Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Journal for the Study of Judaism, XXXVI, 4Also available online www.brill.nl

1 All Greek texts and translations of Philo are from Philo in Ten Volumes (and TwoSupplementary Volumes) (trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus; LCL;Cambridge: Harvard University, 1929-62).

SOME OBSERVATIONS OF PHILOS DE GIGANTIBUSAND EVIL SPIRITS IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

ARCHIE T. WRIGHTRegent University

SummaryThe following discussion delineates Philos interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4in his various treatises. The presentation provides a brief description ofhis understanding of the journey of the soul, which includes the originof the soul, its place in the heavens, its time on earth, and its eventualreturn to the divine realm. Throughout the discussion, I will introducevarious points of the interpretation of the Genesis passage found in theWatcher tradition of 1 Enoch and its adaptation in various documentsin Second Temple Jewish literature. In doing so, I will highlight the sim-ilarities and differences between the interpretations which suggest Philohad knowledge of some form of the Watcher tradition and was perhapsattempting to write a corrective of its understanding of the problem ofevil and the cause of human suffering in the first century C.E.

1.0 Introduction1

The problem of evil and human suffering was apparently an impor-tant and popular topic for writers in Judaism during the closing cen-turies B.C.E. and the early first century C.E. Recent discoveries amongstthe Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter DSS ) attest that the people of theQumran Community were concerned why the people of Israel, andperhaps humanity in general, were suffering. One such explanation forhuman suffering is detailed in the Watcher tradition that is found in

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 471

472 .

2 The Book of Watchers is dated around the third century B.C.E. However, there islittle known of its author or its place of origin. Although the DSS contain fragments ofBW (see 4QEn), the majority opinion is that it did not originate at Qumran, but ratherwas brought in to the community from an external location. This may indicate thatthe Watcher tradition was known widely within Israel and not confined to the QumranCommunity. 1 Enoch is extant in its entirety (i.e., chapters 1-108) only in an Ethiopic(Geaez) version, which was translated from a Greek translation of an Aramaic original.The Aramaic text survives only in fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are twomain Greek manuscripts that contain BW, the Akhmim Manuscript (Codex Panopolitanus)and the Chronography of George Syncellus. For the most recent discussion of the historyof the texts see George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36; 81-108 (Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on theBible, ed. Klaus Baltzer; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001).

3 For a discussion of Philos place in Early Judaism, see Peder Borgen, Philo ofAlexandria, An Exegete For His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997). Borgen statesthat Philo has brought together scripture and philosophical works, thus making his workpivotal in the history of thought. See also Samuel Sandmel, Philos Place in Judaism: AStudy of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union CollegePress, 1956), 5.

1 Enoch 1-36, the Book of Watchers (hereafter BW ).2 The Watcher tra-dition of 1 Enoch, considered by most scholars as an expansion ofGenesis 6:1-4, tells the story of the origin of evil spirits. These spiritswere a result of the sexual union of the bene elohim and human women,which produced giant offspring. Furthermore, the giant tradition of BWwas taken up by several other Second Temple Period Jewish writings(e.g., other DSS documents, Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha) and fur-ther developed alongside an anthropology which assumed a humannature that is weak, corruptible, and subject to the manipulation ofspiritual forces.

However, this was not the only Jewish understanding of the prob-lem of evil that was being articulated in the Second Temple Period.In what follows, I will present an alternative approach to the respon-sibility for human suffering articulated by a lone voice in the AlexandrianDiaspora during the first century C.E., Philo of Alexandria. Philosunderstanding of human suffering differs considerably from the tradi-tion set forth in the Watcher tradition. As will be seen below, it isdifficult to determine whether Philo knew of the Watcher tradition aswe have it in BW (or Jubilees); but it appears that he was aware ofsome form of the Fallen Angel tradition prevalent in Palestinian Judaism.3

Initially, in order to try to understand Philos approach to the Genesis6 passage, I will present a brief description of his view of the soul(cux) in general and its journey through the incorporeal and corpo-real worlds (sec. 2.0).

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 472

DE GIGANTIBUS 473

4 This is a term coined in a discussion with Loren Stuckenbruck that refers to thegiant tradition of the Book of Watchers and Genesis 6.

5 For Philos discussion of the soul see e.g., De Opificio Mundi, De Gigantibus, De Somniis,and Quod Deterius.

6 See Quod Deterius 84.7 See De Opificio Mundi 134-135.8 See De Gigantibus 7 and De Somniis I.134f.9 See De Somniis I.134-36.

Secondly, I will offer my understanding of Philos interpretation ofGenesis 6:1-4 in which he details his giantology4 and anthropology(sec.3.0). This discussion is composed of two distinct sections. The firstsection details Philos understanding of angels and daemons (sec. 2.1)while the second section presents a closer examination of his giantol-ogy (sec. 2.2). Each of these sections, although focused on De Gigantibus,will draw upon other treatises of Philo in an effort to follow properlyhis description of the journey of the soul. I will conclude the essaywith a comparison of the key figures found in the interpretation ofGenesis 6.1-4 by Philo and the author(s) of BW. Throughout the dis-cussion, I will highlight possible allusions within Philos treatises thatdirect the reader back to the Watcher tradition.

