From the data I have, I can’t discern who wrote it but a review was posted of Archie T. Wright’s dissertation The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1–4 in Early Jewish Literature.
The premise is, “evil spirits are largely absent from the Hebrew Bible, leaving one to wonder where they came from” so we’re told:
Wright tackles the important issue of the origin of evil spirits. He finds the oldest extant record for their emergence in the third-century BCE Book of the Watchers, which he views as an expansion of the infamous sons of God and daughters of men passage in Gen 6.
Much of the work then revolves around unpacking this connection and exploring the demonology, anthropology, and giantology in the Book of Watchers.
Wright also considers the reception of the Book of the Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls before exploring Philo of Alexandria’s alternative interpretation of Gen 6:1–4.
I’ve written the following books:
What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology
Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010
The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon
And also, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Thus, I’m empathetic to why he turns to texts from centuries and millennia after the Torah and Tanakh as a whole, “the third-century BC…” (not, “BCE”: that’s just an anti-Christian jab) since indeed, “the oldest extant record for their emergence” comes from that time.
Yet, one issue is that it’s one thing that the third-century BC is the oldest extant record and quite another whether that Bible contradicting folklore is accurate. One issue is that the third-century BC texts tell us what people in the third-century BC thought and that may or may not have anything to do with what demons actually are.
The Book of the Watchers is part of 1 Enoch which contradicts the Bible so much that I filled a chapter of my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch with examples.
Indeed, it’s, “an expansion” of that which I term the Gen 6 affair but there’s no indication it expands it with historically accurate facts.
The, “reception of the Book of the Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls” only tells us that the Essene community had some level of interest in it.
As for, “Philo of Alexandria’s alternative interpretation” see 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.
We’re told that Wright:
…argues that “the non-specificity inherent in the biblical text of Genesis 6.1–4 became the basis for the later emergence of an etiology of evil spirits as Jewish authors engaged with the text.
As a result, Genesis 6.1–4, particularly its interpretation in 1 Enoch 6–16, played an important part in the development of demonology during the 2TP [Second Temple period [516 BC-70 AD]].”
Wright…offers a far-ranging examination of the reception of Gen 6:1–4 in early Judaism, including the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, targumim and midrashim.
The term, “early Judaism” is as generic as far ranging since by it, everything from Greek Jews to Rabbinic Jews (adherents of “Rabbinic Judaism”) and from a translation into Greek (the Septuagint/LXX) to Dead Sea Scrolls which range from versions of the Torah and Tanakh as well as apocalyptic literature, community rules, etc. as well as what range from translations to renderings into Aramaic in terms of the Targumim as well as sermonizing homilies in the Midrashim.
Moreover:
He argues that the text itself does nothing to establish that the actions of the enigmatic bene ha’elohim (literally “sons of God”) are inappropriate (5, 50, 52, 90, etc.). Nonetheless, Wright contends that the ambiguity of language (and, one could, add lack of detail) gave rise to multiple interpretations.
For example, the episode can be read either positively, negatively, or neutrally (52) and the bene ha’elohim understood either as angels, minor deities, or god-like men (62). Wrights suggests that the bene ha’elohim were most likely understood as angels (73).
He also distinguishes between the nephilim and gibborim, arguing that the nephilim were already on the earth when the gibborim were born (82, 95). Instead of casting both in a negative light, Wright suggests that the gibborim were Israelite heroes (95).
It’s tricky to assert, “the text itself does nothing to establish that the actions of the enigmatic bene ha’elohim (literally “sons of God”) are inappropriate” since the premise of the narrative is widespread corruption (sans Noah and family).
As for, “the bene ha’elohim understood either as angels, minor deities, or god-like men” The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view which is what 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 seems misguided to bifurcate, “nephilim and gibborim” especially due to the assertion, “nephilim were already on the earth” coupled with the off phrase, “when the gibborim were born.”
The (ESV) text reads, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty [gibborim] men who were of old, the men of renown.”
Thus, the Nephilim are said to have been gibborim which is a descriptive term for mighty.
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.
It’s odd to refer to, “when the gibborim were born” since it makes it seem that it was a people group, like a tribe.
As for, “the gibborim were Israelite heroes” that’s contextually impossible since there was no such thing as, “Israelite” pre-flood—“Israelite” didn’t exist until centuries post-flood.
