ZA Blog refers to Zondervan Academic, a division of Zondervan and HarperCollins Christian Publishing, which noted the following of the pos Who Are the Nephilim in Genesis 6?, “This post is adapted from material found in The Torah Story online course, taught by Gary Schnittjer.”
That which I term the Gen 6 affair is quoted and commented upon thusly:
Genesis 6:4 reads: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
This is an incredibly confusing passage. We know almost nothing about the Nephilim. Who were these people, and why are they important to the surrounding narrative in Genesis?
Before we attempt to answer that, let’s take a look at the broader context. Genesis 6:1–4 reads:
When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Elucidated next are:
The three most common answers to the identity of the sons of God (or gods) in Genesis 6 have been:
the sons of God (or gods) were fallen angelic beings;
the sons of God were the men of the line of Seth and the daughters of humans were the women of the line of Cain; and the sons of God (or gods) were the men of the tyrannical dynasty of Lamech.
First up is, “The ‘sons of God’ are fallen angelic beings” which could only have been Angels by definition since they are the only angelic beings.
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.
It’s noted, “Often this view has been combined with the view that the ‘Nephilim’ were giants, the logic being that the offspring of angelic and human relations could be physically large in size.” Since that actually ends with “(More on that in just a moment.)” for now, I will noted that since by, “‘Nephilim’ were giants” reference is made to whatever, “large in size” means, then that’s not in agreement with the English Bibles’ usage of giants since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t 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.
It’s noted, “Proponents of this view argue that angelic beings take on male human bodies in Genesis (19:1–3)” but that’s only some of the proponents and there’s no indication that Angels can do that: especially since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
What such people do is to read text such as Gen chaps 18-19, see that Angels are described looking like human males, performing physical actions then merely assume they can’t really look like human males so they merely artificially insert, “take on male human bodies” into God’s Word which never even hints at any such thing.
He adds, “opponents contend that angelic beings do not have the capacity for marital relations (Mark 12:25)” but that citation records no such thing, it reads, “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Thus, not a word about, “do not have the capacity for marital relations” and a very specific qualified reference to, “angels in heaven which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Gary Schnittjer also noted, “Proponents often read 1 Peter 3:19–20 and Jude 6–7 as referring obliquely to Genesis 6.” Yet, it’s not oblique since Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
As for, “The ‘sons of God’ are from the line of Seth” that’s a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice since, for example, it has it that, “the sons of God were men from the line of Seth…based on the two genealogies, Cain’s and Seth’s” has as its, “rhetorical force of Adam in the likeness of God and Seth in Adam’s likeness (Gen. 5:1–3) suggests to proponents of this view that the Sethites can be considered sons of God in that sense.”
I’m unsure how Seth looking like Adam results in, “Sethites can be considered sons of God” especially since this view makes them such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.
The next view is, “The ‘sons of God’ are from the line of Lamech” which is a historically unknown view: I’m quite uncertain whence Schnittjer picked that up.
He has it that this pertains to, “the tyrannical dynasty of Lamech” for which there’s zero indication.
Gary Schnittjer then comes to:
Who are the Nephilim?…
The translators of the Septuagint used the Greek word for “giants” to translate the Hebrew term nepilîm.
There are several reasons for their decision.
The ten scouts called the large-sized Canaanites “Nephilim” (Num. 13:33); they were described as “heroes of old, persons of name,” which could give them a legendary sort of stature; and, again, perhaps their fathers were angelic and so they could be physically large.
Neither of the first two reasons are adequate. The spies were fabricating a myth in Numbers 13:33, and “heroes of old, persons of name” does not need to be related to physical stature.
The third line of reasoning is a hypothesis built on top of another hypothesis, thus it is weak. Even if the Nephilim were the “biological” offspring of “angelic men” and human women, there is no way to know whether this would affect their physical stature.
The Hebrew word for Nephilim probably means something like “fallen ones.” In my view, translating it as “fallen ones,” whoever or whatever they were, captures the spirit of the passage.
