Few passages in the Bible have sparked such speculation, debate, and controversy as Gen 6:1-4, which tells of a time when the “sons of the God(s)” came to the “daughters of man” and had children by them.  These children are described as “mighty men” and “men of name”, and in translations and commentaries, are often understood to have been giants.  Controversy surrounds the exegesis of every verse of this short narrative, perhaps due to the brief and unclear telling of the events,[1] but more often because of the challenges it presents to traditional notions of God, man, and theology.  Indeed, as one scholar has put it, the idea of human-divine unions is “utterly abhorrent” to Hebrew thought.[2]  This difficulty is not a recent development, for as early as the second century C.E. some Jewish interpreters understood “sons of God” to refer to human rulers, and as early as the third century C.E. some Christians identified the “sons of God” as the godly descendants of Seth and the “daughters of man” as the wicked descendants of Cain.[3]  However, clearly the dominant view in antiquity was that “sons of God” referred to heavenly/divine beings, usually understood to be angels, for this rendering is present in one form or another in translations, commentaries, pseudepigrapha, and sectarian documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The widespread theme of ancient, semi-divine heroes who were partly human and partly divine seems to suggest that Gen 6:1-4 has a similar idea in mind, and it was out of this cultural and religious background that the narrative likely arose.[4] 

            A further, and perhaps deeper, issue regarding this passage is how such a story came to be part of the biblical text in the first place.  Because the text displays evidence of significant editing and re-working, it is widely believed that the very brief, present form of the narrative is only a part (and a greatly condensed part, at that) of what was originally a much larger tradition.  Gunkel referred to the present form as “a torso” of a much more detailed and developed legend,[5] and this opinion appears to be generally shared among scholars.  It is also widely believed that the origin of the original tradition is non-Israelite, and was probably simply inherited by Israel as part of the cultural/religious bank of knowledge from Canaanite thought, though the Canaanites surely inherited at least some elements of the story from elsewhere.[6]  The difficulty lies in the fact that no clear parallel to this particular event has been found within ancient Near Eastern literature, though many individual elements are commonly seen.  Some of the closest parallels to Gen 6:1-4 are, in fact, found within Greek mythology, particularly Hesiod’s tale of the battles of Zeus against the Titans; however, the Greek accounts are too late to have served as a source for the Genesis account.[7]  Thus, an earlier source which served as the basis for both the Greek and Genesis accounts must be sought, and discoveries of Ugaritic texts suggest a Canaanite tradition, which was likely dependent on Mesopotamian ideas and theology, played a role in the origin Gen 6:1-4.

            The narrative opens by describing the great increase of mankind upon earth.  The events under consideration appear to have begun very early in primeval history, for the increase of man is said to have just begun (הֵחֵל) when the בני האלהים first looked upon the בנות האדם (v.1-2).  Positionally, the narrative is situated between the primeval genealogy (Gen 5) and the account of the Flood (Gen 6:5-8:22), yet it does not appear to be directly connected with either.  Wenham argues that the narrative is closely connected with both the preceding genealogy and the Flood story which follows,[8] and Kraeling posits that 6:1-4 functions as the cause of God’s sending the disaster,[9] but nothing in vv.1-4 seems to indicate a looming disaster, except for possibly v.3, which is understood by some to set forth a probationary period (120 years) for mankind before destruction.[10]  However, v.3 is widely believed to be a later addition to the original narrative,[11] and at any rate, the reference to 120 years is more likely to be an etiological explanation of 120 years as the ideal maximum lifespan of a human.[12]  Furthermore, none of the numerous Deluge stories from the ancient Near East include anything resembling Gen 6:1-4 as a cause for the Flood.  Thus, any connection that the present narrative has with the Flood story which follows arose in the redaction of the book, not in the original traditions. 

