Sons of God and a Reason for the Flood

Sons of God and a Reason for the Flood

A review of Genesis 6:1-‐4

Mario Bendezu

Introduction The episode in Genesis 6:1-‐4 has created a lot of research and controversies

throughout the generations. There are different interpretations of this story as well

as understandings of the identity of the characters. However, the controversy is still

a topic that many scholars try to understand and to interpret.

This story is a part of the primeval story in the book of Genesis; this story is located

in the same chapter as the story of the Flood. Many have argued that this verse does

not have any relationship with the story of the Flood. I am attempting to find if there

is a connection of these verses to the story of the Flood1 and what is its relationship

to the previous chapters. For many scholars this portion of the narrative is thought

to be an independent narrative, often classified as mythical in nature and without

any correlation between the previous chapters and the narrative of the Flood. Many

have concluded that there is a disconnection from its current literary context.

(Kaminski, 2014) This study probably would give understanding on the purpose of

the author for including this account in this chapter.

The characters and their nature and origin have been another topic of interest for

generations. Specifically, I would like to understand the nature of the Nephilim and

their relationship to the Gibborim.

As mentioned before, this portion of scripture has received a large amount of

1 The origin of vv. 1-‐4 is not clear. Certainly these verses also are a contribution to the delineation of the corruption before the Flood, and linguistically at least ver. 1 f. is quite in keeping with the style of

2

attention. There are a plethora of studies and discussions about this account and the

interpretation of the identity of the characters for generations. Therefore, I will

explore previous articles and studies about this issue from the past 15 years. I will

study the Masoretic text and compare it with other translations, especially with the

LXX. I will explore grammatical structure of the text and the meaning and use of

some of the Hebrew words in it. Similarly, I will explore different interpretations

given by the Targum, rabbinical material and early Christian material. I will explore

the possible worldview of the primary hearers by researching ancient Near Eastern

material, like mythological stories, and compare the biblical text to it.

The Previous Chapters Let’s begin with a quick overview of the previous chapters.

After the murder of Abel in chapter four, the Bible tells the story of the descendants

of Cain. Through the story it is clear to understand the wickedness of these people.

For example, Lamech boasts of his action against the man who wounded him. Pirke

de Rabbi Eliezer explains that descendants of Cain were wicked and rebelled against

their Creator. They defiled themselves and they just had evil inclination in their

hearts2.

Chapter five begins with the formula of the תולדת (Gen. 5:1) and introduces perhaps

a new beginning or hope: the descendants of Adam (אדם) through the line of Seth

that he has become the redeemer for his parents because he was replacing their lost

son, Abel (Gen. 4:25). As a consequence of this, the following generation regains the

2 From Cain arose and were descended all the generations of the wicked, who rebel and sin, who rebelled against their Rock, and they said: we do not need the drops of Thy rain, neither to walk in Thy ways, as it is said, “Yet they said unto God, Depart from us” (Job 21:14). The generation of Cain went about stark naked, men and women, just like the beasts, and they defiled themselves with all kinds of immorality, a man with his mother or his daughter, or the wife of his brother, or the wife of his neighbor in public and in the streets, with evil inclination which is the thought of their heart, as it is said, “And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth” (Genesis 6:5). (Friedlander, 1916)

3

possibility to know and to “call upon the name of the Lord3”. There were ten

generations that lead to Noah and, later on, the chapter concludes by naming Noah’s

three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

The Characters In these four verses, the narrator introduces us to the characters of the story. Some

of them are well known and others are more less familiar to most readers. This is a

quick summary of them and they will be described in detail within this paper:

Mankind ): Inהאדם( the previous chapter, we had found information about the

beginning of creation, first of the earth and further after the creation of mankind.

God created man according to the narrative of chapter 2, with the hands of God, and

later on God created his partner from his side. They were expelled from Paradise

because of man’s disobedience; however, man was not abandoned or discarded. On

the contrary, man remained under God’s divine protection4. Then the story follows

the birth of two of man’s children and the first death account. Since the beginning of

this chapter and forward, there are several events that deal with a human aspect

that can destroy a group, or an entire community in contrast with the previous

chapters that treat the transgression of each individual human (Westermann &

Jenni, 1997).

The mankind’s daughters (בנות האדם): the writer introduces them possibly

because of the role that they will play in this narrative. The word benot (daughters)

is the plural of בת )daughter(. It is used less commonly in the Old Testament than its

contra part בן or בני or בנים and just denotes a person’s or people’s female descendant.

The sons of God/gods (בני־האלהים): this is one of the most complicated terms 3 אז הוחל לקרא בשם יהוה Gen. 4:26 4 Even after he (man) is driven out of Paradise, man still remains under divine protection. God acts toward man as a father toward his child. This involves a conscious affirmation of life and destiny. It should be observed that this affirmation reflects Israel’s understanding of her own destiny; he who ordained it is “gracious, compassionate, and of great goodness”. (Botterweck, Ringgren, Willis, Green, Fabry, & Stott, 1974-‐2006)

4

found in the Bible. There are many plausible ways to translate this: the sons of God

or the sons of the gods. The most common image that is perceived is of angelical

beings with access to the presence of God (אלוהים), and also to have some influence

over the nations and on some occasions they are the go between of God and people.

However, in light of this verse it is not clear who they are.

Adonai ): Godיהוה( appears through the voice of the narrator explaining His concern

and His solution to the dilemma.

The Nephilim (הנפלים): in addition to the previous characters, there are many

plausible interpretations of who they are. Some have tried to use the literal

translation to identify them, e.g. “the falling ones” or “those who have fallen”.

The Gibborim ( ריםהגב): according to the narrative, these “heroes” were well known

in ancient times or biblical times.

Verse 1 Similar to the previous chapters, chapter six begins by introducing the main subject

of the verse: “humanity”5 (האדם)6. They had descendants; however, the תולדת formula is not used. Unlike previous chapters there is not a redeemer, nor is there a

reference as if the people were calling upon the name of the Lord. Furthermore,

there is not clear indication to the identity of the fore fathers of this lineage, Seth or

Cain. Nevertheless, humanity was increasing in number similarly to the descendants

of the previous chapters. It is important to observe that the author clearly

mentioned and emphasized the birth of the daughters of men.

5 The Hebrew word האדם corresponds only to partially to the word “man” or “human” in modern language. האדם denotes neither “man” as exemplar or primarily the individual; rather, it denotes the category humanity as a whole, to which the individual belongs. Humanity is defined by its origin, its creatureliness. Most usage deal direct or indirectly with creatureliness; one exists in contrast to God, as a living being, in the fainter inherent in creatureliness. (Westermann & Jenni, 1997) 6 The Aramaic text will use the term “sons of man” or “the children of men” instead of “the men” ם .האד

5

In a general sense, this verse can be perceived as a positive account and perhaps

following God’s prescription in 1:28. (Wright, 2005) Then, it is plausible to conclude that there is not a clear reason for this narrative to be linked to the Flood story nor that the people mentioned in this verse have any direct responsibility with the judgment to come.

Different interpretations:

There are other possible ways to interpret this passage. The first way to analyze this

verse is with the usage of the Hebrew words in the biblical context and their

interpretation.

and“ ויהי it came to pass”.

Genesis 6:1 begins with ויהי (and it came to pass). This usually functions as a

marker that introduces a new element into the main narrative. This element

becomes an integral and important part of the account. This is usually done to

establish the time period of a specific event. In addition to ויהי, there is the

conjunction כי and a Qatal construction7. In this particular case, is ויהי כי backtracking to an earlier period linking the genealogy of Adam through the line of

Seth given in the previous chapter (Kaminski, 2014). Therefore, grammatically speaking, this creates a correlation in the narrative that leads us to the Flood.

הח ל “began or rebelled or polluted” Genesis Rabbah gives a different perspective with the interpretation of הח ל as

“rebelled”8 instead of “began”9. By using the suggestion of Genesis Rabbah, the text

would read: “And it was when men rebelled greatly on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them”.

7 There are different functions for this construction: The function of this construction is to advance the storyline temporarily indicating that the following events take place after an extended period of time7 setting it in a specific time. There are also occasions where the temporal clause is connected to a specific event, rather than to a particular time period7. Additionally, it can be used to backtrack to a previous narrative; therefore this will indicate that the following episode is connected to a prior event. (Kaminski, 2014) 8 Genesis Rabbah, Parashah Twenty-‐Six Genesis 5:32-‐6:4 (XXVI:IV), page 280 9 Genesis Rabbah states that this was used similarly in Genesis 4:26; 10:8 and 11:6

6

Other scholars have suggested interpreting הח ל as a verb in Niphal of the root חלל

meaning: “to be profane” or “to be polluted”10. According to this suggestion, the

verse would read: “And it was when men polluted the face of the earth greatly and

daughters were born to them”.

If either of these interpretations is chosen, the verse would describe the situation of

humanity and perhaps it will give a clear reason for the Flood and the introduction

to this chapter. However, “there is not clear evidence that this was the case in the

centuries prior to the turn of the era” (Wright, 2005).

לרב “to be great” Some scholars have concentrated their attention on the “increasing number”

phenomena. The Hebrew word לרב can be interpreted in different ways. The root

expresses 11רבב increases in both quantity and quality. Therefore, it is possible to

assume that in this passage there is an increase in power and number of humankind.

