Gen.

6:1-4
From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search This article or image has been marked as a candidate for transfer to OrthodoxSource.

[edit] Who Were the "Sons of God" and the "Giants" in Genesis 6:1-4?
by John Bockman Tokyo, Japan The ro!"em n the Book of !enesis, "e find "edged bet"een the generations of #dam and the story of $oah and the flood an odd passage telling ho" people multiplied on the earth and ho" the %sons of !od% "ent in to the daughters of men "ho bore either %mighty men% or %giants,% depending on the text in hand. The brevity and mythical character of this passage make it hardly "orth spending much time pondering. &et the passage is nevertheless there, "hich makes it as much holy "rit as the generations of #dam and the story of $oah and the flood. #nd for this reason one may be intrigued by the half'page'long footnote to this passage contained in The Complete Word Study Old Testament (#)! *ublishers, +,,-.. n this footnote, three theories of the identity of these characters are explained as follo"s: %The first theory is that the /sons of !od/ are fallen angels and the /daughters of men/ are mortals... The second theory as to their identity is the one most often held to "ithin conservative 0*rotestant1 scholarship. The /sons of !od/ are reckoned to be the godly line of Seth, "hile the /daughters of men/ are the line of 2ain... The last theory is one that is gaining popularity among conservatives. 3ecent archaeological evidence has suggested that the phrase /sons of !od "as sometimes used to describe kings...% (p. +4. St. 5phraim the Syrian/s %2ommentary on !enesis% (The Fathers of the Church: St. Ephrem the Syrian Selected Prose Works, 6athleen )c7ey, ed. 08ashington: 2atholic 9niversity of #merica *ress, +,,-1. endorses the second theory above. #ccording to him, the line of 2ain ceased to be productive, and rather than bearing male offspring, it produced only female offspring. The line of Seth, on the other hand, continued to produce robust males "ho, though they "ere %the righteous people of !od%, "ere at any rate %stirred to a fren:y% over the "omen in the line of 2ain. ;or this reason the %tribe of Seth% declined and the %house of 2ain% "axed strong "ith %mighty men.% Therefore, !od gave mankind +<= years in "hich to repent or bear the conse>uences, i.e., the flood (pp. +?-'+?4.. This explanation seemed so neat until found that the 2odex #lexandrinus of the @AA refers to %oi aggeloi tou Beou% (the angels of !od. and not to %oi uioi tou Beou% (the sons of !od..

Text#a" $na"%sis @et us go through each version (the )asoretic 0)1 in the 6J7, the @AA, and the Syriac *eshitta 0*1, used by St. 5phraim. and see ho" they compare in terminology. ;irst the ) version: And it came to pass, hen men !e"an to multiply on the face of the earth, and dau"hters ere !orn to them, that the sons of #od $!enei ha%elohim& sa the dau"hters of men that they ere fair, and they took them i'es of all hich they chose. And the (ord said, )y spirit shall not al ays stri'e ith man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall !e a hundred and t enty years. There ere "iants $ha%nephilim& in the earth in those days* and also after that, hen the sons of #od $!enei ha%elohim& came unto the dau"hters of men, and they !ore children to them, the same !ecame mi"hty men $ha%"i!!orim& hich ere of old, men of reno n. $o" the @AA (from the Bagster edition.: And it came to pass, hen men !e"an to !e numerous upon the earth, and dau"hters ere !orn to them, that the sons of #od $oi uioi tou +eou& ha'in" seen the dau"hters of men that they ere !eautiful took to themsel'es i'es of all hom they chose. And the (ord #od said, )y spirit shall certainly not remain amon" these men fore'er, !ecause they are flesh, !ut their days shall !e an hundred and t enty years. ,o the "iants $"i"antes& ere upon the earth in those days* and after that hen the sons of #od $oi uioi tou +eou& ere ont to "o in to the dau"hters of men, they !ore children to them, those ere the "iants $"i"antes& of old, the men of reno n. #nd no" the * from the text of St. 5phraim/s commentary: And it came to pass that hen men increased and dau"hters ere !orn to them, and the sons of #od sa that the dau"hters of men ere !eautiful and they took to ife such of them as they chose. Then the (ord said, -)y spirit shall not a!ide in man fore'er, for he is flesh, !ut his days shall !e one hundred and t enty years. There ere mi"hty men in those days, and also after ard, !ecause .ud"es ent into the dau"hters of men, they !ore the mi"hty men ho ere of old, the mi"hty men of reno n. $otice first of all that all three texts refer to the sons of !od seeing the daughters of men and choosing "ives. Then ) and @AA mention the giants on the earth in those days, but the * only mentions mighty men. The ) and @AA also refer again to the sons of !od going in to the daughters of men, but the * refers instead to Cudges (D.. Only the @AA makes further mention of giants being borne by the daughters of men, but ) sides "ith * in referring only to mighty men. This double mention of giants in @AA sho"s that the fact that there "ere giants on the earth is seen as someho" significant. Then the surprising mention of Cudges in * seems to indicate an adherence to the third theory outlined in 8ord Study OT footnote. f so, St. 5phraim seems not to subscribe to it.

