Undergoing consideration is Jaap (J.J.T.) Doedens’ The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4: Analysis and History of Exegesis (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019).
Jaap Doedens notes:
Until recently [that being written in 2013 (then published by Brill in 2019)], conservative exegesis has perhaps too uncritically accepted the exegetical consensus from the time of church fathers of the fourth century onwards, that being that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4 are godfearing persons from the line of Seth, an exegesis also known as the Sethites-interpretation.
This position has been challenged in several ways by Jewish and Christian exegesis of an earlier period as well as by newer exegetical research…The earliest known exegetical solution identifies the “sons of God” in Gen 6:1–4 as angels.
Indeed, the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians 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.
The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
Linguistically, Jaap Doedens wrote:
The verb נָפַל “to fall” can actually mean “to be born” or “to give birth to”, a meaning only attested in Isa 26:18:
“We were pregnant, we were in labour pains but it was as if we gave birth to wind, we did neither bring deliverance in earth, nor were inhabitants of the world born…”.
This etymology can also be brought in connection with Arabic nāfilat, “grand- child”. Based on these observations it is possible to interpret the נְּפִלִים as the ones who were born from the relationships between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”…
The etymological explanation as “fallen ones” perhaps also inspired the legend in pseudepigraphic literature about angels who fell from heaven and about their offspring, the giants, who fell in battle.
He seems to state, “the legend in pseudepigraphic literature”—200 BC-200 AD—since it really isn”t unitl that time, or shortly therebefore, that we get such things as commentaries and historical fiction and all such things which is the stuff of which the wild pseudepigraphic literature is made.
Reference to, “their offspring, the giants” begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Doedens’ usage? Do those two usages agree?
He wrote:
In Gen 6:4, the word נְּפִלִים [Nephilim]is not explained, hence it seems evident that the contemporary reader knew what the term stood for, specifically because it is introduced by the definite article: the Nephilim. In Num 13:33, the words בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָ֖ק מִן־הַנְּפִלִ֑ים. [basically: Anakim come from Nephilim] may serve as an explanation of the word נְּפִלִים. If so, there are four possibilities to explain the phrase “the něpîlîm, sons of Anak from the něpīlîm”.
1) Only the expression “sons of Anak” conveys the idea of “giantness”, in this case, not all of the Nephilim are necessarily giant individuals, only some of them. The sentence could be paraphrased as “We saw the Nephilim, giants from among the Nephilim”.
2) Only the term “Nephilim” refers to “giantness”, which leads to a possible paraphrase of “We saw the giants, Anakites from among the giants”.
3) Both terms refer to “giantness”, the phrase could, then, be paraphrased as “We saw giants, gigantic giants”.
4) None of the terms has the connotation of “giantness”, therefore the phrase is to be paraphrased as “We saw the Nephilim, Anakites from among the Nephilim”. This last option is unlikely, the mention of the “tall men”, מִדּוֹת אַנְשֵׁי, in Num 13:32 and the content of Num 13:33 precluding this.
The analysis above implies that not necessarily all the נְּפִלִים are gigantic.
Nevertheless, there appears to be a strong connotation of the נְּפִלִים with tall stature. It, therefore, can be assumed that some reference to physical stature is implied in Gen 6:4 as well because, in reporting, the spies use, possibly deliberately, the epic נְּפִלִים to prompt fearful associations of menacing soldiers whom the Israelites will encounter as soon as they enter Canaan.
There are actually five and only the un-mentioned fifth is the biblically accurate view.
Note that anyone referring to Num 13:33 (and 99.99999% of those who discuss Nephilology will only appeal to that one single isolate verse) need to mention that they’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t 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
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
1) Since we don’t know what giant means, we also don’t konw what giantness means: that’s just a linguistics vicous circle. Yet, Doedens’ usage is pretty obvious and it’s 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).
Yet, 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.
Thus, his usage doens’t agree with the English Bible’s usage.
And so, “conveys the idea of ‘giantness’” either means, “conveys the idea of ‘Nephilimness’” or, more contextual to Anakim, “conveys the idea of ‘Rephaimness’” since they were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe (Deut 2) and not, “conveys the idea of something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average.
