1. Genesis 6.2-4 as the crux interpretatorum
clement of alexandria on trial
earlier chapters, provides insight into the complexity of the theological and philosophical problems which underlie Photios' synopsis.
1. Genesis 6.2-4 as the crux interpretatorum Photios' accusation stated that, in the Hypotyposes, Clement proclaimed a nonsense about sexual intercourse between angels and women on the basis of his literal reading of Genesis 6.2-4. In order to assess whether Clement held this theory, it is necessary to examine the dominant Jewish and early Christian exegeses of the mythologoumenon. As has been pointed out during in earlier chapters, Clement's theology was closely linked with elements of his theological and cultural background. His hermeneutics were a part of the whole tapestry of early Christian imagery, symbolism and vocabulary, assimilating motifs from different philosophical and religious backgrounds.
According to Genesis 6.2-4, divine beings ( ,בְּנֵי־הָֽאֱֹלהִםlit. "sons of God") were attracted to human women and conceived offspring with them. The whole episode resembles another variation of the cosmic hierogamy,7 but the Hebrew version appears in a negative light,8 and the biblical narrator aims to reaffirm the order of the created world and its natural boundaries, which were challenged by this act of disobedience.9 According to a large number of Jewish documents, ences to the 'embodiment' of the spiritual beings. However, there is an ongoing debate among modern scholars regarding the authenticity of these passages (see Traité des
Principes, ed. H. Crouzel and M. Simonetti, 2 vols, Sources chrétiennes 252, 253
(Paris: Cerf, 1978), 1:168, 203; 2:78–9, 97–9. Secondly, in the context of Origen's history of salvation, that is his theory of the original fall/descent, the idea of gradual attainment of corporeal nature is coherent with the whole theological scenario of the primordial transgression and its consequences. For a recent discussion of this notion in relation to the nature of angels and demons see Edwards, Origen Against Plato,
87–97. Thirdly, in Photios' time, orthodoxy was based on the established anti-Origenist stance on the incorporeal (ἀσόματος) nature of good and evil spirits. Therefore any other view sounded like "empty-talk" (κενολογία). Even more, Clement's supposed belief in sexual intercourse between spiritual, evil beings and women appeared as total nonsense to a Byzantine mind such as Photios.
7 The story about divine beings who married human wives was a commonplace of Near Eastern mythology. On the Jewish myth of the fallen angels, see The Fall of Angels, ed. C. Auffarth and L.T. Stuckenbruck, Themes in Biblical Narrative 6 (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 2004).
8 This aspect will find its further elaboration in one of Clement's theories of the origin of philosophy as discussed in the second part of this chapter.
9 Westermann states: "The narrative is dealing with a human phenomenon. The desire of beauty is part of the human condition; but when it oversteps certain bounds
the sexual encounters of angels with human women 149 representing many different literary forms and contexts,10 this passage denoted the descent of angels who wished to marry human women and as a result corrupted the human race and lead to the Flood. This line of interpretation was held by Jewish commentators until the end of the first half of the second century, and therefore Clement of Alexandria would have been aware of it. One Greek version11 of Genesis 6.2-4 renders the Hebrew "the sons of God" ( )בְּנֵי־הָֽאֱֹלהִםas
"the angels of God" (οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ) (making a parallel with the Enochic interpretation12). Nonetheless the Scriptural passage declares
(Gen. 6:2): "that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they then it endangers a person in one's limited state" (C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. J.J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), 367. This observation is relevant to Clement's understanding of the incident, as he uses the whole drama to highlight its moral context (i.e., fall as a consequence of passion) (see, e.g., Strom. 3.59.2;
5.10.2).
10 e.g. 1 En. 6–19; 21; 86–88; 106:13-15; 17; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; T. Reu. 5:6-7; T. Naph.
3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10-14.
11 In Clement's period there were three Greek versions of the Bible alongside the Septuagint, translated by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. Aquila translates בְּנֵי־
הָֽאֱֹלהִםas "sons of gods" (οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν θεῶν); Symmachus as "sons of powerful ones"
(οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν δύναστεθοντων), while Theodotion has "sons of God" (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ). The fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus has "the angels of God" (οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ). According to Philip Alexander, the last translation does not preserve the original text (P.S. Alexander, "The Targum and Early Christian Exegesis of the 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6", Journal of Jewish Studies 23 [1972]: 60–71, cited in Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, 205). It is difficult to establish which version Clement used (if there was only one). For instance, his quotations from the book of Daniel follow Theodotion (see S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study [Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1968], 88). In my view, it does not matter in the present case, as his interpretation of the whole episode shows his acquaintance with Jewish apocalyptic (Enochian) elaborations of the theme. See, e.g., Clement, Ecl. 53.4: ἤδη δὲ καὶ Ἐνώχ φησιν τοὺς παραβάντας ἀγγέλους διδάξαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀστρονομίαν καὶ μαντικὴν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας. "Earlier Enoch spoke about the evil angels who taught human beings astronomy, prophecy and other arts." See also 1 En. 7.1-6; 8.3: "Amasras taught incantation and the cutting of roots; and Armaros the resolving of incantations; and Baraqiyal astrology, and Kokarer'el (the knowledge of) sign, and Tam'el taught the seeing the stars, and Asder'el taught the course of the moon as well as the deception of man" (trans. E. Isaac, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, ed. J. H. Charlesworth [New York: Doubleday, 1983]). Clement uses ἡ μαντική to denote "the Greek art of prophecy" and a channel of religious communication with the spiritual beings; see, for instance, Strom. 1.70.4, 1.74.3, 1.134.4.
12 See 1 En. 6.2: "And the angels [οἱ ἄγγελοι], the children of heaven, saw them and desired them" (trans. Isaac). οἱ ἄγγελοι is added as a synonym of οἱ υἱοὶ. Eichrodt identifies 'the angels' and 'the sons' from the present context by reference to Job. 1:6;
2:1; 38:7 (see W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. Baker [London:
SCM Press, 1967], 2:195).
clement of alexandria on trial
chose".13 Then, from that attraction, the mysterious 'giants' (οἱ γίγαντες14) were born:
Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.15
It is evident that the Hebrew Bible interpreted the union of the angels and the women as an offence against God, as a transgression against the natural order. Similarly human beings should not have sexual intercourse with animals, but only with other human beings.16 This line of hermeneutics re-emerges in Jude 6, where we find the accusation that the angels abandoned their proper dwelling (ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον). The same motif appears in 2 Peter 2:4, where the author mentions the episode from Genesis and concludes that God did not spare the angels when they committed the sin (εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο). Both Christian explanations of the episode, although are interrelated, are dependent on the Jewish document 1 Enoch 6–19.17 However, as noted by Daniélou, particularly among Jewish-Christians another tradition relating to the role of angels emerged as a significant parallel to that discussed above.18
Starting from 2 Enoch 33:11 some early Christians, including Clement 13 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαὶ εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκαις ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο.
14 The only other place in the Bible where the term 'Nephilim' ( , )נְפִלִיםusually translated as 'giants'. appears is Num. 13.33. Their appearance is another reflection of common mythological background where demi-gods were the offspring of the marriage between the gods and human women. For the mythological context of the whole episode, see Wastermann, Genesis, 380–83, and Bibliography.
15 οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ μετ'ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς˙ ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπ' αἰῶνος, οἰ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί.
16 Exod. 22:19; Deut. 27:21; Lev. 18:23. This prescription may be interpreted as a prohibition of union (idolatry) with the elements lower than the status of human being (see Eichrodt, Theology, 2:119). The rule of having (sexual) relationship only with equals played an important role among some Christian Gnostics. This kind of equality and compatibility, including in sexual union, is explored in detail by Gos.
Phil. 61:20-34; 75:25-32; 78:12-22 and especially 78:25–79:13, including the eschatological union/marriage to the angels (Gos. Phil.58.10). These metaphors had an impact on Clement's theology (see A.H.C. van Eijk, "The Gospel of Philip and Clement of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurrection and the Eucharist", Vigiliae christianae 25 (1971): 94–120.
17 See R.J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, World Biblical Commentary 50 (Waco: Word Books Publishers, 1983), 248.
18 J. Daniélou, History of Early Christian Doctrine, 1:188.