(Talmon, 2013) Ramban interpret this verse: “as soon as man began to multiply, they

began to sin. God, however, waited until they were steeped in their full measure of sin

before he punished them”. (Zlotowitz, 1977-‐1981)

Schwarzbaum in his article, “The Overcrowded Earth”, attempted to answer the

question: “How did Death (very often personified) enter the world of men?” In this

attempt, he narrated several folkloristic and ethnological materials from different

parts of the world that introduces the idea of overpopulation of the earth and the

only solution to overcome this problem is to reduce their number by introducing

“Death” because up to this moment, the people were immortal. Therefore, the divine

being had to introduce death into humanity12. He makes the supposition that

10 E.g. Ezekiel 20:9; 14; 22; 39; 44; 24:21; 36:21-‐23; 39:7; Leviticus 18:21; 21:6-‐7; 9; 14; 22:2; 32; Zephaniah 3:4; Nehemiah 13:17; Isaiah 48:11 and Malachi 1:12 11 Thus, e.g., in Isaiah 5:9, ים ,רבים בת qualified as it is by ים גדלים וטוב in the parallel stitch, should be translated “mansions” (cf. Amos 6:11) rather than “many houses” (NEB) 12 He compared the several myths from diverse parts of India with our story in Genesis 6:1-‐4. E.g.,

7

“Yahweh” proceeds similarly by sending to earth the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm to mix with the

benot hāᵓādām to reduce the human span of life. He affirms his belief that Genesis

6:1-‐4 belongs to the same category along side with the myths related to

overpopulation. He also assumes that in the beginning “Yahweh” made man

immortal. Subsequently, the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm took the benot hāᵓādām and their

children obtained a superhuman or divine nature. Then “Yahweh” saw the problem

and decided to take away their immortality and as a result man’s life span became a

hundred and twenty years (Genesis 6:3). This reduction was a real blessing for men

and the “Overcrowded Earth” (Schwarzbaum, 1957).

In Mesopotamia, there are various narratives that deal with this issue and many

scholars agree (in this particular case) that the reason for the flood is the noise

produced by the overpopulated earth13 14. In the mythological story of the “Atra-‐

ḫasīs Epic”15 16, the gods created humanity to alleviate their work. However, the

people had multiplied greatly and their noise (rigmum and ḫubūrum)17 becomes

intolerable to Enlil, the Storm god. In the third attempt to destroy humanity, Enlil

appeals to the other gods and they decided to exterminate mankind with the “Great

Deluge”. On the surface, it appears that humanity’s only fault is their increase of

In the Hill myth, the number if people had increased greatly as a solution the divine “Kittung” sent “Death” and humanity and animals began to die.

In the Godaba myth, the “Creator” worries for the increase of the human population and the lack of space. Another Koya story tells that men increased in number and prosperity and the minor gods were living with “Deur”. He ordered them to torment men with diseases and plagues. Therefore, in order to appease these gods, they give them plenty of food. 13 The Atra-‐ḫasīs poet’s explanation for the Flood is best grasped in the word-‐pair rigmum and ḫubūrum. At first sight, these two terms are most naturally read as the noise made by the human race as it spreads over the overpopulated earth and disturbs the rest of the gods. (Lang, 2008) 14 In Mesopotamian mythology, ‘noise’ (rigmu) and ‘clamor’ (ḫubūru) invariably produce divine anger. Particularly with reference to the story of Atra-‐ḫasīs, this theme has been the source of a great deal of controversy: is noise a metaphor for human sin, or simply the by-‐product of unchecked population growth. (Heffron, 2014) 15 In those days the world teemed, the people multiplied, the world bellowed like a wild bull, and the great god was aroused by the clamor. Enlil heard the clamor and he said to the gods in council, "The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reason of the babel." So the gods agreed to exterminate mankind. 16 It is an 18th-‐century BCE epic recorded on clay tablets written in Akkadian. 17 See 15

8

number similarly as in Genesis 6:118. However, Heffrom in her article points out that because of the drastic measure, the particular meaning behind “noise”, and whether

it ought to be understood as a metaphor for sinfulness, has generated much

discussion. Some scholars have argued in favor of equating “noise” with various

manners of human failing, while others sought to explain it as an unintended, yet

inevitable, result of unrestricted procreation, or in other words, ”over-‐procreation”.

(Heffron, 2014)

ם and“ ובנות ילדו לה the daughters were born to them (men)” The final portion to be explored in this section would be the reason for the benot

hāᵓādām to be singled out. Some scholars have suggested that this was deliberate in

order to contrast later on between the nature of them and of the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm 19.

Others assumed that their value in this story is predominant to the narrative20.

In summary, we have explored different plausible interpretations of the first verse.

The first one and most simplistic one gives us the idea that nothing was wrong at

this point in the narrative because the population was increasing in number as

described previously. If this is correct, the problem and consequence to this

assumption is that the author placed this verse with no apparent relation to this

chapter or it is not related either by the previous chapter or the flood story.

On the other hand, if we accept any of the explored interpretations and the verbal

texture of the story (Hendel R. , 2003), we could read Genesis 6:1 as the verse that

builds bridges between Genesis 4 and 5, and then to Genesis 6:5 and, therefore, in an

ambiguous manner links this verse to the flood story. Also, it is possible to conclude

that the placement of this narrative at the end of “Adam’s genealogy", along with the

18 However, there are scholars who interpret the actions of humanity in the Atra-‐ḫasīs myth as evil conduct, which would then ascribe a negative nuance to verse 6:1. (Wright, 2005) 19 There appears to be a deliberate contrast between the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm and the daughters of men. It is possible that the author was purposely making clear that bĕnê ᵓĕlōhîm were not human, but was some kind of superhuman or supernatural beings. (Wright, 2005) 20 “Radak comments that the daughter are specially mentioned here because they are crucial to the narrative; it was through them that the wickedness was perpetrated”. Pag. 180 (Zlotowitz, 1977-‐1981)

9

reference to “the daughters of men”, does not give us a chronologic time line; rather

it gives us an idea of events that were occurring simultaneously. Therefore, this is

the order of events: first is Gen. 4:17-‐24, and then Gen. 5:1-‐32 and the sub

sequential event would be in Gen. 6:1.

Verse 2 In the second verse, the narrator introduces us to the main characters of the story,

the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm. This term can be translated in different ways: “sons of God” or

“sons of the gods”. In this account, the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm looked to the benot hāᵓādām

that, according to the story, they were attractive. The bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm took for

themselves wives as they desired. However, this account does not mention that

these actions were illicit or sinful acts. Hendel suggests that the narrative does not

mention the wrongfulness of the action. Perhaps it was not known or intended by

the implicated parties until later on in Genesis 6:321.(Hendel R. , 2003) Furthermore,

without any background information of these characters, we could conclude that

this story is similar to the story of the encounter between Jacob and Rachel in

Genesis 29. However, this story is more complex.

Almost all pre-‐Rabbinic Jewish exegetes assumed the identity of the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm

as angels. Although, it is apparent that by the second century, Rabbis had abandoned

this position and instead they affirm that bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm were only humans.

Similarly, Christian scholars, perhaps influenced by this interpretation, translate

bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm as “sons of the powerful”22.

What are they?

Throughout the history of exegesis and interpretation of these verses, scholars have

tried to determine the identity of the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm. Some have concluded that they

21 For Hendel, the effect of this matter-‐of-‐fact tone of narration may also suggest that the wrongfulness of the action was not known or intended by its protagonists of the story. The absence of the language of guilt or shame makes the moral quality of these actions obscure until 6:3.” 22 οι νιοι των δυνατευοντων = “sons of the powerful” (Reed, 2007)

10

are angels and others have concluded that they are human beings. Here is an

overview of some of the theories.

Are they angels or of divine nature?

There are a large number of sources and scholars that interpret bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm as

heavenly beings or angels:

This term is in construct state and it is the union of a noun in plural form בני )bĕnê(

and a personal pronoun אלהים .(haᵓĕlōhîm) ה The word bĕnê could mean “sons of”,

“children of”, or in some cases “members of”. In other parts of the Bible, gender

could vary depending upon the context of the story. In this verse, the usage of the

term means “sons of”, probably to make a contrast with the object of this verse: “the

daughters of men” (benot hāᵓādām).

In English or in other non-‐Semitic languages, there is a designated noun to refer to

the heavenly beings sent by God for a specific purpose. They are called “angels”. In

contrast, the word for angel in Hebrew is מלאך (malᵓāk). In Hebrew, the root for this

noun does not exist and it is most probable that it was borrowed from the Ugaritic

root lᵓk (to send) and became a noun with the prefix “mem”. The meaning is “send

with a commission/message”, hence a “messenger” (Van der Torn, 1999)23.

Similarly in Akkadian there is not a specific word to distinguish between a heavenly

being and a human messenger. For example, among all the occurrence in the Old

Testament a small number of them refer to God’s messengers who represent God’s

authority on earth. However, the majority of occurrences are used to describe

humans. Furthermore, in the Pentateuch, the sections that are supposed to belong to

D and P would not mention them. Also, they are not presented in the pre-‐exilic

prophetic literature where the prophets received direct communication from God.

According to Hendel, the term Sons of God (bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm) is an archaism probably

a derivate from the Canaanite phrase “sons of El” (bn ᵓil). He expands: “the notion of

23 DDD pag. 46

11

God’s actual parentage is presumably lacking in the semantics of the Hebrew

phrase; the term probably diminishes its original intention through time. However,

it will maintain the general relationship with the divine” (Hendel R. , 2003).

There are other traditions that identified them as “evil angels” and they are

preserved in various apocalyptic corpuses mostly written before the Common Era

(300 -‐ 100 B.C.E.). These are located in: 1 Enoch24; the book of the Giants; Jubilees;

Damascus Document; Ben Sira; Wisdom of Solomon; 3 Maccabees; 3 Baruch; and

several fragmentary texts that are only preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls25.

(Struckenbruck, 2004)

In the Bible

The term “bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm” and its variants appear in different places in the Bible.

There are five occasions the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm are mentioned. The first two appear in

the narrative of Genesis 6:1-‐4 and the rest of them appear in the book of Job26.

