Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Eight — the cause for which the flood was sent

Verse 2. The sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they had chosen

LatineEnglish

Verse 2. The sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they had chosen.1

Vers. 2. Videntes filii Dei filias hominum quod essent pulchrae, acceperunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerant.

Videtur his verbis Moses exaggerare voluisse hominum illius temporis nequitiam, significans eam fuisse tantam, ut non solum scelerata Caini soboles impietatem velut hereditariam ex parente suo trahens in altissimo flagitiorum coeno volutaretur, sed etiam posteri Seth, sanctorum parentum nobilitate clari, studio divinae sapientiae illustres, et pietatis et religionis erga Deum professione venerabiles, interdictam sibi execratamque a maioribus suis societatem Caini cum...
By these words Moses seems to have wished to magnify the wickedness of the men of that time, signifying that it was so great that not only did the wicked offspring of Cain — drawing impiety as if hereditary from their forefather — wallow in the deepest mire of crimes, but even the descendants of Seth, renowned for the nobility of their holy forefathers, illustrious for their zeal for divine wisdom, and venerable for their profession of piety and religion toward God, [entering into] the fellowship with Cain’s line which had been forbidden them and accursed by their ancestors…2
...Caini posteris coeuntes, gravius quam illi peccarunt, in profunda scelerum omnium demersi.
…joining themselves with the descendants of Cain, sinned more grievously than they, plunged into the depths of all crimes.3
Pro illo vocabulo Dei, cum dicitur Filii Dei, Hebraice est Elohim, quae vox in scriptura et singulariter pro uno veroque Deo accipitur, et pluraliter pro diis, id est vel pro Angelis Dei, vel pro sanctis viris, vel pro his qui populorum iudices, praesides ac principes sunt. Aquila vertit hoc loco filios deorum, significans vel Angelos vel sanctos; Symmachus, filios potentum. Paraphrasis Chaldaica habet filios magnatum; Pagninus reddidit filios principum; Hieronymus [et] Oleaster significari putat homines eximia corporis proceritate ac robore ceteris praestantes, scilicet ex quibus generati sint gigantes, ut paulo post narrat Moses. Ad eundem enim modum scriptura solet appellare montes Dei et cedros Dei, ad significandam magnitudinis eorum celsitatem et altitudinem. Codices LXX interpretum hic variam lectionem habebant, ut ex commentariis veterum super hoc loco, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum, intelligere licet: alii enim codices habebant Angelos, alii vero filios Dei. Nonnulli codices, inquit Augustinus quaest. 3 super Genesim, et Latini et Graeci habent non Angelos Dei sed filios Dei, quos quidam iustos homines fuisse crediderunt, qui potuerunt etiam Angelorum nomine nuncupari. Nam de homine Ioanne scriptum est: Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam. Idem Augustinus libro 15 De Civitate Dei cap. 23 sic ait: Septuaginta Interpretes et Angelos Dei dixerunt istos et filios Dei, quod quidem non omnes codices habent, nam quidam nisi filios Dei non habent. Sed Cyrillus libro nono adversus Iulianum emendatiorem censet lectionem quae habet filios Dei quam quae habet Angelos Dei. Ex his patet hanc nostram lectionem veriorem esse et plane retinendam.
For that word “of God,” when it is said “sons of God,” in Hebrew it is Elohim, a word which in Scripture is taken both in the singular for the one true God and in the plural for “gods” — that is, either for the angels of God, or for holy men, or for those who are judges, governors, and rulers of peoples. Aquila renders it here “sons of gods,” signifying either angels or saints; Symmachus, “sons of the mighty.” The Chaldee Paraphrase has “sons of nobles”; Pagninus rendered “sons of princes”; Jerome [and] Oleaster think that men surpassing the rest in extraordinary height and strength of body are signified — namely those from whom the giants were begotten, as Moses relates a little later. For in the same manner Scripture is wont to call “mountains of God” and “cedars of God,” to signify the loftiness and height of their greatness (Ps. 35; Ps. 79). The codices of the Septuagint translators here had a variant reading, as may be understood from the commentaries of the ancients on this passage, both Greek and Latin: for some codices had “angels,” but others “sons of God.” “Some codices,” says Augustine (Questions on Genesis, q. 3), “both Latin and Greek, have not ‘angels of God’ but ‘sons of God,’ whom certain men believed to have been just men, who could also be called by the name of angels.” For of the man John it is written: “Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way” (Mark 1). The same Augustine, in The City of God, bk. 15, ch. 23, says thus: “The Seventy Translators called these both angels of God and sons of God — which indeed not all codices have, for some have nothing but ‘sons of God.’” But Cyril, in the ninth book against Julian, judges the reading which has “sons of God” more correct than that which has “angels of God.” From these things it is plain that this reading of ours is the truer and is plainly to be retained.4
Ceterum quid significetur per filios Dei perplexa admodum quaestio est. Duae sunt principales horum verborum interpretationes, sed utraque rursus tripartito vel quadripartito multiplicatur, velut unius arboris duo brachia in multos diffusa ramos. Prior interpretatio est per filios Dei significasse Mosen Angelos, sed haec trifariam dividitur: quidam interpretantur bonos Angelos, qui pulchritudine mulierum illecti degeneraverint cum illis commixti; alii putant fuisse daemones, qui in propriis suis corporibus cum feminis congressi sint — putarunt enim eos (quae plurimorum fuit sententia) vere et naturaliter esse corporatos; multi denique arbitrati sunt fuisse quidem daemones, sed eos non in propriis corporibus, quippe qui opinione istorum sunt incorporei, verum per corpora ab eis assumpta commixtos esse cum feminis, et per semen non proprium et naturale, sed ex viro acceptum et muliebri utero infusum, generasse filios; et huiusmodi daemones appellant isti succubos et incubos.