            Three main strands of interpretation have arisen concerning the identity of בני האלהים (v.2).  The oldest is commonly known as the “angel” interpretation.  According to this view, בני האלהים is a group of angels who sinned with human women, and therefore fell from their heavenly abode.  It was widespread among ancient interpreters and is a dominant theme in Jewish pseudepigrapha from the Hellenistic period, such as 1 Enoch.  Frequently, interpreters simply replaced the words בני האלהים with αγγελοι when translating into Greek.[13]  In fact, the angel interpretation does not appear to have been challenged at all until the second century C.E., when one MS of Pesh Gen 6:2, 4 reads “sons of the judges.”[14]  Herein began the understanding of בני האלהים as a reference to human rulers, which became the dominant view among rabbinic interpreters up to modern times.  The inspiration for this interpretation likely arose from the understanding of האלהים in Exod 21:6 to refer to a judge who was to witness the permanent designation of a slave to a master with whom he wishes to remain.[15]  At the very least, it probably reflects a general understanding within second-Temple Judaism that אלהים could sometimes refer to human rulers.  More recently, this interpretation has been reformulated on the basis that rulers in the ancient Near East were commonly viewed as being divine or semi-divine,[16] and were sometimes referred to as the “son” of a particular god.[17]  Thus, the narrative speaks of a time when kings began to arise on earth, and they took to themselves harems from any women whom they chose.  On this basis, Kio suggests that the sin for which בני האלהים are held guilty is polygamy.[18]  However, polygamy is not called sin anywhere in the Old Testament, and numerous biblical figures who practiced polygamy are exalted in Scripture (Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.).  Among Christian interpreters a similar view arose, according to which בני האלהים are the descendants of Seth, while בנות האדם are the descendants of Cain.  It appears to have arisen in the third and fourth centuries C. E., its most famous advocates being Ephrem and Augustine.[19]  However, there is no real basis for understanding האדם in such a morally negative sense, and it is בני האלהים who initiate the wicked acts described here, which would make little sense if they are called בני האלהים because of superior morality and godliness.  The real reason for this identification appears to be discomfort with the thought of angels taking wives and having children, especially with human women.  Christian objections often stem from Mark 12:12, in which Jesus states of the angels in heaven that “they neither marry nor are given in marriage” (NASB).[20]  Yet the thrust of Gen 6:1-4 is that the events in question are contrary to the natural order of things, so the fact that angels do not customarily engage in such activities does not rule out such an occurrence.  Additionally, it is the angels in heaven who are said not to marry, whereas בני האלהים are understood to have abandoned their heavenly abode in this instance, and in fact, their rebellion here is the cause of their “falling.”[21]  Neither is an understanding of בני אלהים as humans, whether royal or godly, able to explain why their offspring should have been any more notable than ordinary humans.

            The juxtaposition of בני האלהים with בנות האדם appears to contrast the natures of the two groups.  Just as בני is the opposite of בנות, so also אלהים is to be clearly differentiated from אדם.  This raises considerable difficulties for any understanding of בני האלהים as humans.  Elsewhere in the Bible, references to בני האלהים clearly have heavenly beings in mind (Job 1:6; Ps 29:1).[22]  While both the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature do occasionally describe human figures as children of God (or a god), there are simply too many parallels to בני האלהים as a heavenly pantheon for Gen 6:2 to not have the same in mind.  The clearest examples come from Ugaritic/Canaanite sources, in which the children of El form a sort of “assembly of gods” (cf. “עדת־אל” in Ps 82:1?) or divine council.[23]  In Babylonian mythology, Enlil was recognized as the father of the gods,[24] while various Mesopotamian theogynies and creation epics speak of a vast pantheon composed of several generations of gods born from one another.[25]  An Egyptian creation story speaks of all of the gods being “given life” and “formed” by Atum through Ptah,[26] while in another story, Re calls Nun “O eldest god, in whom I came into being”, and Nun is clearly regarded as his father.[27]  Probably the most famous pantheon is that of the Greeks, and it too was composed of younger gods, such as Zeus, who were reckoned to have been the offspring of older gods, such as Kronos.[28]  Essentially, the Ancient Near East was saturated with the theology of a pantheon of gods who were the children of older gods.  This suggests that בני האלהים in Gen 6:2 should be understood to refer a sort of “heavenly assembly” composed of lower-deities.  The problems that such an interpretation creates for Biblical monotheism make it fairly obvious why early interpreters took this to refer to angels.  The truth is that Israelite religion was very resistant to the idea of Yahweh having any sort of children, and thus the Biblical phrase is always בני האלהים and never בני יהוה.[29]  The retention of an originally pagan, non-Israelite tradition here required a massive rethinking, which may explain the mutilated form of the narrative.  Since Hebrew thought did not allow for a pantheon alongside or even inferior to Yahweh,[30] בני האלהים were understood to be some sort of angelic beings.  While this may have been the intention of the author/editor of the Genesis account, who according to Speiser may have even doubted that such an event had truly occurred,[31] it cannot have been the meaning of the original tradition.  Gunkel understands בני האלהים to refer to “beings belonging to the category of אלהים”—similar to Yahweh but subordinate to Him—in the same sense that בן אדם simply designates a being in the category of אדם.[32]  In light of the numerous ancient Near Eastern parallels, this seems to be the best explanation.

            The greatest textual difficulties in the narrative are to be found in v.3, which presents severe problems in that it appears to have been added to the original narrative as a replacement for something else.  Its content does not mesh well with the rest of the text, and it seems awkward in its positioning between vv.2 and 4.[33]  Furthermore, the obscure verb ידון has spawned considerable debate regarding its translation.  In v.3 Yahweh appears on the scene for the first time, stating לא ידון רוחי באדם לעלם בשגם הוא בשר.  The meaning of this declaration hinges upon the hapax-legomenon ידון.  The majority of scholars translate this verb as “remain,” based upon the LXX rendering καταμεινη, the Arabic danna (“to remain”), the Akkadian root dananu, and some post-Biblical Hebrew usage.[34]  Several Christian translations render ידון as “strive” (KJV, NASB), but this does not appear to have much etymological support.  Speiser argues for “shield” based upon the Akkadian dinanu.[35]  This understanding would drastically change the meaning of the statement, for “My Spirit shall not remain in man forever, for he is also flesh,” may suggest that the issue here is that the amount of divine spirit within man has become increased due to interbreeding with בני האלהים, and indeed, several scholars suggest such an understanding,[36] whereas “My Spirit shall not shield man forever, for he is also flesh,” could suggest that Yahweh has withheld judgment until now, but He is about to cease doing so, which has also been argued by many.[37]  Von Rad suggests “to punish” based upon a derivation from the root דון (“to be mighty; to rule”),[38] he fails to garner much support for this rendering.  A very interesting suggestion was put forth by N. H. Tur-Sinai based upon an emendation of the text to read ידור נח (“Noah [shall not] dwell”).[39]  His argument for metathesis of נ and ר, while intriguing and certainly possible, is rather unconvincing, for nothing else in the narrative has even hinted at either the Flood or Noah, and the statement בשגם הוא בשר (“for he is also flesh”) which immediately follows becomes even more awkward and seemingly unnecessary if it refers to Noah.  Tur-Sinai’s suggestion appears to be a wishful attempt to bring 6:1-4 into greater harmony with the Flood story that follows.  While far from satisfactorily settled, for the time being it appears that the best rendering proposed for ידון is “remain.”

            A second major issue regarding v.3 is how the pronouncement והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה (“but his days shall be 120 years”) should be understood.  The text itself is simple and straightforward, but because of the positioning of this narrative immediately preceding the Flood narrative, this pronouncement is often taken to indicate a probationary period of 120 years before judgment (the Flood).  Church Fathers Ephrem and Jerome argued that the present generation was to have 120 years in which to repent and avert judgment.[40]  If vv.1-4 is understood as being connected to the Flood story, then this interpretation makes perfect sense, as Speiser argues.[41]  This opinion apparently also existed as early as the translation of the LXX, which changes באדם (“with man”) to εν τοις ανθρωποις τουτοις (“with these men”), seeming to indicate only the present generation, which will perish in the Flood.  Pesher Genesis from Qumran (4Q252) also clearly indicates that 120 years was the period of time from the pronouncement until the Flood,[42] as does Tg. Onq. Gen 6:3.[43]  However, the majority view among scholars today seems to be that 120 years refers to a shortening of human life spans.  That this is indeed the case is indicated by ימיו in the Hebrew text, which must refer back to באדם.  While the LXX renders באדם as εν τοις ανθρωποις τουτοις (or was possibly based on a Hebrew text which read differently?), this is not the meaning of the present Hebrew text.  The MT clearly indicates that the days of all mankind will now be 120 years.  Westermann argues that the mixing of the divine and human was an attempt to extend human life or even gain immortality, and therefore God responds by reducing human longevity.[44]  Similarly, von Rad asserts that this is an effort to curb the spread and increase of “superhuman power of life” in humanity.[45]  Opponents point out that several persons are said to live beyond 120 years after the Flood;[46] however, it may be that the implementation of this restriction was understood to be gradual, for indeed, while several life spans after the Flood do exceed 120 years, there is a very rapid and drastic decrease in postdiluvian life spans.[47]  Sumerian king lists also indicate extraordinarily long life spans before the Flood, which decrease drastically after the Flood.[48]  This indicates that there was a tradition of decreasing human life spans following the Flood which circulated in the ancient Near East, and it seems likely that Gen 6:3 is based upon this tradition.  Therefore, its presence in this narrative is probably etiological—to explain why human longevity was shortened.

            In v.4 an obscure and enigmatic group known as the נפלים is introduced.  Their identity and role in the events here described has been and remains a matter of much speculation and debate.  V.4 states, הנפלים היו בארץ בימים ההם וגם אחרי־כן אשר יבאו בני האלהים אל־בנות האדם וילדו להם המה הגברים אשר מעולם אנשי השם (“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward, whenever [or ‘because’] the sons of God were coming into the daughters of man and they were bearing children to them—they are the mighty men who are from antiquity, men of name”).  It is unclear whether the נפלים should be understood as the children born from the unions or as an unrelated group which was simply present at the time.  The traditional understanding has been that the נפלים are the children born from the mixed unions, with the phrase וגם אחרי־כן (“and also afterwards”) often being regarded as a later addition or parenthetical clarification.[49]  Ambrose clearly stated the opinion that the נפלים were the product of angelic-human unions, which explained their great size and strength.[50]  He and virtually all ancient commentators understand נפלים to be synonymous with “giants.”  This widespread opinion, which is manifest in the fact that the LXX replaces נפלים with γιγαντες (“giants”), likely derived from the mentioning of the נפלים in Num 13:33, where it is said of them ונהי בעינינו כחנבים וכן היינו בעיניהם (“we were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and that is how we were in their eyes”).  Yet even here it appears that נפלים was an obscure word which needed to be further defined as בני ענק (“sons of Anak”).  [51]  This identification seems even more likely if הגברים is understood to refer back to נפלים, for heroes and kings in the ancient Near East were sometimes described as part-human, part-god.[52]  A good example is Gilgamesh, of whom it is said “two-thirds of him is god, [one third of him is human].”[53] 

            An alternate theory suggests that the statement הנפלים היו בארץ בימים ההם does nothing more than to state that this particular tribal group was present when these events occurred.  Indeed, if אשר is translated as “when” or “whenever”, then this argument is completely plausible.  If the text is stating that the נפלים were present when בני האלהים came to בנות האדם, then they could not have been the children they later bore.  The נפלים may even have been an earlier group of בני האלהים which had “fallen” in a previous rebellion, thus explaining their later identification as giants. [54]  The etymology of נפלים, while not entirely clear, seems obviously connected to the Hebrew root נפל, which may suggest that the נפלים themselves fell from heaven, which could lend support to this interpretation.[55]  However, CD II.19-20 states that “the Heavenly Watchers fell; they were caught because they did not keep the commandments of God.  And their sons also fell, who were as tall as cedar trees and whose bodies were like mountains.”[56]  While the interpretations of the Qumran community are not particularly authoritative for the meaning of the Biblical text, and certainly not for the original tradition, this does indicate a perception that the sons of בני האלהים “fell” in some sense, and may be related to the word נפלים.  At the very least, it seems to indicate that at Qumran, the נפלים may have been understood to be the children of בני האלהים.  1 Enoch 7:2 states that the Watchers begat the giants, and the giants begat the נפלים.[57]  While not equating נפלים with giants and while inserting a generation between בני אלהים and הנפלים, this does clearly state the opinion that the נפלים were the result of the union between בני האלהים and בנות האדם. 

            B. S. Childs proposes that אשר in v.4 should be translated as “because.”[58]  This use of אשר in the causal sense[59] would clearly indicate that the presence of the נפלים on earth was the result of the unions between בני האלהים and בנות האדם.  If Childs is correct that וגם אחרי־כן is a later explanatory addition (and this is probably the case), then this would appear to be the correct understanding of אשר.  However, the causal אשר is not necessary for this understanding.  The use of the impf and pf cons (יבאו and וילדו) implies ongoing action, [60] so that אשר could mean “whenever this was happening (יבאו), this was also happening (וילדו).”  Furthermore, Gen 10:8-9 identifies Nimrod as a גבר and also seems to link him with the rise of civilization and kingship, which may suggest that הגברים and אנשי השם refer to early kings and hero figures, such as Gilgamesh, who were considered to be semi-divine.[61]  If this is the case, then it would seem rather pointless for the נפלים to be mentioned at all here, if they are not in any way connected with the rest of the narrative.  That they are understood as giants both in Num 13:33 and in virtually all early interpretations and translations strongly suggests some sort of supernatural quality,[62] and their presence in this narrative would be far too coincidental if they are not the offspring in question.  Rather, it appears that the function of this narrative is etiological, explaining the origin of the נפלים/giants.[63]

            Having examined the individual elements of the narrative, it is now worthwhile to consider how the tradition as a whole cam to be a part of the Biblical text.  Since the primary function of Gen 6:1-4 is to provide an etiology of the נפלים (who are equated with superhuman heroes born from unions between divine beings and humans), it is important to note that a close parallel to a race of giants is found in Hesiod’s legend of the Titans who battled with Zeus.[64]  Even ancient Jewish interpreters saw a connection between the Greek myths and the Biblical account.[65]  A Phoenician parallel is reported by Philo of Byblos,[66] and there is now good evidence suggesting that the Phoenicians received the legend from a Hittite version of an older Hurrian tradition.[67]  However, too much importance should not be read into the significance of stories of giants, for Gen 6:1-4 does not directly identify the נפלים as giants.  This identification rests upon Num 13:33, which appears to have led later interpreters and translators to equate נפלים with giants.  The actual Genesis narrative itself only identifies the נפלים as גברים and אנשי השם, which seems to indicate mythic heroes of antiquity, probably the earliest kings.[68]  This identification is supported by Gen 10:8-9, which calls Nimrod a גבר and associates him with the rise of civilization and kingship.[69]  Here parallels within ancient Near Eastern literature begin to arise.  It is written of the mythic Mesopotamian king/hero Gilgamesh that “two-thirds of him is god, [one-third of him is human],”[70] which seems very similar to the understanding of the נפלים as half-divine, half-human.  Furthermore, Egyptian kings were considered to be the offspring of gods, as is evident from the title “Son of Re” which was borne by Merneptah.[71]  In one Canaanite myth, El is said to have seduced two human women, who then give birth to the gods Shahar and Shalim.[72]  The idea of interbreeding between gods and humans is also quite common in ancient Greek mythology, some of which, as has already been noted, is based upon Near Eastern traditions.[73]  All of this taken together suggests that a tradition of gods having offspring with human partners was quite common in the ancient Near East, as was the idea that kings and great heroes were the children born out of such unions. 

            Another motif which is common in the mythology of the Ancient Near East is that of a divine rebellion, in which a part of the heavenly assembly of gods revolts against the head of the pantheon and are consequently defeated.  The Mesopotamian Creation Epic tells of Marduk’s vanquish of Tiamat and Kingu for “stir[ing] up conflict.”[74]  Similar is the battle of Zeus against the Titans (who may be more akin to בני האלהים than to הנפלים) in Greek mythology.[75]  There also appears to have been some sort of tradition of a rebellion of the בני אלים in Canaanite mythology, as evidenced by texts from Ugarit, in which the rebellion is suppressed and the rebels are imprisoned in Sheol.[76]  Jewish apocalyptic literature also contains a tradition of the rebellious בני האלהים being imprisoned in the earth as punishment for their sin (1 Enoch 10:4-6, 11-13).[77]  Here we may see traces of an awareness of Gen 6:1-4 as a part of a larger tradition, for nothing in these 4 verses even hints at any type of judgment on בני האלהים.  The attestation of a Canaanite tradition of a heavenly rebellion for which the culprits are imprisoned in Sheol (in the earth?) parallel to the Jewish tradition is surely not coincidental.  Either the writer of 1 Enoch was aware of the Ugaritic tradition and based his story on it as a supplement to the Genesis account, or both the Jewish and Ugaritic accounts can be traced back to a common tradition, which presumably was also the basis of Gen 6:1-4. 

            1 Enoch 6:6 identifies Mt. Hermon, the northernmost point in Israel, as the point of descent of בני האלהים to earth and the location at which the rebellion began.  The great similarity between בני האלהים and the Canaanite pantheon (בני אל or בני אלים) suggests that this element of the Hebrew tradition was based upon the Canaanite tradition.[78]  Furthermore, the best parallels to the Genesis account have come from Ugaritic texts.[79]  The Hittite/Hurrian account places the battle between Teshub and Ullikummi at Mt. Casius, near Ugarit, which is also the location of the battle between Zeus and Typhon, which this account parallels.[80]  Morgenstern points out the appearance of Mt. Casius as the “mountain of assembly” in Isa 14:12, which proclaims to one הילל בן־שחר that he has fallen and is being cast down into Sheol and the abyss.[81]  When one considers that שחר was the name of one of El’s children born from a human woman according to a Ugaritic tradition,[82] it becomes seemingly undeniable that the Israelites acquired the tradition of the rebellion of בני האלהים from Phoenicia.  The Phoenician tradition, however, appears to have been based upon a Hittite version of an older Hurrian myth, which itself contains many Mesopotamian elements (such as the names of Babylonian gods).[83]  Thus the tradition of a rebellion of בני האלהים, while directly acquired by Israel from a Canaanite/Phoenecian source, is ultimately of Mesopotamian origin.  The second major element of the narrative, the נפלים as semi-divine heroes born from unions between בני האלהים and בנות האדם, appears most closely related to figures such as Gilgamesh, which appear throughout the Ancient Near East.[84]  Because this motif is present throughout the Ancient Near East, it is difficult to determine where Israel acquired it from.  It could have been inherited from the Canaanite culture into which Israel settled following the Exodus or from Egypt or even from Mesopotamia via the Patriarchs.  The tradition is old enough to have entered Hebrew thought at any stage and widespread enough to have come from anywhere.  The name נפלים seems dependent upon the rebellion/fall tradition acquired from Phoenecia, but the idea of semi-divine גברים is most similar to Gilgamesh, so ultimate derivation from the Mesopotamian tradition seems most likely, even though there may have been intermediaries between Mesopotamia and Israel.