. . . The account of the fall of our First Parents (Gen., iii) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race. The statement (Gen., vi, 1) that the “sons of God” married the daughters of men is explained of the fall of the angels, in Enoch, vi-xi, and codices D, E, F, and A of the Septuagint read frequently, for “sons of God”, of oi aggeloi tou theou. Unfortunately, codices B and C are defective in Gen., vi, but it is probable that they, too, read of aggeloi in this passage, for they constantly so render the expression “sons of God”; cf. Job, i, 6; ii, 1; xxxviii, 7; but on the other hand, see Ps., ii, 1; lxxxviii, 7 (Septuagint). Philo, in commenting on the passage in his treatise “Quod Deus sit immutabilis”, i, follows the Septuagint. For Philo’s doctrine of Angels, cf. “De Vita Mosis”, iii, 2; “De Somniis”, VI; “De Incorrupta Manna”, i; “De Sacrificiis”, ii; “De Lege Allegorica”, I, 12; III, 73; and for the view of Gen., vi, 1, cf. St. Justin, Apol., ii, 5. It should moreover be noted that the Hebrew word nephilim rendered gigantes, in vi, 4, may mean “fallen ones”. The Fathers generally refer it to the sons of Seth, the chosen stock. In I K., xix, 9, an evil spirit is said to possess Saul, though this is probably a metaphorical expression; more explicit is III K., xxii, 19-23, where a spirit is depicted as appearing in the midst of the heavenly army and offering, at the Lord’s invitation, to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Achab’s false prophets. We might, with the Scholastics, explain this as malum poenoe, which is actually caused by God owing to man’s fault. A truer exegesis would, however, dwell on the purely imaginative tone of the whole episode; it is not so much the mould in which the message is cast as the actual tenor of that message which is meant to occupy our attention.