In the context of the story, the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm seem to be divine beings with direct access to the presence of God. According to the narrative presented in the book of

Job, the narrator describes a few scenarios between heaven and earth. The main

character, Job, is presented as a pious man wealthy in high measure and blessed by

God. In a following scene in heaven, the Accuser ”השטן“ )hašātān( comes to the

presence of God with the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm. In a back and forth verbal dispute, God

allows the Accuser to chastise the unaware Job. In spite of his circumstances, Job

preserves his integrity without cursing God as his wife suggested. On a second occasion, the Accuser comes to the presence of God to entice Him to allow the

Accuser to continue with the affliction. God allows the Accuser to keep afflicting Job

with the prohibition of taking Job’s life.

24 Book of Watchers ch. 1–36,Animal Apocalypse ch. 85–90, and the Noahic Appendix ch. 106–107 25 esp. 1Q20 Genesis Apocryphon, 4Q180–181 Ages of Creation, 4Q370 Exhortation Based on the Flood, 4Q444Incantation,4Q510–511 Songs of the Sage, and 11Q11 Apocryphal Psalms 26 E.g. Job 1:6; 2:1 and 38:7

12

It is apparent that the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm, alongside with the Accuser, have direct access to the presence of God. However, it is not clear how frequently or the reason(s), for

this gathering. Perdue presumes that they are minor gods when he compares this

gathering to the gathering that occurred in the ancient Babylonian myths for the

New Year Festival, Akitu. Apparently, during this Festival, the main god of the

pantheon, in this case “Marduk”, will meet with the rest of the gods to determine the

fates for the coming year27 and to legitimate the mandate of king. Hendel describes

this gathering as “Yahweh’s heavenly council, divine courtiers, militia and (more

rarely) titular gods of the nations”28. (Hendel R. , 2003) Nevertheless, in light of the

uses of bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm in these three verses from the book of Job, I am confident to

assume that the usage of the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm is to describe divine beings, and

probably “angels”. Another use of the term bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm is found in a different translation of the

biblical text. The Masoretic text uses “bĕnê israel” instead of bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm in

Deuteronomy 32:8 as it is found in the LXX and in the scroll of Deuteronomy found

in cave number 4 in Qumran. The Masoretic text reads: “according to the number of

the children of Israel” (ישראל ,However .(למספר בני 4QDeut and LXX reads:

“according to the number of the sons of God” (למספר בני ה אלהים). This variation of the text was probably not by mistake, but rather due to a case of theological revision. In

the context of this text, God is dividing the nations between the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm and

keeping Israel for Himself. Apparently, this is based on the notion that each nation

has its own deity or god. There is not a clear reason for the change, but most

scholars agree that in the context of this passage the use of bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm rather than bĕnê israel is more coherent. (Hendel R. S., 2000) Nevertheless, while it is not

clear if they are divine beings, something that I can affirm is that the text is implying

that the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm are not humans.

27 “The Narrative presents Yahweh as ruler of the divine council who meets with the other gods annually, probably during the New Year Festival when he determines the fates for the coming year.” 28 “They are usually depicted as a collective, with occasional references to individual members or leaders of the group. In other West Semitic texts, the phrase “sons of God” and similar phrases can refer to the pantheon as a whole or to a major group within the pantheon.” (Perdue, 2008)

13

bĕnê) בנ י אלים ᵓēlîm) is used in two psalms of exaltation and worship to the Lord.

The psalmist declares the splendor of the Lord. In Psalm 29 and 89, David exhorts

the bĕnê ᵓēlîm to worship and exalt His Holiness; he also mentions the beauty and

the steadfast love of the Lord. A slight variant ון bĕnê) בנ י עלי elyôn) in Psalm 82

gives us the same meaning “Sons of the Most High”. However, some scholars

describe the bĕnê elyôn as human beings. This subject will be discussed later on. Nevertheless in these three verses it appears that bĕnê ᵓēlîm and bĕnê elyôn are

used similarly to bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm to describe divine beings that have access to the presence of the Lord. The last term that appears in the Bible is in Aramaic and it is found in the book of Daniel. The term is ין and (bar-‐ᵓĕlāhīn) בר־אלה it is the Aramaic version of the bĕnê

haᵓĕlōhîm.

The book of Daniel tells the story of when King Nebuchadnezzar made a statue of

gold29. The king had demanded his subjects to fall down and worship his statue and

those who did not comply with this requirement would be thrown into a burning

fiery furnace. Some members of the court accuse Sadrach (Hananiah), Meshach

(Mishael) and Abed-‐nego (Azariah) of disregard for the king’s command. After an

interrogation process and their rejection of complying with the command of the

king, the king in a rage ordered to increase the heat of the furnace seven times and

throw them in it. After they had been thrown into the furnace, the king was amazed because instead

of seeing three people in the furnace, he could see four men walking unbound and

unharmed. However, the fourth man had the appearance “lebar-‐ᵓĕlāhīn”. The king

ordered for the three of them to come out and he proclaimed: “Blessed be the God of

Sadrach, Meshash and Abed-‐nego, who sent His angel to save His servants who

29 Daniel 3:1-31 (Berlin & Brettler, 2004)

14

trusts in Him”30.

In this narrative, it is obvious that the king uses the term bar-‐ᵓĕlāhīn to identify the person or silhouette that he saw in company with the prisoners. This assurance of

the identity on the part of the king was possible because in the Babylonian pantheon

there are similar kinds of entities31 or divine beings32.

The Septuagint interpreted the term “bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm” only in the book of Job33 as

ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ “angels of God”. However, in Genesis 6:2; 4; Psalm 29:1 and 89:7

the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm is translated literally into υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ “sons of God”. Then the

Aramaic term ין ”bar-‐ᵓĕlāhīn“ בר־אלה is not translated because the book of Daniel finishes earlier.

Flavius Josephus in his work, “The Antiquities of the Jews”, suggests that they were

angels of God that began to intermix and to procreate sons that “proved unjust, and

despisers of all that was good on account of the confidence that they had on their

strength”. He concluded by comparing the actions of the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm, to the

actions of those whom the Grecians call giants”. (Whiston, 1820)

There is a Jewish myth that tries to explain the event of the story that happened

when the “generation of the flood” became polluted and began to practice idolatry.

This tale is probably in reference to the Aramaic translation and some Targumim

interpretations34. Two angels, Shamhazai and Azzael, came to God because He was

30 Daniel 3:28 31 “The fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace was like in his appearance, i.e. as commanding veneration, to a son of the gods, i.e. to one of the race of the gods. In ver. 28 the being is called an “angel of God”, Nebuchadnezzar probably following the religious conception.(Keil, 1986) pag. 131 32 “Divine being” rendered literally would be “a son of a god”, that is in Semitic idiom, a member of the class “gods” This designation is obviously rooted in Near Eastern polytheistic mythology.” (Collins, 1993) pag. 190 33 E.g. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 34 Targum Pseudo-‐Jonathan: Genesis; chapter 6 verse 4 reads: “Shamhazai and Azael fell from heaven and were on earth in those days, and also after the sons of the great ones” According with this Targum, Shamhazai and Azael were the leaders of the fallen angels (cf. 1 Enoch 6, 3.7; 8, 1:9,6.7; 10,8.11) (Maher, 1992) pag. 38

15

grieving about the situation of mankind. Apparently, God was thinking to destroy

mankind, but He was concerned about the world. They convinced God to allow them

to live with the people with the goal to exalt His name. Immediately after, they did

the contrary disobeying God by seeing and taking wives from among the daughters

of men. They had two children, Hiva and Hayya. Then, Metatron, apparently an angel

from God’s presence, came to let Shamhazai know that the flood had been set to

destroy the world. He cried bitterly because of his children35. His children had

dreams and in consternation, they came to Shamhazai. He told them “the Holy One is

about to bring the flood upon the world and will leave only Noah and his three

children”. Shamhazai apparently repented and suspended himself until these days;

however Azzael didn’t and is still in his corruption36.

In the ancient Near East, there are some myths that tell us the stories of the

relationship between a god and a human as his/her son or other myths that tells us

about the sexual encounters between gods and humans. For example:

• In the Hittite literature, there is the myth of “Illuyanka”. There are two versions of this story. The second version narrates the story of the daughter of a poor

man and the son of the Storm god. The Storm god is in battle against the serpent.

The Storm god’s son found himself in a divided loyalty situation and, because of

his choice, he lost his life (Hoffner & Beckman, 1990)

• In the Canaanite literature, in Ugarit, there is the story of how the father of the

gods, El, had sexual intercourse with two women. Their children, Shachar and

Shalem, became gods themselves and joined the Canaanite pantheon (Zakovitch,

Zakovitch, & Shinan, 2012).

• In the Babylonian literature, there are other myths where the main character is

“demi” god or part god and part human. Gilgamesh is one of these examples; he

was two parts god and one part human. This is similar to the Apkallu37

35 Apparently Hiva and Hayya ate about a thousand camels, thousand horse and thousand oxen per day. (Bialik, Rawnitzki, & Braude, 1992) pag. 28 36 Chap. II §127. (Bialik, Rawnitzki, & Braude, 1992) 37 “The "four apkallus' of human descent whom the lord Ea endowed with broad understanding” They were two third apkallu and one third human. (Ataç, 2010)

16

(Akkadian) or Abgal (Sumerian) (Ataç, 2010).

• In the Ugaritic text, the poet Illimilku writes about “The Seventy sons of

Athirat”38. The Ugaritic literature suggests that the bn il (sons of god) were the

70 sons of Asherah and El, who were the main deities of the people of the known

world. Probably the number is rhetorical and used for the purpose of

representing totality. The number of deities is not large in their pantheon.