Telling us of, “used the Greek word for ‘giants’” only begs the question of what giants means. Well, his usage 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)—but, “(More on that in just a moment.).” For some odd reason, he didn’t accurately tell us that, “used the Greek word for ‘earth-born’” since that’s what the used word gigantes means.
The phrase, “The ten scouts called the large-sized Canaanites ‘Nephilim’ (Num. 13:33); they were described as ‘heroes of old, persons of name,’ which could give them a legendary sort of stature; and, again, perhaps their fathers were angelic and so they could be physically large” is very messy.
For one, it’s too abrupt: what, “ten scouts” and, “scouts” of what?
Well, Num 13 has it that 12 scouts were sent into Canaan, they return and a report is presented, concern is voiced by 10, we’re then told that they presented an evil report and it’s therein that, “The ten scouts called the large-sized” but it’s not, “Canaanites ‘Nephilim’” since the original report already mentioned Canaanites. Rather, the evil report artificially embellished Nephilim into the mix of whom they saw—which the original, reliable, report listed as Anakim, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites.
What the 10 did was to make up a fantasy tall-tale: and were rebuked by God.
It’s anachronistic to write, “…(Num. 13:33); they were described as ‘heroes of old, persons of name,’” since that quote is from Gen 6.
Yes, one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked, “could give them a legendary sort of stature” and that’s all it is.
As for, “their fathers were angelic and so they could be physically large” that’s a half-baked assertion since it offers no reason why Angel dads would result is subjectively physically large offspring.
Gary Schnittjer notes, “Neither of the first two reasons are adequate” specifying, “The spies were fabricating a myth in Numbers 13:33.” He also adds, “Even if the Nephilim were the ‘biological’ offspring of ‘angelic men’ and human women, there is no way to know whether this would affect their physical stature.”
He then moved onto:
What is the meaning of the phrase “and also afterward”?
This is a difficult phrase for all of the above combinations of views because the Nephilim were killed in the flood.
Three of the many ways that this phrase can be interpreted are as follows.
This phrase was not original but was inserted by a scribe who tried to “correct” the narrative based on the report of the ten scouts in Numbers 13.
Though these “fallen ones” were wiped out by the flood, it is really a term that can be used generically enough to describe any number of very immoral peoples.
Though the Nephilim themselves were destroyed in the flood, the term later became elastic and could be used to describe the mythic size or wickedness of people like the Anakites in Numbers 13.
I think any of these three may work, but it is hard to say which because of all of the other difficulties here.
When we cut a full verse, a full sentence, a full thought into merely three words then, sure, “This is a difficult phrase” but not when we include the part that tells us to what days it’s referring.
If you re-read it, you’ll see that it tells you to what days it refers: “those days” were when the sons and daughters first married, mated, and birthed (with the commencing timeline being given in v. 1) and so “afterward” meant just that, after they first did so (they kept doing so) yet, that is still all pre-flood.
Thus, “Nephilim were killed in the flood” and that was the end of them—in part since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, “Three of the many ways that this phrase can be” misinterpreted and the biblical way is ignored.
The first option, “inserted by a scribe,” is just a scholarly invention without manuscript evidence.
The second turns the whole premise for the flood generic. If Nephilim “describe any number of very immoral peoples” then so does sons of God, so does daughters of men, so does men, etc. which turns then narrative into a non-narrative: it robs it of it’s specificity.
The third fails since if Nephilim, “became elastic” then why it there only one single sentence’s worth of such a usage?
Indeed, “the contrast to ‘daughters of human beings’” is telling in various ways such as why there weren’t any attractive female Sethites not attractive male Cainites. The bifurcation is right down the middle: only strictly male sons of God on one side of the equation and only strictly female daughters of men/human beings on the other. Well, the Angel view explains why that’s was the case: Angels look just like human males so they had to exclusively couple with females and those females had to be human.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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