Dr. Ki-Eun Jang (Department of Theology, Fordham University) authored a paper titled The Problems of Sons of Gods, Daughters of Humans, and the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1–4: A Reassessment (ORCID, Religions 2025, 16(8), 972, Special Issue The Hebrew Bible: A Journey Through History and Literature) the abstract of which notes, in part:
…contrary to the majority view, Genesis 6:1–4 does not presuppose knowledge of the flood narrative…its primary literary role is to introduce the Nephilim in anticipation of the forthcoming land promise and conquest narrative…Nephilim…characterized by their immense size…conflation of various giant terms…the eradication of giant groups such as the Rephaim.
Note the linguistics shift from the title’s and abstract’s reference to Nephilim to referencing giants. Since Jang jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English word giants the key questions become: what is the usage of giants in English Bibles? What is Jang’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Also, we must keep an eye out for why he thinks Nephilim were characterized by their immense size and why he inserted Rephaim into the equation.
As for, “the majority view,” the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
Jang notes the following contrary to the majority view:
…earlier scholars attempted to read Genesis 6:1–4 as a prelude to the flood story…
The juxtaposition of the episode in Genesis 6:1–4 with the flood story proved to be a popular interpretation already in the late Second Temple period as shown in the Watchers story in 1 Enoch 6–11 and Jubilees 5, as well as later in Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan…
The content of Genesis 6:1–4 stands on its own and does not necessarily rely on the flood narrative for its narrative logic and meaning. To be sure, there is a play on keywords between Genesis 6:1–4 and Genesis 6:6–8, which suggests a strong literary bond between the two units. Nevertheless, the lexical connection alone does not indicate that Genesis 6:1:4 primarily functions to introduce the cause of the flood…
Jang’s notes this about the premise regarding what I term the Gen 6 affair, “its primary literary function is to introduce the Nephilim in anticipation of the land promise and conquest narrative” and yet, that makes Jang’s conclusion a non-sequitur—stand by.
Jang notes:
I contend that Genesis 6:1–4 was originally an independent tradition with no direct connection to the flood story. Its core narrative interest rather lies in the introduction of the Nephilim. Consequently, the apparent connection to the deluge, suggested by shared lexical material in Genesis 6:5–8, should be understood as a subsequent editorial seam, consciously woven by the author-editor of the flood story, not the composer of the Nephilim account.
The view is that the, “introduction of the Nephilim” is meant to project to, “the land promise and conquest narrative…combined Gen 6:1–4 with the flood story to account for the Nephilim’s reappearance in the conquest narrative.”
One issue is that he takes a form criticism approach and not a textual criticism one. Certainly, it seems that the approach is textual and yet, it is based on assumptions and presumptions rather than any manuscript evidence whatsoever. Thus, Jang can assert, “a subsequent editorial seam, consciously woven by the author-editor” and, “a late gloss, possibly added by the scribal hand” plus references to, “Priestly…and non-Priestly…sources” which is odd that in 2025 Jang is still appealing to the essentially debunked Document Hypothesis a.k.a. JEDP Theory.
Indeed, such are subjective assertions with no manuscript support that allow scholars to deal with difficult issues by merely claiming textual traditions, editions, etc., they cannot evidence.
Jang also notes:
Genesis 6:1–4 reveals no explicit moral judgment that would precipitate a worldwide disaster…Crucially, no term in this narrative connotes the wickedness, corruption, or violence that the Priestly (Gen 6:11–12) and non-Priestly (Gen 6:5–7) sources explicitly identify as the rationale for the flood.
The latter passage locates the cause of the flood squarely in the evil inclination of the human mind (v. 5), whereas Genesis 6:1-4 describes an event initiated not by humans, but by divine beings—the “sons of gods”—who chose human wives. In the latter narrative, it is the sons of gods who take the initiative.
If this action were understood by the non-P author as an evil warranting a global catastrophe, why are the sons of gods completely absent from the flood story? By the same token, if the Nephilim were considered the culpable evildoers, the primary justification for the flood, where are they in the flood narrative?
