qumran calendar was also solar. This is important to them for the dating of sacred time. One of the reasons that the Enochic Jews saw the Zadokite priests as corrupt was because they changed the times and the seasons and sacred feasts. The lunar calendar was adopted by the rabbis–this serves to screw up the calendars/histories we have of the Jews.

Hell (and what we know of ancient traditions)

How much of our Christian idea of Hell comes from 1 Enoch (particularly ch. 21)? Hell is a place of separation, particularly for the Devil and/or rebellious angels. The discussion came up: Does the OT teach that there is no immortality of spirit, as many scholars suggest? Is Sheol/Hades not the place of awaiting for spirits? This is a difficult question. The OT does not speak much of spirits or the state of spirits in the afterlife. However, the Egyptians certainly believed in an afterlife. Isn’t there a cult of ancestors/afterlife in ancient Israel? Is it possible that a cult of the afterlife was suppressed by the rising trend of monotheism? A monotheistic God does not have room for the veneration of dead ancestors.  There are likely many traditions/beliefs that were suppressed by biased editors.

Dr. Orlov suggested that we cannot know all that the ancients believed. He mentioned the Jewish tradition that Moses received two Torahs–the white and the black.  What we have in our Torah is the Black Torah, but Moses also received the White Torah–which is only read in the spaces around the words in the Torah–this is the Oral Torah. It was not allowed to be fixed/written–only passed down by word of mouth. There were many traditions that were not written down. Mishnah was supposed to be oral Torah written down (many oral traditions most certainly lost).

4 Ezra–God says give 22 books to everyone, worthy and unworthy, but give 70 books to the wise and understanding. The 70 books are the oral Torah (what we call pseudepigrapha–Orlov’s comment). The 70 books are the higher knowledge. We need to read Bible with the spectacles of the hidden books.

“Let there be light” is a reference to the creation of the luminous anthropos–spiritual man of light–the word in Genesis (LXX, I think) could be translated as light or man.

Often in these traditions, the hero inherits attributes of anti-hero–In apocalyptic literature, the Son of Man often wears a golden sash– which can be an allusion to the golden serpent that was defeated in beginning.  When Satan is expulsed from heaven, Adam gains the luminous glory/position previously held by Satan. The Watchers fall from heaven, so Enoch is invited to heaven to take their place in the heavenly priesthood. There are always positive and negative protagonists–Cain and Abel, Lucifer and Son of Man, Michael and the Dragon. While the angels have a heavenly priesthood, Satan has an evil priesthood (this last note paraphrased from a personal comment to me from Orlov).

I hope you have been able to gain something of interest from these notes. Again, I apologize for their sketchy and abbreviated nature. I am being presented with so much information in these classes that I struggle to pass the notes into something readable for this blog. Please bear with me as we continue on this quest for light and understanding–through the happy medium of the Department of Theology at Marquette University.

• A. Grillmeier, Christ in the Christian Tradition, vol. I
• J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds
• Angelo di berardino, ed., Patrology, vol. IV
• Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy
• John Dillon, The Middle Platonists
• Jean Danielou’s Jewish Christianity and Origins of Latin Christianity
• H.B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church
• Jarl Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord

Apocalyptic Literature: This week’s readings

This week, Dr. Orlov had us read (I apologize that I don’t have on-line links for all of them):

Readings: Genesis 1-3; Latin Life of Adam and Eve; The Book of the Watchers; G. Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, ch. 2.

Additional Readings: G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, pp. 68-79; J. Reeves, Early Jewish Mythologies of Evil; Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, entries: Anthropos, Adam, Glory.

Accounts of Creation and Fall

With the readings from Genesis, the Life of Adam and Eve, and the Enochic Book of the Watchers, Dr. Orlov wanted to make us aware that there were multiple accounts of the Creation and Fall (introduction of evil into the world) in the Second Temple period. Generally, these are all very ancient stories, yet modified to suit the purposes/ideology of the parties who used them.  The following represents some of my notes from the readings:

Gen 1-3

Gen 1–This chapter is considered by scholars to have been written by Zadokite priestly authors. It is very concerned with ordering, separating, classifying. God(s)/Spirit of God create Earth and heavenly firmament-Earth is without form and void and covered in darkness. God divides waters. God forms cosmos in 6 days, rests on 7th. Creation is good. God says, “Let us make man in our image and our likeness.”

Gen 2-Second creation account (spiritual vs. physical?). Man commanded not to eat of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-or they would surely die. Woman created from man.

Gen 3-Serpent (God’s creation) tempts Eve to eat of fruit, Eve gives in. She gets Adam to eat fruit. Serpent cursed, Adam and Eve expelled from Garden and Tree of Life. The introduction of evil and death into the world is Adam and (principally) Eve’s fault, under influence of the Serpent.