&in'#isti( $na"%sis

Both the ) and the @AA texts refer to the %benei ha'elohim% and %oi uioi tou Beou% "hich are in complete agreement to %the sons of !od% "hich are also mentioned in the *. Eo"ever, the Eebre" %ha'nephilim%, "hile being translated by the 6J7 as %giants,% is actually subCect to a "ide range of interpretation. Strong/s A Concise /ictionary of the 0e!re 1i!le, "hich is contained in the Word Study OT, defines %nephil% as %a feller, i.e., a bully or tyrant: ''giant.% The %lexical aids% section in the same book explains: %This masculine noun has its origin in naphal. t means a bully, a tyrant, a giant. t appears three times in the OT (!en. F:- 0once1G $um. +?:?? 0t"ice1.. Since the etymology is uncertain, there is much speculation among reputable scholars concerning the nature of these individuals. 9ntil more evidence becomes available, perhaps it is "ise to do as the 3S7 and $ 7 translations have done, i.e., render it /$ephilim/% (p. <?-+.. The @AA uses the term %gigantes% from "hich "e get our 5nglish %gigantic% and %giants.% There is no mistaking the meaning of %giants% here. But then "hy doesn/t the * also mention giantsH This is extremely problematic. ;urthermore, in its Cump from %sons of !od% to %Cudges%, * appears to lack any unity. t could easily be >uestioned "hether not one but t"o unnatural unions are being referred to.

)istori(a" $na"%sis @et us return to the footnote in the Word Study OT and look at it in greater detail. The first theory states that it "as angels "ho married "omen unla"fully, assuming that Jude +:F'4 is referring to such angels. ;urthermore, the term /sons of !od/ can only be angels, good as "ell as bad, in Job +:F'+<. Eo"ever, the Word Study OT dismisses this theory because there is %no precedent from "hich this conclusion can be dra"n.% The second theory states that the sin of intermarriage is %common to the "hole of Scripture, and especially to the *entateuch: the intermarriage of the chosen people of !od (the believers. "ith those "ho are unholy.% The third theory states that it "as corrupt human kings "ho monopoli:ed "omen at that time, and this had nothing to do "ith any supernatural union bet"een angels and humans. %The "ord /giant/ comes from the Septuagint rendering of the Eebre" $ephilim, /the fallen ones/, "hich comes from naphal, /to fall/. t is often associated "ith violence, and so translated /overthro", fall upon/.% ;or this reason, !oliath of !ath "as a giant but not due to a supernatural union. 3esponse: #s to the first theory, isn/t Job +:F'+< a solid enough precedentH The fact is that much of "hat is "ritten in the Old Testament is supported by much apocryphal material, noncanonical to be sure but supported nonetheless, that conveys an understanding of the OT text that the OT text often does not convey on itself. 8e "ill see this in the next section of this article. Eo"ever, sense a certain un"illingness on the part of the Word Study OT to pursue this much further since it is the second theory that is aspoused by conservative *rotestant theologians. #s to the second theory, the sin of intermarriage is anachronistic for the time period being described in !en. F:+'-. &es, the charge of this sin is %common to the "hole of