2.0 Philos View of the Soul 5

The term cux is a central component in Philos De Gigantibus.Initially, it is necessary to articulate how Philo viewed the soul and itsplace in the incorporeal and corporeal worlds in order to understandhis opinion on evil spirits. Philos conception of cux is by no meansclearly articulated in his writings. He believed that all cuxa originatedfrom God and argued that they existed in two categories: (1) a cuxthat remains in the divine realm, his true man,6 and (2) another thatinhabits the human body.

The first category of soul is immortal and includes some incorpo-real and some corporeal souls. These cuxa were of a single nature;they are neither male nor female, of the mind only, and incorruptible.7

The air is the abode of these beings8 and cannot be apprehended bythe senses, for they abide in the divine realm. Philo describes thesebeings as not a living creature only, but mind in the purest kindthrough and through.9

Philos second category of the human cux differs significantly fromthe single-natured cuxa mentioned above. Philo argues in De Opificio

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 473

474 .

10 See for example De Opificio Mundi 154f; De Confusione Linguarum 176f; De SomniisI.181 and De Cherubim 114. The concept of an indestructible soul plays a key role inPhilos view of the death of humans and the possibility of possession.

11 See Marcus comments of Philos methodology in his introduction to Philo, SupplementI: Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin (trans. Ralph Marcus; London/Cambridge, MA:William Heinemann/Harvard University, 1961), ix-x.

12 See Oliver Leaman, Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity, 1995), 36. In his discussion, Leaman argues that Philo is following whatappears to be a common belief at the time concerning the immortality of all souls; atdeath the soul ascends to a place of origin, although, somewhere imprecise.

13 Cf. Platos Phaedo 64C and the Poem of Empedocles frag. 115. These two examplessuggest that as early as the fifth century B.C.E. a singular concept existed within someGreek philosophical circles of what happened to the soul upon the death of an indi-vidual. See Plato, LCL, vol. 1 and Brad Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles: A Text andTranslation with an Introduction (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1992), 53.

14 Cf. De Somniis I.138.

Mundi 72 that humanity is endowed with mind and reason which, whenencased in a human body, are the cause of virtues and vices. As aresult, humanity is a mixed nature (cux and srj), an object of senseperception, prone to dualistic contraries: wisdom/folly, courage/cow-ardice, justice/injustice, good/evil, and virtue/vice.

The immortality of the cux is a significant concept for Philo inseveral places in his writings.10 Despite some points of apparent con-tradiction, Philo sees the origin of the soul in God as a key to theindestructibility of the cux.11 In Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin 3.11,he argues that Genesis 15.15 is describing the immortality of the cux.Abraham is told by God, you shall go to your fathers with peace,nourished in good old age, indicating that at the point of death thesoul leaves the mortal body and returns to its place of origin.12 Philointerprets go to your fathers as another life without a body, and tothe place of origin of the soul as being with God in the heavenlyrealm.13

The issue of purity plays a key role in Philos concept of the immor-tality of the soul. In De Plantatione 14, he states that because of theirproximity to the earth some of the cuxa are drawn to the corporealrealm and descend into human bodies of the earth-born for a fixedperiod.14 As a result of its descent to the earth, the incorporeal andincorruptible nature of the human cux takes on its second nature.This nature is one made of clay, corruptible and susceptible to thedesires of the flesh.

Philos anthropology incorporates a theory of two souls, one thatremains pure in its relationship to the Divine realm; and the other that

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 474

DE GIGANTIBUS 475

has relinquished the heavenly quest to pursue the passions of the flesh.Thus, the second type of soul is ineligible to return to the heavenlyrealm until it has been purified of the carnal passions. Philo discusseshis anthropology in detail in his interpretation of Genesis 6.1-4 in DeGigantibus.

3.0 Genesis 6:1-4: Philos Giantology and Anthropology

There are three main works in the corpus of Philos writings thatinclude material on Genesis 6.1-4. These are De Gigantibus, Quod Deusimmutabilis sit, and Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin; and they present adetailed, although at times confusing, discussion of anthropology throughthe story of the angels of God who mate with human women to pro-duce giant offspring. Philos interpretation of the Genesis passage seemsto contain allusions to the Watcher tradition in 1 Enoch and otherSecond Temple Period Jewish writings. As previously stated, althoughit is difficult to determine if he had direct knowledge of the Watchertradition of 1 Enoch, Philo perhaps knew of at least part of the FallenAngel tradition. It does not appear, however, that he intended toadvance the giant tradition (i.e., an aetiology of evil spirits as weknow it from BW ) in a similar fashion to what we find in other EarlyJewish literature. On the contrary, he contends in De Gigantibus 58 thatthe story in Genesis 6.1-4 is not connected to the myth of the poetsabout the giants (e.g., the giants of the Hesiod myth or possibly theWatcher tradition), but rather a description of the struggles of the jour-ney of the human soul.

