Herein, I conclude my consideration of A. C. Malan, trans., The Book of Adam and Eve, also called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, Book III, chap IV (brackets in original) which dates to circa the 6th century AD.
Next, the author argues for the Sethite view of the sons of God or rather, the author asserts it and does so based on un-evidenced and vague generalizations.
We are told that apparently all of the children of Seth “dwelt on the mountain” and that apparently all of the children of Seth “preserved their virginity”—which makes one wonder how they did not go extinct within one generation—apparently all of the children of Seth lived in innocence. Clearly this is generic enough to be meaningless and something that one simply cannot support biblically.
Thus, allegedly these human Sethites were “like angels” and were thus “called “angels of God” but they “transgressed and mingled with the children of Cain.” Why humans marrying humans is said to be a transgression is unstated. But just as the character of the Sethites is generically generalized as holy likewise the character of the Cainites must be generically generalized as unholy. Also, for some unstated reason it was only males of the Sethites and only females of the Cainites.
Then, for some unstated, un-evidenced and unknown reason human Sethites mating with human Cainites resulted in “ill-informed men” who invented the Angels view of Genesis 6.
Thus, the text has not discredited the Angel view and has certainly not accredited the Sethite view.
Now to footnotes 2 which essentially reiterates the text under consideration and which is cited as “Eutych. Nazam al-j., p. 26” which refers to the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria Sa’id ibn Batriq or Bitriq aka Eutychius of Alexandria (877-940 AD) who wrote Nazam al-jawahir / String of Gems aka Annals of the World. Interestingly, S. C. Malan notes the following of this work, “It is a work of merit ; although, perhaps, too full of stories that cannot be received as authentic.”
In any regard, Eutychius wrote:
It is said in the Law that Sons of God (called Beni Elohim), when they looked upon the beautiful daughters of Cain, came down to them; whence giants were born. But he errs, and knows not what he is saying, who tells us that angels came down to daughters of men (lit. of the flesh). But they were the sons of Seth who came down from the Holy mountain to the daughters of Cain the accursed, for the sons of Seth were called Beni Elohim, or sons of God, by reason of their purity, and so long as they dwelt on the Holy mountain. They err then, who say that angels came down to the daughters of men (lit. of the flesh) ; for the essence of angels is simple [or, single] and their nature is in no need of marriage. Man, however, is composite in his nature, who requires marriage, like other animals. If angels had intercourse with daughters of men, not one of them would remain a virgin.
Well, at least in this footnote’s quotation we are not told to whom “It is said” refers but whoever said it one thing is certain, the Bible does not specify that the “daughters of Cain” but only “daughters of men.” Since the rest of it essentially reiterates the text under consideration then my replies above apply to both.
Lastly, footnote 3 reads, “See S. Matt, xxii, 30, and the same in S. Mark and in S. Luke. See also note 5 from the Coran. Sur. vi, xxxvii, and liii, etc.”
The footnote appears at the assertion that Angles “should be found committing sin with human beings. Never; that cannot be” and the fact is that Matthew 22:30 is one of the most misused texts for such a consideration and is very often misquoted. It is generally quoted by those arguing against the Angels view as “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels” and yet, the verse ends with “of God in heaven.” Thus, the angels of God in heaven do not marry but this says nothing of fallen Angels who, as per Jude 6 “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.”
I am assuming that “note 5 from the Coran” aka Koran or Qur’an surahs 6, 37 and 53 refers to a footnote in A. C. Malan’s translation of The Book of Adam and Eve…. I found a footnote 5 within the notes to Book I which references the Coran and which reads (brackets in original):
Then the Lord God [the Word of the Lord, Targ. Hier] said to the ministering angels: “Behold, Adam is alone in the earth as I am alone in the high heavens, and men shall come from him who shall know good from evil. Had he kept My commandment he would have lived and continued [stood] like the Tree of Life, for ever. But now since he has transgressed, let us decree to drive him out of Eden ere he take of the Tree of Life. And God drove Adam from the Garden of Eden, and he went and dwelt on Mount Moriah, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Targ. Jonathan, in Gen. iii.)
The Jews, says S. Basil (Horn, in Hexaemeron, ix, c. 6), being reduced to great straits…say there were many persons to whom God addressed the words, “Let us make man;” namely to the angels…who waited on Him…but it is a Jewish fiction and fabulous—for is the image of God and of angels one and the same?
In the Coran, snr. vi, 14, Mahomet inveighs against al-mushrikin, those who gave companions to God, and worshipped them, in the shape of angels together with Him. And in sur. xxxvii, 153, and elsewhere, he further blames them—and the former inhabitants of Mecca in particular—for believing that angels were of the female sex, and daughters of God. “Have we created angels females,” says he, “and do we prefer daughters to sons?” etc.
“Targ. Hier” and “Targ. Jonathan” refers to two of many Targumin or Targums which are Aramaic paraphrases of portions of the Old Testament many of which are peppered with Rabbinic folklore.
I added ellipses in the section referring to Basil only because those portions include Greek font which I cannot reproduce so, just in case, here is an image of that portion:
Then comes the Coran portion to which footnote 3 directed us. It has Mahomet aka Muhammad condemning correlating anything with Allah and the surah that states:
Now ask them: Are there (only) daughters for your Lord and sons for them or did We create the angels female while they were witnesses. Verily, it is of their falsehood that they say: Allah has begotten. And, verily, they are liars! Has He (then) chosen daughters rather than sons? What is the matter with you How do you decide. Will you not then remember or is there for you a plain authority. Then bring your Book if you are truthful! And they have invented a kinship between Him and the Jinn, but the Jinn know well that they have indeed to appear (before Him). Glorified be Allah! (He is free) from what they attribute unto Him! Except the servants of Allah, whom He chooses.
In any regard, Islam does have a sons of God and Nephilim tale of their own, see Islam’s magickian fallen angels Harut and Marut.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.