Any chance of help finding these mentions? There is just so much crap on that website to wade through. I've tried searching but can't find what I'm looking for.
Early interpretations of Genesis 6 "sons of God"?
Re: Early interpretations of Genesis 6 "sons of God"?
Re: Early interpretations of Genesis 6 "sons of God"?
@neil, I'm starting a new thread to discuss Gmirkin's view on the origins of Jewish monotheism.
Re: Early interpretations of Genesis 6 "sons of God"?
I hoped that the following webpage, https://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-watch ... isdom.html , in which Colavito has assembled English translations of texts related to Genesis 6:1-4 (and Genesis 6:1-4 itself), may be useful. He quotes the following, among others:
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.68-74 (93-94 CE)
68 … Now this Seth […] was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues. 69 All these proved to be of good dispositions. They also inhabited the same country without dissensions, and in a happy condition, without any misfortunes falling upon them, till they died. They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. 70 And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam’s prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars, the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, 71 that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind; and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad [i.e. Egypt] to this day.
72 Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. 73 For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. 74 But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.
Translated by William Whiston.
Philo, On Giants 6-11 (before 50 CE)
6 “And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all of them whom they Chose.” (Gen. 6:2) Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the air. 7 And let no one suppose, that what is here stated is a fable, for it is necessarily true that the universe must be filled with living things in all its parts, since every one of its primary and elementary portions contains its appropriate animals and such as are consistent with its nature;—the earth containing terrestrial animals, the sea and the rivers containing aquatic animals, and the fire such as are born in the fire (but it is said, that such as these last are found chiefly in Macedonia), and the heaven containing the stars: 8 for these also are entire souls pervading the universe, being unadulterated and divine, inasmuch as they move in a circle, which is the kind of motion most akin to the mind, for every one of them is the parent mind. It is therefore necessary that the air also should be full of living beings. And these beings are invisible to us, inasmuch as the air itself is not visible to mortal sight. 9 But it does not follow, because our sight is incapable of perceiving the forms of souls, that for that reason there are no souls in the air; but it follows of necessity that they must be comprehended by the mind, in order that like may be contemplated by like. 10 Since what shall we say? Must we not say that these animals which are terrestrial or aquatic live in air and spirit? What? Are not pestilential afflictions accustomed to exist when the air is tainted or corrupted, as if that were the cause of all such assuming vitality? Again, when the air is free from all taint and innocent, such as it is especially wont to be when the north wind prevails, does not the imbibing of a purer air tend to a more vigorous and more lasting duration of life? 11 It is then natural that that medium by which all other animals, whether aquatic of terrestrial, are vivified should itself be empty and destitute of souls? On the contrary, even if all other animals were barren, the air by itself would be bound to be productive of life, having received from the great Creator the seeds of vitality by his especial favour.
Translated by C. D. Yonge.
Re: Early interpretations of Genesis 6 "sons of God"?
Ok, that is helpful, but it still doesn't explain much.
Let's compare to Genesis 6:
So, it would seem that Josephus is reading "sons of God" as angels, but of course Josephus could also be working from other sources, such as Jubilees and/or oral traditions, which identified these beings as angels.
So this is helpful, but I'd really like to find something like a targum that directly addresses the text. Maybe such a thing does not exist.
Anyway...
This seems to indicate that the Nephilim were the, "heroes of old, men of renown". Maybe they were also considered giants by this writer? It is unclear.
But, from there we go directly to, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth".
Obviously, Genesis 6 leaves out many details. How are we to infer that these, "heroes of old, men of renown," are the ones who caused corruption? Why do so many later traditions provide more details here, which clarify that the progeny of the angels and women were wicked and caused corruption, while Genesis 6 fails to do so?
Even Josephus is filling in details that do not exist in Genesis 6. Surely he did not actually just infer this information from Genesis 6, he must be working from common lore that was widely accepted among Jews adn is what we find reflected in Jubilees and Enoch. So the question is, do those additional details come from sources like Jubilees and Enoch or do Jubilees and Enoch reflect a common story that pre-dated Genesis 6 and which Genesis 6 truncates.
It would seem that under Gmrikin's theory, it would have to be that there was no Semitic story from which Genesis 6 was derived, so all added details must be expansions upon Genesis 6. But to me it looks more like Genesis 6 is redacting an existing Semitic story, that was commonly known, and which Jubilees and Enoch draw upon to provide additional details that were left out of Genesis 6.
Genesis 6 doesn't make the connection between the mating of mortals and immortals and the corruption of the earth. It simply says that this mating produced heroes. If we understand these heroes to be the Nephilim, it is unclear whether these Nephilim is necessarily bad or not. The writer has introduced a term with no explanation, which again points to the redaction of a pre-existent story. Josephus has to explain what the text does not say.