Moreover, what is signified by “sons of God” is a most perplexing question. There are two principal interpretations of these words; but each is again multiplied into three or four parts, like the two branches of a single tree spread out into many boughs. The first interpretation is that by “sons of God” Moses signified angels; but this is divided three ways. Some interpret them as good angels, who, enticed by the beauty of the women, degenerated by mingling with them. Others think they were demons who coupled with the women in their own proper bodies — for they supposed (which was the opinion of very many) that the demons are truly and naturally embodied. Many, finally, judged that they were indeed demons, but not in their own bodies (since in the opinion of these men they are incorporeal), but mingled with the women through bodies assumed by them, and begot sons through seed not their own and natural, but taken from a man and infused into a woman’s womb; and demons of this kind these men call “succubi” and “incubi.”5
Haec triplex interpretatio dupliciter refelli potest: vel demonstrando id quod ab ipsis traditur de bonis Angelis et de daemoni-...
This threefold interpretation can be refuted in two ways: either by demonstrating that what is handed down by them concerning the good angels and concerning the demons…6
...bus esse falsum, quin etiam absurdum et impossibile. Verum hac de re paulo infra dicturi sumus in iis quaestionibus quae post explanationem huius loci pertractandae sunt. Vel refelli potest ostendendo eiusmodi tres interpretationes nullo modo congruere cum sententia verborum Mosis, sed esse narrationi eius discrepantes et plane contrarias. Chrysostomus putat eam interpretationem hoc validissimo telo confodi. Nunquam, inquit, in scriptura Angeli nominantur filii Dei, quae tamen appellatio non raro tribuitur hominibus. Quin Paulus ad Hebr. 1: Cui, inquit, Angelorum dictum est, Filius meus es tu? Sed de illis dictum est: Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos flammam ignis. At enim videtur Chrysostomo Divina Scriptura contradicere in primo et trigesimo octavo capite libri Iob, Angelos nominans filios Dei. Verum utrobique translatio LXX Interpretum quam sequebatur Chrysostomus non filios Dei habet, sed Angelos. Illud tamen ex Paulo petitum argumentum non est firmum; non enim omnem filiationem Dei denegat Angelis Paulus, sed naturalem et substantialem, qualis est Christi, nam adoptiva, quae fit per gratiae participationem, nulla est ratio cur Angelis non aeque quam hominibus possit attribui.
…is false, indeed absurd and impossible. But on this matter we shall speak a little later, in those questions which are to be treated after the explanation of this passage. Or it can be refuted by showing that three interpretations of this kind in no way agree with the sense of Moses’ words, but are discrepant from and plainly contrary to his narrative. Chrysostom thinks that interpretation is pierced through by this most powerful weapon: “Never,” he says, “in Scripture are angels called sons of God,” though that appellation is not rarely attributed to men. Indeed Paul, to the Hebrews 1: “To which of the angels,” he says, “did He ever say, Thou art my Son?” But of them it was said: “Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire” (Ps. 103). Yet Divine Scripture seems to Chrysostom to contradict this in the first and thirty-eighth chapters of the book of Job, where it names angels “sons of God.” But in both places the translation of the Septuagint, which Chrysostom followed, does not have “sons of God” but “angels.” That argument drawn from Paul, however, is not firm; for Paul does not deny to the angels every sonship of God, but only the natural and substantial sonship, such as is Christ’s; for as to adoptive sonship, which comes about through participation in grace, there is no reason why it cannot be attributed to angels as well as to men.7
Verum enimvero Mosis verba ne violente quidem detorqueri, nedum apte et congruenter accommodari posse ad Angelos sive bonos sive malos, vel hoc uno argumento concludi potest. Narrat Moses Deum generali diluvio perdere voluisse omne genus hominum, paucis exceptis, propter intoleranda eorum flagitia, praesertim autem propter eorum peccata qui cum filii Dei appellarentur, nihilominus tamen maiorum suorum degeneres, professionis suae obliti, humani denique ac divini iuris contemptores, ardentissima libidine cum impiis et impuris mulieribus copulati sunt. Unde multorum magnorumque scelerum et malorum colluvies redundavit. Horum igitur peccata ut puniret Deus, diluvium intulit. Non igitur propter Angelos et eorum peccata, sed propter solos homines eorumque flagitia missum est diluvium. Neque enim daemones periere diluvio, sed homines; neque peccata daemonum, sed hominum diluvio vindicata sunt.
