Answers Research Journal 8 (2015):261–271. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v8/sons-of-god-mythology.pdf Is the “Sons of God” Passage in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology?

Lee Anderson Jr., Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, Kentucky 41048.

Abstract The identity of “the sons of God” (ʭʩʑʤ˄ʎʠʕʤʚʩʒʰʍʡ) in Genesis 6 is commonly regarded as one of the most GLIÀFXOWLQWHUSUHWLYHFUX[HVLQDOORIWKH2OG7HVWDPHQW&RPSRXQGLQJWKHH[HJHWLFDOFKDOOHQJHVLQWKLV passage, critical scholarship commonly charges that the text’s references to the sons’ of God cohabitation with “the daughters of men” is an example of the biblical author importing an ancient myth from a pagan source into the Scriptures, which implicitly undercuts both the inspiration and inerrancy of the biblical text. This paper aims to present a detailed overview of interpretations offered by conservative biblical scholars on the identity of “the sons of God” in Genesis 6, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each position. Its primary goal is to demonstrate that there are plausible alternatives to viewing the sons of God passage as a mythological story that has intruded into its present context. This paper concludes that the Genesis 6 account of the “sons of God” is not a product of the pagan ideas circulating in its day. In addition, this paper encourages Bible-believing advocates of all interpretations of Genesis 6:1–4 to together learn to appreciate the strengths of the different positions— positions which, though sometimes vastly different, are united in their goal of striving to see the trustworthiness of Scripture upheld.

Keywords: angels, daughters of men, demons, dynastic rulers, mythology, Nephilim, Seth, sons of God

Translation exegetical challenges in Genesis 6:1–4, critical $QG LW FDPH DERXW ZKHQ PDQNLQG EHJDQ WR scholarship regularly parades the account’s multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters references to the sons’ of God cohabitation with “the were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men” as an example of the biblical daughters of men, that they were beautiful. And author importing an ancient myth from a pagan WKH\WRRNIRUWKHPVHOYHVZLYHVIURPDQ\WKH\FKRVH source into the Scriptures, which implicitly undercuts And Y+:+ said, “My spirit will not remain with man both the inspiration and inerrancy of the biblical text LQGHÀQLWHO\LQWKDWKHLVÁHVKKLVGD\VZLOOEHRQH FRQWUD3VDOP-RKQ7LPRWK\ hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the 3HWHU² 0RUHRYHUWKH\FODLPWKDWWKHVRQV earth in those days—and also afterward—whenever1 of God passage fails to exhibit a genuine connection the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, who to the surrounding text, perhaps having been forced bore to them children. They were the mighty men of into its present position by the biblical author in an antiquity, men of renown. effort to elucidate Y+:+’s reasoning for sending the Mabbûl in Genesis 7–8. Introduction As an example of this observation concerning 7KHVLJQLÀFDQFHRI´7KHVRQVRI*RGµLQ*HQHVLV FULWLFDO VFKRODUVKLS +HUPDQQ *XQNHO SRVLWHG WKDW 7KH LGHQWLW\ RI ´WKH VRQV RI *RGµ ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʎʠʕʤʚʩʒʰʍʡ  LQ the sons of God passage represented an earlier Genesis 6:2 is commonly regarded as one of the most myth that had been “mutilated” so as to “remove the GLIÀFXOWLQWHUSUHWLYHFUX[HVLQDOORIWKH2OG7HVWDPHQW strongly mythological content of the tradition which (YHVRQ:DOWRQ 2 In fact, Victor VFDQGDOL]HG WKH QDUUDWRUµ *XQNHO   FLWHG P. Hamilton argues concerning the identity of “the LQ &ROHUDQ    &ODXV :HVWHUPDQQ RIIHUV D sons of God” that “the evidence is ambiguous and similar perspective, saying, “The original setting WKHUHIRUH GHÀHV FOHDUFXW LGHQWLÀFDWLRQV DQG of the narrative that lies behind [Genesis] 6:1–4 is VROXWLRQVµ +DPLOWRQ    &RPSRXQGLQJ WKH the setting where it began and was handed down as

1 In defense of reading ˒ʣʍʬʕʩʍʥ . . . ˒ʠ ʖ ʡʕʩDVVSHDNLQJRIDUHFXUULQJHYHQWVHHWKHFRPPHQWVE\:HQKDP  6NLQQHU  DQG*HVHQLXV   2*UDQWHGQRWDOOLQWHUSUHWHUVUHJDUGWKLVLVVXHDVFKDOOHQJLQJDQGDIHZRIIHUWKHLUFRQFOXVLRQRQWKHVXEMHFWDVDFOHDU FXWLQFRQWURYHUWLEOHVROXWLRQ6HHIRULQVWDQFHWKHDUJXPHQWVDQGFRQFOXVLRQRI+&/HXSROG  +RZHYHU WKHJUHDWPDMRULW\RIH[HJHWHVFRQVLGHUWKHLGHQWLW\RIWKHʭʩʑʤ˄ʠʕʤʚʩʒʰʍʡʎ an issue complex enough to warrant a thorough consideration of all possible views.

ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2015, 2016 Answers in Genesis, Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal.

The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis. 262 L. Anderson Jr.

P\WK2QHFDQWDNHDVFHUWDLQWKDWLWGLGQRWRULJLQDWH liberal notion that the author of Genesis had LQ ,VUDHOµ :HVWHUPDQQ   3 65 'ULYHU attempted to “sanitize” the myth embedded in 6:1–4, OLNHZLVH FRPPHQWV WKDW WKLV SDVVDJH UHSUHVHQWV VD\LQJ´:KDWFRXOGEHPRUHP\WKRORJLFDOWKDQWKH an example of “Hebrew legend” or “unassimilated sexual mingling of gods and mortals and the birth myth,” and then proceeds to argue, “The Hebrew of semidivine offspring? Surely if the Yahwist were narrators stripped off the mythological colouring averse to myth as such he would simply have omitted RI WKH SLHFHV RI IRONORUH ZKLFK WKH\ UHFRUG EXW LQ *HQ²µ +HQGHO ,QWKLV+HQGHOKDVD WKHSUHVHQWLQVWDQFHLWLVVWLOOGLVFHUQDEOHµ 'ULYHU valid point, but his assumptions remain problematic.  'ULYHUFRPSDUHV*HQHVLVWRWKHDQFLHQW He goes on to say, “That the Yahwist included it tales of “giants” from Phoenicia, Greece, and other [Genesis 6:1–4] in the Primeval Cycle of Genesis cultures. Similarly, E. A. Speiser calls Genesis 6:1–4 2–11 LQGLFDWHV WKDW KH GLG QRW ÀQG LW REMHFWLRQDEOH DQ´LVRODWHGIUDJPHQWµWKDWVPDFNVRI´XQGLVJXLVHG and that it is indeed an authentic Israelite myth. mythology,” and is “controversial in the extreme” 7KH VWRU\ LV KRZHYHU VRPHZKDW GLVMRLQWHG LQ LWV 6SHLVHU   4 5DOSK + (OOLRWW VD\V ´7KH Genesis context. The Yahwist retained the story in author has perhaps used a fragment of mythology his composition, yet declined to present it in a full as a literary vehicle to ‘convey the sense of what QDUUDWLYHIRUPµ +HQGHO  theologians call the “demonic,” i.e., the potentialities Other proponents of reading Genesis 6:1–4 as an of the human race for heroic good and spectacular adapted myth which is only imperfectly integrated HYLO·µ (OOLRWW² 5 He concludes therefore LQWR WKH VXUURXQGLQJ FRQWH[W LQFOXGH 'DYLG / the idea of these marriages was “borrowed from 3HWHUVHQ  II 6 5REHUW $OWHU    mythology as a means of underscoring the evil and *HUKDUGYRQ5DG  -RKQ6NLQQHU  demonic in man and was not intended to be taken ² 7 DQG 'DYLG 0HOYLQ  ² 8 In literallyµ (OOLRWW    7KLV VRUW RI DSSURDFK all of these examples, the principle problem is the clearly devalues the text as a divinely-inspired record denigration of the inspiration and inerrancy of the RIHDUO\KLVWRU\$GGLWLRQDOO\:DOWHU%UXHJJHPDQQ biblical text in that it is argued that the biblical maintains that Genesis 6:1–4 “participates as fully writer depended on source material that was plainly in the common mythological tradition of the ancient mythological UHDGfalse, untrue DQGpagan—which Near East as any Old Testament text” and that its is to say, contrary to the character of the God who original meaning is obscured to the point that “the claims to be the Author of the Genesis account and HIIRUWWDNHQLQXQGHUVWDQGLQJLWZLOOQRWEHPDWFKHG contrary to the character of the surrounding text by gains for exposition in the listening community” WKDW UHOHQWOHVVO\ DWWDFNV SDJDQ P\WKRORJ\ LQ SUR %UXHJJHPDQQ²  Y+:+SROHPLFV HJ*HQHVLV² 9 5RQDOG 6 +HQGHO SUHVHQWV D VOLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQW Certainly, the presentation of a viable, non- perspective on the passage, but still views the mythical interpretation of this text is essential account as myth. He contests the commonly held to the defense of the truth of the entirety of