But further in Genesis 6 we get:
Here, God's only displeasure is with the humans. He isn't angry at the "angels". There is no indication that there is a problem even with the Nephilim.
But even Jubilees corrects this:
It would seem to be that under Gmirkin's theory, the writer of Jubilees must have been making this up on his own, or building upon some other tales that were expansions of Genesis 6. But this seems very unlikely, because Genesis 6 itself seems like such an incomplete narrative. It looks far more to me like someone took a narrative like we find in Jubilees and redacted it to created Genesis 6. And whoever this redactor was, they didn't want blame going onto the heavenly beings. They wanted all of the blame to go onto the humans. The angels/son's of God weren't responsible for the corruption according to the writer of Genesis 6.
This further begs the question of why the writer of Genesis 6 would have even mentioned this mating between women and angels to begin with, since it really seems to serve little purpose in their narrative. I would contend that they did so because they were working from a widely known Semitic narrative that was culturally important to include in their account. This wouldn't be the case if they were making up a new narrative based on the works of Plato.
72 Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. 73 For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.
Let's compare to Genesis 6:
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
So, it would seem that Josephus is reading "sons of God" as angels, but of course Josephus could also be working from other sources, such as Jubilees and/or oral traditions, which identified these beings as angels.
So this is helpful, but I'd really like to find something like a targum that directly addresses the text. Maybe such a thing does not exist.
Anyway...
This seems to indicate that the Nephilim were the, "heroes of old, men of renown". Maybe they were also considered giants by this writer? It is unclear.
But, from there we go directly to, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth".
Obviously, Genesis 6 leaves out many details. How are we to infer that these, "heroes of old, men of renown," are the ones who caused corruption? Why do so many later traditions provide more details here, which clarify that the progeny of the angels and women were wicked and caused corruption, while Genesis 6 fails to do so?
Even Josephus is filling in details that do not exist in Genesis 6. Surely he did not actually just infer this information from Genesis 6, he must be working from common lore that was widely accepted among Jews adn is what we find reflected in Jubilees and Enoch. So the question is, do those additional details come from sources like Jubilees and Enoch or do Jubilees and Enoch reflect a common story that pre-dated Genesis 6 and which Genesis 6 truncates.
It would seem that under Gmrikin's theory, it would have to be that there was no Semitic story from which Genesis 6 was derived, so all added details must be expansions upon Genesis 6. But to me it looks more like Genesis 6 is redacting an existing Semitic story, that was commonly known, and which Jubilees and Enoch draw upon to provide additional details that were left out of Genesis 6.
Genesis 6 doesn't make the connection between the mating of mortals and immortals and the corruption of the earth. It simply says that this mating produced heroes. If we understand these heroes to be the Nephilim, it is unclear whether these Nephilim is necessarily bad or not. The writer has introduced a term with no explanation, which again points to the redaction of a pre-existent story. Josephus has to explain what the text does not say.
But further in Genesis 6 we get:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
Here, God's only displeasure is with the humans. He isn't angry at the "angels". There is no indication that there is a problem even with the Nephilim.
But even Jubilees corrects this:
Jubilees V:
And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God 186 saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants.187 2. And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way,188 alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walketh on the earth-all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour189 each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men (was) thus evil continually.190
3. And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth191 had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes. 4. And He said: "I shall destroy man and all flesh upon the face of the earth which I have created." 5. But Noah found grace before the eyes of the Lord.192 6. And against the angels whom He had sent upon the earth, He was exceedingly wroth, and He gave commandment to root them out of all their dominion, and He bade us to bind them in the depths of the earth, and behold they are bound in the midst of them, and are (kept) separate. 7. And against their sons went forth a command from before His face that they should be smitten with the sword, and be removed from under heaven. 8. And He said "Thy spirit will not always abide 193 on man; for they also are flesh and their days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God 186 saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants.187 2. And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way,188 alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walketh on the earth-all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour189 each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men (was) thus evil continually.190
3. And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth191 had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes. 4. And He said: "I shall destroy man and all flesh upon the face of the earth which I have created." 5. But Noah found grace before the eyes of the Lord.192 6. And against the angels whom He had sent upon the earth, He was exceedingly wroth, and He gave commandment to root them out of all their dominion, and He bade us to bind them in the depths of the earth, and behold they are bound in the midst of them, and are (kept) separate. 7. And against their sons went forth a command from before His face that they should be smitten with the sword, and be removed from under heaven. 8. And He said "Thy spirit will not always abide 193 on man; for they also are flesh and their days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
It would seem to be that under Gmirkin's theory, the writer of Jubilees must have been making this up on his own, or building upon some other tales that were expansions of Genesis 6. But this seems very unlikely, because Genesis 6 itself seems like such an incomplete narrative. It looks far more to me like someone took a narrative like we find in Jubilees and redacted it to created Genesis 6. And whoever this redactor was, they didn't want blame going onto the heavenly beings. They wanted all of the blame to go onto the humans. The angels/son's of God weren't responsible for the corruption according to the writer of Genesis 6.