But in fact, that Moses’ words cannot even by violence be wrested, much less aptly and fittingly applied, to angels, whether good or evil, may be concluded from this single argument. Moses relates that God willed to destroy the whole human race by a universal flood, a few excepted, on account of their intolerable crimes — but especially on account of the sins of those who, though they were called “sons of God,” were nevertheless degenerate from their forefathers, forgetful of their profession, and finally contemners of both human and divine law, and were coupled in most ardent lust with impious and impure women. Whence a flood of many and great crimes and evils overflowed. Therefore it was to punish the sins of these men that God brought on the Flood. The Flood, then, was sent not on account of angels and their sins, but on account of men alone and their crimes. For it was not demons who perished in the Flood, but men; nor were the sins of demons, but of men, avenged by the Flood.8
Hinc efficitur quos Moses appellavit filios Dei eos nullo modo vel bonos vel malos Angelos intelligi posse. De solis enim hominibus locutus est Deus, cum dixit: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum, quia caro est; eruntque dies illius centum viginti anni. Et rursus: Videns Deus quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset ad malum omni tempore, paenituit eum quod hominem fecisset in terra. Et praecavens etc.: Delebo, inquit, hominem quem creavi. Et rursus: Cum vidisset Deus terram esse corruptam (omnis quippe caro corruperat viam suam) dixit ad Noe: Finis universae carnis venit coram me, repleta est terra iniquitate a facie eorum, et ego disperdam eos cum terra.
Hence it follows that those whom Moses called “sons of God” can in no way be understood to be either good or evil angels. For God spoke of men alone when he said: “My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh; and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” And again: “God, seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, it repented him that he had made man on the earth.” And forewarning, etc.: “I will destroy,” he says, “man whom I have created.” And again: “When God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way), he said to Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me; the earth is filled with iniquity from before their face, and I will destroy them with the earth.”9
Vides Deum semper esse locutum de hominibus, de Angelis vero vel daemonibus...
Do you see that God always spoke of men, but of angels or demons…10
...nullum fecisse verbum? Hoc argumentum et vidit ante nos Theodoretus, eoque adversus eandem interpretationem quam nunc confutamus in quadragesima septima quaestione in Genesim usus est. Nam cum posuisset hanc quaestionem: Quosnam Moses vocavit filios Dei? ad eam respondens sic ait: Quidam nimis stupidi et stolidi existimarunt eos fuisse Angelos, putantes sua forsan intemperantia patrocinium habituros si Angelos eiusdem criminis reos tenerent. Oportebat autem eos audisse Deum ita dicentem: Non permanebit Spiritus meus in hominibus in aeternum quia carnes sunt; erunt autem dies illorum centum viginti anni; et inde respicere naturam incorpoream carnes non habere, neque Angelos vitam habere tempore definitam: immortales enim sunt. Deinde cum Theodoretus commemorasset alia verba Domini quae nos paulo ante exposuimus, subiungit: Haec utique omnia indicant homines esse eos qui vitam iniquam amplexi sunt. Quod si Angeli filiabus hominum permixti essent, homines fuissent ab Angelis iniuria affecti, quippe qui per vim eorum filias corrupissent; iniuriam quoque passi essent a Deo creatore, eo quod Angelos sibi servientes non puniret. Verum haec ne pater quidem mendacii dicere auderet. Multis enim verbis docuit sacra Scriptura tum homines deliquisse, tum adversus eos divinam sententiam esse latam. Hactenus ex Theodoreto.
…uttered no word? This argument Theodoret too saw before us, and used it against the same interpretation which we are now refuting, in the forty-seventh question on Genesis. For when he had posed this question — “Whom did Moses call sons of God?” — answering it, he says thus: “Certain men, too stupid and dull, supposed them to have been angels, thinking perhaps that they would find a defense for their own intemperance if they could hold angels guilty of the same crime. But they ought to have heard God speaking thus: My Spirit shall not remain in men for ever, because they are flesh; but their days shall be a hundred and twenty years; and thence to consider that an incorporeal nature has no flesh, and that angels do not have a life limited in time, for they are immortal.” Then, when Theodoret had recalled the other words of the Lord which we set forth a little before, he adds: “All these things surely indicate that those who embraced an iniquitous life were men. For if angels had been mingled with the daughters of men, men would have been wronged by the angels, inasmuch as they would have corrupted their daughters by force; they would also have suffered injury from God the creator, in that he did not punish the angels who served him. But not even the father of lying would dare to say these things. For in many words sacred Scripture has taught both that men sinned and that the divine sentence was pronounced against them.” Thus far Theodoret.11
Altera sane etiam principalis huius loci interpretatio est per filios Dei significatos esse non Angelos sed homines tantum. Verum haec quadripartita est. Quidam per filios Dei intelligi debere putant homines corporis proceritate ac robore ceteris longe insigniores, ut sensit Oleaster; alii homines potentes, uti sunt populorum iudices, praesides ac principes, ut placet Hebraeis; nonnulli existimant filios Dei esse appellatos quasi ex adverso et e regione filiorum hominum.