The title De Gigantibus gives the reader the impression that the focusof the text is the giant offspring. Nevertheless, it is perhaps betteridentified as a discussion of the nature of opposites, a dualistic approachto anthropology in first century C.E. Judaism. In his opening commentin 1, which compares Noah the righteous to the nyrvpoi in Genesis6.1, Philo implies there is an ethical dualism within humanity. He picksup this theme in Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin 89 (on Gen 6.1) inwhich he argues that the multiplication of humanity in Genesis 6.1 isan evil act based on Gods action in Genesis 5.32 (i.e., the introduc-tion of the righteous Noah and his sons). It is through humanitysimmeasurable wrongdoing that evil comes, which allows Philo to sep-arate God from the responsibility of evil. Philos journey of the soulin De Gigantibus is one of personal responsibility for decisions and actionsof the individual. These personal choices govern the purity of the soul

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 475

476 .

15 Interestingly, in Philos discussion of the angels and daemons, he ignores the nega-tive LXX references to daemons. Why has he chosen to compare the angels to thedaemons of the Greek philosophers and not the demons of the Jewish Bible? Does thisshow his ignorance of the presence of these beings in the Old Testament, or perhapsdoes it reveal the inaccurate adoption of the term demon by Christianity? It has beenargued (see Alexander, Demonology in the DSS, 350-51) that there was no demonologyin the exilic/pre-exilic periods of Israelite history. However, how then do we addressthe spirits sent by God to punish or afflict humans? Furthermore, must we understanddemons (i.e., spirits) as evil in this period or can demons be understood in the Greeksense of the daemon as a watcher?

16 Cuxa are just one type of being that Philo suggests fill every division of the uni-verse; the earth contains the living beasts, the fire contains the fire-born, and heavencontains the stars. Cf. De Plantatione 12, Aristotle, Hist. An. V. 552b, and Euripides frag-menta 943, Strabo Geographica 13.4.11.

17 De Plantatione 14.18 Ibid. If we compare this section with 6, it seems to indicate that Philo under-

stood the Greek heroes to be the same as the daemons.19 Cf. De Gigantibus 12, They are consecrated and devoted to the service of the

Father and Creator whose wont it is to employ them as ministers and helpers, to havecharge and care of mortal man. This is the original task of the Watchers in Jubilees4.15.

and the persons ability to return to the heavenly realm after the soulleaves the body.

Philo begins to detail his anthropology in 6 with his comments onGenesis 6.2. He contends that Moses gave the name of angels (ggeloi)to what Greek philosophers called daemons (daimnia).15 These beingsare the souls (cuxa) which fly and hover in the air.16 Although theyare invisible to our senses, these souls can be perceived by the mindonly, so that like may be discerned by like.

Philo contends that the air plays a key role in the existence of thesoul. As mentioned above, the air contains a host of bodiless souls,mighty beings (dunmeiw), which are made up of at least two groups ofcuxa.17 The first group seems to be disposed to seek after a humanbody to occupy. The second group has a diviner constitution withno desire to enter the physical realm. These are what philosophers callheroes, those same beings whom Moses refers to as angels.18 The angelsare described as messengers who carry words back and forth betweenhumanity and the divine.19 It is clear that Philo is very much awareof the spiritual beings (forces) that are constantly at work in the heav-enly realm.

It is from the first group of cuxa described above that we find acomparison with the Watcher tradition in De Gigantibus. Philo interpretsthe bene elohim in a fashion similar to the LXX as the angels of God

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 476

DE GIGANTIBUS 477

20 Cf. ggeloi for uoi to yeo in ALDINA and SIXTINA editions. See also LXXmss A-72, 56, 75-458, 71, 121-392, 55, and 509.

21 There are hints of possession by an evil spirit in De Somniis I.139. This passagedescribes souls that have been bound previously in the human body but have sinceascended. They then long for familiar and accustomed ways of mortal life, and againretrace their steps back to the tomb of a body. This text presents two possible linesof interpretation to the reader. 1) Philo believes in reincarnation; or 2) what we havein this passage is a case of possession by an evil one. In terms of Philos allegoricalmethod, however, this passage could simply be describing someone who had the oppor-tunity to be purified and return to the community, but chose to continue in pursuit ofthe pleasures of the flesh.

22 Cf. Somniis I.138; De Plantatione 14.23 Cf. the torrents of 1QHa XI 29, 32.24 De Opificio Mundi 152 describes bodily pleasure as the beginning of wrongs and

violation of the law, thus bringing impurity upon the individual. The fulfilment ofthese pleasures results in a life of mortality and corruption. See also Quaestiones et Solutionesin Genesin 51f, in which Philo argues that the person who follows after the pleasuresmakes light of the commands of God.