(Hendel R. , 2003)

It appears that this kind of mythology was probably common and a part of the

ancient Near Eastern worldview. Therefore, it is possible to drive to the conclusion

that this kind of information was embedded in the background knowledge of the

primary audience of Genesis 6:1-‐4.

In summary, as for the question, “Are they angels or of divine nature?” The logical

answer is: “it is possible”. I have presented enough evidence from the biblical text to

conclude that the term bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm is used to identify heavenly beings with a

divine nature such as “angels”. We have seen that it is apparent that the primary

audience was aware of who they were because of the lack of information mentioned

in the text. They probable knew about their nature or their origin. They did not need

to think twice or try to guess or argue about them. It was part of their worldview;

similarly, with the understanding of the “myths of the ancient Near East”.

Furthermore, as Wright suggested, there is not enough evidence to link the

genealogy in the Hebrew text between the “bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm” and the “ĕlōhîm " or of

their creation. (Wright, 2005)

38 “Apparently, this text is the only one in Ugaritic that talks about a specific number of divine beings; however, in there pantheon lists of gods remotely approaches seventy deities in number. “It seems likely that the number is rhetorical, and is intended to represent the idea of totality (10 x 7): it is in effect, perhaps, a literary or rather arithmetical figure for ‘all the gods’, as in the comparable designations in Ugaritic bn il (m), ‘the sons of El’ (or more prosaically, ‘the gods’) or dr bn il (‘the family of the sons of El’, or more prosaically, ‘the family of the gods’). The terms ‘sons’ and ‘gods’ in these formulae probably denote ‘children’ and ‘gods and goddesses’ or ‘deities’. Whether the Ugaritic expression šb'm bn aṯrt conveyed any political overtones, such as the cosmological idea of all the nations of the world is possible.” (Wyatt, 2007)

17

Are they humans?

As mentioned before, there is a larger quantity of references in the Bible that use the

term “bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm” to refer to human beings.

Many scholars have analyzed this question in light of Genesis 6:3. The verse says:

“the Lord says: “my spirit will not abide in man”. According to BDB, the word יד ון

(yadon) has a dubious meaning in Genesis 6:3 and it is most often translated as

“abide”. However, the general meaning is the verb “to judge” and it is also used to

represent a person that acts as a judge, minister of judgment of God. The midrashic

literature comments about this detail with several examples39 and concludes that

“the “sons of god” are the sons of judges: mortal beings of flesh and blood. (Shinan,

Zakovitch, & Zakovitch, 2012)

The Targumim suggest that the children of the aristocrats took wives from the

common people without power to oppose them. Their marriages were despicable with unrestrained passion showing man’s moral decay. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon bar

Yochai interprets bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm as “the sons of the nobles”. It has also suggested

that they were allowed to have a long life as divine beings to make them “liable for

punishment for their own sins accumulated through their long existence”

(Zlotowitz, 1977-‐1981).

In the Bible

Here are some examples from the Bible that shows this understanding for the term

bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm:

There are some scholars that would translate ון from בני עלי Psalm 82 as sons of the Most High40; however they would interpret them as the son of the nobles or

39 “Rabbi Eleazar ben Parta says: ‘My breath shall not judge [yadon] man . . .’ (Gen. 6:3). Said the Holy One, blessed be He: I shall not judge them until I have given them their reward in full. As it is said, ‘They spend their days in prosperity, but then they go down to Sheol’ (Job 21:13)” (Avot de-‐Rabbi Natan, version A, chap. 32). And also (in the same source): “Rabbi Meir says: Behold, it says, ‘[My breath] shall not judge.’ Said the Holy One, blessed be He: That generation declared, The Lord does not judge: there is no judge of the world; God has abandoned the world!” Thus did the “sons of god” become sons of judges: mortal beings of flesh and blood. 40 (Crossway Bibles, 2001)

18

judges41. One of the views mentions that Asaph, the author of this psalm, describes

God as a judge ready to pronounce judgment perhaps against the rulers ) ofאלוהים(

His congregation, likely Israel. They have been abusing their power and oppressing

their people. This could be considered the most conservative plausible explanation.

Therefore, the usage of is אלוהים for rulers -‐ just human beings that have authority over others42.

Another term is י bĕnê) בני ה hay) that identifies Israel as the children of the living God. The Bible tells in different places that God sees the children of Israel as His own

children43. In the book of Hosea 2:1, the author tells the story of the children of

Israel that in a specific time will no longer be called “my people”, rather they will be

called “the sons of the living God” (י ל־ח .(בנ י א

In Exodus 4:22, God calls Israel His first son44. Similarly, there are other verses that

name a person or a group of people, specifically Israel, as sons of God. For example,

there are those verses related to David and his offspring as sons of God. In 2 Samuel

7: 14 it says: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” or in Psalm 2:7 it

says: “The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”45. However,

it is important to clarify that the text is focusing on the relationship between the

41 “The shift from understanding benei ’elohim as denoting divine beings to understanding it as referring to descendants of human judges can be seen in Psalm 82. The psalmist was aware of the interpretation of “sons of god” as judges, but he also wanted to include the other view, according to which “sons of god” are “sons of the Most High,” that is, divine beings. This poet, whose psalm opens with a picture of the court: “God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment” (v. 1), initially regards the judges as gods. According to the psalm, God, too, initially assumes these to be divine beings, “I had taken you for divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you” (v. 6), and only the miserable behavior of the judges, who are utterly wanting in wisdom and knowledge, pushes God to recognize that they are mortals, not gods, and will die like all mortals: “But you shall die as men do, fall (tipol) like any prince” (v. 7; the phonemes p and f share the same letter in Hebrew, so that this writer, too, interprets our giants, the Nephilim, as having fallen to the nether regions). (Zakovitch, Zakovitch, & Shinan, 2012) 42 There are several explanations of who the “gods” are in verses 1 and 6. The first is the view, which understands the “gods” to be the mythical gods of the surrounding nations. Another is that the “gods” are the human rulers of the nations, which are oppressing Israel. (Deffinbaugh, 2004) 43 E.g. Hosea 11:1; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5, 19; Jeremiah 3:14, 19, 22; Isaiah 1:2; 43:6; 45:11 44 י ישראל ה בני בכר ה ראמ יהו כ 45 E.g. 1 Chronicles 17:13; 22:10; 28:6

19

Lord and Israel. These people were not becoming physical offspring of God, just

God’s adopted children. This is in contrast with the concept of “Divine Kingship” that

will be explored later on. Similarly, there are some verses46 that use the language of

physical birth47; however, this is just in the metaphoric sense.

Like the previous examples, there are other narratives in the Bible that portray the

bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm as the sons of the rulers of the nation. In this regard, there are two clear accounts where the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm were considered the sons of the rulers, judges or people who were assigned to work on behalf of God.

According to the following verses, it appears that these people were called אלהים (ᵓĕlōhîm). There are two examples in the book of Exodus in the same narrative that

uses the word ᵓĕlōhîm for people as “god”. First, while Moses was having a

conversation with God. God was explaining His task to Moses, but he was very reluctant about it. Moses was trying to excuse himself and to avoid doing the task

given by the Lord. Therefore, God recruited Aaron to become Moses’ spokes person

and together spoke on behalf of God. The Lord tells Moses that they would be

“gods”48 to Pharaoh49.

Also in the book of Exodus, there is a section where it uses the word ᵓĕlōhîm for

people as “judge(s)”. In these narratives, the children of Israel were receiving

several “regulations” המשפט ים that would help them to live a new life away from the

house of slavery, Egypt. These regulations tell that in order to find a verdict they

must approach a “judge(s)” (ᵓĕlōhîm)50.

Other interpretations:

• The bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm can be considered a title given to the descendants of Adam 46 E.g. Deuteronomy 32:18; Psalm 2:7 47 “By no stretch of the imagination is this adoption language. It uses birth imagery to indicate the labor pains God suffered in creating Israel in order to revive in his apostate people a sense of responsibility toward this deity who had been so gracious to Israel in the past.” (Roberts, 2002) 48 ה תהיה־לו לאלהים ואת 49 Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 (Crossway Bibles, 2001) 50 Exodus 21:6; 22:7 (Crossway Bibles, 2001)

20

through the line of Seth because Adam was created in God’s own image. Also, it is

important to consider that through this offspring the people began to call on the

name of the Lord (Genesis 4:26). Therefore, it is possible that these offspring

were the ones that took the daughters of men “benot hāᵓādām” as wives. Then

corruption came and spread out into the genealogy of Adam51. Apparently, this

assumption was born and extends during the first century of the Common Era

among the Christian circle probably by Julius Africanus and supported by other

forefathers of the Christian church like Chrysostom and Augustine. (Wright,

2005) Also, from the medieval Christian tradition, there is the book “The Cave of

Treasures”52 that is opposed to the idea that they were of divine nature. The book argues that all the children of Seth, besides Methuselah and Noah, mingled with

the daughters of Cain and from this union came out the valiant men, the sons of

giants in the likeness of towers. (Toepel, 2013)

• In the Targum Neofiti 1, an Exegetical Commentary to Genesis with the full

Rabbinic Parallels, it gives a broad understanding of this term by rabbinic

scholars. The Targum Neofiti uses in Aramaic the term דייניא (judges or nobles)

for the term in Hebrew bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm and translates it as “the sons of the nobles

or judges”. Similarly, Targum Onkelos uses and בני דייניא Pseudo-‐Jonathan Targum

uses sons“ בני רברביא of the great ones/nobles”. The Peshitta uses bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm in opposition to the interpretation of Rabbi Simon B. Yohai that is opposed to

using this term for angelical beings53. In the Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch

and Early Jewish Exegesis it uses בני דינא differently for both Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. 51 For Ramban, “Adam and his wife are called בני־האלהים because they were God’s handiwork. Adam begot Seth in his likeness and in his image (5:3) and as such he, and quite probably his descendants were also endowed with this Godly likeness. Rosh says they are referred to as Elohim, meaning mighty because they were awesome in appearance. (Zlotowitz, 1977-‐1981) 52 This is a Syriac book that stands between the older legendary expansion of the Hebrew Bible and medieval texts that were treating biblical history. This text is supposed to been written by Ephrem Syrus in the third century A.D. This text is a carefully structured work with a clear theological purpose and marked Christian character. pag. 551 53 R. Simeon B. Yohai referred to them )בני־האלהים ( as sons of the nobility and cursed anyone who called them “sons of God”. Furthermore, He states that “any sort of public breach of morality that does not begin with the upper classes is not really a breach of morality”. (Neusner, 1985) Parshah Twenty-‐Six XXVI:V pag. 282

21

On the contrary, the Codex Ambrosian uses bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm. Grossfeld explains

that Rabbi Simeon B Yohai had the similar view as the Targum Onkelos and this

was part of the view of Rabbi Akiba’s School. This school tried to oppose the

widespread legend that the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm were “fallen angels” based on the

literal translation of it. Apparently, this notion was prevalent in sectarian circles.