I suppose that if one reads the Gen 6 affair as Jang does, as random pieces of narrative edited together, then one can conclude, “no explicit moral judgment” and yet, when read as is (which Jang is actually doing when premising that statement with a citation to the text as is), the moral judgment consists of a tripartite perfect storm: fallen humanity, fallen sons of God, and fallen Nephilim. Let us even generically state that whatever it is that caused the problems, explicitly stated or not, the fact is that it does, in fact, serve as the premise of the flood. Thus, the moral judgment comes in the form of that which follows in the narrative.
As for, “locates the cause of the flood squarely in the evil inclination of the human mind” well, since the Bible is more of an anthropological anthology rather than a theological one, it is about humanity’s creation, fall, and redemption.
Thus, whatever subject it touches upon, it touches upon briefly as it quickly and inevitably always makes the point be how it affects humanity.
Thus, the tripartite perfect storm is what includes, “humans” and, “divine beings”—and humans, Angels, Nephilim (and even God) are all referred to as man/men.
Another issue is that an author, much less the inspirer, are under no obligation of including all details into any given narrative. Thus, there is no requirement for the following flood-related narrative to ensure that sons of God and Nephilim are specifically mentioned within, “the flood story.”
Jang notes:
…the Hebrew syntax of the Masoretic Text in Genesis 6:4 is not straightforward enough to conclude that the Nephilim are the object of the birthings but rather suggests a different relationship…
Nephilim already existed in those days when divine beings and humans used to have sexual intercourse and give birth…
Their existence on earth is already presumed alongside other human generations before the unions between human daughters and divine beings took place.
I will be as bold to encourage us to not be too impressed by claims about the Hebrew syntax (of, specifically and exclusively the Masoretic Text?). The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
Another issue pertains to the word-swap language games of peppering the paper with the term giants whilst never defining the usage—which is essentially a feature of 99% of everything that has ever been written about Nephilim in English by scholars and pop-Nephilologists.
Jang noted:
As Brian Doak has demonstrated, the biblical descriptions of various giants tend to conflate them with one another (Doak 2012, pp. 51–118). This feature suggests that the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 functions not only as a specific clan of giants, prior to their appearance in Numbers 13:33, but also as archetypes for the pre-Israelite gigantic settlers that the Israelites would face in the conquest narrative.
…the conflation of the Nephilim with sons of Anaq in Numbers 13:33 suggests that “Nephilim” became a general designation for the gigantic.
…the text never explicitly equates the Nephilim (of Cisjordan) with the Rephaim (of Transjordan), it forges an indirect link through their shared identification with the Anaqim.
…the introduction of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 can be understood as foreshadowing the conquest, which involves encounters with native gigantic settlers, including both the Nephilim and the Rephaim.
Jang also noted that, “Anaqim are identified with the Emim…Emim are considered Rephaim…Emim and Rephaim belong to a common gigantic lineage” and are also a.k.a., “Zamzummim” and concludes, “Rephaim, Anaqim, Emim, and Zamzummim all designate the same legendary giants.”
Clearly, Jang’s usage of giants is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
The usage of giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Thus, Jang’s usage does not agree with English Bibles.
One problem with such a misusage is that it makes the statements just quoted confusing.
The statement, “descriptions of various giants” either means, “descriptions of various Nephilim” or, “descriptions of various Rephaim.”
“Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 functions not only as a specific clan of giants” would either mean, “Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 functions not only as a specific clan of Nephilim” or, “Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 functions not only as a specific clan of Rephaim.”
“‘Nephilim’ became a general designation for the gigantic” either means, “Nephilim” became a general designation for the Nephilim” or, “Nephilim” became a general designation for the Rephaim.”
“native gigantic settlers, including both the Nephilim and the Rephaim” would mean, “native Nephilim settlers, including both the Nephilim and the Rephaim” or, “native Rephaim settlers, including both the Nephilim and the Rephaim.”
Yet, what is being said is, “descriptions of various…a specific clan of…became a general designation for…native” something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial.
Zamzummim was merely an a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anaqim and Emim were like clans of that tribe:
…(The Emim formerly lived there [in Ar], a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim…It [the land of the people of Ammon] is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there—but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim—a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim (Deut 2).