25 It is possible that this description of the two categories of souls is part of Philos

(ofl ggeloi to yeo).20 However, the comparison is in name only, notin respect of their actions. The Watcher tradition has described theangels of God as a group of rebellious angels who have entered thehuman realm to fornicate with women. Philo interprets the angels ofGenesis 6.2 as cuxa that descend to the earth to take on a humanbody. If we attempt to compare Philos interpretation with the Watchertradition, then his interpretation would indicate a physical possessionof a human body by an angelic spirit. However, it appears that is nothis intention. The souls that descend to take on human flesh are merelythat, human.21

Within Philos description of the human cux, we find two cate-gories of humans which are based upon his ethical dualism (Gig. 13-14).The first cux descends to the earth to take on human flesh,22 but itis caught up in the rushing torrent23 of the human passions, whichin turn results in the corruption of the cux and its inability to returnto the heavenly realm ( 13).24 Such a soul seeks no wisdom with whichit can overcome the passions of the flesh: they have abandoned them-selves to the unstable things of chance, none of which has aught to dowith our noblest part, the soul or mind. The second category of humancux is the one who descends to the earth to take on human flesh butis able to rise above the current of the passions. This soul seeks thewisdom of genuine philosophy ( Judaism) in order to regain the immor-tal and incorporeal existence in the presence of the Divine, keepinghim or herself apart from the passions and remaining pure ( 14).25

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 477

478 .

apology for Judaism. This portion of text seems to allude to ideas familiar to us fromQumran material and the ability of an individual to be transformed out of the naturalrealm into the supernatural realm in angelic fashion.

26 Cf. a similar concept of two inclinations in 1QHa 4.17 and 1QS III.27 Philo describes the human soul as threefold: the seat of reason (the headrea-

son), the seat of high spirit (the heartpassion), and the seat of desire (the abdomenlust). Each of these regions has an attached virtue, which helps it overcome evil desires.Reason has prudence, which helps the soul know what and what not to do. The pas-sion of the heart has courage and the lust of desire is given self-mastery, which is toheal the desires (Legum Allegoriae 70).

28 Cf. Philos description of vices and virtues with the lists found in 1QS III and IV.This document plays a key role in the understanding of the Watcher tradition foundin the Scrolls. See De Vita Contemplativa for Philos discussion of the yerapeuta, indi-viduals whose task it is to bring healing to the soul that is oppressed by the vices ofthe flesh.

In Legum Allegoria II.6, Philo argues that within the individual humansoul there exists what may be understood as good and evil inclina-tions.26 He identifies them as the irrational and rational portions of thesoul. The irrational portion is the senses and passions, which as statedabove, if abused can result in the breaking of the Law and the cor-ruption of the individual. The rational portion of the soul is reason. Itis by reason that the soul controls the passions and permits the indi-vidual to seek the wisdom of genuine philosophy (Leg. 70).27

In De Opificio Mundi 79f, Philo argues that the purpose of humankind,once created, was to spend his or her days without toil or troublesurrounded by an abundance of all that was needed. He goes on tostate that if the irrational pleasures are able to control the cux of aperson, then punishment will occur in the present life and it will affectthe immortality of the person. He lists those things that will bringdestruction if they are sought after or are allowed to take hold of thesoul: desire for glory, wealth, power to control life, fear, folly, cow-ardice, and the worstinjustice. The rational cux seeks to be thedwelling place for God. For this to be accomplished, the human mustseek the virtues of the divine that Philo identifies in Quaestiones et Solutionesin Genesin 99 as continence, frugality, prudence, courage, and mostimportantjustice.28

Philos concept of the human soul envisions two interrelated sets ofdualism. There are two categories of spirit that originate in the heav-enly realm: one that avoids the earthly realm and remains as a mes-senger of God and a second that cannot resist the draw of the humanflesh and descends to take on a human body. Within this category of

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 478

DE GIGANTIBUS 479

29 If we accept the idea that daemons and heroes are one and the same in Philosthought, there is nothing within the history of their existence that indicates fear orsuperstition would be associated with them. Following their death, they are understoodas semi-divine beings that are guardians of the living. Daemon is identified as a genie oras a divine being, but it does not carry negative connotations.

30 See John Dillon, Philos Doctrine of Angels, in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria(BJS 25; ed. David Winston and John Dillon; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983), 204. Dillonargues that Philo may be acquainted with something of the tradition on which 1 Enochdepends.

31 He may argue for the existence of the evil influence of demons in De Gigantibus3 where he claims that creation follows the theory of the existence of opposites; becausethere are good angels, there must exist evil angels. Dillon suggests that he may be con-cerned with the Fallen Angels (of Genesis 6.2) who are no longer ambassadors back-wards and forwards between men and God . . . but are those who are unholy andunworthy of the title, see ibid., 200. We should keep in mind that the angels in theWatcher tradition are known to have transformed into human form on occasion. It ispossible that this transformation had some influence upon Philos interpretation of theangelic cuxa transforming into human form to pursue the human passions.

soul, there are again two types. The first is swallowed up by the pleas-ures of the flesh and succumbs to the vices that come with them. Thesecond type finds the strength to continue to seek the divine throughgenuine philosophy and will some day return to the heavenly realm tobe once again in the service of God.