This further begs the question of why the writer of Genesis 6 would have even mentioned this mating between women and angels to begin with, since it really seems to serve little purpose in their narrative. I would contend that they did so because they were working from a widely known Semitic narrative that was culturally important to include in their account. This wouldn't be the case if they were making up a new narrative based on the works of Plato.
Re: Early interpretations of Genesis 6 "sons of God"?
It seems that later Christians read "sons of God" as either meaning angels (as apparently Jews also did) or as "sons of Seth", meaning Godly human beings. It seems that quite a few adopt the view that the good sons of Seth were breeding with the evil daughters of Cain, and that this is what Genesis is talking about, but of course that would not seem so at all.
Re: 2013 Ph.D.
I presume you've seen this? Looks very well-documented:
https://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/32/7/2013Do ... tation.pdf
https://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/32/7/2013Do ... tation.pdf
Re: 2013 Ph.D.
I have not, and I haven't read it yet, but it looks potentially very helpful. Thank you!billd89 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 9:47 am I presume you've seen this? Looks very well-documented:
https://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/32/7/2013Do ... tation.pdf
Edit: I'm reading this now and yes, this is perfect, very helpful!
Edit: Very interesting:
In reviewing the writings of the synagogue, it appears that it is this interpretation
which has been sanctioned as the authoritative exegesis therein. Genesis Rabbah
26:8 notes that a curse was pronounced on anyone who persisted in referring to
them as ‘sons of God’, that is to say, on those who still promulgated the heretofore
generally accepted ‘angels-interpretation’.
which has been sanctioned as the authoritative exegesis therein. Genesis Rabbah
26:8 notes that a curse was pronounced on anyone who persisted in referring to
them as ‘sons of God’, that is to say, on those who still promulgated the heretofore
generally accepted ‘angels-interpretation’.
Another interesting note:
Such is the case, for example,
when one has to decide whether the tradition in the pseudepigraphic work of
1 Enoch is to be considered a kind of commentary on Gen 6:1–4, or the other way
around, implying that Gen 6:1–4 functions as polemic against – or summary of –
the tradition as rendered in its final form in 1 Enoch.
when one has to decide whether the tradition in the pseudepigraphic work of
1 Enoch is to be considered a kind of commentary on Gen 6:1–4, or the other way
around, implying that Gen 6:1–4 functions as polemic against – or summary of –
the tradition as rendered in its final form in 1 Enoch.
I'll be interested to read more about this in following sections.
Further footnotes:
95 Or polemic against, so Ida Fröhlich, “Újraírt szövegek,” in Az utókor hatalma: Újraírt szövegek (ed.
Ida Fröhlich, Kréné 4; Budapest: Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó, 2005), 28–29.
96 Cf. J. T. Milik, “Problèmes de la littérature Hénochique à la lumière des fragments Araméens de
Qumrân,” HTR 64 (1971): 349–350. This implies that the original of 1 En. 6–19 preceded the final
redaction of the first chapters of Genesis; idem, ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of
Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 30–31. Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1
Enoch: A New English Translation (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 125, argues for “the priority of the
Enoch tradition, … to which Gen 6 is briefly alluding” but, at the same time, suggests the possibility that
both Gen 6 and 1 En. draw upon a common literary tradition. However, even an early dating of ‘The
Book of Watchers’ in 1 En. at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. does not discredit the fact of Genesis
already being regarded as an authoritative document, thus the Enoch-story is best understood as a
paraphrase of Gen 6, cf. George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch,
Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 168.
Ida Fröhlich, Kréné 4; Budapest: Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó, 2005), 28–29.
96 Cf. J. T. Milik, “Problèmes de la littérature Hénochique à la lumière des fragments Araméens de
Qumrân,” HTR 64 (1971): 349–350. This implies that the original of 1 En. 6–19 preceded the final
redaction of the first chapters of Genesis; idem, ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of
Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 30–31. Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1
Enoch: A New English Translation (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 125, argues for “the priority of the
Enoch tradition, … to which Gen 6 is briefly alluding” but, at the same time, suggests the possibility that
both Gen 6 and 1 En. draw upon a common literary tradition. However, even an early dating of ‘The
Book of Watchers’ in 1 En. at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. does not discredit the fact of Genesis
already being regarded as an authoritative document, thus the Enoch-story is best understood as a
paraphrase of Gen 6, cf. George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch,
Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 168.