There is, to be sure, also a second principal interpretation of this passage: that by “sons of God” are signified not angels, but men only. This, however, is divided into four parts. Some think that by “sons of God” should be understood men far more distinguished than the rest in height and strength of body, as Oleaster held; others, powerful men, such as the judges, governors, and rulers of peoples, as the Hebrews prefer; some suppose that they were called “sons of God” as it were in opposition and contrast to the “sons of men.”12
Solet autem scriptura appellare homines vel filios hominum eos qui secundum carnem sapiunt, quos Paulus nominat animales: Animalis, inquit, homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei. Quales autem istiusmodi sint, belle depinxit David Psalmo quarto cum dixit: Filii hominum, usquequo gravi corde? ut quid diligitis vanitatem et quaeritis mendacium? Paulus item: Cum sit inter vos zelus et contentio, nonne carnales estis et secundum hominem ambulatis? Filii autem Dei nominantur quorum est plane contrarium et studium et institutum, contraria mens et sensus, conversatio, mores et facta, qui terrenarum et humanarum rerum contemptores caelestia et divina bona concupiscunt atque sectantur, pietatis erga Deum, iustitiae erga proximum, mortificationis erga seipsos professores atque cultores. Tales igitur longo tempore fuerant isti quos Moses appellat filios Dei, vel certe eorum maiores, propter quos ipsi, licet studiis moribusque multum degeneres, eandem tamen appellationem retinebant. Haec interpretatio nec Augustino in libro 15 De Civitate Dei cap. 23 nec Ambrosio in libro de Noë et Arca cap. 4 displicuit.
Now Scripture is wont to call “men,” or “sons of men,” those who are wise according to the flesh, whom Paul names “natural men” (animales): “The natural man,” he says, “perceiveth not the things that are of the Spirit of God.” And what manner of men these are, David finely depicted in the fourth Psalm when he said: “Ye sons of men, how long will ye be dull of heart? Why do ye love vanity and seek after lying?” Paul likewise: “Whereas there is among you envying and contention, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?” But “sons of God” are named those whose pursuit and purpose are plainly the contrary, whose mind and disposition, manner of life, morals, and deeds are contrary — who, as contemners of earthly and human things, desire and pursue heavenly and divine goods, and are professors and practitioners of piety toward God, of justice toward their neighbor, and of mortification toward themselves. Such, then, had these men long been whom Moses calls “sons of God,” or at least their forefathers had been, on whose account they themselves, though much degenerate in pursuits and morals, nevertheless retained the same appellation. This interpretation displeased neither Augustine, in The City of God, bk. 15, ch. 23, nor Ambrose, in the book On Noah and the Ark, ch. 4.13
Sed illa perquam celebris et magnorum scriptorum auctoritate valde nobilitata est interpretatio: quos vocat Moses filios Dei, fuisse...
But that interpretation is exceedingly celebrated and greatly ennobled by the authority of great writers: that those whom Moses calls “sons of God” were…14
...posteros Seth, filias autem vel filios hominum qui ex Caini stirpe progenerati fuerant. Cur autem posteri Seth appellarentur filii Dei, duplex ratio et utraque probabilis redditur. Vel enim sic appellati sunt quod in eos bene competerent ea quae triplex praedicta interpretatio tradit: nimirum posteri Seth aut omnes aut plerique erant corpore procero, robusto et formoso, erantque ipsi potentes et magnates et principes, et propter iustitiae, religionis et sanctimoniae professionem et cultum admodum honorati et venerandi. Vel nominati sunt filii Dei quod filii essent Seth et Enos, quorum utrumque pietate et sanctitate praestantissimum fuisse accepimus et ab hominibus sui temporis Dei appellatione nuncupatum.