3.1 Angels and Daemons

In De Gigantibus, Philo continues to press the theme of ethical dual-ism. He argues that ggeloi, damonia, and cuxa are different namesfor the same one underlying object, which we must assume is cux(Gig. 16). Each of the three categories of beings has dualistic charac-teristics; there are good and bad ggeloi, damonia, and cuxa. It iswithin this section that we find the most likely allusion to the Watchertradition. Philo appears to argue against the existence of evil spirits byordering his readers: You will cast from you that most grievous bur-den, the fear of demons or superstition. While at first sight, it maybe difficult to identify the Enochic Watcher tradition as the source forthe fear of demons, there does not appear to be anything within theGreek tradition that would have given rise to such a notion.29 This factmay suggest that Philo had some knowledge of the Watcher traditionand its story of the origin of evil spirits.30 It is, however, likely that hedisagreed with the Enochic interpretation of Genesis 6, a matter reflectedin his neglect or dismissal of daemons as evil spirits in De Gigantibus.31

A second point of comparison with the Watcher tradition is found

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 479

480 .

32 Cf. 1 Enoch 8.1.33 Philo is very much aware of the existence of such beings. He identifies them as

kolastriow in De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 132 and De Specialibus Legibus I.307.34 Valentin Nikiprowetsky, Sur une lecture dmonologique de Philon dAlexandria,

De Gigantibus 6-11, in Hommage Georges Vajda: etudes dhistoire et de pense juives (ed. G. Nahon and C. Touati; Leuven-Paris: Peeters, 1980).

35 Cf. Quod Deus immutabilis sit 3. Philo seems to imply the presence of actual angelsin the Genesis 6.4 passage. He describes them as messengers of falsehood (ceudag-gelontvnfalse angels of De Gigantibus 17), which could be understood as the Watchersof 1 Enoch 16.3. He again uses dualistic language of light and darkness (ofl to sktouw)to distinguish between the soul that uses reason to seek wisdom and the soul that seeksthe nerveless and emasculated passions. Philo argues that the and after that ofGenesis 6.4 is referring back to the departure of the Divine spirit from humans, andthat when the Divine spirit departs the human, the cux (angel) joins up with thedaughters of humanity to produce vices which are not godly.

at the end of De Gigantibus 16 in which Philo identifies evil angelsas those who are unholy and unworthy of the title. Philo contendsthe angels of Genesis 6.2 are the angels found in Psalm 77.49 (LXX),the gglvn ponhrn, evil angels. He argues these evil ones are pre-tending to be angels, angels who do not pursue, with reason, the virtuesof the divine. Instead, they:

court the pleasures which are born of men, pleasures mortal as their par-ents, pleasures endowed not with the true beauty, which the mind alonecan discern, but with the false comeliness, by which the senses aredeceived.32

De Gigantibus 16 is perhaps one of the most significant passages in thistreatise and at the same time one of the most confusing. If we are tounderstand that Philo is talking about evil angels, while at the sametime identifying them as human souls, he has taken the verse com-pletely out of context (this is not to say he has misunderstood the pas-sage, but rather he has read the passage in a very distinctive way).The angels of Psalm 77.49 (identified by Philo as the bene elohim) arethe angels of Gods wrath who function as agents of divine punish-ment sent against evil humanity.33 If he is identifying these angels asevil human souls, which in keeping with his view in 12 must be thecase,34 then it is possible to conclude that he believes that God willuse wicked humanity in his divine economy.

Another possible allusion to the Watcher tradition is found in Philosinterpretation of Genesis 6.2 in De Gigantibus 18-19. He identifies thedaughters of humanity as the pleasures of the mortal flesh.35 Thesepleasures have seduced the evil ones (i.e., the bene elohim) with every

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 480

DE GIGANTIBUS 481

36 This may be an allusion to the Watcher tradition in Jubilees, where the womenare assigned blame for seducing the angels with their comeliness.

37 Philo does not include totoiw in his reading of the LXX text of Genesis 6.3,which indicates he is not looking at a specific group of men. He reinforces this thoughtin 20, the spirit sometimes stays awhile but it does not abide forever among us, themass of men (tow pollow mn).

38 It is possible that this was the role of the Watcher angels in 1 Enoch and Jubileesprior to their fall. For discussion of the damvn in Greek literature, see Lars Albinus,The Greek damvn Between Mythos and Logos in Demons, The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment (eds. Armin Lange, HermannLichtenberger and K. F. Diethard Rmheld; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 425-446;Bernard Dietrich, Death, Fate, and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in GreekPopular Belief and in Homer (University of London Classical Studies 3; London: Athlone,1967); and Sren Skovgaard Jensen, Dualism and Demonology: The Function of Demonologyin Pythagorean and Platonic Thought (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966). See e.g., use ofdamvn as a synonym for yew Homers Iliad 1.222, 3.420; departed heroes in HesiodOpera et Dies 121-28; a being somewhere between the departed heroes and the gods(watchers over humanity) in Plutarch De E apud Delphos 390E; and guardian angelin Platos Timaeus 90a, and gayow damonaw in De Gigantibus 16. See also Eric Sorensen,Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, (WUNT 157; Tbingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 80-84.

possible human pleasure imaginable (Gig. 18).36 At first glance, theseevil ones appear to be those angels that are described in 1 Enoch 6.However, De Gigantibus 19, Among such as these [beings in 17-18]then it is impossible that the spirit of God should dwell and make for-ever its habitation, clearly identifies them as human (Gen 6.3): Myspirit shall not abide forever among men, because they are flesh.37

These evil ones appear to be the category of human cux that pur-sues the pleasures of the flesh rather than the divine. In 29, Philosuggests the spirit of God cannot abide permanently in the soul of ahuman because of the flesh and its ignorance. He argues that the chiefcause of ignorance is the flesh, which prevents the wisdom of the divinefrom coming to its fullness in the human soul. He suggests that thingsof everyday life (marriage, rearing of children, poverty, and the busi-ness of private and public life) prevent the flower of wisdom fromcoming to full bloom in the soul, and maintains that souls that arefree from the flesh (sarkoi) and body (smatoi) spend their time see-ing and hearing things divine without hindrance (Gig. 31).

The daemon, also identified as a cux, appears to be in a class byitself, although Philo leaves its role somewhat ambiguous. The role ofthe daemon in Greek writings is usually classified as a divine being, animpersonal power, agent of fate, or a god. Daemons operated in thehuman sphere on behalf of the Olympian gods.38 Philo equated the

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 481

482 .

39 See their role in Jubilees 10.

daemon with the Jewish idea of angel, a mediator of knowledge betweenGod and humanity. Soteriologically speaking, the daemon represented amediator between the state of unrighteousness and impurity in the cycleof reincarnation and at the same time mediated a state of purity andjustification, which brought about a return of the individual to theregion of the Divine. This second function was probably Philos under-standing of the daemon, since this being had the ability to lead thehuman back from a fleshly existence to his or her intended angelicstate in the realm of the Divine.

3.2 Philos Giantology

The giants of the Watcher tradition are described as spiritual beingsthat were born with a human type of body (1 Enoch 15.4, 8 and 16.1).They are one of three categories of spirit (angel, human, and giant)within BW that can be identified as distinct from the Spirit of God.The giants are seen as categorically evil because they are an illegiti-mate mixed nature of human and angel (see 1 Enoch 15). Their func-tion in the physical world of 1 Enoch was to destroy humanity. Followingtheir death, their purpose as evil spirits was to tempt humans and todraw them away from God.39

Philo has clearly offered a distinctly different interpretation of theGenesis 6.1-4 passage in comparison with the tradition found in 1 Enoch. It is therefore possible to say that the relationship between BWand De Gigantibus should not be conceived as one of positive influence.Although it is possible that Philo was familiar with the Watcher tra-dition or some form of it, it seems that any possible influence it hadin reality encouraged him to write a corrective to BW. Now if Philois being corrective, he is not necessarily opposed to the entire Watchertradition, but specifically against the first century idea that evil spiritsare the cause of human suffering. Philo, therefore, has set out his inter-pretation of what the giants are in reference to corruption of humanity.

The giants of Philo should not be understood as either physical orspiritual entities. Rather, the offspring of the angels of God and thedaughters of humanity (nerveless and emasculated passions) in Genesis6 are the irrational vices (Deus. 4). In other words, when the cux inthe heavenly realm meets up with the passions of the human flesh vices

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 482

DE GIGANTIBUS 483

40 This statement seems to imply that Philo is talking about the cux who has notjoined with human flesh, but remains in the region of the air.

41 Philo argues in De Opificio Mundi 81 that there is a war going on in the humansoul between the vices and virtues.

42 It may be implied in De Opificio Mundi 160 that there are forces at work along-side the pleasures that may be understood as demonic forces: pleasure employs tenthousand champions and defenders, who have undertaken to look after her and todefend her.

are born that result in the cux being drawn into the torrents of theflesh. The task of these giants (vices) is to create discord within theindividual and the community. These vices result in an internal conflictwithin the human soul that holds him or her beneath the water in thetorrent of the stream. The cux must avoid the pleasures which areakin to the body (Gig. 34) and live as the true man, the person wholives the life of virtue not compounded of soul and body.40 Humansmust avoid anything that will ignite the lusts of the flesh and embracethat spirit of frugal contentment which is the friend of virtue ratherthan things that belong to the body (Gig. 35). Philo indicates that thevices are numerous and represent a deadly threat to humans; as hecontends in 35, let us subdue the vast and countless host of herdeadly foes.41

Though Philo does not regard his giants as evil spirits, we can per-haps draw a possible comparison between the giants of the Watchertradition and the giants of De Gigantibus, since both threaten the sur-vival of humanity. The giant of 1 Enoch is considered a physical threatwhile it occupied a body (1 Enoch 7.3-5) and later becomes a spiritualthreat to the soul of an individual by physical affliction or drawinghim or her away from God (1 Enoch 15.11-12; 19.1). Philos giants re-present a similar threat to the spiritual survival of humanity in thatthey bring out or contribute to the impurity of an individual, whichresults in his or her inability to enter into the region of the Divine.Both traditions imply human duty and responsibility to reject theadvances of the giants (cf. Jubilees 10 which puts the case more stronglythan either 1 Enoch or Philo). The spirits of giants in the Watcher tra-dition represent an external threat, which operates against the internalgood inclinations of the individual. Philos giants correspond to theinternal pleasures of the flesh that are allowed to operate or not oper-ate by the irrational and rational sides of the soul. These pleasuresdrive the individual to seek external vices.42 De Gigantibus 37-38 indi-cates there are external vices that easily draw the soul away from its

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 483

484 .

43 Cf. 1QS IV. 9-11; this text lists the characteristics of a person who walks in thepaths of darkness.

44 It is possible that 60-61 serve as part of Philos apology of Judaism. The threetypes of cuxa may represent three people groups in Philos day. The earth-born appearto represent the pagans of society (Egyptians?); the heaven-born may represent theGreek philosophers; and the God-born may represent Israel, priests and prophets.

45 Philo offers Abraham as an example of a man of God who, by studying the upperworld of the heavens, was transformed into that realm in what can best be describedas angelomorphic language. See De Opificio Mundi 77; see also De Somniis I.140-143which describes the transformation of humanity to the realm of perfect purity andexcellence with the angels of the ruler of the universe.

goal of purity and holiness in the presence of the Divine. These vicesinclude money, glory, or bodily strength. Philo argues that these thingsare not in and of themselves evil, but will become a vice to the indi-vidual if they are pursued (Gig. 35).43 He implies in 31 that thosewho pursue pleasures are not being obedient to the Law, thus theycannot be endowed with the Divine spirit.

Philo encourages his readers to avoid the pitfall that the angels ofGod fell into when they pursued the daughters of humanity, the irra-tional pleasures (Gig. 40). He instructs them not to be moved from the:

rank in Gods array where they that are so posted must all seek to bethe bravest, nor desert to pleasure, the cowardly and invertebrate, pleas-ure who harms her friends and helps her enemies (Gig. 43).

For the individual to accomplish this he or she must seek out the truebeauty of virtue, which will bind you fast to the object of your desire.By doing this, the individual will remain with the fullness of God nearhim or her (Gig. 47).

4.0 Summary

In De Gigantibus 58, Philo attempts to reveal the true meaning of theGenesis 6.1-4 passage. He declares it is not a myth about the giants(although he is likely referring to the giants [or Titans] of Homer andHesiod), but rather Genesis 6.1-4 is an account of three levels of human-ity, the earth-born, the heaven-born, and the God-born. The earth-born are those cuxa who take part in the pleasures of the body, notconcerning themselves with the virtues of the holy life.44 The heaven-born are lovers of learning, those who remain in the heavenly realmpursuing the things of the mind.45 The God-born are priests and prophetswho refuse to enter into the worldly sector of humanity, but chose to

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 484

DE GIGANTIBUS 485

46 See 1 En 9.3, 10; 22.3; 4Q530 II 1.47 See 1 En 15.8.48 See (for human) 1 En 20.3; 22.3, 9, 11, 13; (for giants) 15.9; Jub 10.7, 11; (for

angels) 1 En 13.6; 15.7.49 See Jub 15.8, 9 and possibly Sibylline Oracles 1.105.50 See 1 En 15.12; Jub 7.27; 10.7, 11.51 See 1 En 19.1 and 86.3.52 See 1 En 19.2; Jub 4.15implied evil humanity in the seduction of the angels.53 See 1 En 15 and 86.6.

remain as freemen of the commonwealth of Ideas ( 61). We nowhave in the first century C.E. two very different interpretations of theGenesis passage.

The following table reveals how Philo and BW differ in their pre-sentation of the key figures in the Genesis 6.1-4 passage.

Philo 1 Enoch Watcher Tradition

Equates human soul and spirit Unclear if soul and spirit are the sameSoul is identified as human, angel, Soul is part of human (only?)46

daemonBodyhuman only Bodyhuman and giant47

Spirithuman, angel, and daemon Spirithuman, giant, and angel48

Giantsnot seen as physical nor spirit Giantsphysical and spiritual being49

Giantsinternal vices that tempt Giantsspirits that tempt humanity50

humanityHumanscan be angelic Humansphysical and spiritual beingOne type of soul/spirit outside of God Three types spirits outside of GodSpiritGood or bad on 3 levelsAngelic type beings that are celestial Angels described as stars in the Animal

bodies ApocalypseGood/bad angelscan transform to Good/bad angelscan take on human

human form51

Good/bad humanscan become Good/possibly bad humanscannot beangelic angelic52

No giant spirits Evil spirit of giantsunclean mix ofhuman/angel53

In this summary of Philos giantology and anthropology, we can seeclear distinctions between his ideas and those of BW, while at the sametime some overlapping themes emerge. The contrasts begin with Philosequating of the human soul and spirit, while BW is unclear about theidentity of the two entities; although it is possible they are one andthe same. Philo identifies the cux as the key element in the make up

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 485

486 .

54 It is in this area that Philos understanding of the soul becomes somewhat vague.It is difficult to discern if he considers humans as angels who have put on flesh or asa distinct category of being. It would seem it is the former and by casting off the fleshthe cux is able to return to a full angelic state.

55 It is unclear in BW if the Watchers remain in human form until their judgmentand destruction as is the case with what appears to be a majority of the angels whodescend in De Gigantibus to take on human form.

of humans, angels, and daemons. BW apparently assigns the soul onlyto humans. The physical body is singled out for humans in Philo, whileit is given to humans and, for a short period, also to the giants in theWatcher tradition.

A marked contrast between the two traditions emerges in theirdifferent interpretation of the giants. Philo avoids assigning any ele-ment of a spirit to the giants in De Gigantibus. He identifies them sym-bolically with the pleasures of the human body, which bring corruptionthrough vices. BW identifies the giant offspring of the angels and womenas evil spirits. The work of the giants (as vices in Philo or as evil spir-its in the Watcher tradition) in both writings is to afflict and tempthumanity in order to draw them away from God and His Torah. Asa result, in both cases humanity is made corrupt and incapable ofentering into the divine presence.

There is some possible overlap between Philos interpretation ofGenesis 6.1-4 and the interpretation found in BW in relation to theconcept of angel. Philo argues that there is only one form of soul/spiritapart from God. However, he identifies three categories of souls (human,angel, and daemon); each of these three types has good and bad ele-ments. BW identifies three distinct (types of ) spirits apart from God(angel, human, and giant). There are good and bad angels, good andbad humans, but there are only bad giants. Similarly, Philo only under-stands the giants as a bad element. He identifies both good and badangels. Those who remain in the heavenly region in the service of Godare good, while those who descend to take on human flesh are bad.54

We can perhaps consider this descent as a transformation to humanform in order to take part in human pleasures. Similarly, in BW wefind the Watchers transforming into human form in order to take partin the human pleasure of fornication with women.55 One significantdifference between the two traditions is that Philos angelic cux keepsits human form until it returns to the divine realm, whereas the angelsof BW apparently retain their angelic state and thus need to be bound.

Philos explanation of physical humanity can be troublesome. Human

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 486

DE GIGANTIBUS 487

56 See Legum Allegoriae 107. Philo argues that it is for the sake of pleasure that humansdo evil acts thus reinforcing his idea that evil in the world is ultimately the responsibilityof the individual.

beings (in the form of a soul) apparently begin their existence in thepresence of the Divine, but for unspoken reasons, they choose to takeon physical form. They were once angels, but they surrender theirplace of communication with the Divine, in order to create their owngiants in much the same way as the Watchers. Once these cuxa takeon human form, we are not told the odds that they will return to theheavenly region. We are informed only that those who do return doso by dedicating themselves to the study of genuine philosophy (i.e.,Jewish Torah). It is through this study that they are purified and ableto return to the divine realm. Humanity plays a much more passiverole in the account in BW. Men and women are victimized to a degreeby the Watchers, the giants, and eventually by the evil spirits. Theironly hope appears to be deliverance by God Himself on the Day ofJudgment when he will destroy all evil from the earth. It is at thispoint that there may be some kind of transformation for humans intoan angelic state.

The interpretation of Genesis 6.1-4 by Philo offers a very differentrepresentation of the problem of human suffering in the first-centuryC.E. Jewish Diaspora when compared with other (early) Jewish writ-ers. The interpretation of the Genesis passage by the authors of theBW presented an aetiology of evil spirits that was espoused by otherJewish authors and further developed as an answer to the problem ofevil. However, it appears that Philo was not willing to accept this ratio-nale and chose to explain the struggles of humanity in light of indi-vidual responsibility to overcome the temptations of evil.

It is evident that Philos angelology is much more integral to hisanthropology than is apparent in the Watcher tradition, which assumesa more stratified universe. As a result, Philos concept of the humansoul identifies two parallel dualisms at work, one that recognizes twospirits in the heavenly realm: one cux that remains angelic in thedivine realm and a second cux that takes on human flesh. The sec-ond category contains two types of cuxa, one that succumbs to thetemptation of the flesh, and another that seeks to find a return to theheavenly realm. This dualism carries with it the sense that responsi-bility for evil rests with the individual rather than with an externalforce, an opinion common in other writing of the period.56 It is within

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 487

488 .

this understanding of the soul that Philo offers his interpretation of theGenesis 6.1-4 passage. Our review and comparison thereof with theWatcher tradition suggests that he was at least aware of some form ofthe Watcher tradition of 1 Enoch and other Second Temple Periodwritings; and it would seem that he was attempting to correct suchan understanding of the problem of evil and its origins.

JSJ 36,4_325_471-488I 10/6/05 7:15 PM Page 488