Scripture%G ho"ever, it "as in the immediate post'exilic period "here the problem "as the most acute (cf. 5:ra ,'+= and $eh. +?:<?'<4.. #t the time of !en. F:+'-, mankind had not yet been divided into the lines of Shem, Japheth and Eam, so it "as not possible to intermarry. #nd if it "as possible, "here "ere the distinctions being blurredH There "ere no distinctions because e'ery!ody "as bad, except $oah. #s to the third theory, here again, there appears to be an un"illingness to pursue the matter much further by ignoring that it "as the %angels of !od% in the 2odex #lexandrinus of the @AA, not the %sons of !od%, "ho took the daughters of men as "ives. Eo"ever, it is true that to consider !oliath the product of a %supernatural union% "ould be totally absurd, and "e "ill see "hy very soon.

*riti(a" $na"%sis The Bumran scrolls fortunately unmuddy the "aters for us considerably. # fuller account of !en. F:+'- can be found in -B5nochb and +B!enesis #pocryphon (;lorentino !arcia )artine:, The /ead Sea Scrolls Translated 0@eiden, $e" &ork, 6oln: Billl, +,,-1 pp. <?='?+, <-I'J=.. @et us turn to these no". ;irst, the Book of 5noch. (;or ease of reading, all the diacritical marks that indicate text restorations are dispensed "ith.. 2t happened that hen in those days the sons of men increased, pretty and attracti'e dau"hters ere !orn to them. The Watchers, sons of the sky, sa them and lusted for them and said to each other: (et3s "o and pick out omen from amon" the dau"hters of men and sire for oursel'es sons. 0o e'er, Shemiha4ah, ho as their chief, said to them: 2 am afraid you do not ant to carry out this deed and 2 alone ill !e "uilty of "reat sin. They replied and all said to him: We all take an oath and all s ear under oath to each other not to "o !ack on this 'enture until e ha'e performed this deed... (The text then lists the t"elve other angels by name.. They and their chiefs all took for themsel'es omen, choosin" from amon" all, and they !e"an to penetrate them and !e defiled !y them and teach them sorcery, incantations, and the cuttin" of roots and to e5plain her!s. They !ecame pre"nant !y them and "a'e !irth to "iants, some three thousand cu!its tall 0a cubit is about + +K< feet1, ho ere !orn upon the earth in keepin" ith their infancy and "re at a rate of their "ro th and consumed the ork of all the sons of men, ithout the men !ein" a!le to supply them. (*eople became increasingly depraved through the black arts taught them. 3aphael, )ichael, Sariel, and !abriel see this and report to !od.. And to #a!riel the (ord said: #o to 6them7 and e5terminate the sons of the Watchers from amon" the sons of men* in'ol'in" them in a ar of attrition for there ill not !e lon" days for them. A!solutely no re8uest in their fa'or ill !e "ranted to their fathers* for they hope to li'e an e'erlastin" life or that each one of them ill li'e fi'e hundred years. And to )ichael the (ord said: #o, )ichael, and tell Shemiha4ah and all his friends ho coupled ith omen...that their sons ill e5pire and they ill see the e5termination of their lo'ed ones* chain them up for se'enty "enerations in the 'alleys of the earth until the "reat day of their .ud"ment...