…the descendants of Seth; but the “daughters,” or “sons of men,” those who had been begotten of the stock of Cain. Now why the descendants of Seth should be called “sons of God,” a twofold reason is given, each probable. For either they were so called because the things which the aforesaid threefold interpretation hands down fitted them well — namely, the descendants of Seth were, all or most of them, of tall, robust, and handsome body, and were themselves powerful men, magnates, and rulers, and, on account of their profession and practice of justice, religion, and holiness, were highly honored and venerable. Or they were named “sons of God” because they were the sons of Seth and Enos, each of whom we have received to have been most outstanding in piety and sanctity, and to have been called by the men of their time by the appellation of “God” (i.e., the divine).15
Suidas certe in vocabulo SETH confirmat eum esse appellatum deum, tum propter excellentem eius iustitiam, pietatem ac sanctimoniam, tum propter inventionem litterarum et scientiae rerum caelestium. Enos autem primus mortalium singulari quadam ratione coepit invocare nomen Dei, ut extremis verbis capitis quarti dixit Moses. Et huic cognomento Dei ornatum auctorem habeo Cyrillum Alexandrinum libro nono adversus Iulianum. Hos igitur duos viros cum principes generis sui haberent ac praedicarent posteri Seth, ob eam causam appellati sunt filii Dei. Et hi quidem longissimo tempore, ut eis a maioribus suis mandatum fuerat, posterorum Cain societatem, connubia etiam et commercia vehementer refugerunt. Postea vero refrigescente religionis studio cultuque virtutum, feminarum Cainicae stirpis pulchritudine allecti amoreque inflammati, eas duxerunt uxores; quarum flagitiosa consuetudine polluti et corrupti, in omnia sese praecipitaverunt flagitia, nequioresque etiam ipsis Caini posteris evaserunt. Mirum sane, ex tam sancta et numerosa posteritate Seth unum duntaxat fuisse inventum Noë iustum, innocentem Deoque carum, et dignum quem Deus tanto miraculo ex diluvii exitio servaret. Huius extremae interpretationis auctores sunt quamplurimi: Chrysostomus homilia 22 in Genesim, Augustinus libro 15 De Civitate Dei cap. 23, Theodoretus quaest. 47 in Genesim, Cassianus collatione 8 cap. 21, Cyrillus libro 9 contra Iulianum, Rupertus libro 4 in Genesim cap. 12, B. Thomas in Prima Parte quaest. 1 [?] art. ultimo.
Suidas indeed, under the word SETH, confirms that he was called “a god,” both on account of his excellent justice, piety, and holiness, and on account of his invention of letters and of the knowledge of heavenly things. And Enos was the first of mortals who, in a certain singular manner, began to call upon the name of God, as Moses said in the closing words of chapter four. And for Enos’s being adorned with this surname of “God,” I have as my authority Cyril of Alexandria, in the ninth book against Julian. Since, therefore, the descendants of Seth held and proclaimed these two men as the founders of their line, for that reason they were called “sons of God.” And these, indeed, for a very long time, as had been enjoined upon them by their forefathers, vehemently shunned fellowship, and also marriage and dealings, with the descendants of Cain. But afterwards, when zeal for religion and the cultivation of the virtues had grown cold, enticed by the beauty of the women of Cain’s stock and inflamed with love, they took them as wives; and, polluted and corrupted by their shameful intercourse, they cast themselves headlong into all crimes, and turned out even more wicked than the descendants of Cain themselves. It is indeed astonishing that, out of so holy and numerous a posterity of Seth, only one was found — Noah — who was just, innocent, dear to God, and worthy that God should preserve him by so great a miracle from the destruction of the Flood. Of this last interpretation the authors are very many: Chrysostom, homily 22 on Genesis; Augustine, The City of God, bk. 15, ch. 23; Theodoret, question 47 on Genesis; Cassian, Conference 8, ch. 21; Cyril, bk. 9 against Julian; Rupert, bk. 4 on Genesis, ch. 12; the blessed Thomas, in the First Part, question 1 [?], last article.16
Illud autem, Quod pulchrae essent, habet alia lectio, Quod bonae essent. Sed eadem est sententia: nam ut Augustinus inquit eo loco quem paulo ante memoravi, secundum consuetudinem scripturae vocabulum Bonum saepe idem significat quod speciosum et pulchrum corpore. Quanquam vocabulum Hebraeum quod hic est, tob, non tantum significare bonum et pulchrum sed etiam magnum et procerum confirmat Oleaster testimonio scripturae, atque eam significationem belle ad hunc locum quadrare putat, ut hic sit sensus: filios Dei, id est homines viribus praepotentes et statura proceros, elegisse sibi uxores feminas valde proceras, ut ex his filios generaret robustos ac proceros, eaque ratione ceteris hominibus praevalentes suo eos subiugaret imperio.
As for the phrase “that they were fair,” another reading has “that they were good.” But the sense is the same; for, as Augustine says in the place I mentioned a little before, according to the usage of Scripture the word “good” (Bonum) often signifies the same as “comely and beautiful in body.” Although the Hebrew word here, tob, signifies not only “good” and “beautiful” but also “great” and “tall,” as Oleaster confirms by the testimony of Scripture, and he thinks that this signification fits this passage well, so that the sense here is: that the “sons of God” — that is, men exceedingly strong and tall of stature — chose for themselves as wives women very tall, so that from them he might beget robust and tall sons, and in this way, prevailing over other men, might subjugate them under his own dominion.17
Praebet nobis hic locus Mosis salutare quoddam documentum. Hinc enim discimus quam sit noxia et pestilens societas et consuetudo cum impiis, maxime vero per carnales voluptates cum mulieribus; quamobrem gravissimis verbis Deus Iudaeis interdixit coniugia alienigenarum, ut videre licet Exod. 34 et Deut. 7: Non sociabis, inquit, cum eis coniugia: filiam tuam non dabis filio eius, nec filiam illius accipies filio tuo, quia seducet filium tuum ne sequatur me, et ut magis serviat diis alienis; irasceturque furor Domini et delebit te cito. Commixtio Hebraeorum cum Madianiticis mulieribus quantam illorum cladem et stragem edidit? Commixti sunt (ait David Psal. 105) inter gentes, et didicerunt opera eorum. Ob hanc causam sancti patriarchae, ut Abraham et Isaac, noluerunt filiis suis uxores dare ex Chananaeis, ne illi ad idololatriam delaberentur. Quia Salomon ardentissimo amore mulieribus alienigenis adhaesit, cum iam senex esset tantaque sapientia praeditus, ab illis tamen usque eo seductus est ut deos earum publice coleret. Iudaeos recens ex Babylonica captivitate reversos mutuis connubiis mixtos esse cum alienigenis audiens Esdras adeo graviter tulit ut prae doloris magnitudine pallium et tunicam scidisse evellisseque capillos capitis et barbae dicatur, dolens quod semen sanctum commixtum fuisset cum populis terrae. Cuius admonitione et reprehensione commoti plerique principes Iudaeorum omnes illas uxores abiecerunt, ut in capite 9 et 10 libri Esdrae proditum est.
This passage of Moses affords us a certain salutary lesson. For from it we learn how harmful and pestilent is association and intimacy with the impious, but most of all through carnal pleasures with women. For this reason God, in the gravest words, forbade the Jews marriages with foreigners, as may be seen in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 7: “Thou shalt not,” he says, “enter into marriages with them: thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son; for she will seduce thy son not to follow me, and to serve other gods the more; and the fury of the Lord will be kindled, and will speedily destroy thee.” What great calamity and slaughter did the mingling of the Hebrews with the Midianite women produce? “They were mingled,” says David (Ps. 105), “among the nations, and learned their works.” For this cause the holy patriarchs, such as Abraham and Isaac, were unwilling to give their sons wives from among the Canaanites, lest they should slip into idolatry. Because Solomon clung with most ardent love to foreign women, although he was already old and endowed with such great wisdom, he was nevertheless seduced by them to such a degree that he publicly worshiped their gods. When Esdras heard that the Jews, lately returned from the Babylonian captivity, had mingled by intermarriage with foreigners, he took it so grievously that, from the greatness of his grief, he is said to have rent his cloak and tunic and torn out the hair of his head and beard, grieving that the holy seed had been mingled with the peoples of the land. Moved by his admonition and rebuke, most of the leaders of the Jews put away all those wives, as is recorded in chapters 9 and 10 of the book of Esdras.18
Illud quoque licet hic observare, eos qui valde boni et religiosi diu fuerunt, postea degenerantes et consuetudine improborum corruptos, foeditate vitiorum ac scelerum magnitudine insigniores ceteris non raro evadere. Cuius rei hanc fortasse causam licet coniectare: omnis mutatio (ut philosophia docet et ipsius philosophiae parens experientia confirmat) e contrario fit in contrarium; ergo qui optimi sunt, paulatim degenerantes et ad vitia defluentes, mutantur in pessimos. Vel propter ingratitudinem ipsorum non agnoscentium ut oportet Dei beneficia sibi praeter ceteros tributa, interdum etiam illis abutentium ad iniuriam Dei suamque et aliorum perniciem, iustum est istos longissime proiectos a facie Dei despectosque magis quam ceteros mortalium curae et protectionis divinae auxiliis spoliari; quibus privati, quasi remotis frenis, praecipites ad scelera et ad virtutem irrevocabiles feruntur. Denique magna ingenia excelsique animi non ferunt mediocritatem: in utramque partem insignes vel vitiis vel virtutibus sunt.