As for his misusage there’s no indication of, “giant individuals, only some of them” since we don’t know that of any of them. Num 13:33 is the only physical description we have of them so the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then 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. That is the only biblical, “connotation of the נְּפִלִים with tall stature” sans wild folkloric tall-tales from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: see my paper How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
2) “Only the term ‘Nephilim’ refers to ‘giantness’” biblically contextuall means, “Only the term ‘Nephilim’ refers to ‘Nephilimness.’” And the non-LXX versions’, “We saw the giants, Anakites from among the giants” was just a fantasy tall-tale of a fear-mongering scare-tactic in the style of, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” That anyone post-flood was/is related to Nephilim is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical. It implies that God failed, must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste.
3) If anything, the non-LXX reading would be, “We saw Nephilim, Rephaimic Nephilim” which is as incoherent as it seems.
4) Even the generic reference to, “tall men” or, “great stature” is just one of the five mere assertions they presented—and, of course, “tall” or, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants, especially when the average Israelite male was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Thus, The analysis above implies that not necessarily anyone was something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average—although some surely were since he’s referring to just being subjectively taller than someone else.
Thus, there’s literally zero reliable indication that we, “can be assumed that some reference to physical stature is implied in Gen 6:4” and concluding that based on a generic statement such as, “because, in reporting, the spies use, possibly deliberately, the epic” when, after all, they (the 10 and not, “the spies” in toto since there were 12 of them), “to prompt fearful…menacing.” That was a just a non-sequitur premised on misreading, misunderstanding, misintrepreting, and mispplying one non-LXX unreliable sentence form one unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Jaap Doedens kept on these theme by writing:
The word נְּפִלִים most probably refers to beings of a tall physical stature. This is further reinforced by the occurrence of the same expression in Num 13:33. In Num 13, ten of the twelve spies apparently mention the נְּפִלִים not in order to specify but much more to terrify their listeners through the use of exaggeration. A hearkening back of primeval times in the word נְּפִלִים may have reinforced the frightening effect.
To date, etymology has not proved useful in the interpretation of the word נְּפִלִים. Unless new and better information is uncovered, using the translation “giants” can be justified. The text of Gen 6:4 specifies these giants as warriors (גִּבֹּרִים [actually just being a descriptive term for might/mighty]) of old and men of renown. They probably represent the offspring from the sexual intercourse of “sons of God” with “daughters of men”, although the text does not explicitly say this….
Unfortunately, only through Num 13:33 can the modern reader catch a glimpse of how the נְּפִלִים were viewed. Because Num 13 undoubtedly ties the נְּפִלִים to beings of tall stature, this most probably is what has been understood in Gen 6:4 as well.
Based on these observations, a translation rendering “giants” gives at least some impression of what is meant.
Do you see how Num 13:33 becomes a worldview philosophy hermenutic? We again see that the conclusion, “The word נְּפִלִים most probably refers to beings of a tall physical stature” is exclusively based on a tall-tale and that’s the case even when it’s admitted that it was the case due seeknig, “to terrify.” Now, clearly, his view is that even though the 10 employed reference to Nephilim, “through the use of exaggeration” they were truthful in, “A hearkening back of primeval times.”
Yet, that would be an argument from silence since they could have been playing off of pre-existing non-historical tall-tales about Nephilim or made one up on the spot.
Now, there’s a deeper lingusitics issue which is not just that some vaguely assert that Nephilim means whatever giants means but that if it does (whatever it would mean to mean whatever it means) then that would or could be a word-concept fallacy. Example, I’ve been called a giant many, many, many times a 6.0ft. Or, we could say, “Elon Musk is a giant of high-tech” which doesn’t tell us anything about his personal size.
Thus, the actual, “using the translation ‘giants’ can be justified” as it was ever since it was first done, by noting that giants is merely a rendering of a rendering. The LXX renders Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim all as giantes—actually meaning earth-born—and it was a terrible idea to render three very different words (different morphologies, differrent meanings, etc.) all with just one word yet, such is the linguistics history.
Thus, “The text of Gen 6:4 specifies these Nephilim as mighty.”
And so, “only through Num 13:33 can the modern reader catch a glimpse of how the נְּפִלִים were viewed” begning who knows when so, that’s the issue. Yes, “Num 13 undoubtedly ties the נְּפִלִים to beings of tall stature” but it’s unreliable so it’s a non-issue, a non-tie and so there’s no indication that, “this most probably is what has been understood in Gen 6:4 as well.”