3:HVWHUPDQQ  DOVRQRWHV´7KHSDVVDJH²VKRZVLQFRQWHVWDEO\WKDWDQFLHQW,VUDHOEHFDPHIDPLOLDUZLWK WKHP\WKVRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJZRUOGLQWKHFRXUVHRILWVGHYHORSPHQWDQGWRRNQRWLFHRIWKHP,VUDHOLWVHOIFRXOGQRWRI FRXUVHEHIHUWLOHJURXQGIRUP\WKDQGDVIDUDVZHNQRZZDVWKHVRXUFHRIQRP\WKVDWDOOEXWLWFHUWDLQO\EHFDPH IDPLOLDU ZLWK P\WKV IURP WKH VXUURXQGLQJ ZRUOGµ 7KH SRLQW WKDW LV WUXO\ DQG HVSHFLDOO\ VLJQLÀFDQW KRZHYHU LV :HVWHUPDQQ·V VZHHSLQJ FODLP WR IROORZ ´,W LV FHUWDLQO\ QRW WUXH DV KDV RIWHQ EHHQ VDLG WKDW ZKHQ DQ ,VUDHOLWH HQFRXQWHUHGDP\WKKHSURFHHGHGDWRQFHWRGHP\WKRORJL]HLW:KHQVRPHP\WKRURWKHUIURPWKHVXUURXQGLQJZRUOG EHFDPHNQRZQLQ,VUDHODQGZDVUHFRXQWHGWKHUHPXVWKDYHEHHQVRPHSRLQWRILQWHUHVWLQLWµ$JDLQWKLVVRUWRI SHUVSHFWLYHFDVWVDVSHUVLRQVRQWKHXQLTXHFKDUDFWHURIWKHELEOLFDOWH[WDVLQVSLUHGE\WKHOLYLQJ*RG 7LPRWK\ 3HWHU² DQGWKHUHIRUHWUXHDQGWUXVWZRUWK\ 3VDOP-RKQ ,WLVGLDPHWULFDOO\RSSRVHGWRWKH doctrine of bibliology required by Christian orthodoxy. 4 Speiser suggests a Hittite origin for the original myth, suggesting that the author adapted it and situated it immediately prior to the Flood narrative in order to demonstrate that Y+:+’s motive for sending the deluge was XOWLPDWHO\DPRUDORQH 6HHDOVR6SHLVHU² 57KHZRUG´SHUKDSVµLVNH\WR(OOLRW·VTXRWHIRUKHGRHVQRWRIIHUDQ\SURRIRIOLWHUDU\GHSHQGHQFH,QGHHGWKLVVRUWRI VSHFXODWLRQ ZKLFKLVQRQHWKHOHVVWDNHQDVFHUWDLQW\ LVUDPSDQWDPRQJOLEHUDOLQWHUSUHWHUV7KHUHLVQRDFWXDOHYLGHQFH that this account was dependent on mythology. 63HWHUVHQUHPDUNVWKDWLQWHUSUHWHGDVDP\WK*HQHVLV²IXQFWLRQVWRVHWXSRUUHHVWDEOLVKERXQGDULHVQDPHO\ WKRVHEHWZHHQGHLW\DQGKXPDQLW\ S  76NLQQHUFDOOVLWDQ´REYLRXVO\IUDJPHQWDU\QDUUDWLYHµDQGDOVRVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHP\WK·VFRQWHQWVZRXOGKDYHÀJXUHG ODUJHO\LQ+HEUHZIRONORUH 8 Melvin attempts to identify the content of Genesis 6 and portions of the Gilgamesh Epic as originating from a common source. 92QWKHXVHRIVXFKSROHPLFVLQ*HQHVLVDQG²VHH-RKQ'&XUULG ² 1RWDEO\WKHUHDUHLQVWDQFHVZKHQ DELEOLFDODXWKRUGUDZVXSRQH[WUDELEOLFDOPDWHULDO LQFOXGLQJPDWHULDOIURPSDJDQP\WKRORJ\ EXWQHYHULQVXFKDZD\ so as to endorse a pagan worldview. Is the “Sons of God” Passage in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology? 263

Scripture. Indeed, if the inclusion of mythology explain the identity of “the sons of God” in Genesis in the biblical text is permitted at this point, it is 6:2. Most of these views may be grouped into three impossible to evade some measure of doubt being PDLQ FDWHJRULHV   YLHZV ZKLFK DVVHUW WKDW ´WKH cast upon the trustworthiness of Scripture as a sons of God” were members of the godly line of Seth whole. Accordingly, while the sons of God passage FI*HQHVLVII ZKRPDUULHGXQJRGO\´GDXJKWHUV LV REVFXUH LW LV QRQHWKHOHVV VLJQLÀFDQW IURP DQ RIPHQµ OLNHO\IURPWKHOLQHRI&DLQWKHUHSUREDWH  apologetic standpoint. Therefore, in arguing against   YLHZV ZKLFK KROG WKDW ´WKH VRQV RI *RGµ ZHUH the claim that Genesis 6:1–4 contains imported dynastic rulers who may have been considered semi- myth, any suggested interpretation of the passage GLYLQHDQGZKRDFWHGLQZLFNHGQHVVE\PDUU\LQJRI and the identity of “the sons of God” must not ´WKHGDXJKWHUVRIPHQµ´DOOZKLFKWKH\FKRVHµ .-9  RQO\ EH H[HJHWLFDOO\ UREXVW LW PXVW DOVR EH DEOH ZKLFKLVWDNHQWRPHDQWKDWSRO\JDP\ZDVUDPSDQW WR GHPRQVWUDWH KRZ LW ÀWV FRQVLVWHQWO\ ZLWKLQ WKH DQG  YLHZVWKDWPDLQWDLQWKDW´WKHVRQVRI*RGµ WKHRORJLFDO IUDPHZRUN RI WKH 2OG 7HVWDPHQW WH[W ZHUHIDOOHQDQJHOLFEHLQJVZKRLQUHEHOOLRQWRRNWR namely with respect to what Scripture teaches themselves human wives and bore offspring. Each about monotheism and the uniqueness of Y+:+ one of these positions has given rise to secondary 'HXWHURQRP\,VDLDK views, some of the more prominent of which shall -RHO ,WPXVWOLNHZLVHEHGHPRQVWUDWHG be discussed below. In addition, there have been how the passage relates to the broader context of DKDQGIXORIOHVVHUNQRZQYLHZVZKLFKGRQRWIDOO Genesis 5–6, with lexical, thematic, theological, and/ cleanly into any of the main categories. RU FRQFHSWXDO OLQNDJHV HVWDEOLVKHG EHWZHHQ LW DQG the preceding genealogy, or the following account of *RGO\OLQHRI6HWK Noah and the MabbûlRU SUHIHUDEO\ ERWK The interpretation that “the sons of God” were Consequently, this paper aims to present a godly members of the line of Seth has been a detailed overview of interpretations offered by common understanding since the early centuries conservative biblical scholars on the identity of “the RI WKH &KULVWLDQ FKXUFK ZLWK -XOLXV $IULFDQXV F sons of God” in Genesis 6:2, discussing the strengths ²F  >@ EHLQJWKHÀUVWRIWKH DQG ZHDNQHVVHV RI HDFK SRVLWLRQ 7KLV SDSHU ZLOO church fathers to promote the view.10 This view attempt to survey the arguments given for the different interpretations, whether they be lexical, ODWHU ZDV SRSXODUL]HG E\ $XJXVWLQH ²  grammatical, contextual, intertextual, or theological. >@ DQGHYHQWXDOO\DGRSWHGE\WKH However, its primary thrust will be to clearly show UHIRUPHUV /XWKHU ²     DQG 11 that there are plausible alternatives to viewing the &DOYLQ ²  >@  According sons of God passage as a mythological story that to this position, the sin involved in this passage has intruded into its present context. In the process, ZKLFK LQFXUUHG *RG·V MXGJPHQW LQ D JOREDO )ORRG this paper will also show how this relatively short *HQHVLV ²  ZDV LQWHUPDUULDJH EHWZHHQ WKRVH SDVVDJH EHDUV UDPLÀFDWLRQV IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH faithful to Y+:+ RVWHQVLEO\ WKH OLQH RI 6HWK cause of the Genesis Flood, as well as the character UHFRUGHG LQ *HQHVLV ²  DQG WKH XQIDLWKIXO of God in relation to the nature of His holiness and “daughters of men,” with the “unrestricted license” MXGJPHQW of the Sethites accelerating “the [moral] degeneracy RIWKHZKROHKXPDQIDPLO\µ 0DWKHZV  Examination: This would have been, within the historical context 9DULRXVXQGHUVWDQGLQJV RI ÀIWHHQWKFHQWXU\ BC Israel, a warning against RI´7KHVRQVRI*RGµLQ*HQHVLV neglecting God’s stipulation not to intermarry with To date, several views have been set forth to WKH&DQDDQLWHV FI([RGXV'HXWHURQRP\ 