Latin Life of Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve have been expelled from Garden. They miss angelic food in paradise and don’t want to eat what animals eat. For penitence, seeking God’s mercy, they stand in river for 40 days with water up to neck (compare baptism).
Satan transforms himself into angel of light and tries to convince Eve to leave water.
Satan is the one by whom they were “alienated from the dwelling of paradise and spiritual happiness.” Satan hates Adam because Satan (and angel followers) was expelled from heaven when he would not worship Adam, the image of God. Satan grieved because of his loss of glory. He wanted Adam and Eve to experience the same loss.
Adam taken to heaven in chariot of fire. He sees the fiery face of God. He sees vision of the future of his children.
Adam suffers great pain as punishment for his transgression and is near death. He sends Seth and Eve to retrieve oil from the Tree of Life to cure him. Adam is not granted the oil, but is promised that he will be resurrected by the Son of God and led to the Tree of Life. Signs and darkness accompany Adam’s death. After Adam is redeemed, his will sit on the throne formerly occupied by Satan.
Eve commands children to keep a record in stone and earth of their life. 8th day is day that Christ will reign forever. These stone records survived the flood and were seen by many, but they could not be read. God helped Solomon to understand all that was written as he built the Temple.

Book of Watchers

Angels (Watchers) married human women who then gave birth to great giants who caused many problems. Watchers (with Azaz’el) taught heavenly secrets (that are performed in heaven) to mankind. These angels bring corruption into the world. Michael, Gabriel saw sin and problems on Earth caused by Watchers. The Holy One will cry because of the sin and oppression on Earth (1 Enoch 9:10). Deluge will be sent to destroy wickedness from the Earth. Whole Earth was corrupted by sins of Azaz’el.
Watchers ask Enoch to write memorial prayers seeking mercy of God for them. Enoch reads judgment to Watchers that they will be imprisoned forever.
Enoch is taken up into Heaven. He sees a white building surrounded by tongues of fire. Goes into inner house of white marble. Walls have mosaics with cherubim, floor is of crystal and ceiling depicts stars. Fire is all around. He enters second house (3rd section), which has fire on floor and ceiling. He sees chariot throne lifted up with wheels, cherubim, and fire from underneath. He sees Great Glory on the throne dressed in white robe. He is surrounded by fire. He calls Enoch to come near to Him and His Word. God speaks with Enoch.

Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism

Zadokite Worldview:
Zadokites wrote Gen 1, describing how God made order out of chaos-God separates and defines boundaries-society, space, and time are divided hierarchically into graded holiness.
Sins of kings bring destruction on Jerusalem-Zadokites insist that all priests and people guilty of sin as well-could not have been destroyed if they had been innocent.
Temple closely mirrors Heaven-”to enter the Temple and take part in the Temple cult is therefore to participate to some degree in the unceasing worship going on in heaven.”

Entries in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible:

Anthropos:

One designation, with or without qualification, of the highest being in many gnostlc systems…The name draws attention to the direct or indirect link between supreme divinity and humanity, esp. the ‘unwavering race’, thanks to which redemption from the world created by the Archons is possible. The name Anthropos signifies that God is the prototype of Man (anthropos) because man is made, directly or indirectly, in his image.

Adam:

In the Bible itself there are no traces of traditions that Adam was ever regarded as an angelic or divine being…[must look to other Ancient Near Eastern literature]
Some passages in early rabbinic literature testify to the existence of “heretics” (minim) that held that Adam had acted as God’s associate in creation, or as his pleni-potentiary (e.g., b.Sanh. 38a: “Our rabbis taught: Adam was created [last of all beings] on the eve of Sabbath. Why so? Lest the minim should say: The Holy One, blessed by He, had a partner [sc. Adam] in his work of creation.”). Gnostic sources seem to confirm this when they speak of Adam as [the one] through whom everything came into being (Fossum 1985:267). In other early Christian sources the idea of Adam having been God’s viceregent crops up occasionally, epecially in the so-called Adam literature (see, e.g., the Cave of the Treasure; further Stone 1992). Philo’s distinction between the heavenly Man of Gen l:27 and the earthly man of Gen 2:7 may have been one of the tributaries to the development of this motif (Opif. mundi 134 et al.). In 2 Enoch 30:11-12 (long recension) God says: “On the earth I assigned him [Adam] to be a second angel, honoured and great and glorious. I assigned him to be a king, to reign on the earth and to have my wisdom. There was nothing comparable to him on the earth, not even among my creatures that exist [the angels].” But the Testament of Abraham ch. 8 (rec. B) goes a step further when identifying Adam with a Kavod-like (Glory) Man in heaven, “sitting upon a throne of great glory” at the gates of Paradise, encircled by a multitude of angels and looking at the many souls being led to destruction and the few souls being led to life. “Adam is enthroned in heaven as the Glory at the end of time” (Fossun 1985:276). The description of Adam as a “wondrous man,” “adorned in such glory,” with a “terrifying apperance, like that of the Lord” (Test. Abr. I I, rec. A) clearly recalls Ezekiel’s vision in ch. 1. It would seem that in certain circles with mystical inclinations God’s Glory, the Heavenly Man, and Adam merged into one angelic figure. On the development of this idea in later Kabbalistic circles see Scholem 1974 (Reg., s.v.). The implication that all this may have for the study of New Testament christology is a matter of debate.