)ean"hile, in the !enesis #pocryphon, @amech becomes suspicious of his "ife, for reasons no" lost, that his o"n son $oah is the product of such a supernatural union: Then 2, (amech, as fri"htened and turned to 1itenosh, my ife, and said: S ear to me !y the )ost 0i"h, !y the #reat (ord, !y the 9in" of the :ni'erse, ...the sons of hea'en, that you ill in truth let me kno e'erythin", if you ill in truth and ithout lies let me kno hether this... S ear to me !y the 9in" of all the :ni'erse that you are speakin" to me frankly and ithout lies. Then 1itenosh, my !ride, spoke to me 'ery harshly. She ept and said: Oh my !rother and lord; <emem!er my pleasure, the time of lo'e... 2 shall tell you e'erythin" accurately. 2 s ear to you !y the #reat 0oly One, !y the 9in" of the hea'ens, that this seed comes from you, that this pre"nancy comes from you, that the plantin" of this fruit comes from you, and not from any forei"ner or atcher or son of hea'en. Then 2, (amech, ran to my father, )ethuselah, and told him e'erythin", so that he ould "o and ask Enoch, his father, and ould kno e'erythin" for certain from him, since he $Enoch& is liked and ell liked. (This having been done, 5noch responds:. #o tell (amech, your son... #t this point the extant text of the !enesis #pocryphon breaks off, but "e can assume that @amech "as reassured his son $oah "as legitimate. ;urthermore, this means the sons of $oah "ere not descended from any %sons of !od% or %8atchers,% as they are called in the Bumran scrolls. Therefore, since all mankind is descended from the sons of $oah, !oliath could not have been the product of a supernatural union. #nd above all, the Bumran scrolls establish beyond the shado" of a doubt that the Second Temple era Je"s espoused the first theory in the above'mentioned footnote, and not to the second theory expounded on by St. 5phraim the Syrian.

Theo"o'i(a" +nter,retation @et us turn to some very interesting >uestions raised in the footnote in the Word Study OT. These are: ;irst, % f this sin (intermarriage. is, at least to a large extent, the fault of the angels, "hy is man punished by the floodH% Second, %...There is considerable theological difficulty in the existence of human beings "ho are, at least in part, not descended from #dam (#cts +4:<F 0sic1..% Third, %Eo" can these men (the line of Seth. be considered holy "hen the Bible states that only $oah "as holy (!en. F:I,,.H #nd "hy is the term Lsons of !od/ not used "ith this meaning in any other placeH Other people >uestion "hy only sons and not daughters are associated "ith the line of Seth.%

To ans"er the first, !od "as not punishing man for the sin of intermarriage. f Ee "ere, "hy "ould !enesis F:J go on to explain, %#nd !od sa" that the "ickedness of man "as great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart "as only evil continually%H Therefore, the sin of intermarriage could not have been the determining factor in !od/s purpose. n addition, it "asn/t only man Ee "as destroying in the flood, but %both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fo"ls of the airG for it repenteth )e that have made them.% To ans"er the second, it has already been established (from the !enesis #pochryphon. that no semi'humans "ere on the ark "ith $oah. Therefore, the editors of the Word Study OT have misapplied #cts +4:<,. 8hen St. *aul addressed the #thenians in the #reopagus, he certainly did not have !en. F:+'- in mind in claiming "e are !od/s offspring. To ans"er the third, in !enesis, mankind is al"ays referred to generically and is never segregated into any %tribe of Seth% or %house of 2ain,% so the obCection that no daughters are associated "ith the line of Seth is a valid one. #fter all, "hy "eren/t the sons of Seth stirred to fren:y over the daughters of SethH''unless there "ere no daughters of Seth, "hich "ould point to a very lopsided and unnatural circumstance in "hich Seth had no daughters and 2ain had no sons. One "ould have to conclude that, "hile St. 5phraim the Syrian/s interpretation remains a theory, i.e., a plausible explanation, it accords "ell "ith subse>uent Je"ish and 2hristian thought, namely, that believers should not be yoked "ith unbelievers.

*on("#sion n this article, have considered the three theories expounded in the Word Study OTG compared the terminologies of ), @AA and * versions of !en. F:+'-G and then used the Bumran scrolls to sho" that the %nephilim% "ere indeed giants and not Cust %mighty men,% and not the %tribe of Seth% "hich is no"here mentioned in !enesis. This is the vie"point held by Second Temple era Je"s, but it "as subse>uent interpretation that linked it to the ban on intermarriage bet"een believers and unbelievers. 2opyright M <==F by John Bockman. #ll 3ights 3eserved. 3etrieved from %http:KKorthodox"iki.orgK!en.NF:+'-% 2ategories: #rticles for transfer O 2ontributed #rticles