10-XOLXV$IULFDQXVZULWHV´:KDWLVPHDQWE\WKH6SLULWLVWKDWWKHGHVFHQGDQWVRI6HWKDUHFDOOHGWKHVRQVRI*RGRQ DFFRXQWRIWKHULJKWHRXVPHQDQGSDWULDUFKVZKRKDYHVSUXQJIURPKLPHYHQGRZQWRWKH6DYLRXU+LPVHOIEXWWKDW WKHGHVFHQGDQWVRI&DLQDUHQDPHGWKHVHHGRIPHQDVKDYLQJQRWKLQJGLYLQHLQWKHPRQDFFRXQWRIWKHZLFNHGQHVVRI their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God.” 11/XWKHUUHJUHWWDEO\VKRZVXWWHUGLVUHJDUGIRU-HZLVKVFKRODUVKLSDQGGRZQSOD\VWKHOH[LFDODVSHFWVRIWKLVLQWHUSUHWLYH issue, maintaining, “By ‘sons of God’ . . . Moses means the male descendants of the patriarchs who had the promise of the blessed Saviour. In the New Testament they are called believers who call God their Father and by Him are called +LVFKLOGUHQ7KH-HZVIRROLVKO\H[SODLQWKLVH[SUHVVLRQWRGHVLJQDWHHYLOVSLULWVIURPZKRPFDPHWKHJHQHUDWLRQRIWKH XQJRGO\7KH)ORRGGLGQRWFRPHXSRQPHQEHFDXVH>RIWKHVLQV@RIWKHJHQHUDWLRQRIWKHZLFNHGEXWEHFDXVHRIWKH generation of the righteous that lapsed into idolatry, disobedience, voluptuousness, impurity and tyranny.” It seems, therefore, that Luther was disposed to interpreting the passage in the light of his own experience with the corruption RIWKH&DWKROLF&KXUFK&DOYLQOLNH/XWKHULQWHUSUHWV´WKHVRQVRI*RGµLQ*HQHVLVLQOLJKWRIWKH1HZ7HVWDPHQW GRFWULQHRIDGRSWLRQDQGVXPPDULO\GLVPLVVHVDOORWKHUSRVLWLRQV HVSHFLDOO\WKHfallen angels view RQWKHEDVLVRIWKHLU alleged absurdity. 264

0DWKHZV  ² 12 It highlights the sad HDUWKµ YFI YY² $FFRUGLQJO\ WKLV YLHZ consequences of religious syncretism. connects Genesis 6:1–4 to the following narrative In addition to this position’s nice compatibility E\ SXWWLQJ WKH EODPH IRU *RG·V MXGJPHQW VTXDUHO\ with the historical context, several other arguments RQWKHVKRXOGHUVRIWKHZLFNHGKXPDQUDFH$V6YHQ have been set forth in its favor. First, while advocates )RFNQHU NHHQO\ REVHUYHV ´%HFDXVH RI WKH ZD\ WKH RI WKLV YLHZ DFNQRZOHGJH WKDW WKH SUHFLVH narrative is designed from Genesis 4 to Genesis 10, formula ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ  FI -RE     LV QHYHU the reader expects the passage to deal with the two used of humans, they observe that similar language lines of humanity and the vanishing of one of them. . . . is used throughout the Old Testament to describe 7KHÁRRGUHVXOWHGIURPWKHZLFNHGQHVVRIWKHSHRSOH human followers of the L25'. For instance, in Before ch. 6, only the unbelievers were depicted as 'HXWHURQRP\  0RVHV VD\V WR WKH FKLOGUHQ RI ZLFNHG /DPHFK  7KHQ WKH VRQV RI *RG MRLQHG WKLV ,VUDHO´LHKXPDQV@µ .HLO>²@ 15 /HXSROG²  Second, interpreting “the sons of God” as the However, there are some critical problems with GHVFHQGDQWV RI 6HWK ÀWV ZLWKLQ WKH FRQÀQHV RI this view which deserve to be illustrated. First, the broader context of Genesis. Genesis 4:19–24 although it is demonstrable that the Old Testament highlights the evil line of the reprobate Cain, GRHVVSHDNRIGLYLQHVRQVKLSLQUHODWLRQWRPDQWKH FXOPLQDWLQJ ZLWK WKH ZLFNHG /DPHFK DQG WKHQ Sethite view cannot adequately explain why the FRQWUDVWVWKDWZLWKWKHOLQHRI6HWK *HQHVLVII  ELEOLFDODXWKRUZRXOGWDNHDSUHFLVHIRUPXODWKDWLV Moreover, such an interpretation matches with the HOVHZKHUHUHVWULFWHGWRGHVFULELQJDQJHOLFEHLQJV -RE reasons offered in Genesis 6 for God’s resolve to send a  DQGXVHLWWRVSHDNRIDSDUWLFXODUOLQH JOREDOFDWDVWURSKHWRZLSHRXWPDQNLQG´$QG<+:+ of men. Second, the Sethite view, though appearing to VDZ WKDW WKH ZLFNHGQHVV RI PDQ ZDV great in the ÀW ZHOO ZLWK WKH FRQWH[W DFWXDOO\ FUHDWHV SUREOHPV

12 Mathews’ argument is worth citing at length. In his commentary, he conveys the following: “Also important is the weight of the 3HQWDWHXFK·VWHVWLPRQ\ZKLFKLGHQWLÀHVWKH,VUDHOLWHVDVWKHFKLOGUHQRI*RG HJ'HXW²FI([RG3VV  WKLVUHVRQDWHVZHOOZLWKWDNLQJWKH¶VRQVRI*RG·LQDVDQDOOXVLRQWRJRGO\ FRYHQDQW RIIVSULQJ FIDOVR,VD+RV -RKQ² ,WKDVEHHQFKDUJHGWKDWVXFKDUHDGLQJLVLQDSSURSULDWHEHIRUHWKHIRXQGLQJRI,VUDHOVLQFHWKHUHLVQRGHVLJQDWHG SHRSOHRI*RG+RZHYHUWKLVGLVUHJDUGVWKHDXWKRU·VHIIRUWVDWFRQQHFWLQJWKHSUHSDWULDUFKDOIDWKHUV FKDSV² DQGWKHIRXQGHUV RI,VUDHO FKDSV² µ0DWKHZVJRHVRQWRPDNHDSRLQWZKLFKPD\DSSHDUTXHVWLRQDEOH´*HQHVLVW\SLFDOO\LQYLWHV,VUDHOWRVHH itself in the events of their parents by employing the language and imagery of institutional life and of events later experienced by ,VUDHO0RVDLFODZFRGLÀHGWKHSURKLELWLRQDJDLQVWPDUULDJHRXWVLGHWKHFRYHQDQWFRPPXQLW\*HQHVLVLOOXVWUDWHVKRZUHOLJLRXV LQWHUPDUULDJHUHVXOWHGLQFDODPLW\IRUWKHULJKWHRXV HJIIII µ,WLVQRWFOHDUWRWKLVDXWKRUWKDW*HQHVLVDFWXDOO\ IRUJHVDOLQNEHWZHHQ,VUDHODQGWKHOLQHRI6HWKVXFKWKDWWKH\PLJKWERWKEHFDOOHGWKH´FRYHQDQWµFRPPXQLW\,VUDHOLVDXQLTXH nation, and apart from the covenant made between God and Noah, no mention of a covenant appears in Genesis prior to that made EHWZHHQ *RG DQG $EUDKDP FI *HQ   HWF  +RZHYHU 0DWKHZV VWLOO PDNHV DQ H[FHOOHQW SRLQW LQ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ KRZ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ´WKHVRQVRI*RGµDVWKHRIIVSULQJRI6HWKEHDUVVLJQLÀFDQFHZLWKLQWKHKLVWRULFDOFRQWH[W 136HHIXUWKHUGLVFXVVLRQRQWKLVSRLQWE\+&/HXSROG ² DQGDOVR5RQDOG²@ )LIWKWKHSethite view raises a series to magistrates, and so ‘sons of god’ in Genesis 6:1–4 of questions about some problematic oddities in the FRXOG UHIHU WR PDJLVWUDWHV RU UXOHUVµ %LUQH\  text when viewed from a practical standpoint. For  1RWDEO\WKHSUDFWLFHRIXVLQJ´GLYLQHµHSLWKHWVWR instance, why does the text mention only the godly refer to human rulers has a long history among men from the line of Seth who married ungodly SDJDQQDWLRQVLWZRXOGQRWEHVXUSULVLQJWKDWVXFKD women":KDWDERXWWKH´GDXJKWHUVRI*RGµDQGWKH practice appeared in the times before the Genesis “sons of men”? Also, if “the sons of God” were in fact )ORRGDVZHOO %LUQH\².OLQH  godly PHQ ZK\ GLG WKH\ FRQWLQXH WR VHHN RXW DQG This position also accords decently well with the marry women of ungodlyFKDUDFWHU":HUHWKHUHQR broader context of Genesis, which attests to ruling attractive women who were also godly? This question W\UDQWV *HQHVLV² DQGWRRWKHUSRZHUIXOPHQ may appear trite, but it still deserves an answer. ZKR SUDFWLFHG SRO\JDP\ *HQHVLV ²  Additionally, why in this view was the intermarriage Furthermore, this view gives a viable explanation for between these two groups enough of a problem to the origin of the Nephilim: they were the offspring of ZDUUDQW WKH )ORRG MXGJPHQW VHQW RQ WKH HDUWK LQ WKH ´GLYLQHµ NLQJV ZKR UHVLGHG LQ UR\DO FRXUWV DQG Genesis 7–8? These are questions deserving who “extend[ed] their fathers’ sway by tyrannical FRQWLQXHGUHVHDUFKKRZHYHUWKHIDFWUHPDLQVWKDW LQMXVWLFHµ FI *HQHVLV   .OLQH  ²  ,Q this view offers a possible alternative to seeing the this view, the Hebrew phrase ʭʩʸʑʖ ˎˏʑ ʤʔ  ´WKH PLJKW\ Genesis 6 account as myth. RQHVµ  LV SUREDEO\ EHVW WDNHQ DV D UHIHUHQFH WR WKH SROLWLFDOGRPLQDQFHRIWKHVHW\UDQQLFDOSULQFHV .OLQH '\QDVWLFUXOHUV   7KHVHFRQGPDMRULQWHUSUHWLYHYLHZRQWKHLGHQWLW\ The dynastic rulers view has given rise to several of “the sons of God” is that they were men in positions VXEYLHZV-RKQ:DOWRQIRUH[DPSOHVXJJHVWVWKDW of high authority, dynastic rulers who were accorded the sin involved was not polygamy, but was instead a ´GLYLQHµ DFFRODGHV E\ WKHLU VXEMHFWV 0HUHGLWK * far more despicable practice. He writes, “An alternate Kline, one of the principle supporters of the view, understanding may be found in a practice noted in the states, “The sons of God could be translated ‘the sons Gilgamesh Epic as the prime example of Gilgamesh’s 16,Q-XGJHVIIWKHQDPH´,VUDHOµGHVFULEHVDVXEVHWRIWKHWULEHVRI,VUDHOWKDWLVDOOWKHWULEHVH[FHSW%HQMDPLQ+RZHYHU this is the sort of exception that proves the general rule. 266 L. Anderson Jr.

W\UDQQ\ QDPHO\ KLV H[HUFLVLQJ RI WKH ULJKW RI ÀUVW WKHUHE\PDNLQJ´WKHVRQVRI*RGµGHPRQSRVVHVVHG night with a new bride: ‘He will couple with the rulers—offers any advantage over the fallen angels ZLIHWREHKHÀUVWRIDOOWKHEULGHJURRPDIWHU·7KLV viewRQLWVRZQ $OORIWKHVHLVVXHVDUHGHVHUYLQJRI practice accommodates the marriage terminology IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ +RZHYHU OLNH WKH SUHFHGLQJ [in Genesis 6:2] and in Gilgamesh it is clearly position, this view offers a possible alternative to ERWK RSSUHVVLYH DQG RIIHQVLYH EHKDYLRUµ :DOWRQ seeing the Genesis 6 account as myth.  ² FI   :DOWRQ 0DWWKHZV DQG &KDYDODV 2WKHULQWHUSUHWHUVUHFRJQL]LQJ )DOOHQDQJHOV WKH DSSDUHQW ZHDNQHVV RI WKH dynastic rulers view The oldest exegetical position on the identity of from a lexical standpoint, have attempted to couple it “the sons of God” is that they were fallen angels. This with the fallen angels view VHHEHORZ DUJXLQJWKDW LVWKHYLHZDVVXPHGLQWKHHDUOLHVW-HZLVKH[HJHVLV WKH UXOHUV LQ TXHVWLRQ ZHUH GHPRQ SRVVHVVHG 5RVV IRU H[DPSOH LQ  (QRFK II DQG LQ -XELOHHV  ²:DOWNHZLWK)UHGULFNV Similarly, certain variants of the Septuagint,   5HJDUGOHVV WKH dynastic rulers view guards including Codex Alexandrinus, translate ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ against any notion of Genesis 6:1–4 being imported as ਙȖȖİȜȠȚ IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨ ´DQJHOV RI *RGµ 19 7KH -HZLVK mythology, with the event in question being explained KLVWRULDQ-RVHSKXV ²F DOVRDVVXPHVWKLVYLHZ largely or entirely in “natural” terms. in The Antiquities of the Jews >@ DV As with the preceding position examined, there GRHV WKH -HZLVK SKLORVRSKHU 3KLOR FBC–c. $'  are problems with this view. Interpreting “the sons of in De Gigantibus >@    7KLV God” as dynastic rulers creates the same conundrum LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ OLNHZLVH DSSHDUV LQ WKH 'HDG 6HD with the phrase ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ that was encountered by Scrolls,20 as well as in the writings of several notable the Sethite view. An equally strong argument against HDUO\ FKXUFK IDWKHUV³LQFOXGLQJ -XVWLQ 0DUW\U this position resides in that while groups of rulers are ²  >@ D  >@ E   RFFDVLRQDOO\UHIHUUHGWRDV´JRGVµ ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ LQ6FULSWXUH &OHPHQW RI $OH[DQGULD F²F  >@  they are never referred to corporately as “sons of God”  $WKHQDJRUDV F²F  >@  ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ  +DPLOWRQ    $OVR DV -RKQ - DQG7HUWXOOLDQ F²F  >@ 7KLV 'DYLVQRWHVWKHUHLVQRELEOLFDOHYLGHQFHWRVXJJHVW position remained the dominant interpretation until that the system of government envisioned by the the Sethite viewZDVSRSXODUL]HGE\$XJXVWLQH VHH proponents of the dynastic rulers view had yet been DERYH 0RUHUHFHQWO\WKHfallen angels view has the HVWDEOLVKHG 'DYLV 17 Additionally, there is VXSSRUW RI PDQ\ SURPLQHQW &KULVWLDQ DQG -HZLVK no convincing evidence to suggest that polygamy exegetes.21 would have compelled the L25' to send the The fallen angels view has strong lexical support, catastrophic Genesis Flood. Monogamy is presented in that all other usages of ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ in the Old LQ6FULSWXUHDVWKHLGHDOIRUPDUULDJH *HQHVLV 7HVWDPHQW -RE UHIHUWRDQJHOLFEHLQJV FI 0DWWKHZ ²  EXW WKDW GRHV QRW PHDQ WKDW In Psalms 29:1 and 89:6, a similar phrase, ʭʩʬʑ ʠʩʒ ʒʰˎʍ SRO\JDP\ZDVQRWWROHUDWHG0DQ\SURPLQHQWÀJXUHV ´VRQVRIWKH0LJKW\µ DOVRUHIHUVWRDQJHOV/LNHZLVH in Israel’s history practiced polygamy, including LQ'DQLHOWKHUHODWHG$UDPDLFSKUDVHʯʩʤʑ ʬʕ ʠʚʸʎ ʡʔ $EUDKDP -DFRE 'DYLG DQG RWKHUV $QG LI LW LV ´VRQ RI *RGWKH JRGVµ  FHUWDLQO\ KDV LQ YLHZ D DVVXPHGDVSHUWKHDUJXPHQWVRI:DOWRQWKDWWKH heavenly being, whether an angel or, perhaps, the VLQZDVWKHRSSUHVVLYHSUDFWLFHRIWKH´ULJKWRIÀUVW preincarnate Son of God.22 Thus, it may be concluded night” it is worth noting that there is no clear that the plainest lexical sense of ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ in Genesis attestation to any such practice in Scripture.18 6:2 is that it refers to angelic creatures. The Furthermore, it is not clear how combining the VLJQLÀFDQFHRIWKLVSRLQWPXVWQRWEHXQGHUHVWLPDWHG dynastic rulers view with the fallen angels view— Kidner goes so far as to say that if the fallen angels

17'DYLVDOVRZULWHV´,WLVGLIÀFXOWWRXQGHUVWDQGZK\VRPHWKLQJDVIDPLOLDUDVNLQJVKLSVKRXOGEHH[SUHVVHGVRLQGLUHFWO\µ FI .LGQHU  18$GGLWLRQDOO\*HQHVLVVWDWHVWKDWWKH\´WRRNZLYHVµ$VVXFKLWUHIHUVVSHFLÀFDOO\WRPDUULDJHQRWWRDVLQJOHLVRODWHGLOOLFLW action of lust-driven oppression. 19)RUGLVFXVVLRQRQWKLVSRLQWVHH7LP&KDIIH\ ²  201RWHWKHUHIHUHQFHVLQWKHGLVFXVVLRQE\*RUGRQ-:HQKDP   216HHIRUH[DPSOH9DQ*HPHUHQ ² .LGQHU  %RLFH ² &DVVXWR ² DQG6DUQD  7KHVLJQLÀFDQFHRIWKLVYLHZUHFHLYLQJVXSSRUWDPRQJPRGHUQ-HZLVKLQWHUSUHWHUV LQFOXGLQJ&DVVXWRDQG6DUQD LVWKDW it shows that the position has ample support from the Old Testament text alone. This suggests that the fallen angels view is robust even though, as will be shown below, the New Testament evidences presented in its favor are questioned by proponents of other interpretive positions. 22 7KH %DE\ORQLDQ NLQJ ZRXOG QRW KDYH XQGHUVWRRG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WKLV LQGLYLGXDO EHLQJ WKH SUHLQFDUQDWH &KULVW WKH SRLQW however, is that in his understanding, the ʯʩʤʑ ʬʕ ʠʚʸʎ ʡʔ ZDVFOHDUO\DQLQKDELWDQWRIWKHKHDYHQO\UHDOPWKHNLQJFRXOGLQQRZD\EH VSHDNLQJRIDPHUHKXPDQEHLQJ Is the “Sons of God” Passage in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology? 267

YLHZ ´GHILHV WKH QRUPDOLWLHV RI H[SHULHQFHµ WKHQ WKH but abandoned their proper abode” who the L25' is 6HWKLWHYLHZ´GHILHVWKRVHRIODQJXDJHµDSUREOHPthat, NHHSLQJ ´LQ HWHUQDO ERQGV XQGHU GDUNQHVV IRU WKH he suggests, runs contrary to the effort that the MXGJPHQW RI WKH JUHDW GD\µ 1$6%  7KRXJK VRPH interpreter must put forth to understand the meaning have argued that these passages refer to the original LQWHQGHGE\WKHDXWKRU .LGQHU $GGLWLRQDOO\ fall of the angelic beings who followed after Satan, this view preserves the logical consistency between WKDWOHDYHVDGLIÀFXOWTXHVWLRQXQDQVZHUHG:K\LI Genesis 6:1 and 6:2 with respect to the meaning of ʭʣˌʕ  these verses refer to the original sin of angels, were ´PDQPDQNLQGµ LQVWHDGRIIRUFLQJʭʣˌʕ to refer WRDOO VRPHDQJHOVSXQLVKHGE\EHLQJFRQÀQHGDQGRWKHUV RIPDQNLQGLQYHUVHDQGWKHQWRDVXEVHWRIPDQNLQG IUHH WR URDP WKH HDUWK FI (SKHVLDQV ² " LQ YHUVH  /RRNLQJ DOVR DW WKH EURDGHU context of 5HODWHGO\ZK\ZDV6DWDQKLPVHOIQRWDPRQJWKRVH 25 Genesis, this position has much to commend it. In FRQÀQHG FI-RE² " ,WLVEHWWHUWKHUHIRUHWRWDNH particular, it accounts for the origin of the Nephilim LQ these passages as referring to some event other than *HQHVLV  WKH\ DUH WKH RIIVSULQJ RI WKH LOOLFLW DQJHO the initial fall of the angels, which leaves the fallen KXPDQ UHODWLRQV  DQG LW DLGV LQ H[SODLQLQJ ZK\ D angels view of Genesis 6 as the prime candidate to MXGJPHQW DV XWWHUO\ GLVDVWURXV DV WKH JUHDW Mabbûl DFFRXQW IRU WKH EDFNJURXQG EHKLQG WKH VWDWHPHQWV was sent in Genesis 7–8.23 RI3HWHUDQG-XGH7KH2OG7HVWDPHQWNQRZVRIQR The fallen angels view also has an array of RWKHUHYHQWLQYROYLQJDQJHOVWKDWPLJKWÀWZLWKZKDW supporting evidence from the New Testament. For 3HWHUDQG-XGHGHVFULEH26 instance, in 1 Peter 3:18–20, the Apostle gives a 6HYHUDOREMHFWLRQVKDYHEHHQPDUVKDOOHGDJDLQVW unique perspective on the post-resurrection ministry the fallen angels view, which deserve to be examined. RI -HVXV &KULVW PDLQWDLQLQJ WKDW +H ZDV ´SXW WR Most conspicuously is that Christ stated in Matthew GHDWK LQ WKH ÁHVK EXW PDGH DOLYH LQ WKH VSLULW LQ 22:30 that at the resurrection, the redeemed “neither which also He went and made proclamation to the PDUU\QRUDUHJLYHQLQPDUULDJHEXWDUHOLNHDQJHOV spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, LQKHDYHQµ /HXSROG %XWWKLVSDVVDJHLV ZKHQWKHSDWLHQFHRI*RGNHSWZDLWLQJLQWKHGD\V QRWDUJXLQJWKDWDQJHOV DWOHDVWZKHQWKH\DSSHDU RI1RDKGXULQJWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHDUNµ 1$6%  SK\VLFDOO\  DUH VH[OHVV RU LQFDSDEOH RI UHSURGXFWLYH Peter seems to be saying that subsequent to His IXQFWLRQV5DWKHULWLQGLFDWHVWKDWPDUULDJH DQGE\ resurrection, Christ went to proclaim His victory H[WHQVLRQ UHSURGXFWLRQ  LV QRW VRPHWKLQJ LQ ZKLFK over sin and death to the angelic beings who sinned the holy, heavenly angels participate. The verse in Noah’s day.24,QOLNHIDVKLRQ3HWHUPHQWLRQV OLNHO\KDVQREHDULQJRQWKHZD\WKDWIDOOHQDQJHOV “angels” who sinned and were subsequently “thrown without regard for God’s natural order might choose LQWR 7DUWDUXVµ IJĮȡIJĮȡઆıĮȢ  EHLQJ FRPPLWWHG ´WR WR EHKDYH 6LPLODUO\ LI LW LV REMHFWHG WKDW DQJHOV SLWVRIGDUNQHVVUHVHUYHGIRUMXGJPHQWµ-XGHDOVR IDOOHQRURWKHUZLVH GRQRWKDYHWKHphysical ability VSHDNVRI´DQJHOVZKRGLGQRWNHHSWKHLURZQGRPDLQ WR UHSURGXFH HJ 'DYLV   27 it is worth 23*RLQJEH\RQGWKHVFRSHRIWKHQDUUDWLYHVLPPHGLDWHO\DGMDFHQWWRWKHVRQVRI*RGSDVVDJHLWLVSRVVLEOHWKDWWKHVLQIXOGHVLUHODWHU H[KLELWHGE\WKHPHQRI6RGRPWRHQJDJHLQLOOLFLWVH[XDOUHODWLRQVZLWKWKHDQJHOLFEHLQJVZKRYLVLWHG/RW *HQHVLV LVDUHÁHFWLRQXSRQ the terrible situation in Genesis 6. 247KLVLVWKHYLHZGHIHQGHGE\(GZLQ$%OXP  DQG7KRPDV56FKUHLQHU ² 6FKUHLQHUREVHUYHVWKDWWKH*UHHN word ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ ´VSLULWµ ZKHQXVHGLQWKHSOXUDODOPRVWLQYDULDEO\UHIHUVWRDQJHOVDQGQRWWRKXPDQV7KHRQHH[FHSWLRQDSSHDUVLQ+HEUHZV  EXW LQ WKDW LQVWDQFH WKH FRQWH[W IXQFWLRQV WR FODULI\ ZKR LV LQ YLHZ +H DOVR SRLQWV RXW WKDW WKH *UHHN ijȣȜĮț੾ ´SULVRQµ  ZKLOH FRPPRQO\XVHGWRLQGLFDWHDSODFHZKHUHKXPDQVDUHLPSULVRQHGRQHDUWK HJ$FWV&RULQWKLDQV ´LVQHYHUXVHGWR GHQRWHDSODFHRISXQLVKPHQWIRUKXPDQVDIWHUGHDWKµ S 2WKHUOHVVDFFHSWDEOHYLHZVRQWKHLGHQWLW\RIWKH´VSLULWVµLQ3HWHU² DUHWKDWWKH\ZHUH  WKHGHSDUWHGVRXOVRIKXPDQVFRQWHPSRUDULHVRI1RDKZKRSHULVKHGLQWKH)ORRGDQGWRZKRP&KULVWGXULQJWKH WLPHEHWZHHQKLVGHDWKDQGUHVXUUHFWLRQSUHDFKHGWKHPHVVDJHRIVDOYDWLRQRU  WKHPHQRI1RDK·VGD\WRZKRPWKHSUHLQFDUQDWH&KULVW WKURXJK1RDKSUHDFKHGVDOYDWLRQ7KHÀUVWRIWKHVHDOWHUQDWLYHYLHZVLVPDUNHGO\XQRUWKRGR[WKHVHFRQGKDVVRPHVXSSRUWZLWKLQWKH HYDQJHOLFDOFRPPXQLW\IRUH[DPSOHLQ-RKQ6)HLQEHUJ ² $VQRWHGE\6FKUHLQHUWKRXJKLWIDFHVH[HJHWLFDOFKDOOHQJHV 25%RWKWKHVHTXHVWLRQVDUHSURSRVHGE\&KDUOHV&5\ULH   267KHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQ*HQHVLVDQGWKH1HZ7HVWDPHQWZULWLQJVLVLPSRUWDQW2QWKHFRQQHFWLRQWR-XGH%RLFHZULWHV´$SDUW IURPWKHODQJXDJHRI-XGHWKHFRQQHFWLRQFRXOGVLPSO\EHWKDWRIWZRREYLRXVH[DPSOHVRIJUHDWMXGJPHQW%XW-XGHVHHPVWRVD\PRUH ZKHQDIWHUKDYLQJVSRNHQRIMXGJPHQWRQWKHDQJHOVIRUVLQKHJRHVRQWRVD\¶,QDVLPLODUZD\6RGRPDQG*RPRUUDKDQGWKHVXUURXQGLQJ WRZQVJDYHWKHPVHOYHVWRVH[XDOLPPRUDOLW\DQGSHUYHUVLRQ· Y ,QWKLVYHUVHWKHFRPSDULVRQLVQRWLQWKHPDWWHURIMXGJPHQWLWVHOI-XGH GRHVQRWVD\¶,QDVLPLODUZD\6RGRPDQG*RPRUUDKZHUHMXGJHG·7KHFRPSDULVRQLVUDWKHULQWKHDUHDRIWKHVLQWKDWRFFDVLRQHGWKH MXGJPHQWDQGWKLVDV-XGHVKRZVZDVDVH[XDOVLQRIDSDUWLFXODUNLQG,QVRPHPRGHUQYHUVLRQVWKLVLVKLGGHQE\VXFKWUDQVODWLRQVDV ¶VH[XDOLPPRUDOLW\DQGSHUYHUVLRQ· 1,93+,//,36 RU¶XQQDWXUDOOXVWV· 5691(% %XWWKH$XWKRUL]HG9HUVLRQLVFORVHUWRWKH*UHHN WH[WZKHQLWVSHDNVRIWKH>PHQRI6RGRP@DV¶JLYLQJWKHPVHOYHVRYHUWRIRUQLFDWLRQDQGJRLQJDIWHUVWUDQJHÁHVK [sarkos heteras].’ The men RI6RGRPGLGWKLVLQGHVLULQJVH[XDOUHODWLRQVZLWKWKHDQJHOVZKRKDGFRPHWRYLVLW$EUDPDQG/RW *HQ 7KHLPSOLFDWLRQZRXOG be that in doing so they recapitulated the sin of the angels in Genesis 6, who ‘in a similar way’ had desired relationships with women” %RLFH  27,WGHVHUYHVWREHQRWHGWKDWWKLVPDWWHUSOD\VLQWRWKHUHDVRQVJLYHQE\ERWK5RVV ² DQG:DOWNH  IRULQFRUSRUDWLQJ WKHIDOOHQDQJHOVYLHZLQWRDPRGLÀHGYHUVLRQRIWKHG\QDVWLFUXOHUVYLHZ VHHDERYH 7KLVYLHZDWWHPSWVWRUHPDLQWUXHWRWKHQRUPDOVHQVH of the phrase ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ DVLWLVXVHGLQWKH2OG7HVWDPHQWZLWKRXWLQWURGXFLQJWKHSHUFHLYHGELRORJLFDOGLIÀFXOWLHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKVH[XDO relations between humans and fallen angels. 268 considering that when angels are mentioned in other WKHUHLVUHDVRQWRVXVSHFWWKDWWKHUHPDUNPD\KDYH ORFDWLRQVLQ*HQHVLV HJ*HQHVLV² WKH\DSSHDU EHHQDQH[DJJHUDWLRQ6DUQDWDNHVWKLVYLHZVD\LQJ LQ KXPDQ IRUP WKH\ SDUWDNH LQ D PHDO WKH\ DUH “The reference in Numbers is not to the supposedly lusted after, and they physically seize people by their FRQWLQXHGH[LVWHQFHRI1HSKLOLPLQWR,VUDHOLWHWLPHV hands to drag them out of a doomed city. The text rather, it is used simply for oratorical effect, much as does not give indications about angels’ reproductive ‘Huns’ was used to designate Germans during the capabilities in these passages, but it also does not WZRZRUOGZDUVµ 6DUQD +RZHYHULQYLHZ hint that they physically differ from human beings of the narrator’s explanatory note in Numbers 13:33 in this respect. ´WKH VRQV RI $QDN DUH SDUW RI WKH 1HSKLOLPµ  LW LV $QRWKHU REMHFWLRQ DUJXHV WKDW WKH fallen angels perhaps better to suspect that the unsanctioned view implicates God as unfairly punishing man for angel-human relations that were rampant before the wrongs instigated and carried out by demons. Surely, Flood continued on a limited scale after the global KDG DQJHOV EHHQ WR EODPH IRU WKH JURVV ZLFNHGQHVV catastrophe. This would explain the author’s pointed described in Genesis 6, there would also be mention UHPDUNLQ*HQHVLVWKDWWKHNephilim were on the PDGHRIWKHLULQFOXVLRQLQWKHMXGJPHQWWKDWIROORZHG earth prior to the Flood—“and also afterward.” It 7KRPDV +RZHYHUWKLVDUJXPHQWZURQJO\ would also explain the grammatical arrangement DVVXPHVWKDWDQJHOLFZLFNHGQHVVLQ*HQHVLV²LV IRXQG LQ *HQHVLV  LQYROYLQJ WKH LPSHUIHFW ˒ʠʖ ʡʕʩ  incompatible with the text’s assessment of the brutal and the perfect preceded by waw ˒ʣʬʍ ʕʩʥʍ ZKLFKPRVW ZLFNHGQHVVRIPDQNLQGLQ*HQHVLV²5HJDUGOHVV naturally expresses an event which occurred RIWKHH[WHQWRIDQJHOLFDFWLYLW\PDQNLQGZDVHYLOLQLWV UHSHDWHGO\ 7KH LGHD WKXV LV WKDW WKH Nephilim RZQULJKWWKH/25'ZDVIXOO\MXVWLÀHGLQVHQGLQJWKH arose “whenever” there were sexual unions between Mabbûl on account of man’s sin even if the full extent KXPDQV DQG IDOOHQ DQJHOV  $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH VLQ RI RI ZLFNHGQHVV RQ WKH HDUWK also involved angels.28 unsanctioned angel-human relations and the )XUWKHUPRUH DVVXPLQJ WKDW  3HWHU ² propagation of the Nephilim appears to have  3HWHU  DQG -XGH  UHIHU EDFN WR DQJHOV ZKR continued even after the Flood. sinned in Genesis 6, then the biblical text is hardly 7KHODVWDQGDUJXDEO\PRVWVHULRXVREMHFWLRQWRWKH VLOHQWRQWKHSXQLVKPHQWRIWKHDQJHOVLWVLPSO\ZDV fallen angels view is that it opens the door for not the author’s purpose to focus on angels any more mythology and polytheism to invade the biblical than necessary in the prologue to the Flood narrative. text.30+RZHYHUWKLVLVQRWQHFHVVDULO\VRLQIDFWLW ,WLVDOVRREMHFWHGWKDWWKHfallen angels view is not can be maintained with equal tenacity that the fallen necessary to account for the rise of the Nephilim in angels view militates forcefully against any sort of Genesis 6:4, and that the presence of such hybrid suggestion that the biblical author was dependent offspring before the Flood creates tension with upon or otherwise amenable toward pagan mythology. Numbers 13:33, which mentions Nephilim dwelling The polemical elements of the Genesis text so plainly LQ WKH ODQG RI &DQDDQ ORQJ DIWHU WKH )ORRG HJ evident in both the Creation and Flood accounts 6DLOKDPHU   29 However, to insist that the surface again in Genesis 6:1–4. Here the text aims to Nephilim were not the offspring of the unions show that the ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʎ ʤʚʩʕ ʒʰʡʍ , elevated so often to the described only two verses prior is essentially to sever status of demigods in ancient Near Eastern mythology Genesis 6:4 from the context, leaving the purpose of IRUH[DPSOHWKHbn ílm of Ugaritic mythology31 DUH LWV FRQWHQW DPELJXRXV :LWK UHVSHFW WR WKH ODWHU QRW´JRGVµDWDOO &DVVXWR² 32 They are mention of the Nephilim in Numbers 13, it need not certainly evil, and they have, with their human be assumed that the Nephilim survived the Flood— female consorts, contributed greatly to the increasing which is certainly contrary to the biblical text ZLFNHGQHVVRQHDUWK FI*HQHVLV +RZHYHU *HQHVLV ²  ,Q YLHZ RI WKH IDFW WKDW WKH neither “the sons of God” nor the evil human race can statement in Numbers 13 is from the unfaithful spies oppose ʭʩʤ˄ʑ ʠʤʎ ʥʤʕ ʍʩ, the one true God, who, in the who told Israel not to go into the Promised Land, verses to follow, exercises His sovereign prerogative

28 +DPLOWRQ  DOVRQRWHV´7KLVLVQRWDFRQFOXVLYHDUJXPHQWIRULQWKHYHU\QH[WHYHQWUHFRUGHGLQ6FULSWXUHWKH)ORRG ZHDUHWROGWKDWWKHVLQRIPDQ  UHVXOWVLQWKHGLYLQHDQQLKLODWLRQRIQRWRQO\PDQEXWEHDVWFUHHSLQJWKLQJDQGELUGV  µ 6RPHWKLQJPXVWEHQRWHGDWWKLVSRLQWRIPDQ·VGRPLQLRQRYHUWKHFUHDWLRQWKDWEURXJKWWKHMXGJPHQWRQWKHFUHDWXUHVXQGHUKLV FDUHKRZHYHUWKHSRLQWLVWKDWMXGJPHQWIRUVLQFDQDGYHUVHO\DIIHFWWKRVHZKRDUHQRWGLUHFWO\LQYROYHG 29 Sailhamer maintains that the sense of ʭʤʒ ʤʭʩʕ ʮʑ ʕ˕ˎʵʔ ʸˌʓ ʡ˒ʩʕ ʤʭʩʕ ʬʑ ʴʑ ʍ˚ʤʔ in Genesis 6:4 suggests that the Nephilim were already present LQ WKH ODQG EHIRUH WKH XQLRQV EHWZHHQ ´WKH VRQV RI *RGµ DQG ´WKH GDXJKWHUV RI PHQµ /LNHZLVH KH DUJXHV that ʸˇʓ ʠʯʏ ʫʚʩʒ ʸʒ ʧʏ ʙʠʔ ʭʔʢʥʍ requires that the Nephilim could not have been the offspring of the unions described. However, this view is inadequate for the reasons discussed above. 30/HXSROG ² PDNHVWKLVSRLQWZLWKJUHDWEROGQHVV´6XFKDQDSSURDFKLQWURGXFHVWKHP\WKRORJLFDOHOHPHQWDVZHOODV SRO\WKHLVPLQWRWKH6FULSWXUHVDQGPDNHVWKH%LEOHDUHFRUGRIVWUDQJHDQGIDQWDVWLFWDOHVµ 31 Concerning the bn ílmLQ8JDULWLFP\WKRORJ\VHHWKHGLVFXVVLRQLQ+HQGHO   32 This point bears a close connection with the limit of 120 years pronounced in Genesis 6:3. Is the “Sons of God” Passage in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology? 269

WRMXGJHWKHHDUWKDQGSXWDQHQGWRWKHZLFNHGQHVV matter, it has nothing to offer concerning the origin perpetrated by the fallen angels. As such, the sons of or identity of the Nephilim either. Consequently, this *RG SDVVDJH GRHV QRW HQGRUVH P\WK LW LV WKH view can also be dismissed. antimyth.33 In summary, therefore, while this position certainly deserves further discussion, it Conclusion: DFFRXQWVZHOOIRUDOOWKHELEOLFDOHYLGHQFHPRUHRYHU 7KHSUHIHUUHGLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI LW VWDQGV XS UHPDUNDEO\ ZHOO WR WKH FODLP WKDW WKH ´7KHVRQVRI*RGµLQ*HQHVLV Genesis 6 account is myth. 7KLV SDSHU KDV VXUYH\HG WKH PDMRU LQWHUSUHWLYH options surrounding the sons of God passage in 2WKHUYLHZV Genesis 6 and has demonstrated multiple plausible In addition to the three main positions already DQVZHUVWRWKHOLEHUDOFKDUJHWKDWWKHDFFRXQWÀQGVLWV discussed, there have been a couple of other views origin in pagan mythology. Of course, the sons of God on the identity of “the sons of God” that deserve to SDVVDJHLVEXWDVPDOOVHFWLRQRIWKH*HQHVLVDFFRXQW be mentioned. One that is particularly interesting LWGRHVQRWKDYHULGLQJRQLWDQ\PDMRUGRFWULQHVSHU was proposed by Lyle Eslinger, who states that “the se. Accordingly, there ought to be substantial room daughters of men” in Genesis 6:2 refers to the female made for humility and graciousness in defending the descendants of Seth LQVWHDGRI&DLQDVSHUWKHSethite position. Kidner, while endorsing the fallen angels view ZLWK´WKHVRQVRI*RGµEHLQJWKHGHVFHQGDQWV view, offers this counsel: “But where Scripture is as RI &DLQ (VOLQJHU  ²  7KH PDLQ EDVLV IRU UHWLFHQWDVKHUHERWK3HWHUDQG-XGHZDUQXVDZD\ Eslinger’s argument is that Genesis 5 repeatedly :H KDYH RXU SURSHU SODFH DV ZHOO 0RUH LPSRUWDQW mentions the offspring of Seth as having “other than the details of this episode is its indication that sons and daughters,” and that Genesis 4 describes man is beyond self-help, whether the Sethites have WKH GHVFHQGDQWV RI &DLQ ZKR WRRN WR WKHPVHOYHV betrayed their calling, or demonic powers have gained ZLYHV HJYY² +RZHYHUDV:HQKDPULJKWO\ D VWUDQJOHKROGµ .LGQHU    $JDLQ ZKDW LV observes, Eslinger does not offer a viable explanation of utmost importance is defending the Scriptures IRUKRZWKHZLFNHG&DLQLWHVFRXOGEHFDOOHG´WKHVRQV against the accusation of dependence upon mythology, RI *RGµ :HQKDP    7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ which would compromise tremendously the doctrines therefore, appears to be without adequate support of inspiration and inerrancy. All the views evaluated and can be dismissed. LQWKLVSDSHU DWOHDVWLQWKHYHUVLRQVSUHVHQWHG DUH $QRWKHUYLHZSURSRVHGE\ERWK-RKQ+6DLOKDPHU resistant to the notion of Genesis 6 being adapted and Philip H. Eveson is that Genesis 6:1–4 functions P\WK 7KH\ PDNH QR URRP IRU 6FULSWXUH·V DOOHJHG as a summary to the content of chapter 5. As acquiescence to the prevailing pagan ideas of its day. Sailhamer puts it, this brief episode serves as an $OWKRXJK WKLV VWXG\ ÀQGV WKH fallen angels view to interlude before the Flood narrative, indicating that be the view most consistent with the biblical data, the sons and daughters of Adam had multiplied Bible-believing advocates of all the interpretations greatly, marrying and continuing to have children of Genesis 6:1–4 can appreciate the strengths of the 6DLOKDPHU 7KHSDVVDJHVXSSRVHGO\WHOOV different positions—positions which, though often DERXWQRWKLQJRXWRIWKHRUGLQDU\UDWKHULWLQGLFDWHV vastly different, are united in their goal of striving to that the routines of life went on as usual, as alluded see the trustworthiness of Scripture upheld. to by Christ in Matthew 24:38–39. The problem was not with what PDQNLQG ZDV GRLQJ SHU VH EXW References the way in which he was going about it—that is, in $OWHU 5  Genesis: Translation and Commentary. New utter disregard of his Creator. As Eveson surmises,

33)RUIXUWKHUDUJXPHQWDJDLQVWLQWHUSUHWLQJ*HQHVLV²DVLPSRUWHGP\WKVHH9DQ*HPHUHQ  DQGHVSHFLDOO\KLVVHULHV RI SURSRVDOV SS² +LV FRQFOXVLRQ LV WKH VDPH DV WKDW RIIHUHG LQ WKLV SDSHU WKH IDOOHQ DQJHOV YLHZ GRHV QRW HQFRXUDJH interpreting Genesis 6:1–4 as mythology of any sort. 270 L. Anderson Jr.

Birney, L. 1970. “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1–4.” 'RQDOGVRQ 5HYLVHG DQG DUUDQJHG E\ $ &OHYHODQG &R[H Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society  ² ²5HSULQW3HDERG\0$+HQGULFNVRQ3XEOLVKHUV35 %RLFH-0Genesis: An Expositional Commentary. Vol. 1. -XVWLQ 0DUW\U   D The First Apology. In vol. 1 *UDQG5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ=RQGHUYDQ3XEOLVKLQJ+RXVH of Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translated and edited by A. %UXHJJHPDQQ :  Genesis. Interpretation. Atlanta, 5REHUWV DQG - 'RQDOGVRQ 5HYLVHG DQG DUUDQJHG E\ $ *HRUJLD-RKQ.QR[3UHVV &OHYHODQG&R[H²5HSULQW3HDERG\0DVVDFKXVHWWV &DOYLQ -    Commentaries on the First Book +HQGULFNVRQ3XEOLVKHUV of Moses Called Genesis 9RO  7UDQVODWHG E\ - .LQJ -XVWLQ 0DUW\U   E The Second Apology. In vol. 1 5HSULQW*UDQG5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ%DNHU%RRN+RXVH of Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translated and edited by A. Cassuto, U. 1961. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis— 5REHUWV DQG - 'RQDOGVRQ 5HYLVHG DQG DUUDQJHG E\ $ Part 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by I. Abrahams. &OHYHODQG&R[H²5HSULQW3HDERG\0DVVDFKXVHWWV -HUXVDOHP,VUDHO7KH0DJQHV3UHVV +HQGULFNVRQ3XEOLVKHUV Chaffey, T. 2012. The Sons of God and the Nephilim. No .HLO &) ²   The Pentateuch. Vol. 1 of location: Midwest Apologetics. Commentary on the Old Testament. By C. F. Keil and F. &OHPHQW RI $OH[DQGULD    The Stromata, or 'HOLW]VFK 7UDQVODWHG E\ - 0DUWLQ 5HSULQW 3HDERG\ Miscellanies. In vol. 2 of Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited 0DVVDFKXVHWWV+HQGULFNVRQ3XEOLVKHUV E\ $ 5REHUWV DQG - 'RQDOGVRQ 5HYLVHG DQG DUUDQJHG .LGQHU'Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. E\ $ &OHYHODQG &R[H ² 5HSULQW 3HDERG\ 7\QGDOH 2OG 7HVWDPHQW &RPPHQWDULHV 'RZQHUV *URYH 0DVVDFKXVHWWV+HQGULFNVRQ3XEOLVKHUV34 Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press. &ROHUDQ -(  ´7KH 6RQV RI *RG LQ *HQHVLV  µ .OLQH 0*  ´'LYLQH .LQJVKLS DQG *HQHVLV ²µ Theological Studies  ² Westminster Theological Journal   ² &XUULG-'Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology Kline, M. G. 1970. “Genesis.” In The New Bible Commentary. of the Old Testament:KHDWRQ,OOLQRLV&URVVZD\ UG HG (GLWHG E\ ' *XWKULH DQG -$ 0RW\HU ² 'DYLV--Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis. Grand *UDQG5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ:LOOLDP%(HUGPDQV3XEOLVKLQJ 5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ%DNHU%RRN+RXVH Company. 'ULYHU 65  The Book of Genesis. London, England: Leupold, H. C. 1942. Exposition of Genesis. Vol. 1. Grand Methuen & Co. 5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ%DNHU%RRN+RXVH (OOLRWW 5+  The Message of Genesis. Nashville, Luther, M. 1958. Luther’s Commentary on Genesis. Vol. 1. Tennessee: Broadman Press. 7UDQVODWHG E\ -7 0XHOOHU *UDQG 5DSLGV 0LFKLJDQ (VOLQJHU/0´$&RQWH[WXDO,GHQWLÀFDWLRQRIWKHbene =RQGHUYDQ3XEOLVKLQJ+RXVH ha’elohim and benoth ha’adam in Genesis 6:1–4.” Journal Mathews, K. A. 1996. Genesis 1–11:26. The New American for the Study of the Old Testament  ² Commentary 1A. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Eveson, P. H. 2001. The Book of Origins: Genesis Simply Holman Publishers. Explained:HEVWHU1HZJosephus: New Updated Edition. Translated 6DLOKDPHU-+´*HQHVLVµ,QYRORIThe Expositor’s by ::KLVWRQ²5HSULQW3HDERG\0DVVDFKXVHWWV Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gæbelein, 3–284. Grand +HQGULFNVRQ3XEOLVKHUV 5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ=RQGHUYDQ -XOLXV $IULFDQXV    The Extant Fragments of the Sarna, N. M. 1989. Genesis 7KH -36 7RUDK &RPPHQWDU\ Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus. In 3KLODGHOSKLD 3HQQV\OYDQLD 7KH -HZLVK 3XEOLFDWLRQ vol. 6 of Ante-Nicene Fathers(GLWHGE\$5REHUWVDQG- Society.

34 In this source, the translator is not named. 35 In this source, the translator is not named. Is the “Sons of God” Passage in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology? 271

6FKUHLQHU 75 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The New American :DOWNH %. ZLWK &- )UHGULFNV  Genesis: A Commentary 37. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Commentary*UDQG5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ=RQGHUYDQ Holman Publishers. :DOWRQ-+Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary. 6NLQQHU -  A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on *UDQG5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ=RQGHUYDQ Genesis. 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary. :DOWRQ-+´*HQHVLVµ,QZondervan Illustrated Bible (GLQEXUJK6FRWODQG7 7&ODUN Backgrounds Commentary9RO(GLWHGE\-+:DOWRQ Speiser, E. A. 1956. “YDWN, Genesis 6:3.” Journal of Biblical ²*UDQG5DSLGV0LFKLJDQ=RQGHUYDQ Literature  ² :DOWRQ -+ 9+ 0DWWKHZV DQG 0: &KDYDODV  Speiser, E. A. 1964. Genesis: A New Translation with The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. The Anchor Bible. 'RZQHUV*URYH,OOLQRLV,QWHU9DUVLW\3UHVV *DUGHQ&LW\1HZ