Note: does anyone have the Hermeneia on 1 Enoch 1? I only have 1 Enoch 2. Can anyone provide info on the reference cited here?
On another note, I have to note this quote:
It has been even said about the passage in question (Gen 6:1-4) that “there is more disagreement here per square inch than almost anywhere in the Bible”.
That made my day.
Re: "Sons of God"?
rgprice -
Glad to help
I've written reams of opinion on Philo's 'Sons of God' on this forum -- a quick glance reveals my own theory of sorts (right or wrong) -- and that this topic has engrossed my attention 'somewhat'. I won't rehash or even link to any prior posts here; there's no point in so doing. It's literally my Holy Grail, Krater of the Spirit's sober drunkenness: the never-ending quest.
We are 'Sons of God', YES. That was at the root of the Edelsteins' meta-conceptualization of the Fellowship in 1938, obscured as "the children of a living Creator." (The cryptic god, in so many identifiable attributes, is apparently Hauron.) So far as I can tell, "Therapeutae' were healers & teachers from a mystical (Egyptian) branch of Judaism, Sethians from the Sethrum (originally), but ever evolving and influencing others in the Diaspora -- esp. the Palestinian Jews who became Nazoreans. In the pogroms of 37-38 AD, Philo's 'Therapeutae' (i.e. literate theosophical Jews) themselves disappeared into the Serapion or temple-complexes of Serapis-Isis. Anti-semitic persecution/genocide led them to a disavowal of Judaism (where did a million Egyptian Jews go?), or perhaps underground, into a secret war of ideas w/ the unruly, atheistic-pagan Greeks? The Atheist-Agnostics are like sleep-walking golems who must be converted by sober Therapeutae -- the Aletheian Anthropoi, or A. A. -- in the Edelsteins' modern kabbalah.
It's a meta-conceptualization of the Edelsteins' own predicament, clever subtext, veering far off the Biblical Rechabite ancestors (Jewish ex-alcoholics as a prototype water-wagon society, in the vine-land of Lake Mareotis) -- something decidedly more occult & theoretical. The Rockefellers (Sigerist, actually) must have given them free reign, w/ no idea what they were getting for their money. The Big Book's Program is an opaque Jacob's Ladder, for anagogy & paligenesia, a thinly-veiled Jewish Gnostic course in divinization (after Jung's concept of Jesus-the-Therapeut; the Nazoreans would be his cult). At least, in 1938 theory; that's not what you find in the rooms today.
The 'Sons of God' were certainly not modeled on Buchmanites -- the deliberate Rockefeller plan was to thwart & undermine that Nazi cunt"s movement into their hometown -- and Ebby, Dr. Bob & the other drunks had no friggin' clue where any of this came from. (The Third Floor of the William Welch Library at Johns Hopkins in fact, to be historically precise, on this fact-finding and fact-facing mission.)
It's ALL about the "Sons of God", really. And I still have lots and lots of questions. For example: were Sethians a non-Yahwehist (or rather: an Horonic) cult of Philistine Jews, whose deity (i.e. Baal Zeboul) was begrudgingly merged into the nascent "Jewish" community as the Second God: the Dual-Nature Demiurge, c.600-350 BC? Is He that Other, hidden beneath? Who is Horon, anyway (other than a local and veritably ancient God from what's now Israel )? How does He relate to the Semite god of Fortune? Philo's hypostases of God are individuated (however obscured), and the later Gnostics likewise preserve distinct potencies (however muddled), although I think these were thoroughly 'Egyptianized' (to whatever regional variance) by 100 BC.
I do not believe "the Sons of God" were devout, loyal Yahwehists: they're more ancient, and problematic. So -- IF we accept they are Sethians, Jews of the Sethrum 'originally', literati coded as 'Therapeutae' -- the question 'Who is their God?' becomes a relevant point of inquiry. I keep returning to the Four-fold Philonic henadology for clues.