Moreover:
Wright addresses the reception of the bene ha’elohim tradition in the Book of the Watchers, which identifies them as Watchers, a specific class of angels whose function may have included observation and serving as angels of the nations (cf. Deut 32:8) or the host of heaven.
He then examines the Asa’el and Shemihazah traditions (105–20 and 120–39), which respectively concern angelic instruction and sexual reproduction with humanity. Wright finds the Shemihazah tradition especially illustrative.
In it the Watchers sinfully descend from heaven in order to beget giant offspring with earthly women. These fallen angels bear the primary responsibility for the subsequent flood, bringing destruction upon themselves their offspring and humanity.
It’s misguided to assert, “Watchers, a specific class of angels” since such is just a Second Temple Era a.k.a. for Malakim/Angels.
As for, “to beget giant offspring” we can’t know what that means until we know: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the reviewer’s and Wright’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
That, “These fallen angels bear the primary responsibility for the subsequent flood” is a bit myopic since it was a tripartite perfect storm: fallen humanity, fallen Angels, and fallen Nephilim.
Furthermore, Wright:
…delves deeper into the rebellion motif. The Book of the Watchers ignores the reason for angelic rebellion, instead stressing the consequences. In telling its story, the Book of the Watchers introduces new material not found in its biblical antecedent concerning the role of the bene ha’elohim in the flood, the judgment and punishment of angels and giants, and the introduction of evil spirits into the world.
The angelic actions render humanity completely corrupt, a corruption linked to the sexual encounter with Shemihazah and his followers as well as the teachings of Asa’el. Humans are thereby at least partially absolved of wrongdoing (148).
The angelic offenders receive divine punishment, as they are stripped of their immortality and banished from the high heaven, bound until executed on the day of judgment (148–49). Thus, according to the Book of the Watchers, the fallen angels themselves are not evil spirits. Rather, evil spirits emerged from their hybrid offspring.
Wright argues that the Book of the Watchers turns the “heroic gibborim … into a group of bloodthirsty cannibals” (150). Identified as giants with a body and immortal spirit, they, like their progenitors, are destroyed. However, their spirits live on and even survive the flood, thereafter serving as evil spirits roaming the earth who oppress and even possess humanity. Their continued existence then suggests a reason for the persistence of evil. The chapter ends with a comparison of humans and giants. While alive, both are confined to a body in the human sphere.
However, upon death, human spirits are confined to the world of the dead, while those of the giants remain on earth. Wright argues that the Book of the Watchers may offer “a possible ‘origin of evil’ in Early Judaism” (166) that lies not with humans themselves but rather the bene ha’elohim and their offspring. Their evil stands in contrast to the innate goodness of the human spirit, made in the divine image. This contrast prompts Wright to suggest that the Book of the Watchers serves as the origin of, or at least a step toward, the developing ethical dualism attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Recall that, “new material not found in its biblical antecedent” refers to texts from centuries/millennia after the Torah without indication of presenting any accurate history—and the Second Temple Period is notorious for pseudepigrapha, historical fiction, assertions of prophecy, apocalyptic literature, fantasy tall-tales, etc.
Biblically, the, “punishment of angels”: 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.
The, “punishment of” Nephilim is that the last of them drowned to death.
We finally get to the demons issue with, “the introduction of evil spirits into the world…fallen angels themselves are not evil spirits. Rather, evil spirits emerged from their hybrid offspring.”
In short, that demons/unclean spirits are the spirits of dead Nephilim is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.
In my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons? I elucidated a Bible-based mechanism as to how they are fallen Angels in the technical way that while their bodies are incarcerated, their spirits roam the Earth as demons—FYI: 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.
As for, “heroic gibborim” keep in mind that they were, “heroic” or, “mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” as per Gen 6, as per an utterly corrupt people.
As for, “Identified as giants,” 1 Enoch has Nephilim as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.
Thus, indeed, it’s, “a possible ‘origin of evil’ in Early Judaism” and the view of demons as dead Nephilim was a pretty good guess yet, an actual Bible-based argument can be, and was by me, made that they are fallen Angels’ spirits.
It’s also noted, “Wright…acknowledges the multiple ways of interpreting the data. For example, he allows that the Book of the Watchers may have been written to address a specific historical situation” which would seem to be, at least in part, a polemic against Pagan mythology which venerates Nephilim, by any other name, and Mt. Hermon, which 1 Enoch pinpoints as the spot at which the fallen Angels touched down on Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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