For more linguistics details, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
As for giants and Jaap Doedens’s usage: 99.9999999999999999999999+1% of people writting/speaking about giants in terms of Nephilology do not ever bother elucidating their usage—and many use giants to mean more than one thing but don’t alert their readers/hearers. Rather, they leave it to the readers/hearers to attempt to discern what they mean by it in any given usage—and I can tell you from interacting with literally thousands of such readers/hearers that it never even crosses the minds of 99.9999999999999999999999+1% of them to even think about thinking about that. I’ve asked those key questions to hundreds of people who go on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about giants and 99.9999999999999999999999+1% can’t even reply—three that did got it wrong and one got close to getting it right.
Doedens peppered his text with:
נְּפִלִים, traditionally translated as “giants”
נְּפִלִים, generally translated as “giants”
נְּפִלִים, a term traditionally translated as “giants”
giants (Nephilim)
the Septuagint [LXX] translates both נְּפִלִים and גִּבֹּרִים as οἱ γίγαντες “the giants”
The Septuagint’s rendering of the נְּפִלִים as giants may be based on Num 13:33
The Septuagint translates both terms as “the giants”
Note that biblically contextually, “giants (Nephilim)” means, “Nephilim (Nephilim).”
I already showed that, “οἱ γίγαντες ‘the giants’” is faulty, it should read, “οἱ γίγαντες ‘the earth-born.’”
And it’s sloppy to assert, “The Septuagint translates both terms as ‘the giants’” since those are English words but the LXX is in Greek.
Thus, it’s, “The Septuagint’s rendering of the נְּפִלִים as” earth-born, “may be based on Num 13:33” which doesn’t make it as exciting.
But given his usage, it’s more than, “may be” it is the case that anyone and everyone who asserts that Nephilim were even something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average is doing so based on the one of the evil report’s sentences of latter folkloric tall-tales.
And note that Jaap Doedens bounces back and forth form generic misrepresentations of Num 13 and accurate ones. He writes of the spies as a generic unit, then specifies the fundamental difference between the 2 and the 10, and then back again such as when he wrote:
…in Num 13:33. From the context it is clear that the term here refers to tall people. The spies sent out by Moses, report upon their return about the fearfully tall people, in comparison to whom they felt like grasshoppers…The Anakim are mentioned in Deut 2:10–11.20–21; together with the Rephaim, they are both a tall people.
See, it wasn’t, “The spies” in general who, “report upon their return about the fearfully tall people, in comparison to whom they felt like grasshoppers” that was only the 10. I alread noted the Deut 2 issue which amounts to that Rephaim in general were taller than 5.0-5.3ft.—as unexciting as that fact may be.
He does likewise with the evil report itself, sometimes seeming to take it at face-factual-value and sometimes admitting that it’s a put on:
The modern reader is directed to realise that in Num 13:33 the term may be deliberately vague; the [10] spies have no intention of specifying but more of terrifying. They evoke a scene of encountering the נְּפִלִים as an excuse to decide not to take possession of the promised land.
In Num 13:28 only the Anakim are mentioned but in the final argument of 13:33 they are compared to the נְּפִלִים. These Anakim are not identical to the נְּפִלִים but the נְּפִלִים are presumably referred to as beings known from old tales.
Only the mention of this name by the [10] spies was already enough to rouse the imagination of their audience. Therefore, not much more can be said other than that the scarce textual evidence points towards נְּפִלִים as epic beings of tall stature, at least in Num 13:33.
Interestingly, when Moses relates that event in Deut 1, he mentions Anakim but not Nephilim: he was surely being practical, he was concerned about the read dangers on the ground, such as the notorious Anakim, and not about some fantasy tall-tale.
Lastly, note that Japp Doedens notes:
The story of Gen 6:1–4, then, provides a rationale for the flood through whose effect also these hybrid beings, originating from these mixed relationships, were eradicated from the earth.
See what I meant about, that anyone post-flood was/is related to Nephilim is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical. It implies that God failed, must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste?
Since, “The story of Gen 6:1–4, then, provides a rationale for the flood” so that Nephilim, “were eradicated from the earth” then any concept of any post-flood Nephilim ever, by any means, by any other name, is to be rejected.
Fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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