Notes from Class Lecture:

The Second Temple (intertestamental) period is largely a mystery. Looking at pseudepigraphal and apocalyptic literature helps put together picture, but it is still very confusing. “Canon” did not exist in this period–just collections of scrolls that varied from library to library. Apocalyptic literature is response to absence of Temple–promoted the idea that heavenly liturgy goes on eternally in heavenly temple. Apocalypses are “outlines of mystical practice”–meant to be taught to and understood by only a few.  Study of Rabbinics and Patristics gives us insight into later interpretations of these texts, but not necessarily original meaning.

586 BC–First Temple destroyed

538 BC–End of Exile

516 BC–Temple is Rebuilt

After Exile, Judahite monarchy wasn’t continued. Zadokites edit sacred writings and reshape Judaism. Genesis 1 is the “manifesto” of the priestly tradition–outlines their vision of God, the Universe, and Creation. For them, society was divided into graded levels of holiness, with the Temple at the center of Jerusalem and Jerusalem and the center of the world. Boundaries between levels had to be strictly enforced. Humans couldn’t go to the Underworld or to Heaven without terrible consequences.

Enochic tradition focused on the violation of those boundaries (e.g., ascent to heaven). Zadokites wanted to marginalize this trend–that’s why we don’t see it in the Old Testament. The Zadokites only focused on the human realm.  Terms like God’s Glory (kavod) were introduced to reinforce the boundaries–men do not see God, they see his Glory. Humans are protected from seeing Deity directly.

We know very little of the First Temple because we only have literature from the Second Temple–anything from earlier is edited by Zadokites. Zadokites tried to exclude all theologies that they didn’t agree with. Other parties kept their own alternative theologies, but they (generally) didn’t make it in to our Old Testament. This is why Old Testament is so different than New. New Testament authors had access to, and often preferred alternative theologies.

All groups wanted access to the temple, but Zadokite priests restricted access. Enochic literature preserves access to temple through heavenly temple. Enoch becomes high priest in heavenly temple. Although not emphasized in their writings, Zadokites also believe in heavenly temple–earthly sanctuary is a copy of heavenly.

Creation, Fall, and Evil

Traditions of protology (the beginning) and eschatalogy (the end) are often symmetrical. Same characters/places that exist in beginning often come back in end of times.

Adamic tradition of creation carried on by Zadokites. In some interpretations of this tradition, Fall of Adam actually took place before the incident with the Serpent in the Garden. The Fall occurred during the process of creation.

• In Genesis 1, Adam is “created” (bara). Adam (man, human being) is created male and female. Some later interpreters explained that this meant that Adam was androgenous–both male and female inseparable. At this point, Adam existed in the “world of creation” (olam ha’beriah)–a world of potential existence, the highest of the worlds that exist outside of God’s presence.
• In Gen 2, Adam is formed (yazah). Adam (male human) is formed from the dust of the earth. This takes place in the “world of formation” (olam ha’yetzirah). Here there is a joining of substance and spirit, and making “something from something.”
• Finally, Eve is made (asiah). She is separated from Adam’s body–this marks the third of the lower worlds, the “world of making” (olam ha’asiyah). This is where the human race is propagated.

These traditions (found principally in Kabbalistic literature), indicate that in the end times, the female will be incorporated back into the male, and the two will be one eternally.  (I’m sure David Littlefield or Kerry Shirts could tell us more about these traditions).  

Another interesting aspect of the Adam tradition is the idea that when Adam fell, he lost his “garments of light” that he had possessed in the Garden of Eden. When they were expulsed from the Garden, they were given “garments of skins” so that they would not be naked–but also to indicate their loss of heavenly glory.  In Life of Adam and Eve, Adam instructs Seth and Eve to go back to the Garden to ask for oil from the tree of life. The purpose of this oil is to give back garments of light (= resurrection and immortality).

Enochic Tradition

The Enochic literature doesn’t mention transgression of Adam and Eve–they were our noble parents. Evil comes into the world because of the Watchers, demiurgic angels who want to corrupt the earthly realm–fornicate with earthly women and share heavenly secrets without God’s permission. These were angels of great power and authority.  These angels are punished by God and cast into a pit in the desert. Because of the fall of these important angels, humans (e.g., Enoch) are called to come to heaven to become angels and take the place of those who fell. Some scholars think that this stories were meant to criticize the Second Temple Zadokite priesthood who were seen as corrupt by those who were excluded from serving in the new temple. Themes of Enochic literature continue unchanged for centuries, and are very important to Christian theology. We don’t find these themes in Old Testament, but they appear in the New. Life of Adam and Eve appears to be a mix of Adamic and Enochic literature used by Christians.

Please excuse the partial and sketchy nature of these notes–I hope they were understandable and of interest. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to add a comment here or email me. All things being equal, I will make the same type of posts next week with what I have learned until then.