This too may here be observed: that those who have long been very good and religious, afterwards degenerating and corrupted by the habits of the wicked, not rarely turn out more conspicuous than the rest in the foulness of their vices and the magnitude of their crimes. The cause of this one may perhaps conjecture to be the following. Every change (as philosophy teaches, and experience, the parent of philosophy itself, confirms) takes place from one contrary into the other; therefore those who are best, gradually degenerating and slipping into vices, are changed into the worst. Or else, on account of their ingratitude in not acknowledging, as they ought, God’s benefits bestowed on them beyond others, and sometimes even abusing them to the injury of God and the ruin of themselves and others, it is just that these men, cast far away from the face of God and despised more than the rest of mortals, should be stripped of the aids of divine care and protection; and, deprived of these, as if the reins were removed, they are borne headlong to crimes and are irrecoverable for virtue. Finally, great talents and lofty spirits do not tolerate mediocrity: on either side they are conspicuous, whether for vices or for virtues.19
Non sunt verba illa Mosis silentio praetereunda: Videntes, inquit, filii Dei filias hominum quod essent pulchrae, acceperunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerant. Haec enim verba perpendens Chrysostomus homilia 22 in Genesim verissime annotavit Mosen his verbis maximam illorum hominum intemperantiam indicare voluisse. Quasi diceret, homines non desiderio suscipiendae prolis et multiplicandi generis humani, qui est laudabilis matrimonii finis, carnalem coniunctio-...
Those words of Moses are not to be passed over in silence: “The sons of God,” he says, “seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they had chosen.” For Chrysostom, weighing these words in homily 22 on Genesis, most truly noted that by them Moses wished to indicate the very great intemperance of those men. As if he were to say that the men — not from a desire to bear offspring and to multiply the human race, which is the laudable end of matrimony, thereby honoring and commending carnal union, but to fill and glut their…20
...nem honestans et commendans, sed ad explendam exaturandamque libidinem, non unam uxorem sed multas, nec eas parentum consilio aut rationis suasu incorruptique iudicii ductu, sed captos pulchritudine, quae est illecebra turpitudinis, et vesano amore potiundae voluptatis, quae esca omnium malorum est, duxisse.
…lust, took not one wife but many — and these not by the counsel of their parents, nor at the persuasion of reason and the guidance of uncorrupted judgment, but, captivated by beauty (which is the enticement of baseness) and by a mad love of obtaining pleasure (which is the bait of all evils), they married them.21
Nec tacendum est quod super hoc loco Rupertus libro 2 De victoria verbi Dei cap. 23 animadvertere nos voluit: diabolum ad tam effrenatam libidinem incitasse homines illius temporis, ut ea ratione consilium et propositum Dei de homine in locum Angelorum evehendo impediret. Iam semel atque iterum hoc Dei propositum impedire conatus fuerat: primo cum Adam ad peccatum impulit, propter quod felicissimo statu innocentiae in quo a Deo collocatus fuerat deturbatus est; deinde cum Cain ad necem iusti Abel fratris sui incitavit. Nunc autem cum videret iustorum semen admodum multiplicari, conatus est homines Deo infensos et exosos facere; in quo sane praevaluit etiam filios Dei ad gravissima scelera impellendo. Quin immo Dei consilium videbatur perturbasse, cum Deus dixerit: Paenitet me fecisse hominem. Verum fortior fuit Dei gratia et veritas, stetitque Dei propositum immutabile; siquidem impios diluvio perdidit, paucos tamen iustos — futurum nempe electorum suorum seminarium — ingenti miraculo conservavit.
Nor should we be silent about what Rupert, in book 2 On the Victory of the Word of God, ch. 23, wished us to note on this passage: that the devil incited the men of that time to such unbridled lust in order, by that means, to hinder the counsel and purpose of God concerning the raising of man into the place of the angels. Already once and again he had attempted to hinder this purpose of God: first, when he drove Adam to sin, on account of which Adam was cast down from the most happy state of innocence in which he had been placed by God; then, when he incited Cain to the murder of his just brother Abel. Now, however, when he saw the seed of the just multiplying greatly, he attempted to make men hateful and odious to God; and in this he certainly prevailed, by driving even the “sons of God” to the gravest crimes. Indeed he seemed to have thrown God’s plan into confusion, since God said: “It repenteth me that I have made man.” But God’s grace and truth were stronger, and God’s purpose stood unchangeable; for, though he destroyed the impious by the Flood, he yet preserved a few just — namely, the future seedbed of his elect — by a tremendous miracle.22
Hic igitur lector expendat quantum malum et quam Deo invisum quantoque dignum supplicio sit profusae libidinis intemperantia, quippe cum eius puniendae causa totus orbis terrarum diluvio perierit. Hoc autem vitium licet in omnibus hominibus vituperandum sit Deoque displiceat, in filiis tamen Dei maxime damnandum et execrandum est, maximeque divinam provocat indignationem et vindictam. Nescitis, inquit Paulus Corinthiis, quia templum Dei estis, et spiritus Dei habitat in vobis? Si quis autem templum Dei violaverit, disperdet illum Deus. Ergo ecclesiasticos ac religiosos viros obscenas carnis voluptates magis quam venenum et pestem atque ipsam mortem fugere oportet. Sed absoluta huius loci explanatione, quo lectori apertiora certioraque sint quae supra diximus cum argumentabamur filios Dei (quos Moses narrat commixtos esse cum filiabus hominum) nec bonos Angelos fuisse nec daemones, tres hoc loco ea de re disputationes pertractandae sunt. Prima disputatio: an credibile sit bonos Angelos carnali mulierum amore et congressu esse pollutos. Altera disputatio: an daemones tales natura sint ut per se cum mulieribus misceri et ex his filios generare queant. Tertia disputatio: de daemonibus incubis et succubis, utrum daemon non quidem per se, verum assumpto corpore in speciem hominis figurato, feminas inire humanoque fetu gravidare possit.