Nevertheless, the influence of this legend was so powerful that it infiltrated the

rabbinical camp where the Rabbi Ishmael School accepted it as a historical fact.

However, this school was prevalent as opposed to Rabbi Akiba School. (Grossfeld,

2000)

The “Divine Kingship” in the ancient Near East In this view, the identity of the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm can be found in the ancient Near East.

According to this view the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm were not divine beings, but the rulers or kings of ancient times. This is because kings were often regarded as divine and that

they were well known as “sons of gods”. (Kline, 1962) This notion is supported by

various ancient texts that use the term “Son of God” for kings54.

In Egypt, the concept of Divine Kingship was engrained in their belief that the root of

kingship begins when the gods ruled the earth55. For example, the Egyptian protocol

contains the legitimation of five pharaohs by the deity’s acknowledgement of the

king as the deity’s child. The Egyptians understood the coronation as if the deity had

begotten the child. Therefore, the actual concept was that the new king, the

“Pharaoh”, was the physical offspring of the deity with a divine nature56.

54 “The sins of the “sons of God” were polygamy, particularly as it came to expression in the harem. Gilgamesh, heroic king of Uruk some time after the Flood, well exemplifies the type of activities described in Genesis 6:1. The sin of mankind as a whole was his evil conduct resulting in violence, according to Genesis.” (Hess & Tsumura, 1994) 55 “The Egyptian believe that the king was the holder of a divine office that was derived from the realm of the gods and was part of the divinely ordained world. To them, the roots of kingship stretch back to the beginning of time, when gods ruled the earth.” pag. 274 (Leprohon, 2000 c1995.) 56 “The view that the Egyptians held a crudely literal conception of the king’s physical engenderment by the deity is based primarily on the parallel accounts of the coronation of Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III,50 and secondarily on the account of the coronation of Haremhab. The first two texts contain a narrative about the god Amun taking the form of the reigning king, having intercourse with the queen, filling her with “his dew,” and thus engendering the new ruler. It is noteworthy, however, that these texts are all unusual. In all three cases the succession was contested and irregular. One should not over stress the literal physicality of the deity’s role in the birth process”. (Roberts, 2002)

22

In Mesopotamia, the belief of the divinity to kings was more restricted. This kind of

claim belongs to certain kings in the southern part. However, this belief generated a

large amount of source material. Most of these inscriptions were “kings claimed

divine status, administrative records that registered cultic offering to their divinity,

and literary texts that feature divine kings, both legendary and historical” (Snell,

2007). Therefore, the rulers, in order to legitimize their royal claims to the throne,

needed to prove their closeness to the divine world as a divine descent, favor,

marriage to a goddess, or superhuman stature. An example of this can be observed

on the Stele of the Vultures in honor of Eanatum of Lagash (2450 BCE).

Who are the daughters of mankind?

The second characters in this verse are the בנות האדם (benot hāᵓādām) and apparently they were very attractive people. The Targum Neofit inserts the word

in היזו Aramaic that is not found in then Hebrew text. This was just for a syntactic

purpose to clarify the Hebrew word טבה (tōbah)57. Therefore, the meaning given in

this Targum is “good in looks in appearance”. The beauty of benot hāᵓādām is the

only information that is available in this verse. Some rabbinic literature interprets

their beauty as the main cause for the angels to go astray. Pirkei de-‐Rabbi Elizer

explains that the daughters of Cain were walking exposed naked and with their eyes

painted like prostitutes. The angels saw them and couldn’t restrain themselves and

took from them wives58.

Some have tried to prove that they belong to the descendants of Cain59; therefore,

this implies that “daughters of men” was a title for less spiritual people or corrupted

in contrast of the descendants of Seth. This could be because of the outline given in

57 This adjective is used to describe the quality and the quality of a noun. 58 (Friedlander, 1916) 59 For Seth was the more exalted of the two and Cain’s daughters therefore called “daughters of man” as a mediocre designation (Rabbi Jdah Halevi Kuzari 2:14, page 90). Furthermore, Rabbi Simon (Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 22, pag. 158) affirms, “from Seth arose and were descended all the generations of the righteous. From Cain arose and descended all generations of the wicked who rebelled and sinned”. (Ibn Ezra, 1998)

23

chapter four and five. Those who affiliate with this assumption would theorize that

the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm is a title given in the spiritual sense to pious men, who live an

outstanding life just like angels. They were probably from the line of Seth who called

themselves ᵓĕlōhîm, and the “daughters of men” were worldly women from the line

of Cain. Gradually, this mixture between the “Sethite” with the “Cainite” is the cause

of the corruption of the whole race of man. The only problem with this theory is that

the text is mute about the background of the characters of this narrative. (Dillman,

2005, c1897.)

Genesis Rabba60, Rabb Yohai identified the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm as the sons of the

nobility” and they were perverted because they took the women of the “common

and poor people”, benot hāᵓādām. They subjugated them without the power to be

defended. They took even the married ones. Rabb Yudan expands this idea:

apparently nobles came before the consummation of the benot hāᵓādām marriage

and had sexual relationships with them before their new husbands. Not only this,

they would also have intercourse with males and animals too.

Nevertheless in light of the text, it is impossible to determine their identity with

confidence. Also, it is difficult to determine if they were the victims or if they

willingly intermingled with the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm. Likewise, the story does not tell if

the benot hāᵓādām knew the identity of bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm. Nevertheless, their role in

this story is essential.

Verse 3 In this verse, the narrator voices God’s feelings of frustration and exposed God’s

desires to cut short the life span of mankind; however, it is not explicitly the reason

for God’s frustrations. As it was mentioned earlier, there is not any information in

60 Genesis Rabbah interprets that if the text says: “they were beautiful”, the text implied: “they were virgins”. It also suggests with the presupposition that the sons of God were the sons of the nobility; the most important official would come in and have sexual relationship with them before the husband. Also, they indulged in homosexuality and bestiality. Therefore, the sin of sexual licentiousness is the cause for the Flood. (Neusner, 1985) Parashah XXVI:V pag. 282 -‐283

24

the previous verses of any wrong doing in the action of any of the characters.

However, it is explicit that the cause of the Flood leans on the actions on the part of

the humans even though offense committed is not clear61. Hendel suggests that the

intervention of God is the pinnacle of the narrative “making clear that something

amiss has happened” (Hendel R. , 2003).

In the first portion of the verse, the narrator speaks on behalf of God making a

separation between the mortal and the immortal by limiting the span of life of man.

Apparently from this point forward, humans could not live longer than 120 years of

age. It is not possible to determine the meaning of the 120 years of life, since later on

in Genesis 11:10-‐32 it tells that the children of Shem, the son of Noah, have lived

past the 120-‐year mark.

Some scholars and the Targumim have suggested that 120 years refers to the span

of time from when God gave instructions to Noah to build the Ark up to the

beginning of the flood62 63.

Another view is that this would be the life span for the descendants of the benot

hāᵓādām and the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm. The only problem with this interpretation is that

there is no mention of their offspring up to this point.

Some scholars have suggested that later editors of the text place the amount of years

because that was Moses’ span of life. In Deuteronomy 34:7 it says that Moses died

61 “But the maximum lifespan of 120 years is not directed at the offspring of these mixed marriages; rather it is a penalty that applies to all humans. Moreover, this consequence does not seem to touch the instigators of the illicit acts, the Sons of God. It is, as commentators have noted, a punishment that does not quite fit the crime”. (Hendel R. , 2003) 62 Targum Pseudo-‐Jonathan: Genesis, Targum Onquelos to Genesis, and Targum Neofit 1: Genesis has this interpretation. 63 “The idea that 120 years refers to a period of grace or probation in between God giving Noah his instructions, and the Flood finally coming upon the Earth… There were at least one hundred years between Noah receiving his instructions from God soon after his sons were born, at which time he was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), and the Flood commencing when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6). Thus, the time frame separating these two events is consistent with the “period of grace” interpretation”. (Major)

25

when he was 120 years old64. Probably for the editor(s) of the text, Moses was a role

model, a person of honor; therefore, it was logical that the age of death of such a

noble person must be the average standard of life span.