Note no correlation to Nephilim.
As for, “legendary giants” that would mean, “legendary Rephaim” which would be fair enough but, again, Jang is telling us, “legendary something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial.” The only contextually relevant thing we are told about Rephaim, in general, is that they were, “tall” subjective to the parochial average so that they were taller, by an unknown margin, than 5.0-5.3ft: the heigh of the average Israelite male in those days.
I included a chapter on Brian Doak in my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants? So, did he demonstrate, “the biblical descriptions of various Nephilim tend to conflate them with one another” or, “the biblical descriptions of various Rephaim tend to conflate them with one another”? Well, he was asserting conflating Nephilim with Rephaim—for which there is no biblical indication whatsoever.
Now, if Nephilim served as, “archetypes for the pre-Israelite gigantic settlers that the Israelites would face in the conquest narrative” and, “general designation for the gigantic” why then, it there only one single usage of it post-flood?
As for, “the conflation of the Nephilim with sons of Anaq” indeed, that is only Num 13:33 which is a gigantic problem along with that we will find out that there is no reliable indication of, “encounters with native gigantic settlers, including both the Nephilim and the Rephaim.”
Jang asserts, “Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 are connected to the broader conquest narrative, which involves the eradication of groups like the Rephaim” yet, if that can be said to be the case, it can only be said to be the case via Num 13:33 so that the gigantic problem grows bigger still.
Jang tells us, “Another point of contact between the Nephilim and the Rephaim is found in traditions that treat the Rephaim as dead humans (Ps 88:11; Isa 26:14, 19), similar to Ugaritic rp’u, who often represent deceased kings. The Nephilim are likewise interpreted as ‘fallen ones’ from the root נפל (‘to fall’), especially in Ezek 32, where they are described as descending to Sheol.”
These are cases of applying root words to people groups. Since rapha can refer to the dead (it also refers to healing such as when God is referred to as a rapha: healing God or God the healer in Exodus 15:26) and it applied to Rephaim. Likewise, naphal refers to fall/fallen/feller, etc., and is applies to Nephilim. Yet, the roots rapha and naphal are used to refer to dead and fallen in general and only refers to those people groups in certain specific instances.
What Jang noted happens due to that in Ugaritic texts recently deceased kings and heroes are referred to as kings and heroes but after they had been dead for some time, they were referred to as rph or rp’u, could be summoned from the grave/underworld to attend rituals, etc., see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim the Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.
Now we finally come to Jang’s ultimate non-sequitur which will be made evident via these statements:
The only other biblical reference to the Nephilim appears in Numbers 13:33, where the leaders of the Israelite tribes, sent to spy out the land of Canaan, report what they have seen. According to their account, the Nephilim are obviously linked to giants. The two rather idiosyncratic presentations of the Nephilim raise a question: why are the giant Nephilim, who otherwise appear only in the conquest narrative of the Hexateuch, introduced in the episode of Genesis 6:1–4?
…if the Nephilim were considered the culpable evildoers, the primary justification for the flood, where are they in the flood narrative? Even more perplexing is the post-flood reappearance of the Nephilim as inhabitants of Canaan (Num 13:33)…
In addition to the identification of the Nephilim as warriors in Genesis 6:4, the passage in Numbers 13:33 further provides a scribal comment that the sons of Anaq (בני ענק) are “from the Nephilim.” The same report states that the Israelite spies sent by Moses had seen the descendants of Anaq in the land (Num 11:28). A parallel version of this report in Deuteronomy likewise describes the land’s inhabitants as greater and taller than the Israelites, specifically mentioning the “sons of Anaq” (Deut 1:28).
Jang adds, “The survival of the Nephilim beyond this cataclysm is not just a narrative inconsistency; it directly subverts the flood narrative’s theological premise. If the Nephilim were indeed a cause of the disaster, one would expect them to be exterminated. However, they reappear in the conquest narrative as if the flood never happened.”
An endnote reads, “Nahum Sarna’s explanation for this contradiction—that the reference in Numbers is not to the continued existence of the Nephilim but is used ‘simply for oratorical effect’—is less convincing (Sarna 1989, p. 46). In my opinion, the existence of the Nephilim and other giants in the conquest narrative are too prevalent and realistic to be just regarded as ‘oratorical effect’” (“Sarna, Nahum. 1989. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society”).
