Anf-03 vi.iv.xxii Pg 29
Gen. iii. 6.
forthwith veiled what they had learnt to know.8901 8901
Anf-01 ix.vi.xvii Pg 12
Massuet remarks here that Irenæus makes a reference to the apocryphal book of Enoch, in which this history is contained. It was the belief of the later Jews, followed by the Christian fathers, that “the sons of God” (Gen. vi. 2) who took wives of the daughters of men, were the apostate angels. The LXX. translation of that passage accords with this view. See the articles “Enoch,” “Enoch, Book of,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. [See Paradise Lost, b. i. 323–431.]
Moreover, all the rest of the multitude of those righteous men who lived before Abraham, and of those patriarchs who preceded Moses, were justified independently of the things above mentioned, and without the law of Moses. As also Moses himself says to the people in Deuteronomy: “The Lord thy God formed a covenant in Horeb. The Lord formed not this covenant with your fathers, but for you.”3993 3993
Anf-02 vi.iii.iii.ii Pg 37.1
Anf-03 iv.iv.ix Pg 6
Comp. chap. iv., and the references there given. The idea seems founded on an ancient reading found in the Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX. in Gen. vi. 2, “angels of God,” for “sons of God.”
were likewise the discoverers of this curious art, on that account also condemned by God. Oh divine sentence, reaching even unto the earth in its vigour, whereto the unwitting render testimony! The astrologers are expelled just like their angels. The city and Italy are interdicted to the astrologers, just as heaven to their angels.211 211 See Tac. Ann. ii. 31, etc. (Oehler.)
There is the same penalty of exclusion for disciples and masters. “But Magi and astrologers came from the east.”212 212
Anf-03 vi.iv.xxii Pg 16
See Gen. vi. 2 in the LXX., with the v. l. ed. Tisch. 1860; and compare Tertullian, de Idol. c. 9, and the note there. Mr. Dodgson refers, too, to de Virg. Vel. c. 7, where this curious subject is more fully entered into.
Who then, would contend that “women” alone—that is,8888 8888 i.e. according to their definition, whom Tertullian is refuting.
such as were already wedded and had lost their virginity—were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless “virgins” are incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? Nay, let us see whether it were not virgins alone whom they lusted after; since Scriptures saith “the daughters of men;”8889 8889
Anf-03 vi.iv.xxii Pg 20
Gen. vi. 2.
it does so on this ground, that, of course, such are “received for wives” as are devoid of that title. But it would have expressed itself differently concerning such as were not thus devoid. And so (they who are named) are devoid as much of widowhood as of virginity. So completely has Paul by naming the sex generally, mingled “daughters” and species together in the genus. Again, while he says that “nature herself,”8892 8892
Edersheim Bible History
Lifetimes ix.iii Pg 10.2
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 7
VERSE (21) - Ge 3:6; 6:2 2Sa 11:2 Job 31:1 Ps 119:37 Pr 23:31; 28:22 Mt 5:28,29