In Genesis Rabbah, Rabbi Ishmael interprets the verse as “I (God) will not put My

Spirit in them” adding: “when I give the righteous their reward”65. Similar to this

interpretation, the other Rabbis agree and expand on this concept. The theme of

judgment (דין) is focused on Genesis Rabbah. The rabbis in this text understand the

flood as the punishment over this generation because “they did not do justice, God

humbles them with suffering”66. Therefore, their rejection of justice causes the

delivery of catastrophe on themselves. However, this interpretation fails to notice

any wrongdoing of the “flood generation” and looks forward to the end time

resurrection and judgment. (Reed, 2007)

The LXX interprets this verse differently, it uses ου κρινει meaning “judge” instead

of µη καταµεινη meaning “not remain”. This version also adds the word τουτοις

meaning “in these men”. However, some argue that “these men” describe the

generation of the Flood and others believe that it refers to the offspring of the

hāᵓādām and the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm because of the mixed nature of them67. The verse

would read: “and the Lord God said, my spirit shall not judge these men forever

because they are of flesh68”

Clines suggests that the use of the word “clamor” ( גםבש) is significant to determine

64 “It has often been observed, starting even with Josephus, that this motif is recurrent in Deuteronomy 34:7, where Moses is said to have died at the age of 120 years. This life span is not unique in the ancient world, so there is no need to postulate a specific link between Gen 6:3 and Deuteronomy 34:7 merely on the basis of the number. Nevertheless, there is a good argument within Deuteronomy 34 that shows that Deuteronomy 34:7 is alluding to Gen 6:3. Moses death’ notice is followed by the amazing statement that he died in the best of health: “His sight was unimpaired and his vigor had not abated.” (Schmid, 2012) 65 Genesis Rabbah, Parashah XXXVI, VI. 1.B 66 pag. 286 (Neusner, 1985) 67 This is only valid if we agree that bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm are angels. 68 There are other translations that do not include τουτοις like: Symmachus, Ethiopic version, the Vulgate, Philo (Gig. 19), Ambrosius (De mysteriis 10; De Noe 7), and Hilarius (Ps 65.5). (Wright, 2005)

26

who is the group that is addressed in this verse. Therefore, the verse should read:

“My spirit shall not abide these men forever because of the clamor of flesh”. He argues

that the Hebrew text borrowed this Assyrian word that means: “to howl” and it is

combined with the preposition .”ב“ If this is the meaning of this verse, it is possible to make the connection with the myth of “Atrahasis” from Mesopotamia69 where the

clamor of humanity is to blame for the cause of the flood. (Clines, 1979) (Wright,

2005)

Another important word to keep in consideration is the word בשר )bāsor( flesh70.

God says in this verse: “my spirit shall not remain in men forever because they are of

flesh”. This verse makes a separation between the Creator and giver of life (Gen. 2:7)

and the creation, a vessel who is of flesh. Therefore, according to this verse and

interpretation, God were punishing mankind and the Flood was the consequence of

their transgression.

Verse 4 In order to understand this verse better, it is necessary to analyze first the character

or characters of this story first and then the structure of this verse.

Who are the “Nephilim”?

The Nephilim (הנפלים) are introduced in this verse. There are different

interpretations of the meaning and the root origin of this word. The most common

interpretation is that it comes from the root נפל to fall and therefore it is possible to

translate it as “the falling ones” or “the ones who had fallen”. In the older versions of

the LXX it interprets the Nephilim merely as “assailants” or “violent men” (Barry, et

69 This assumption of Clines is similar with the hypothesis presented for Heffron on her article Revisiting ‘Noise’ (rigmu) in Atra-‐ḫasīs in Light of Baby Incantations (Heffron, 2014) 70 It has also been suggested by Clines that the phrase “they are flesh” is also found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. In this Epic, Gilgamesh is one-‐third human and his expectancy of life has been reduced because he is flesh too. Through this Epic, he is haunted and oppressed by the thought of death, and he tries to find immortality. However, he couldn’t reach his objective. pag. 76 . (Wright, 2005), this also is suggested by Clines’ article pag. 44 (Clines, 1979)

27

al., 2014). Genesis Rabbah71 gives them seven names: “Nephilim”; “Emim”; “Refaim”;

“Gibborim”; “Zamzumim”; “Anaqim” and “Avim”.

Some had described them according to the context of this verse as the product of the

“illicit” mix between the benot hāᵓādām and the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm. They were semi

divine beings, if it is assumed that the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm were angels or divine beings.

Genesis Rabbah would not describe their nature, but it would link them to the

Gibborim and would keep the idea that they were licentious beings. On the other

hand, the Targumim do not give any interpretations about their identity. For

example the Targum Pseudo-‐Jonathan would replace their names in this verse for

Shamhazai and Azael without an explanation. Targum Onkelos would use the

word “the mighty ones” (גבריא). It quotes Genesis Rabbah72 and tries to avoid the “fallen angels” legend based on the root meaning of the Nephilim. (Aberbach &

Grossfeld, 1982)

The LXX uses the word γιγαντες “giants” to translate Nephilim; however, it is not

clear, philologically, the relationship between the words Nephilim and “Giants”. It is

possible to assume that the translators used the ancient Greek terms and their

Hellenistic worldview influenced by the images of the Titan myth, the Odyssey, the

Iliad and others to express the idea of the characters in this story. (Wright, 2005)

This is because of the use the same word γιγαντες to interpret: Nephilim 2 times

;(הנפלים) Gibborim 17 times ;)גבורי or הגברים( the Refaim 8 times ;(הרפאים or הרפא)

71 Genesis Rabbah expands this idea: Emim: same consonants as “dread”; “their dread affected everybody”; Refaim: same consonants as “melt”; “everyone who saw them melted like wax”; Gibborim: “The marrow in the bone-‐thigh of each one of them was eighteen cubits long (8.23 meters)” Zamzumim; “they were the finest experts in the art of war”; Anakim: same consonants as “chains”; “they multiplied chains upon chains” and “they would reach the orb of the sun with their necks and deliver rain”; Awim; same consonants as “ruin”; they were driven the world in ruins. Rabbi Simeon relates their name to the word “avviah” (snake) used in Galilee; Nephilim: “for they threw the world down, and they fell from the world, and they filled the world up with abortions on account of their licentiousness”. All this make the same consonantal roots 72 Parashah XXVI: VII pag. 286-‐287

28

Anakim1 time ;)ענק( and Rapha 1 time .)רפה( (Muraoka, 2010)73 Nevertheless, this

previous account with the Nephilim is the only time that they are mention in the

primeval story in the book of Genesis.

The Bible would mention them later on in the book of Numbers in chapter 13. In this

account, the Nephilim were the sons of Anak. They were of great height, like giants,

strong and powerful, and they used to live in the land of Canaan. There are a few

“Execration texts” that confirm the existence of people of high stature living in

Canaan. However, they were called “Shasu”74. The text says that these were the sons

of Anak originated from the Nephilim75.

Therefore, it is plausible to assume that these Nephilim from the book of Numbers

are related to the ones in Genesis but this verse just describes them as people of

larger appearance than the Israelites. This text lacks information on if they were

semi-‐divine beings, etc. Perhaps they were humans with a mutation disposition as

Spero76 suggests in his article. If this suggestion is correct, it is plausible to assume

that the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm were descendants of humans.

Who are the “Gibborim”?

The Gibborim ,)הגברים( BDB77 interprets it as “strong and valiant man” and occurs

with its variants 148 times. This adjective has been used to describe God, judges, warriors and men of war or the mighty man of the king David. This is a common

73 pag. 24 74 The Craft of the Scribe (1250 BCE) was used to train Egyptian scribes, discusses about the Canaanite mountain pass during a past battle: “The face of the pass is dangerous with Shasu, hidden under the bushes. Some of them are 4 or 5 cubits, nose to foot with wild faces. 75 Numbers הנפילים בני ענק מן־הנפלים 13:33 76 In his article Spero suggests that because of recent scientific evidence shows that Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man interbreed, and he related this evidence to Genesis 6:1-‐5. He assumes that the benei elohim are the Homo sapiens while the benot ha-‐adam are the female Neanderthals. He assumes that for long time each group kept to itself. Eventually, Homo sapiens, with their superiority in skills, realize that Neanderthal women are "goodly" and begin rapaciously to abduct them, "to take for themselves wives from whomsoever they chose" and to mate with them. He does not have an idea exactly what emerged from such interbreeding but apparently in some cases it led to a sort of “gigantism”, as it is apparent in the book of Numbers in the story of the Nephilim and benei anak, who proceeded to terrorize and tyrannize others. (Spero, 2012) 77 pag. 150

29

term associated with the history of Israel. Some have suggested their relationship to

the accounts of Genesis 10:8-‐12, the only problem with this association is the

translation used in the LXX. There the Gibborim is translated γίγας “giants”, the

question that remains with this association is was Nimrod a giant? However, this is a

different topic to discuss in another paper.

Giants in the Bible

• In Deuteronomy 2, Moses is describing the land and its previous inhabitants:

X The Emim (האמים)78 used to live in this land. However, the text does not

mention that they were giants, but it compares their height to the Anakim,

most likely the ones in Numbers 13.79

X The Zamzummim )80זמזמים( that were removed from the land by the

Ammonites. Similar to the Emim, they also were “people as great and

numerous and tall as the Anakim”.

• Deuteronomy 3:11 gives the information of Og the king of Bashan, who was the

remnant from Rephaim .)81הרפאים( In this story the children of Israel went to

battle against Og the king of Bashan and his people. He is supposed to be of a

large size, a giant, because his bed was of 4.11mts by 1.82mts (13.5 ft. by 6 ft.)82.

According to the midrashic literature, Og survived the flood by riding along on

Noah’s Ark. Noah fed him through a hole in the vessel. He was slain by Moses who stuck him on his ankle83. (Ron, 2012)

78 They are called the “Umetanayya” in the Targum Neofiti 1:Deuteronomy; they are called the “Fearsome Ones” in the Targum Pseudo-‐Jonathan: Deuteronomy; they are called the “fear inspiring ones” in the Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. 79 ים׃ בור םור כענק ם ולגד ים יםלפנ שבוי הב ע האמ 80 They are called the “Zamtanayya” in the Targum Neofiti 1:Deuteronomy; they are called the “Zimthanay” in the Targum Pseudo-‐Jonathan: Deuteronomy; they are called the “schemers” in the Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. 81 The Rephaim are commonly translated as giants in the LXX. 82 Deuteronomy 3:11 “Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit of a man” 83 Og’s ankle was thirty cubits high and his femur is reported to be over three parasangs long

30

• First Samuel gives the account of the story of David and Goliath. According to the

Masoretic text, his height was six cubits and a span84 -‐-‐ about 3 meters (9’9” ft.).

However, the LXX, 4QSam, and Josephus describe his height as four cubits and a

span about 2.10 meters (6’9” ft.). The story tells that no one wanted to volunteer

to fight this “giant” except young David.

• The book of Judges, tell us the story of Samson. The Bible is not clear about his

physical dimensions, but apparently he was of large dimensions. Archeologists

have concluded that the width of the gate of Gaza was around 3mts85. The story

tells that Samson removed the doors of the gate and brought them close to

Hebron86. It is possible to assume that besides his strength he was a large person

because the average arm span of a person is about 1.80 meters87; therefore he

was a human with a large body, a “giant”. However, others have assumed that

Samson was a Nephilim88.

• Second Samuel89 tells us that the children of Israel fought and killed Ishbi-‐benob,

Saph, Goliath the Gittite and the man of Gath90, according to this narrative they

also were a descendant of the giants.

• In 1 Chronicles 11:23, Benaiah, one of the mighty men, struck down an Egyptian

that was of great stature, five cubits tall (2.5 meters).

The verse structure

Some scholars have assumed that this verse has been edited either during the oral

tradition or later on after it was written. The reason for this supposition is the lack

of continuity of the verse. Therefore, this verse would be analyzed in three strata

according to the way that the verse has been structured91.

84 וזרת שש ותאמ וגבה 1 Samuel 17:4 85 They arrived to this assumption by comparing the width of other gates of this time period, like of Hadzor and Ashdod. (Barrick, 1976) 86 Judges 16:13 87 (Statistical Sociaty of Canada, 2006/2007) 88 It has suggested that because of the suspicious event of Samson conception, he was a Nephilim. He is the product of the mix of an angel and a human. (Shinan, Zakovitch, & Zakovitch, 2012) 89 2 Samuel 21:15-‐22 90 He was of great stature with six fingers on each hands and six toes on each foot” 91 My reasoning for this is because of the presences of ”וגם“ that normally express the introduction of new information to come and the atnah ( ◌) that mark a main verse division.

31

The first portion reads: “the Nephilim were in the land in those days”. It is possible to

understand this portion straightforwardly introducing the Nephilim to the audience;

however, it is not clear the meaning of “those days”. It is vague in the context of this

verse. But in the light of verse 1 and the use of ,ויהי כי it is possible to assume that the

events that were happening in Gen. 6:1-‐4 were occurring simultaneously with Gen.

4:17-‐24 and Gen. 5:1-‐32.

The second portion reads: “and also after that the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm come to the benot

hāᵓādām and they bore [children] to them”92. The idea in this portion follows the

same information given in verse 2. The bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm have taken wives from

among the benot hāᵓādām, but here is new information, from this union children

were born to them. Some scholars suggest that the editors inserted this portion in

order for the audience to understand who were the Nephilim.

The third and last portion tells: “Similar, the Gibborim that were from long ago, the

men of the name (men of renown)”. This portion introduces the Gibborim as the men

of renown from the past.

Most scholars and translations would assume that the Nephilim and Gibborim were

the same group of people. Therefore, they assume that the Nephilim, or the

Gibborim (used as an adjective) were the children of the union of the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm

and the benot hāᵓādām.

I am of the opinion that in the beginning the text used to read: “the Nephilim were in

the land in those days, these were the mighty men who were the men of renown from

the past” and that the portion that explains about the bĕnê hāᵓĕlōhîm and benot

hāᵓādām was added later on, maybe before the “Cantillation Markers” were added

into the text.

92 My interpretation and what is in brackets is implicit from the context.

32

Results and Conclusion In this paper, I have investigated the connection between Gen. 6:1-‐4 and the story of

the Flood likewise its relationship to previous chapters. Further, I have identified

the nature and origin of the Nephilim and the relationship to the Gibborim.

Additionally, I have find for evidence of the worldview of the primary audience.

Here are my results.

There is a strong connection between the story of Gen. 6:1-‐4 and the previous

chapters. I have found continuity in the train of thought of the stories making a

parallel of events between these chapters creating the background setting for the

story of the Flood. Therefore, I conclude that there is a sequence of events between

Genesis 4:17-‐24; Genesis 5:1-‐32; Genesis 6:1-‐4 and Genesis 6:5 where the Flood

story begins. Also, in light of verse 3, it is possible to determine that the punishment

given by God was directed toward humans because of the use of the word of בשר

“flesh” in this verse. Therefore, the Flood and the reduction of the length of years is a

direct punishment toward humanity.

Here are the results about the nature and origin of the Nephilim and their

relationship to the Gibborim. In order to identify the Nephilim, it is necessary to talk

about the nature of their father, the “bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm”. Concerning the bĕnê

haᵓĕlōhîm, it has been clear with the evidence found in this paper that according to

the worldview presented in the biblical text and likewise the different myths,

legends and beliefs of the ancient Near East: that they were some sort of divine

beings. However, it is difficult to prove their existence in the ethereal world.

Therefore, I have concluded that this was a way for the people of ancient times to

explain things that, because of their lack of understanding or knowledge, were

difficult to explain.

Regardless, I conclude that the idea of the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm as humans is more

consistent and factual. There is something in us humans that gives us the tendency

33

to abuse of the authority given to use, as proven in the “Lucifer Effect”93. However, it

is impossible to determine if the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm were descendants from the line of

Seth or not.

Thus, the Nephilim were human warriors of renown of the past and therefore the

word Gibborim is an adjective used to describe them. They were just human beings

that apparently had some sort of mutation or gigantism, which in most cases is

“normal” nowadays. They were tall, but not excessively so as some have portrayed

them to be. According to the information given by the Bible, their height was similar

to the average height of a NBA player94. It is also necessary to consider that the

average height of a man in those days was slightly less than 1.68 meters (5.5 ft.)95.

Perhaps, this was written to explain the reason of tall people living in those days.

In regards to the worldview of the primary audience, the Bible is a conglomerate of

stories trying to answer different questions about the beginnings of the world,

civilization, evil, etc. As I proved earlier when I talked about the possible nature of

the bĕnê haᵓĕlōhîm, the ancient belief was practical and attributed their origin to the

ethereal world with the intention to address the reasons of their environment.

In conclusion, the story of Gen. 6:1-‐4 gives us clear evidence of the reason for the

Flood. It is a key component that annexes the expansion of human society and

consequences of their choices. It gives us a clear indication that humans have the

tendency for corruption and it shows the righteousness of God. He is not a god who

is moved by His moods or impulse to appeal to His demands, but He is moved based

on His will according to His wisdom. The story of the Flood is a reflection of His

mercy to the world.

93 The “Lucifer Effect” describes the point in time when an ordinary, normal person first crosses the boundary between good and evil to engage in an evil action. For more information visit: http://www.lucifereffect.com/ 94 The average NBA player is 1.83 meters (6'6.9"ft.) tall and weighs 221.00 pounds in 2007 (National Basketball Association, 2007) 95 Archaeologists have concluded that the male human skeletal remains from the biblical period have an average height of slightly less than five and a half feet. (Heiser, 2014)

34

Bibliography .ההסיודי הנשים ׳קטלוג לאור (11־4 בריו) האדם ובנות האלוהים בני סיפור .ג ,דרשן In הקדום והמזרח המקרא לחקר שנתון (p. .(178־155 Aberbach, M., & Grossfeld, B. (1982). Targum Onkelos to Genesis; A Crititcal Analysis Togetehr with an English Translation of the Text. Jersey City, New Jersey, USA: Ktav Publishing House Inc. Ataç, M.-‐A. (2010). The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-‐Assyrian Art. New York, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Barrick, W. (1976). Samson's Removal of Gaza's Gates. Near East Archaeological Society , 8, 83-‐89. Barry, J. D., Wentz, L., Mangum, D., Sinclair-‐Wolcott, C., Klippenstein, R., Bomar, D., et al. (2014). The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, Washington, USA: Lexham Press. Beckman, G. (1989, June/September). The Religion of the Hittites. Biblical Archaelogist , 98-‐108. Berlin, A., & Brettler, M. Z. (2004). The Jewish Study Bible. New York, USA: Oxford University. Bialik, H. N., Rawnitzki, Y. H., & Braude, W. G. (1992). The Book of Legends : Legends from the Talmud and Midrash. New York, New York, USA: Schocken Books. Botterweck, J. G., Ringgren, H., Willis, J. T., Green, D. E., Fabry, H.-‐J., & Stott, D. W. (1974-‐2006). Theological dictionary of the Old Testament Vol. XII Pasah -‐ Qum. (D. W. Stott, Trans.) Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: William B. Eerdmans. Britannica, E. (2013). Septuagint. Retrieved February 26, 2015, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535154/Septuagint Brown, F., Driver, S. R., Briggs, C. A., Gesenius, W., Roediger, E., & Robinson, E. (2000). The Brown-‐Driver-‐Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Massachusett, USA: Hendrickson. Chabad.org. (1993-‐2015). The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary. Retrieved March 2015, from Chabad-‐Lubavitch Media Center: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16303/jewish/Chapter-‐82.htm#showrashi=true