Jang misrepresented the narrative of Num 13 by generically referring to that, “leaders of the Israelite tribes, sent to spy out the land of Canaan, report what they have seen. According to their account”: he does not interact with the narrative and so misses that two accounts are recorded upon their return. And there were 12 spies but 10, sans Caleb and Joshua, were the ones who, “report what they” merely assert to, “have seen” since those were the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, unreliable, contradictory embellishers whom God rebuked.
The first report in that narrative lists who was seen, “the descendants of Anak…The Amalekites…The Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites…And the Canaanites” yet, the 10 fearmonger by telling a scare-tactic tall-tale in the form of, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” and embellish that by adding Nephilim.
Anyone appealing to Num 13:33, especially so utterly uncritically (which is surprising for someone who took a form critical approach) needs to mention that they are relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse does not even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God—which Jang does not even attempt.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal—which I am currently updating.
Since indications are the by, “Nephilim are obviously linked to giants” Jang means linked to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average then that does not work since the only physical description we have of Nephilim is in Num 13:33 and so the dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim so that their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
As for, “why are the giant Nephilim, who otherwise appear only in the conquest narrative of the Hexateuch, introduced in the episode of Genesis 6:1–4?” because it records when they came to be, to note they were part of the perfect storm—and perhaps to show that 10 spies appealed to their legendary and infamous status as characters in their tall-tale.
Since the only indication of post-flood Nephilim that we have is Num 13:33 then, “the post-flood reappearance of the Nephilim as inhabitants of Canaan” is not perplexing at all, it was a mere assertion. A, “reference to the Nephilim appears in Numbers 13:33” is just that: a reference, it does not mean that they were alive, on the ground, but only that one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked referenced them.
All post-flood Nephilology and claims of their size are based on Num 13:33 and that is not a reliable basis. But there is more to it due to the vague claim of, “a scribal comment that the sons of Anaq (בני ענק) are ‘from the Nephilim’” as I noted, that is only in non-LXX versions.
Indeed, “the Israelite spies sent by Moses had seen the descendants of Anaq in the land” as per Num 11:28, and even earlier than v. 33 in Num 13 including in the original report, but the correlation to Nephilim only exists in non-LXX versions of the one sentence in 13:33. And, indeed, “A parallel version of this report in Deuteronomy” has reference made to Anakim but not to Nephilim: Moses was too practical, he was concerned about the real dangers on the ground, such as the notorious Anakim, and not about some fantasy tall-tale.
Thus, “The survival of the Nephilim beyond this cataclysm is not” at all, “a narrative inconsistency” since there was no survival of the Nephilim beyond the cataclysm but only an illogical, ill-bio-logically, and ill-theo-logical assertion.
Logically, the single sentence shows every indication of being utterly unreliable.
Bio-logically, no one post-flood can be related to Nephilim who did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
Theo-logically, God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, we can now say that since, “the Nephilim were indeed a cause of the disaster, one would expect them to be exterminated” and so they were. There is no reliable indication that, “they reappear in the conquest narrative.”
By referring to, “the existence of the Nephilim and other giants in the conquest narrative are too prevalent and realistic” Jang provides us another example of the problem with language jumping:
“Nephilim and other Rephaim” would be a category error that violates the law of identity.
“Nephilim and other something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average” is incoherent since we cannot even say something that vague about Nephilim.
As for, “the existence of the” Rephaim, “in the conquest narrative are too prevalent and realistic” indeed since they were there.
As for, “the existence of the Nephilim…in the conquest narrative are too prevalent and realistic” how is one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked prevalent and realistic?
And, Sarna was correct: I will add Sarna’s statements to my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology as one of over 60 scholarly sources I quote therein who recognize Num 13:33 to range from exaggeration to straight up deceptive story telling.
Thus, Jang’s styled rescue device fails since it is a non-sequitur based on relying on the unreliable and misusing unreliability to make correlations that are not viably correlated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply