Early interpretations of Genesis 6 "sons of God"?

[rgprice]

Genesis 6 mentions of "sons of God" that consort with women.

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 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.”

4 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.

Are there any old targums or commentaries on these passages that clarify who the "sons of God" were?

We know that in Jubilees and Enoch these are presented as angels, not "sons of God". It would seem that perhaps the original version of this was drawing from a story in which actual heavenly sons of God, members of the assembly, were the ones that consorted with women. But was there any controversy over this reading or records of clarification, to indicate that these were human beings? How was this whole business interpreted, because what's presented in Genesis 6 doesn't really make sense if these are humans. What's put forward in Jubilees and Enoch actually makes more sense, because it explains the corruption.

If we read "sons of God" Genesis 6 as meaning holy men, then why would women having children from holy men cause problems? It only makes sense if these are heavenly beings consorting with women.

Or is there any other information on the provenance of these passages and various translations of them?

Thanks

[John T]

You keep running into the same problem and that is; failure to take into account the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I'm no longer inclined to provide references that will simply be dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Best wishes.

[ABuddhist]

Genesis 6 mentions of "sons of God" that consort with women.

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 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.”

4 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.

Are there any old targums or commentaries on these passages that clarify who the "sons of God" were?

We know that in Jubilees and Enoch these are presented as angels, not "sons of God". It would seem that perhaps the original version of this was drawing from a story in which actual heavenly sons of God, members of the assembly, were the ones that consorted with women. But was there any controversy over this reading or records of clarification, to indicate that these were human beings? How was this whole business interpreted, because what's presented in Genesis 6 doesn't really make sense if these are humans. What's put forward in Jubilees and Enoch actually makes more sense, because it explains the corruption.

If we read "sons of God" Genesis 6 as meaning holy men, then why would women having children from holy men cause problems? It only makes sense if these are heavenly beings consorting with women.

Or is there any other information on the provenance of these passages and various translations of them?

Thanks

A useful and relatively accessible summary of what Christians and Jews throughout the first few centuries CE thought that those verses meant, albeit not written by a biblical scholar, is provided by Jason Colavito, who is interested in those verses because of what conspiracy theorists have interpreted them to mean. I forget whether it was in a book or in one of his many blog-posts, which can be viewed at https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog , where he best explained what Christians and Jews throughout the first few centuries CE thought that those verses meant, but I am inclined to think that maybe his book "The Legends of the Pyramids: Myths and Misconceptions about Ancient Egypt" (Red Lightning Books, 2021) may be of use - because the sons of God were associated in some ways with the pyramids in certain Christian speculations. In general, though, Colavito has revealed that there does not seem to have been a single uniform interpretation, but rather were two rival interpretations: one in which the sons of god were angels, and another in which the sons of god were pious humans descended from Seth (other humans being claimed to have been Cain's impious descendants).

[rgprice]

Right, but Genesis 6 is very confusing, because it eliminates the connection between the consorting between the sons of God and women and the corruption of the world. It just says, sons of God consorted with women and they produced heroes. Then, God saw that the world was corrupt and wicked.

In Jubilees and Enoch we see that by consorting with human women, the angels actually brought corruption into the world. This makes more sense. The ways its written in Genesis 6, the account of consorting with women is kind of pointless.

[neilgodfrey]

Or is there any other information on the provenance of these passages and various translations of them?

Thanks

The most recent publication discussing the origin and subsequent reinterpretations among inheritors of the Genesis narrative that I am aware of is Russell Gmirkin's book Plato's Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts. In short, he lays out a case for the origin of the reference being the polytheistic narrative of how second and third generation gods married mortal women to produce heroes (e.g. Heracles). This period of "history" is not narrated in a negative way but "matter of factly" -- though subsequent interpreters were uncomfortable enough with the original summary account that they interpreted "sons of god" as fallen angels and presented the episode as a kind of secondary "fall" of humankind.

I'll be blogging about the G's arguments from later this week.

[rgprice]

The most recent publication discussing the origin and subsequent reinterpretations among inheritors of the Genesis narrative that I am aware of is Russell Gmirkin's book Plato's Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts. In short, he lays out a case for the origin of the reference being the polytheistic narrative of how second and third generation gods married mortal women to produce heroes (e.g. Heracles). This period of "history" is not narrated in a negative way but "matter of factly" -- though subsequent interpreters were uncomfortable enough with the original summary account that they interpreted "sons of god" as fallen angels and presented the episode as a kind of secondary "fall" of humankind.

I'll be blogging about the G's arguments from later this week.

Good to know. I'll go back and read what he said about it. I was thinking about it the opposite way, like it originally was about the corruption of man by the gods, but the writers of the Torah didn't follow the original story, while the writers of Jubilees and Enoch did.

But maybe Gmirkin is right. What I'd like see though is anything that illuminates how Jews prior to the second century interpreted the passage from the Torah, like targums or anything. Maybe Josephus mentions it, I'll look to see if he says anything about it, or Philo, but Philo isn't really standard.

[ABuddhist]

Maybe Josephus mentions it.

He definitely did, and Colavito discusses Josephus's interpretation in the resources which I cited earlier in this thread.

[rgprice]

This is interesting, because it puts put the views of Gmirkin and Margaret Barker into conflict with one another and I see merit to both views. It does make me wonder if Gmirkin is overplaying his hand and attributing too much of the Torah to Greek influence.

Firstly there is the matter of God and the Lord, El and YHWH. Clearly these distinction didn't come from the Greeks or even the Babylonians or Egyptians. So I think that while I agree with much of Gmirkin's thesis, one has to leave room for significant influences from Canaanite/Israelite traditions as well. And of course we cannot forget the Psalms and the works of the Prophets, which clearly are of Canaanite/Israelite origin.

That these priests had these other works in hand shows that they were not merely relying on Greek and other sources. They also did have Canaanite/Israelite sources to work from as well. So, I think its a bit foolish to try and attribute quite so much to the Greeks as Gmirkin does in his most recent work. Not that I don't still think he makes a lot of good points, he does, but I think he just may be overplaying his hand here.

I like Gmirkin's thesis, but I factor in Barker's perspective as well. I see the Torah more as a synchronization between polytheistic Canaanite/Israelite lore and works Greek of philosophy and history, which the writers of the Torah were using to create an integrated narrative. We have to remember, as Barker points out, that whatever the writers of the Torah were doing, it would had to have passed a test of cultural acceptance with their own people. They couldn't have just created some entirely Greek based religion that had no connection to their own religious heritage and get any kind of acceptance from their own people.

So I see the Torah much more as being rooted in Canaanite/Israelite traditions and religion, but with a Hellenistic veneer on it, whereas Gmirkin seems to be saying that its thoroughly Hellenistic.

The way I see it, Second Isaiah marks the real beginning of monotheistic religion among the descendants of the Israelites. It was Cyrus who really promoted monotheism and this monotheism was enforced through the Persian-backed Temple Priesthood. When the Persians fell to the Greeks (well Macedonians), then the priesthood knew they needed to shift alliances in order to hold on to power, and they wanted to develop a cultural backstory that would support Judahite autonomy by demonstrating their antiquity to their occupiers. But this account had to be acceptable to the Judahites as well.

The fact that the Torah contains so much shifting back and fourth between El and YHWH and that it is still working so hard to conflate the two, indicates that the Torah is being built upon existing polytheistic Canaanite/Israelite traditions that had persisted up to the time of its writing. It would seem to me that from the time of Cyrus, the Judahite priesthood was engaged in an on-going project of consolidating the entities of El and YHWH into a single deity and that this project was still not entirely complete at the time of the writing of the Torah. I suspect it was never fully completed, just as today the Mormon Church has still not fully eliminated polygamy. And so I suspect that outside the bounds of Temple Judaism, there always remained Jews who recognized a distinction between El the Father and Yahweh the Son.

[rgprice]

Maybe Josephus mentions it.

He definitely did, and Colavito discusses Josephus's interpretation in the resources which I cited earlier in this thread.

Thanks. I started looking through his blog, but was having trouble finding what I was looking for.

[neilgodfrey]

This is interesting, because it puts put the views of Gmirkin and Margaret Barker into conflict with one another and I see merit to both views. It does make me wonder if Gmirkin is overplaying his hand and attributing too much of the Torah to Greek influence.

Firstly there is the matter of God and the Lord, El and YHWH. Clearly these distinction didn't come from the Greeks or even the Babylonians or Egyptians. So I think that while I agree with much of Gmirkin's thesis, one has to leave room for significant influences from Canaanite/Israelite traditions as well. .....

That these priests had these other works in hand shows that they were not merely relying on Greek and other sources. They also did have Canaanite/Israelite sources to work from as well. ....

Gmirkin's thesis, as you know, is that scholars from Canaan/Jehud worked with Greek material so it is to be expected that they interpreted their own god/s (El and Yahweh) through Greek ideas.

I like Gmirkin's thesis, but I factor in Barker's perspective as well. I see the Torah more as a synchronization between polytheistic Canaanite/Israelite lore and works Greek of philosophy and history, which the writers of the Torah were using to create an integrated narrative. We have to remember, as Barker points out, that whatever the writers of the Torah were doing, it would had to have passed a test of cultural acceptance with their own people. They couldn't have just created some entirely Greek based religion that had no connection to their own religious heritage and get any kind of acceptance from their own people.

So I see the Torah much more as being rooted in Canaanite/Israelite traditions and religion, but with a Hellenistic veneer on it, whereas Gmirkin seems to be saying that its thoroughly Hellenistic.

Barker is assuming a common hand and mind behind the Pentateuch while Gmirkin sees certain conflicts from different hands. Example: Genesis 1-11 is widely accepted as originating as a piece of writing that was added to a work that is now seen in the later chapters of Genesis.

Some of the presentations of the god/s in Genesis 1-11 was explicitly denied and countered by later hands.

The fact that the Torah contains so much shifting back and fourth between El and YHWH and that it is still working so hard to conflate the two, indicates that the Torah is being built upon existing polytheistic Canaanite/Israelite traditions that had persisted up to the time of its writing.

El was the chief god of a council of gods in the Canaanite pantheon and Yahweh was one of the subordinate gods. Genesis 1-11 seems to assume this hierarchy and also the existence of other gods over other lands and peoples although it does not explicitly mention them. Example, Cain is exiled from the land of Yahweh and face of Yahweh and founds a city in another land -- the assumption is that there are other peoples under the charge of other gods on earth.

Genesis 1-2 further distinguishes between the god who created the cosmos and the god who created mankind, thus absolving the highest god of responsibility for the sinful nature of humans. Other authors of Pentateuchal books evidently disliked this polytheistic-tolerant concept and worked at conflating the two gods into one -- a "purer" form of monotheism, and a monotheism that expressed no tolerance for any thought of other deities hanging around.

It would seem to me that from the time of Cyrus, the Judahite priesthood was engaged in an on-going project of consolidating the entities of El and YHWH into a single deity and that this project was still not entirely complete at the time of the writing of the Torah.

Gmirkin would agree, I think, except that he places that effort of "consolidation" from the Hellenistic era, not the Persian one.

And so I suspect that outside the bounds of Temple Judaism, there always remained Jews who recognized a distinction between El the Father and Yahweh the Son.

I think I agree with you here, and Gmirkin's argument re Genesis 1-11 would seem to provide some evidence of such a division of views among Jews and Samaritans from the third century.