Let the reader, therefore, weigh here how great an evil, how hateful to God, and how worthy of punishment is the intemperance of unrestrained lust, seeing that for the punishing of it the whole world perished in the Flood. And although this vice is to be censured in all men and is displeasing to God, yet in the “sons of God” it is most especially to be condemned and execrated, and most especially provokes the divine indignation and vengeance. “Know ye not,” says Paul to the Corinthians, “that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” Therefore men of the Church and religious ought to flee from the obscene pleasures of the flesh more than from poison and pestilence and death itself. But now that the explanation of this passage is completed — so that what we said above, when we argued that the “sons of God” (whom Moses relates to have mingled with the daughters of men) were neither good angels nor demons, may be plainer and more certain to the reader — three disputations on this matter are now to be treated in this place. The first disputation: whether it is credible that good angels were polluted by carnal love of and intercourse with women. The second disputation: whether demons are of such a nature that they can of themselves mingle with women and beget sons from them. The third disputation: concerning incubus and succubus demons, whether a demon — not indeed of itself, but in an assumed body fashioned into the appearance of a man — can have intercourse with women and make them pregnant with a human offspring.23

Translator’s notes

  1. Genesis 6:2 (Vulgate lemma). ↩
  2. Comment on v. 2 (continues on p. 76). ↩
  3. Comment on v. 2 (continued from p. 75). ↩
  4. §14. On the Hebrew Elohim and the variant readings ‘angels of God’ / ‘sons of God.’ Margins: Oleaster; Jerome; Ps. 35; Ps. 79; Augustine, Questions on Genesis q. 3; Mark 1; Cyril of Alexandria. ↩
  5. §15. Margin: ‘What is signified by sons of God — various interpretations.’ Sets out the two principal readings (angels vs. men), each subdivided. ↩
  6. §16 (continues on p. 77): the threefold ‘angels’ reading can be refuted two ways. ↩
  7. §16 (continued from p. 76). Margin: Chrysostom, Homily 21 on Genesis; Ps. 103. Heb. 1 also cited. ↩
  8. §17. Margin: ‘The argument by which Moses shows that those he named sons of God were not angels, whether good or evil.’ ↩
  9. §18. The Flood texts speak only of men: Gen. 6:3, 6:5–7, 6:11–13 quoted. ↩
  10. §19 (continues on p. 78). ↩
  11. §19 (continued from p. 77). Margin: Theodoret, Questions on Genesis, q. 47, quoted at length. ↩
  12. §20. Margin: ‘The second interpretation, divided four ways: who the sons of God were.’ Oleaster cited. ↩
  13. §21. Margin: 1 Cor. 2 (‘the natural man’); Ps. 4; 1 Cor. 3; this reading approved by Augustine (City of God 15.23) and Ambrose (On Noah and the Ark, ch. 4). ↩
  14. §22 (continues on p. 81; note that PDF pages 79–80 are duplicate scans of pages 77–78). Introduces the favored reading: sons of God = posterity of Seth. ↩
  15. §22 (continued from p. 78). Margin: ‘Why the descendants of Seth are called sons of God.’ Two reasons given. ↩
  16. §23. Margins: ‘Seth called a god by Suidas, and why’; Cyril; and the roster of authorities for the Sethite reading: Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Cassian, Cyril, Rupert, St. Thomas. The St. Thomas reference (‘Prima Pars, q. 1 [?], last article’) is garbled in the original. ↩
  17. §24. Margin: Oleaster on Genesis. On the variant ‘that they were good’ and the senses of the Hebrew tob. ↩
  18. §25. Margin: ‘A moral observation’ on the danger of fellowship with the impious. Citations: Exod. 34; Deut. 7; Num. 25; Gen. 24; 3 Kings (1 Kings) 11; Ps. 105; Esdras 9–10. ↩
  19. §26. Margin: ‘That often the best men turn out the most wicked in sin.’ ↩
  20. §27. Margin: Chrysostom, homily 22 on Genesis. (Continues on p. 83.) The original page bears an unrelated bleed-through library stamp (‘UNIVERSIDAD…’) in the OCR, which has been ignored. ↩
  21. §27 (continued from p. 82). ↩
  22. §28. Margin: Rupert, On the Victory of the Word of God, bk. 2, ch. 23 — the devil incited this lust to thwart God’s plan of raising man into the place of the angels. ↩
  23. Concluding exhortation and transition. Margin: 1 Cor. 3. Announces the three disputations to follow on Gen. 6:2 (good angels; demons generating; incubi and succubi). ↩