35

Chaffey, T. (2012, February 22). Giants in the Old Testament. Retrieved April 2015, from Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-‐characters/giants-‐in-‐the-‐old-‐testament/ Clines, D. J. (1979). The Significance of the "Sons of God" Episode (Genesis 6:1-‐4) in the Context of the "Primeval History" (Genesis 6-‐11). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplemental Series (13), 33-‐46. Coffman, J. B. (1983-‐1999). Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament. Abilene, Texas, USA: Abilene Christian University Press. Collins, J. J. (1993). Daniel : A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: Fortress Press. Crossway Bibles, a. d. (2001). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Retrieved Februry 12, 2015, from Biblegateway: https://www.biblegateway.com Davis, G. J. (2014). Gilgamesh: The New Translation . Traverse City, Michigan, USA: Insignia Publishing. Deffinbaugh, R. L. (2004). Psalm 82: The judgment of the gods. Retrieved 2015, from Bible.org: https://bible.org/seriespage/7-‐psalm-‐82-‐judgment-‐gods Dillman, A. (2005, c1897.). Genesis, critically and exegetically expounded (Vol. 1). (W. B. Stevenson, Trans.) Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publisher. Einspahr, B. (1979). Index to Brown, Driver and Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon. Chicago , Illinois, USA: Moody Press. Even-‐Shoshan, A. (1989). A New Concordance of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Baker. Everson, D. L. (2010). The Fish Grows Bigger: Angelical Insertions in the Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-‐Jonathan. In E. M. Meyers, & P. V. Flesher, Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (Vol. 3, pp. 233-‐243). Winona Lake, Indiana, USA: Eisenbrauns. Freedman, D. N. (1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, USA: Doubleday. Friedlander, G. (1916). Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer: The chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the great according to the text of the manuscript belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. London, London, UK: K.Paul, Trench, Trubner. Grossfeld, B. (2000). Targum Neofiti 1, An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis, including Full Rabbic Parallels. New York, New York, USA: Sepher-‐Hermon Press inc.

36

Heffron, Y. (2014). Revisiting ‘Noise’ (rigmu) in Atra-‐ḫasīs in Light of Baby Incantations. Journal of Near Eastern Studies , 73 (1), 83-‐93. Heiser, M. S. (2014, October 31). Clash of the Manuscripts: Goliath & the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament -‐ See more at: http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/extras-‐1/2014/10/31/clash-‐of-‐the-‐Manuscripts Goliath-‐the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. Retrieved April 2015, from Bible Study Magazine: Clash of the Manuscripts-‐goliath-‐the-‐hebrew-‐text-‐of-‐the-‐old-‐testament Hendel, R. S. (1987). Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-‐4. Journal of Biblical Literature , 106 (1), 13-‐26. Hendel, R. S. (2000). Qumran and a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible. In J. H. Charlesworth, & J. H. Charlesworth (Ed.), The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Bible and Qumran (Vol. 1, pp. 197-‐217). N. Richland Hills, Texas, USA: Bibal Press. Hendel, R. (2003). The Nephelim were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1-‐4 and its Ancient Near Eastern Context. In C. Auffarth, & S. L. T., The Fall of the Angels (pp. 11-‐34). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Hess, R. S., & Tsumura, D. T. (1994). "I studied inscriptions from before the flood" : ancient Near Eastern, literary, and linguistic approaces to Genesis 1-‐11. Winona Lake, Indiana, USA: Eisenbrauns. Hoffner, H. A., & Beckman, G. M. (1990). Hittite Myths. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Scholars Press. Ibn Ezra, A. b. (1998). Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra's commentary on the creation. (M. Linetsky, Ed.) Northvael, New Jersey, USA: Jason Aronson. James, W. A. (2013). John Dalberg-‐Acton, 1st Baron Acton. Retrieved February 2015, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/topic/4647/supplemental-‐information Kaminski, C. M. (2014). Was Noah good?: Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative. New York, NY, USA: Bloomsbury. Keil, K. F. (1986). Commentary on the Old Testament : In Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: William B. Eerdmans. Kittel R., E. W. (1984). Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelstiftung. Kline, M. G. (1962). Divine kingship and Genesis 6:1-‐4. Westminster Theological Journal , 24 (2), 187-‐204.

37

Lang, M. (2008). Floating from Babylon to Rome; Ancient Near Eastern Flood Stories in the Mediterranean World. Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico , 5, 211-‐231. Leprohon, R. J. (2000 c1995.). Royal and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt. In J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. M. Beckman, & K. S. Rubinson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. I & II, pp. 273 -‐ 287). Peabody, Massachusetts, USA: Hendrickson Publishers. Livingston, D. (2011). Who were the Sons of God in Genesis 6. Retrieved February 2015, from Associates for Biblical Research: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2011/02/04/Who-‐Were-‐the-‐Sons-‐of-‐God-‐in-‐Genesis-‐6.aspx#Article Maher, M. (1992). Targum Pseudo-‐Jonathan: Genesis. Collegeville, Minnesota, USA: The Liturgical Press. Major, T. J. (n.d.). The Meaning of "Sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-‐4. Retrieved March 2015, from Apologetics Press: https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/sons-‐of-‐god-‐in-‐genesis-‐6.pdf McNamara, M. (1992). Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (Vol. 1A). (M. M. Kevin Cathcart, Ed.) Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. Muraoka, T. (2010). A Greek = Hebrew/Aramaic; Two way Index to the Septuagint. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters. National Basketball Association. (2007, November 21). 2007-‐08 Player Survey: Mr Average. Retrieved April 2015, from National Basketball Association: http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2007.html Neusner, J. (1985). Genesis rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the book of Genesis (Vol. 1). (J. Neusner, W. S. Dietrich, E. S. Frerichs, C. Goldscheider, & A. Zuckerman, Eds.) Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Scholars Press. Newman, R. C. (1984). The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4. Grace Theological Journal , 5 (1), 13-‐36. Perdue, L. G. (2008). The Sword and the Stylus : An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Cambidge, UK: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. Reed, A. Y. (2007). Reading Augustine and/as Midrash: Genesis 6 in Genesis Rabbah and the City of God. In L. M. Teugels, & R. Ulmer, Midrash and Context: Proceedings of the 2004 and 2005 SBL Consultation on Midrash (pp. 61-‐110). New Jersey, USA: Gorgias Press.

38

Roberts, J. J. (2002). The Bible and the Ancient Near East : Collected Essays. Winona Lake, Indianapolis, USA: Eisenbrauns. Ron, Z. (2012). The Bed of OG. Jewish Bible Quarterly , 40 (1), 29-‐34. Schmid, K. (2012). Genesis in the Pentateuch. In C. A. Evens, The Book of Genesis, Composition, Reception ad Interpretation (pp. 27-‐50). Leiden, Netherrlands: Brill. Schwarzbaum, H. (1957). The Overcrowded Earth. Numen , 4 (1), 59-‐74. Shinan, A., Zakovitch, V., & Zakovitch, Y. (2012). From Gods to God : How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends. Lincoln, Nebraska, USA: University of Nebraska Press. Snell, D. C. (2007). A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Spero, S. (2012). Sons of God, Daughters of Men? Jewish Bible Quartely , 40 (1), 15-‐18. Statistical Sociaty of Canada. (2006/2007). Census at School. Retrieved April 2015, from Average arm span, by age 2006/2007: http://www.censusatschool.ca/data-‐results/2006-‐07/average-‐arm-‐span/ Struckenbruck, L. T. (2004). The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretion of Genesis 6:1-‐4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E. In C. Auffarth, The Fall of the Angels (pp. 87-‐118). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Taggar-‐Cohen, A. (2015, February 21). Greetings from Jerusalem. Talmon, S. (2013). Literary Patterns and Motifs in the Biblical Creation Tradition. In S. Talmon, Literary Motifs and Pattern in the Hebrew Bible: Collected studies by Shermayahu Talmon (pp. 47-‐49). Winonna Lake, Indiana, USA: The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem by Eisenbraus. Toepel, A. (2013). The Cave of Treasures. In R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila, & A. Panayotov, Old Testaement Pseudepigrapha; More Noncanonical Scriptures (p. 551). Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Van der Torn, K. (1999). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill. Westermann, C. (1984-‐1986). Genesis : A Commentary. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: Augsburg Pub. House. Westermann, C., & Jenni, E. (1997). Theological lexicon of the Old Testament (Vol. 1 & 3). Peabody, Massachusetts, USA: Hendrickson.

39

Whiston, W. A. (1820). The Works of Flavious Josephus, comprising the Antiquities of the Jews; A History of the Jews Wars and Life of Flavius Josephus. Philadelphia, USA: David McKay, Publisher. Wright, A. T. (2005). The Origin of Evil Spirits; The Reception of Genesis 6:1-‐4 in Early Jewish Literature. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. Wyatt, N. (2007). The Seventy Sons of Athirat, The Nations of the World, Deuteronomy 32.6B, 8–9, and the Myth ofDivine Election. In T. H. Lim, B. W. Aucker, G. A. Auld, & R. Rezetko, Reflection and Refraction : Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (pp. 547-‐556). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Wyatt, N. (2007). The Seventy Sons of Athirat, The Nations of the World, Deuteronomy 32:6B, 8–9, and the Myth of Divine Election. In T. H. Lim, B. W. Aucker, G. A. Auld, & R. Rezetko, Reflection and Refraction : Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (pp. 547 -‐ 556). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Zakovitch, Y., Zakovitch, V., & Shinan, A. (2012). When Gods Seduced Women. In Y. Zakovitch, V. Zakovitch, & A. Shinan, From Gods to God : How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends (pp. 27-‐34). Lincoln, Nebraska, USA: University of Nebraska Press. Zlotowitz, M. (1977-‐1981). Bereishis : Genesis : A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (Vol. 1). (M. Zlotowitz, Ed.) New York, New York, USA: Mesorah Publications.

Sons of God and a Reason for the Flood

Documents

Transcript of Sons of God and a Reason for the Flood