The older Philistine/Judeo-Phoenician god-complex (c.600-350 BC), and any theoretical correspondence or lineage, remains uncertain still:
El-Eyon .... Theos Orounos (suggesting 'Horon') ... Kronos? ......................... Ptah (=Ptahil) ............ God
Yahweh .... Baal -- .................................... Zeus ............................. Thoth ..................... Great God
Horon ...... Melqart/Herakles ....................... Helios-Apollo ................... Agathodaimon ........... Great Great God
Gad ........ Eshmun? .................................. Zeus Helios Megas Serapis ... Hermes Trismegistos ... Great Great Great God
David (a suspect form of the Young God) was associated w/ a Prophet Gad:
'Athlete' (the Young God?) from the Temple of Eshmun:
Glad to help
I've written reams of opinion on Philo's 'Sons of God' on this forum -- a quick glance reveals my own theory of sorts (right or wrong) -- and that this topic has engrossed my attention 'somewhat'. I won't rehash or even link to any prior posts here; there's no point in so doing. It's literally my Holy Grail, Krater of the Spirit's sober drunkenness: the never-ending quest.
We are 'Sons of God', YES. That was at the root of the Edelsteins' meta-conceptualization of the Fellowship in 1938, obscured as "the children of a living Creator." (The cryptic god, in so many identifiable attributes, is apparently Hauron.) So far as I can tell, "Therapeutae' were healers & teachers from a mystical (Egyptian) branch of Judaism, Sethians from the Sethrum (originally), but ever evolving and influencing others in the Diaspora -- esp. the Palestinian Jews who became Nazoreans. In the pogroms of 37-38 AD, Philo's 'Therapeutae' (i.e. literate theosophical Jews) themselves disappeared into the Serapion or temple-complexes of Serapis-Isis. Anti-semitic persecution/genocide led them to a disavowal of Judaism (where did a million Egyptian Jews go?), or perhaps underground, into a secret war of ideas w/ the unruly, atheistic-pagan Greeks? The Atheist-Agnostics are like sleep-walking golems who must be converted by sober Therapeutae -- the Aletheian Anthropoi, or A. A. -- in the Edelsteins' modern kabbalah.
It's a meta-conceptualization of the Edelsteins' own predicament, clever subtext, veering far off the Biblical Rechabite ancestors (Jewish ex-alcoholics as a prototype water-wagon society, in the vine-land of Lake Mareotis) -- something decidedly more occult & theoretical. The Rockefellers (Sigerist, actually) must have given them free reign, w/ no idea what they were getting for their money. The Big Book's Program is an opaque Jacob's Ladder, for anagogy & paligenesia, a thinly-veiled Jewish Gnostic course in divinization (after Jung's concept of Jesus-the-Therapeut; the Nazoreans would be his cult). At least, in 1938 theory; that's not what you find in the rooms today.
The 'Sons of God' were certainly not modeled on Buchmanites -- the deliberate Rockefeller plan was to thwart & undermine that Nazi cunt"s movement into their hometown -- and Ebby, Dr. Bob & the other drunks had no friggin' clue where any of this came from. (The Third Floor of the William Welch Library at Johns Hopkins in fact, to be historically precise, on this fact-finding and fact-facing mission.)
It's ALL about the "Sons of God", really. And I still have lots and lots of questions. For example: were Sethians a non-Yahwehist (or rather: an Horonic) cult of Philistine Jews, whose deity (i.e. Baal Zeboul) was begrudgingly merged into the nascent "Jewish" community as the Second God: the Dual-Nature Demiurge, c.600-350 BC? Is He that Other, hidden beneath? Who is Horon, anyway (other than a local and veritably ancient God from what's now Israel )? How does He relate to the Semite god of Fortune? Philo's hypostases of God are individuated (however obscured), and the later Gnostics likewise preserve distinct potencies (however muddled), although I think these were thoroughly 'Egyptianized' (to whatever regional variance) by 100 BC.
I do not believe "the Sons of God" were devout, loyal Yahwehists: they're more ancient, and problematic. So -- IF we accept they are Sethians, Jews of the Sethrum 'originally', literati coded as 'Therapeutae' -- the question 'Who is their God?' becomes a relevant point of inquiry. I keep returning to the Four-fold Philonic henadology for clues.
The older Philistine/Judeo-Phoenician god-complex (c.600-350 BC), and any theoretical correspondence or lineage, remains uncertain still:
El-Eyon .... Theos Orounos (suggesting 'Horon') ... Kronos? ......................... Ptah (=Ptahil) ............ God
Yahweh .... Baal -- .................................... Zeus ............................. Thoth ..................... Great God
Horon ...... Melqart/Herakles ....................... Helios-Apollo ................... Agathodaimon ........... Great Great God
Gad ........ Eshmun? .................................. Zeus Helios Megas Serapis ... Hermes Trismegistos ... Great Great Great God
David (a suspect form of the Young God) was associated w/ a Prophet Gad:
'Athlete' (the Young God?) from the Temple of Eshmun: