Published in Grace Theological Journal 5

Published in Grace Theological Journal 5.1 (1984): 13-36.

The AncientExegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4

Robert C. Newman

The exegesis of Gen 6:2, 4 in ancient times is surveyedamong extant sources, both Jewish and Christian. These interpretations are categorized as either"supernatural" or "nonsupernatural" depending upon theidentification of the "sons of God." It is observed that the interpretation of "sons ofGod" as angels and "Nephilim" as giants dominates. This interpretation also seems to bethat of the NT, almost certainly in Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4, and probably in 1 Cor11:10 and Matt 22:30. Somesuggestions regarding the source of this interpreation and its validity aremade.

* * *

Now itcame about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughterswere born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men werebeautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spiritshall not strive with men forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless hisdays shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and alsoafterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they borechildren to them. Those were themighty men who were of old, men of renown (Gen 6:1-4, NASB).

This passage has been a center of controversy for at leasttwo millennia. The present form ofthe dispute is rather paradoxical. On the one hand, liberal theologians, who deny the miraculous, claim theaccount pictures a supernatural liaison between divine beings and humans.[1] Conservative theologians, thoughbelieving implicitly in angels and demons, tend to deny the passage any suchimport.[2] The liberal position is moreunderstandable with the realization that they deny the historicity of theincident and see it as a borrowing from pagan mythology. The rationale behind the conservativeview is more complex: thoughpartially in reaction to liberalism, the view is older than liberal theology.Moreover, the conservative camp is not unanimous in this interpretation;several expositors see supernatural liaisons here, but ones which reallyoccurred.[3]

The concern in this article, however, is not to trace thehistory of the interpretation of this passage, nor (basically) to discussmodern arguments for and against various views. Rather, the concern is to see how it was understood inantiquity and (if possible) why it was so understood.

Gen 6:1-4 seems to be something of an "erraticboulder" for all interpreters, standing apart to some extent from itscontext. The preceding chapterconsists of a 32-verse genealogy extending from Adam through his son Seth toNoah and his sons. God ismentioned in three connections only: he creates man (5:1), walks with Enoch (5:22, 24) and curses the ground(5:29). If we include the last twoverses of chapter 4, we pick up two more references: Seth is God's replacement for Abel (4:25); and men begin tocall upon the LORD at the time of Enosh (4:26). Following our passage, the context leads quickly into theflood, beginning with God's observation that both man and beast must be wipedout because man's wickedness has become very great.

From the passage and its context a number of questionsarise. Who are the "sons ofGod" mentioned in 6:2, 4? Thephrase occurs nowhere else in the context or even in Genesis. Who are the "daughters ofmen"? This phrase at leastseems to be related to v 1, where "men" have "daughters"born to them. Why does the textsay "sons of God" and "daughters of men" rather than"sons of men" and "daughters of God"? How is God's reaction in vv 3 and 5related to all this? Are thesemarriages the last straw in a series of sins leading to the flood or not? Who are the "Nephilim" in v4? Are they the offspring of thesons of God and daughters of men or not? Are they the "mighty men" mentioned in the same verse? Is it their sin which brings on the flood?

The scope of this article does not permit an investigationof all these matters. We shallconcentrate on two: the phrase בניהאלהים, usually translated "sons ofGod" (vv 2, 4), and the word נפלים, heretransliterated "Nephilim" (v 4). Though other matters are of interest and will influenceone's interpretation, these two seem to constitute an interpretive watershed.

For ease of discussion we shall divide the variousinterpretive schemes into two broad categories which we label"supernatural" and "nonsupernatural" (this latter ratherclumsy term being used to avoid the connotation of "proper" which"natural" would give). The supernatural category will include any views in which the sons ofGod are not human, and the nonsupernatural those in which they are human. Within each category we shall proceedmore or less chronologically from the earliest extant examples to lateantiquity, giving greater attention to earlier materials. The NT will be omitted from thispreliminary survey, but we shall return to it later to see if it favors one ofthese interpretations. Thereafterwe shall examine possible exegetical bases for the various views and seek todraw some conclusions regarding not only what was done in antiquity but how weshould interpret the passage. Wehope also to provide some general methodological suggestions.

The SupernaturalInterpretation

Among extant materials interpreting Gen 6:2, 4, thesupernatural view is older, though we cannot be sure in which work it appearsfirst, the LXX or 1 Enoch.

LXX

The old Greek version of the Pentateuch, traditionally knownas the LXX, was probably produced in the middle of the 3^rd centuryBC.[4] Extant MSS of Genesis render בניהאלהים variously asυιοι του θεου andαγγελοι τουθεου.[5] The latter alternative clearly movesthe text in a supernatural direction, even thoughαγγελος sometimes means a human messenger(e.g., Gen 32:3, 6). This variantis already cited and discussed by Philo,[6]so apparently predates the 1^st century AD. In Gen 6:4 נפלים is translatedγιγαντες without textualvariation. The Greek word, usuallyrendered "giant," indicates a warrior of large stature[7]and translates גבר in Gen 10:8, 9.

1 Enoch

Possibly older than the LXX is the book of Enoch, an apocalyptic work of great diversity organizedaroud revelations allegedly given to the patriarch of this name. The particular material we areconcerned with is thought to be pre-Maccabean by Charles and from the early 2^ndcentury BC by Eissfeldt. In anycase, fragments from this part of Enoch have been found at Qumran in a style of handwriting that dates to thepre-Christian era.[8]

The first five chapters of Enoch present a mostly poetic picture of the coming of Godto earth in judgment and what this will mean for the wicked and therighteous. Chapter 6 begins:

And it came to pass when the childrenof men had multiplied, in those days were born unto them beautiful and comelydaughters. And the angels, the childrenof heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let uschoose wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' (1 Enoch 6:1-2)

The account goes on (chapters 6-8) to tell how two hundredangels came down on Mt. Hermon, led by their chief Semjaza, took wives, taughtthem science, magic and technology, and begot by them giants over a milehigh! Along with Semjaza,principal attention is given to the angel Azazel, who taught mankind metallurgyfor weapons and jewelry.

The good angels report these things to God (chapter 9), whosends Uriel to warn Noah of the coming flood, Gabriel to destroy the giants,Raphael to take charge of Azazel, and Michael to deal with Semjaza and hisfellows. The instructions given toRaphael and Michael are of particular interest:

Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast himinto darkness: and make an openingin the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jaggedrocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and coverhis face that he may not see light. And on the great day of judgment he shall be cast into the fire. (1Enoch 10:4-6)

Go, bind Semjaza and his associates whohave united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them inall their uncleanness. And whentheir sons [the giants] have slain one another, and they have seen thedestruction of the beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in thevalleys of the earth, till the day of their judgment and of the consummation,till the judgment that is for ever and ever is consummated. (1 Enoch 10:11-12)

Thus Enoch presentsan interpretation of Genesis 6 in terms of angelic cohabitation with women,resulting in gigantic offspring. The angels who sinned are bound to await the final judgment.

Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees [Jub.] is an expanded retelling of Genesis and part of Exodus. It provides an elaborate chronologybased on sabbatical cycles and jubilees, plus a theory that the patriarchsobserved various Mosaic regulations even before they were given at Sinai. Charles and Tedesche date the book inthe last half of the 2^nd century BC, while Eissfeldt puts it about100 BC. More recently VanderKamhas presented detailed arguments for a somewhat earlier date, around 150 BC.[9]

Though apparently dependent on 1 Enoch or one of its sources, Jubilees differs from Enoch on the reason for the angels' descent to earth:

… and he called his name Jared; for inhis days the angels of the Lord descended on the earth, those who are named theWatchers, that they should instruct the children of men, and that they shoulddo judgment and uprightness on the earth. (Jub. 4:15)

Chapter 5 follows with an expansion of Genesis 6, in whichthese Watchers cohabit with women and the offspring produced are giants. The sinning angels are not named, butGod's response to their sin is described:

And against the angels whom He had sentupon the earth, He was exceedingly wroth, and He gave command to root them outof all their dominion, and He made us [one of the good angels is speaking] tobind them in the depths of the earth, and behold they are bound in the midst ofthem and are (kept) separate. (Jub. 5:6)

Other Pseudepigrapha

The other works included in Jewish pseudepigrapha whichrefer to this view are late. Both 2Enoch 18 and 2 Baruch [Bar] 56 mention the angels of Genesis 6 as beingpunished by torment, the former indicating that they are under earth, thelatter as being in chains.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [T. 12 Patr.] make reference to this view more than once, but thedate and nature of these works are problematical since they are Christian intheir present form. Whether theTestaments are basically pre-Christian with some later editing, or basically Christianusing some older Jewish materials, is still hotly debated.[10] In any case T. Reub. 5:5-7 presents an unusual variant of thesupernatural view: the actualcohabitation is between humans, but the spiritual influence of the angelsproduces giants:

Flee, therefore, fornication, mychildren, and command your wives and your daughters, that they adorn not theirheads and faces to deceive the mind: because every woman who uses these wiles has been reserved for eternalpunishment. For thus they alluredthe Watchers who were before the flood; for as these continually beheld them,they lusted after them, and they conceived the act in their mind; for theychanged themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them when they werewith their husbands. And the womenlusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants, for theWatchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven.

T. Naph. 3:3-5 givesa supernatural interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 in a grouping of examples whichparallels those in Jude and 2 Peter:

The Gentiles went astray, and forsookthe Lord, and changed their order, and obeyed stocks and stones, spirits ofdeceit. But ye shall not be so, mychildren, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and inall created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom,which changed the order of nature. In like manner the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, whomthe Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account he made the earth withoutinhabitants and fruitless.

Qumran

Among the materials found in caves near the Dead Sea, boththe Genesis Apocryphon [1QapGen] and the Damascus Document [CD] refer to thesupernatural interpretation. Theformer is a retelling of Genesis in popular style, extant only in onefragmented MS, which has been dated paleographically to the late 1^stcentury BC or early 1^st century AD.[11] On the basis of a detailed comparisonof contents with 1 Enoch and Jubilees, Vermes believes that apGen is older and a sourcefor both, "the most ancient midrash of all." Fitzmyer disagrees, dating apGen in thesame era as the extant MS.[12] Certainly it is no later than the Romandestruction of Qumran about AD 68. In what little remains of the scroll's column 2, Lamech is fearful thathis wife's pregnancy (her child will be Noah) is due to "the Watchers andthe Holy Ones," but she stoutly denies it.

The CD is a sort of covenant-renewal document: the history of the community(presumably Qumran) is sketched, and its members are exhorted to covenantfaithfulness. Cross and Vermesdate the work to about 100 BC.[13] Speaking of the "guiltyinclination" and "eyes of lust," the author says:

For through them, great men have goneastray and mighty heroes have stumbled from former times until now. Because they walked in the stubbornnessof their heart the Heavenly Watchers fell; they were caught because they didnot keep the commandments of God. And their sons also fell who were as tall as cedar trees and whosebodies were like mountains. (CD 2:16-19)

Philo

In his treatise On the Giants, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC – AD 50)[14]quotes the Old Greek version of this passage with the readingsαγγελοι τουθεου andγιγαντες. Unfortunately Philo is not always a clear writer. Apparently he takes the literal meaningof the verses to refer to angels and women since, immediately after quoting Gen6:2, he says:

It is Moses' custom to give the name ofangels to those whom other philosophers call demons [or spirits], souls that iswhich fly and hover in the air. And let no one suppose that what is here said is a myth.[15]

After a lengthy discussion arguing for the existence ofnon-corporeal spirits, however, Philo proceeds to allegorize the passage:

So, then, it is no myth at all ofgiants that he [Moses] sets before us; rather he wishes to show you that somemen are earth-born, some heaven-born, and some God-born.[16]

Roughly speaking, these three categories Philo enumeratescorrespond to people primarily concerned about the physical, the intellectualand the mystical, respectively. Philo's sympathies definitely lie with the second and third. He has no interest in stories aboutphysical mating, and is probably best understood as rejecting the literalmeaning of the passage.[17] If so, we have in Philo a literalexegesis which gives the supernatural interpretation and an allegoricalexegesis which provides a very unusual sort of nonsupernatural view.

Josephus

From late in the 1^st century AD comes the JewishAntiquities of Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100). The first eleven books of the Antiquitiesretell the biblical history with variouselaborations based on Jewish traditions. In book one, just before recounting the flood, Josephus says:

For many angels of God now consortedwith women and begat sons who were overbearing and disdainful of every virtue,such confidence had they in their strength; in fact, the deeds that traditionascribes to them resemble the audacious exploits told by the Greeks of thegiants.[18]

In addition to this clearly supernatural interpretation,Franxman sees evidence for a nonsupernatural interpretation involvedSethite-Cainite intermarriage: inthe immediately preceding sentences of Josephus, we are told that the Sethitescontinue virtuous for seven generations and then turn away from God and becomezealous for wickedness, a feature of later Sethite-Cainite views.[19] Yet nothing about intermarriage ofSethites and Cainites appears in the extant copies of Josephus, so Franxmanmust postulate this in a non-extant source he used.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

It is difficult to know where to place the targumim. These Aramaic translations of Scripture(often paraphrases or even commentaries) have an oral background in thesynagogue services of pre-Christian times, but their extant written forms seemto be much later.[20] Among these, the TargumPseudo-Jonathan [Tg. Ps.-J.] presents at least a partially supernaturalinterpretation. Although in itsextant form this targum is later than the rise of Islam in the 7^thcentury AD, early materials also appear in it.[21] In view of the rabbinic reactions tothe supernatural view by the 2^nd century AD (see below), our passageis probably one of its early parts:

And it came to pass when the sons ofmen began to multiply on the face of the ground, and beautiful daughters wereborn to them, that the sons of the great ones saw that the daughters of menwere beautiful, with eyes painted and hair curled, walking in nakedness offlesh, and they conceived lustful thoughts; and they took them wives of all theychose. … Shamhazai and Azael fellfrom heaven and were on earth in those days, and also after that, when the sonsof the great ones came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children tothem: the same are called men ofthe world, the men of renown. (Tg. Ps.-J.6:1-2, 4)

Here the phrase "sons of the great ones" mayreflect a nonsupernatural interpretation, but the reference to Shamhazai andAzael falling from heaven certainly does not. The names given here are close to those in 1 Enoch, considering that the latter has gone through twotranslations to reach its extant Ethiopic version. Notice also that the Nephilim are here identified with theangels rather than their offspring as in Enoch, Jubileesand Josephus.

As we shall see below, the supernatural interpretation waseventually superseded in Jewish circles by a nonsupernatural one, probably inthe century following the fall of Jerusalem. Yet remnants of the former can still be seen in later rabbinicliterature.

Early Christian References

Passing over the New Testament for the time being, we findabundant early evidence for the supernatural interpretation in Christiancircles. Justin Martyr (AD100-160) says, in his Second Apology:

God, when He had made the whole world,and subjected things earthly to man … committed the care of men and of allthings under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed thisappointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who arethose that are called demons.[22]

Justin goes on to tell how the human race was subdued to theangels by being introduced to magic, fear, false worship and lust, and how theywere trained in all sorts of wickedness. Justin accepts the pagan mythologies as having some historical veracity,describing the acts of these angels and demons rather than the gods.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) alludes to thesupernatural interpretation in his Miscellanies: "… the angels whohad obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the womenthe secrets which had come to their knowledge…."[23]

Tertullian (AD 160-220) speaks of the incident severaltimes. In On Idolatry 9, he says that "those angels, the desertersfrom God, the lovers of women," revealed astrology to mankind. In his work Against Marcion 5.18 he argues that Paul's reference to"spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies" (Eph 6:12) does not refer toMarcion's wicked creator-god, but to the time "when angels were entrappedinto sin by the daughters of men." And in his treatise On the Veiling of Virgins 7, he argues that Paul's reference to veiling"because of the angels" (1 Cor 11:10) refers to this incident.

Lactantius (AD 240-320), in his Divine Institutes 2.15, teaches that God sent the angels to earth toteach mankind and protect them from Satan, but that Satan "enticed them tovices and polluted them by intercourse with women." This is closer to Jubilees than to Enoch. The sinning angels,Lactantius continues, could not return to heaven, so they became demons of theair. Their half-breed offspringcould not enter hell (hades?), so they became demons of the earth. All of this Lactantius connects withpagan mythology and the occult.

Similar materials are found in the Clementine Homilies 8.11-15 and the Instructions of Commodianus (chapter 3), neither of which islikely to predate the 3^rd century.[24] The Homilies add the unusual idea that the angels had firsttransformed themselves into jewels and animals to convict mankind ofcovetousness. Perhaps this wasderived from some of the stories about Zeus, as the writer says, "Thesethings also the poets among yourselves, by reason of fearlessness, sing, asthey befell, attributing to one the many and diverse doings of all"(8:12).

TheNonsupernatural Interpretation

The earliest extant examples of the nonsupernaturalinterpretations of Gen 6:2, 4 come from the 1^st century AD and thusare later than the earliest specimens of the supernatural interpretation. Since all come centuries after Genesiswas written, it is not possible to be sure which is the oldest.

First Century Sources

As mentioned previously, Philo prefers an allegoricalinterpretation of Gen 6:1-4 in which God-oriented persons (sons of God) mayfall and become earth-centered (beget giants, the "earth-born") byconsorting with vice and passion (daughters of men).

The Biblical Antiquitiesof Pseudo-Philo is another work which retells biblical history, in this casefrom Adam to Saul. By an unknownwriter, it was attributed to Philo because it circulated with his genuineworks. It is usually dated shortlybefore or after the fall of Jerusalem.[25] Chapter 3 begins:

And it came to pass when men had begunto multiply on the earth, that beautiful daughters were born unto them. And the sons of God saw the daughtersof men that they were exceeding fair, and took them wives of all that they hadchosen. And God said: My spirit shall not judge among allthese men forever, because they are of flesh; but their years shall be 120. (Bib.Ant. 3:1-2)

On the surface this does not appear to be an interpretationat all, and perhaps it is not. Thewriter does not mention the Nephilim, but this may be merely a case ofepitomizing. Yet the rendering ofthe biblical ידון (Gen 6:3) by "judge" atleast foreshadows the Targum Neofiti, tobe discussed below. Likewise therabbinical exegesis of Gen 6:2 – "they took wives of all theychose" – is anticipated in an earlier remark of Pseudo-Philo:"And at that time, when they had begun to do evil, every one with hisneighbor's wife, defiling them, God was angry" (2:8).

Second Century Sources

Three translations of the OT into Greek were made in the 2^ndcentury AD: one by Aquila, astudent of R. Akiba, about AD 130;[26]another by Symmachus, said to be an Ebionite, late in the century;[27]and a third by Theodotion, of whom little is known. Theodotion reads υιοι τουθεου and γιγαντεςlike many MSS of the LXX, adding nothing new and not clearly eithersupernatural or nonsupernatural.[28] Aquila has υιοιτων θεων, "sons of the gods,"which looks more like an attempt to avoid the problem of the one true Godhaving sons than it does a preference for either of the interpretations we areconsidering. Symmachus hasυιοι τωνδυναστευοντων,meaning either "sons of the powerful" or "sons of the rulers,"rather like the targumic views to be discussed below and that of MeredithKline.[29] For the Nephilim, Aquila hasεπιπιπτοντες, meaning "thosewho fall upon," which might be either supernatural "those who fallupon (earth)" or nonsupernatural "those who attack." Symmachus hasβιαιοι, "violent ones." Both the second translation of Aquila'srendering and that of Symmachus fit Gen 6:11 – "the earth was filledwith violence."

The Targumim

Targum Neofiti [Targ.Neof.] is the only complete extant MS ofthe Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. The MS is from the 16^th century, but its text has beenvariously dated from the 1^st to the 4^th centuries AD.[30] In place of the Hebrew בניהאלהים is the Aramaic דייניאבני, "sons of the judges," using a cognate noun tothe verb ידון appearing in the MT of Gen 6:3.[31] Nephilim is rendered by גיבריה,"warriors." The text ofthe targum seems to reflect a nonsupernatural interpretation, unless we pressthe last sentence of 6:4 – "these are the warriors that (were there)from the beginning of the world, warriors of wondrous renown" – soas to exclude human beings. However, the MS has many marginal notes, which presumably represent oneor more other MSS of the Palestinian Targum.[32] One such note occurs at 6:4 andreads: "There were warriorsdwelling on earth in those days, and also afterwards, after the sons of theangels had joined (in wedlock) the daughters of the sons."[33] Thus the text of Targ. Neof. seems to be nonsupernatural while a marginal note isclearly supernatural.

The Targum of Onqelos[Tg. Onq.] became the officialtargum to the Pentateuch for Judaism. According to the Babylonian Talmud [Bab. Talm.] (Meg. 3a) it was composed early in the 2^ndcentury AD, but this seems to be a confusion with the Greek translation ofAquila. Although the relationsbetween the various targumim are complicated by mutual influence intransmission, Onq. was probablycompleted before AD 400 in Babylonia using Palestinian materials as a basis.[34] In our passage Onq. reads רברביא בני,"sons of the great ones," probably referring to rulers.[35] For Nephilim it has גיבריא. Etheridge's translation"giants" for this is possible, but not necessary, as Aberbach andGrossfeld prefer "mighty ones."[36]

Christian Interpretations

Meanwhile, the nonsupernatural interpretation begins to showup in Christian circles. JuliusAfricanus (AD 160-240) wrote a History of the World which has survived only in fragments quoted by laterauthors. In one of these Juliussays:

When men multiplied on earth, theangels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found "sons ofGod." What is meant by theSpirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons ofGod on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him,even down to the Saviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are namedthe seed of man, as having nothing divine in them….[37]

There is no context to work with here, but it sounds asthough Julius has derived this view on his own.

Augustine (AD 354-430) discusses Gen 6:1-4 in his City ofGod. His basic approach is seen in 15.22:

It was the order of this love, then,this charity or attachment, which the sons of God disturbed when they forsookGod and were enamored of the daughters of men. And by these two names (sons of God and daughters of men)the two cities [city of God and city of man] are sufficientlydistinguished. For though theformer were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of anothername by grace.

Augustine goes on (15.23) to admit that angels do appear inbodies, and that stories were at his time being told of women being assaultedby sylvans and fauns, but he says "I could by no means believe that God'sholy angels could at that time have so fallen." He interprets 2 Pet 2:4 as referring to the primeval fall ofSatan. The word "angel,"he points out, can with scriptural warrant be applied to men. Besides, the giants were already onearth when these things happened, and so not the offspring of the sons of Godand daughters of men. Also thegiants need not be of enormous stature but only so large as sometimes seentoday. God's response in Gen 6:3is directed against men, so that is what the "angels" were. He dismisses with contempt "the fablesof those scriptures which are called apocryphal."

Rabbinic Literature

The Mishnah is a concise topical summary of the oralrabbinic legal traditions written about AD 200. It contains no reference to Gen 6:1-4 to the best of myknowledge, but this is not surprising in view of the preponderance of halakah rather than haggadah therein.

The Midrash Rabbah [Midr. Rab.] is a collection of interpretive comments on the Pentateuch and thefive Megillot (Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and Lamentations). The earliest of these is Genesis Rabbah[Gen. Rab.], which Strack puts"not much later than the Palestinian Talmud" (ca. AD 400) and Epsteinsees as mainly from the 3^rd century AD.[38] We have an extended discussion of ourpassage in Gen. Rab. 26.5-7. R. Simeon b. Yohai (AD 130-160) isquoted as identifying the "sons of God" as "sons of nobles"and as cursing all who call them "sons of God." The reason for their title "sonsof God" is their long life spans. To explain why marrying women would be such a sin as the contextindicates, R. Judan (AD 325) explains that טבת, "beautiful" (Gen 6:2)should be taken as a singular adjective: the noblemen enjoyed the bride before the bridegroom could. The phrase "they were beautiful"meant they took virgins; "they took wives for themselves" meant theytook married women; "whomever they chose" meant they indulged inhomosexuality and bestiality. Regarding the interpretation of "Nephilim," the rabbisapparently used Num 13:33, where the term is associated with the Anakim at thetime of the Exodus. With this hintand the aid of Deut 2:10-11, 20-21, they obtained five other names for theNephilim by which to describe them using etymological word-play. Two of these are rather supernaturalsounding: "Gibborim: … themarrow of each one's thigh bone was eighteen cubits long"; Anakim: … theirnecks reached the globe of the sun." The term "Nephilim" is understood as teaching that "theyhurled (הפילו) the world down, themselves fell (נפלו)from the world, and filled the world with abortions (נפילים)through their immorality."

A few scattered references occur in the Babylonian Talmud, acompilation of the Mishnah and its commentary finished in the 6^thcentury AD. A relatively clearallusion to the nonsupernatural view occurs in Sanh. 108a, in a context of the corruption of thegeneration at the time of the flood. R. Jose (AD 130-160) is quoted:

They waxed haughty only on account ofcovetousness of the eyeball, which is like water, as it is written, And theytook wives from all they chose. Therefore he punished them by water, which is like the eyeball, as it iswritten, All the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows ofheaven were opened.

There is a word-play here on עין, whichcan mean either "fountain" or "eye." The main point, however, is that thepunishment was designed to fit the crime. Thus those who died in the flood are understood to be those who took thewives. If the attribution to R.Jose here is trustworthy, then this view was in circulation by the middle ofthe 2^nd century AD, in agreement with the testimony of Symmachus andGen. Rab.

Elsewhere in the Talmud there are scattered remnants of thesupernatural view. Yoma 67b refers to the scapegoat being called Azazelbecause it atones for the "affair of Uza and Aza'el," proabably areference to the Shamhazai and Azazel of 1 Enoch and Tg. Ps.-J.[39] Nid.61a speaks of an Ahijah, son of Shamhazai.

New TestamentInterpretation

The supernatural interpretation clearly existed before NTtimes, as did Philo's peculiar nonsupernatural view. Whether or not the later rabbinic view (that the sons of Godwere judges or noblemen) or the later Christian view (that the sons of God wereSethites) existed at this time, we cannot say, but there is no positiveevidence for them.

What does the NT have to say? Does it refer to Gen 6:2, 4 at all? If so, how does it interpret thepassage? First, unlike hundreds ofother OT passages, the NT nowhere explicitly quotes this passage. Any NT reference will therefore have tobe merely an allusion. What willcount as an allusion? Proponentsof a nonsupernatural view will be at something of a disadvantage: references to the wickedness of men atthe flood are not decisive in favor of the nonsupernatural view, but referencesto wicked angels will have to be assigned to some other event if this view isto stand.

2 Peter 2:4

For if God did not spare angels whenthey sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness,reserved for judgment …

Is this a reference to Genesis 6, or to the primeval fall ofSatan before Eden as proposed by Augustine? This example precedes a reference to the flood and to Sodomand Gomorrah, so the order would be chronological in either case. It is given as an example of judgmentto the readers of the epistle. Examples, when not explained, can be presumed well-known to the originalreaders. The other two examples(flood, Sodom) are both well-known because they occur in Scripture. The primeval fall, however, would bealmost totally inference, whereas the supernatural view would see this as apopular understanding of Scripture at the time. Certainly some measure of popularity is to be inferred fromits occurrence in the pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus.

The word "pits" (σιροις)is a variant; some MSS read σειραις,"chains." Either wordwould fit the description of the angels' punishment in 1 Enoch and Jubilees, but this must be a new revelation (which happens to match an old viewof Genesis 6!) on the nonsupernatural view. Similarly for the details about "darkness" and theangels' being "reserved for judgment." The verb translated "cast into hell" is ταρταροω,derived from Tartarus, "a subterranean place lower than Hades where divinepunishment was meted out."[40]

This passage seems strongly to support the supernaturalinterpretation of Genesis 6, even though it raises problems regarding the extradetail it shares with Enoch and Jubilees not found in Genesis. We will address this question later.

Jude 6

And angels who did not keep their owndomain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds underdarkness for the judgment of the great day.

Jude 14-15 contains a quotation that appears almostword-for-word in 1 Enoch 1:9,[41]so it is difficult to argue that Jude knew nothing of 1 Enoch 6. Allthe features of Jude 6 fit 1 Enochbetter than they do Jubilees,where the angels were on earth before sinning, and were even sent there byGod. To explain Jude 6 of theprimeval fall, one must see further new revelation here also, namely that thisfall involved leaving the οικητηριον,"dwelling" or "abode." On the other hand, this is not necessary for thesupernatural view, as the angels would at least have to come to earth to gettheir wives (Gen 6:2), and their offspring the Nephilim are explicitly said tobe "on earth" (Gen 6:4).

In addition, Jude's next example (v 7) of Sodom and Gomorrahseems to refer back to this example when it says "they [Sodom andGomorrah] in the same way as these [angels] indulged in gross immorality andwent after strange flesh." One might seek to avoid this by reading "they [the cities aroundSodom and Gomorrah] in the same way as these [Sodom and Gomorrah] indulged…" But "these" is τουτοις,which more naturally refers to the angels (masculine) than to Sodom andGomorrah, as the latter have just been referred to in the same verse by thefeminine pronoun αυτας. Likewise "gross immorality" and "strangeflesh" are two points of real parallelism between the violenthomosexuality of Sodom and the angel-human liaisons of the supernaturalinterpretation. It seems that Jude6 strongly indicates a supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4.

1 Corinthians 11:10

Therefore the woman ought to have (asymbol of) authority on her head, because of the angels.

This verse has puzzling elements for any interpreter becauseof its briefness and lack of explanation. So little is known about the activity of angels that one cannot rule outsome obscure allusion to the presence of good angels at Christian worship, whowould be offended by unsubmissive women.[42] Yet one can easily find more seriousoffenses for the angels to be upset about in the Corinthian worship services,e.g., misuse of tongues (chapters 12-14) and disorderly conduct at the Lord'sSupper (11:17-34). Yet thesupernatural interpretation of Genesis 6 would supply an excellent reason whythis phrase would occur in this context and the statement would become far lesscryptic. Tertullian so understoodthe passage by about AD 200. Thisunderstanding might also fit the context tangentially, with woman being madefor man (v 9) perhaps suggesting she was not made for angels, and the veilingindicating she is under the authority of her father or husband.

1 Peter 3:19-20

For Christ also died for sins … that Hemight bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive inthe Spirit, in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits (now) inprison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in thedays of Noah …

This, too, is a puzzling passage which bristles withuncertainties no matter how one interprets Genesis 6:1-4. Yet it seems clearly to point tospirits disobedient at the time of Noah. The word "spirit" may have been chosen by Peter to picturedisembodied men (cf. Luke 8:55; Acts 7:59), but it could also refer to orinclude non-humans. If the passageconcerns a "descent into hell," the supernatural interpretation mightat least suggest a rationale for singling out those particular spiritsassociated with the time of Noah: the events of Genesis 6:1-4 may have been an attempt to thwart orpre-empt the incarnation. Byitself the passage hardly proves the NT favors the supernatural interpretation.

Matthew 22:30

For in the resurrection they neithermarry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.

This is probably the most common passage on which thesupernatural interpretation is refuted.[43] It is quite naturally understood toteach that angels cannot marry and therefore they never have. Likewise, the terminology recalls Gen6:2, since "to take a wife to oneself" is a standard OT idiom formarriage. But perhaps the term"angels" is intentionally qualified by the phrase "inheaven." In the supernaturalinterpretation it was not the angels in heaven that took wives, but those wholeft heaven (cf. Jude 6: "abandoned their abode") and came to earthto do so. This would not be soobscure an allusion in NT times as it seems to us today if the supernaturalinterpretation were then common knowledge as the evidence indicates. The same phrase "in heaven"occurs in the parallel passage in Mark (12:25). It does not occur in Luke (20:36), but the context stronglyimplies good angels are in view.

Other New Testament Passages

No other passages strongly favor either interpretation. References to the abyss – as anunpleasant abode for demons (Luke 8:31), as a prison for some sort ofsupernatural locusts (Rev 9:1-11), and as the source for the beast (Rev 11:7)– are consistent with either view, though somewhat parallel to thebinding beneath the earth described in Enoch and Jubilees. So isthe reference to the binding of Satan in Revelation 20. A Sethite-Cainite view of Gen 6:1-4 mightserve as a basis for Paul's remarks about mixed marriages in 1 Cor 7:9, 15, butthese could easily be generalized from OT regulations against intermarriagewith Gentiles. In spite of theinterpretation commonly given to Matt 22:30 and parallels, the evidence seemsstrong that the NT adopts a supernatural interpretation of Gen 6:1-4.

Sources of theInterpretations

Here we move from the solid ground of extant sources to thethin ice of speculation. Since theauthors rarely write anything about their sources or methods, we are left toinferences from what they do write. Patte summarizes the situation nicely for the Qumran commentators:

At first one wonders what is the actualrelationship between the biblical text quoted and its interpretation. The author is giving us the results ofhis use of Scripture without emphasizing the process itself.[44]

Studies in the NT and the intertestamental literatureindicate that this situation is not confined to Qumran.

Several sources for these interpretations can beimagined: (1) pure invention; (2)borrowing from another source, whether an earlier writing, an oral tradition,or even pagan mythology; (3) extra-biblical revelation, whether divine oroccult; and (4) influence from other OT passages thought to be relevant. This list is probably not exhaustive.

The first category is doubtless important: new ideas for the interpretation of agiven passage will continue to arise until at least the simpler alternativesare exhausted. Borrowing from anearlier written or oral source may also be important. As long as these sources are interpretations of the passageat hand, this will merely serve to push the origin of the interpretation backinto non-extant sources. Charlesbelieves this is what happened for our passage in 1 Enoch, which he attributes to a non-extant Bookof Noah.[45] The idea that the Jews borrowed frompagan myth is popular among liberals. Where Jews believed that the event reported in a pagan myth reallyhappened, they might have done so, though this is hard to imagine for thePharisees or Essenes. Indeed, insome of these cases, the events reported may actually have happened!

Regarding extra-biblical revelation, Patte and Russellbelieve that some of the apocalyptic literature may be based on actual visionsexperienced by the author.[46] Whether Patte accepts the miraculous ornot is not altogether clear: hespeaks of these visions as "psychical"[47]yet also as being put together by "creative imagination" frommaterials in the author's memory.[48] Frederic Gardiner favors earlierunrecorded divine revelation as a source for some of the materials in 2 Peterand Jude:

Particulars of their [fallen angels']history may have been from time to time incidentally revealed which have notbeen mentioned in the volume of inspiration, but may nevertheless form a truebasis for various traditions concerning them. This seems probable from the way in which both St. Peter andSt. Jude speak of them, citing certain facts of the history, not elsewhererevealed, as well-known truths.[49]

Neither should occult activity be ruled out in some Jewishsectarian circles at this period.

Yet some of the interpretations which we see here may bebased on other OT passages thought to be relevant to Gen 6:1-4. Both the NT and the Jewish literaturethroughout this period often weave together OT passages from various locations.[50] This may even be the case when it isnot so obvious:

… in many cases where we cannotunderstand the reason for a targumic interpretation, one should resist the temptationto conclude that it is the product of the mere fancy of either the targumist orof the community …. On thecontrary, we should assume that in most instances the targumic interpretationsare the result of an explanation of Scripture by means of Scripture.[51]

This fourth category is the most easily investigated sincethe OT is extant.

Consider first the interpretation of בניהאלהים, "sons of God." The various interpretations are mosteasily seen as a combination of categories (1) and (4) above, working out thesimple alternatives on the basis of Scriptural parallels. The phrase occurs in Job 1:6 and 2:2 ina heavenly context, and Satan is associated with them. Thus the supernatural view"angels" arises easily. One the other hand, אלהים is occasionallyused of rulers and judges in the OT (e.g., Exod 22:8-9), from which the Jewishnonsupernatural interpretation may be derived. It is possible that the targumic rendering "sons of thegreat ones" in Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg.Onq. may have another origin – an etymologicaltranslation to protect the transcendence of God by denying that he has anysons. Philo's mystical andmoralizing exegesis of Gen 6:1-4 is a general characteristic of his technique. It is borrowed from the ethical andanti-historical, anti-physical side of Hellenistic Greek philosophy. Perhaps it might be said to beinfluenced by pagan mythology by way of negative reaction. The Christian nonsupernatural view– "sons of Seth" or believers – is most likely based onthe NT use of "sons of God" for believers (e.g., in John 1:12),coupled with Gen 4:26 and 5:24.

The interpretation of נפלים by"giants" is easily understandable for both the supernatural andnonsupernatural views. The wordNephilim only occurs elsewhere in the OT in Num 13:33, where it is associatedwith the large size of the Anakim. Perhaps the reference here to the Israelites being like grasshoppers intheir sight explains the rabbinic remark (Gen. Rab. 26.7) that the "marrow of each one's thigh waseighteen cubits long." If wetake the grasshopper's "thigh" as one inch long and the human thighas one cubit long (ca. 18 inches), the proportion is exact!

Regarding the binding of the angels mentioned in 1 Enoch,Jubilees, 2 Peter and Jude, this featuremay depend on an earlier source going back to explicit revelation, or it may bederived from Isa 24:21-22:

So it will happen on that day,

That the LORD will punish the host ofheaven on high

And the kings of the earth, on earth.

And they will be gathered together

Like prisoners in the dungeon [lit."pit"]

And will be confined in prison

And after many days they will be punished.

We would normally interpret this passage eschatologicallybecause of the context. Yet itmight be understood as the eschatological punishment for an earlier sin,especially if we follow the Qumran Isaiah MS 1QIsa^a, which reads אספו(perfect) instead of the usual ואספו (perfect with waw), giving a past tense instead of future:[52]

They were gathered together …

And will be confined …

And after many days they will bepunished.

In any case the passage refers to the confinement in a pitof what appear to be angelic beings, like prisoners (chained?), with aneschatological punishment after many days. The reference in the context (Isa 24:18-19) to "windowsabove" being opened and the earth being split is certainly reminiscent ofevents at the beginning of the flood (Gen 7:11), though the terminology is notidentical. Even if this passage isseen as strictly eschatological, its parallels with the flood may havesuggested a parallel mode of punishment to interpreters favoring a supernaturalview of Gen 6:1-4.

Most of the angelic names in Enoch are modeled on the biblical angelic names"Michael" and "Gabriel," using the theophoric element"El" for God and either angelic spheres of authority or divineattributes.[53] One exception is Shamhazai," butGinzberg sees the first syllable as שם, "name," a commontargumic substitute for the divine name. "Azazel," too, is of special interest, and it may suggest thatother angelic names are derived from OT texts. The name (or something close to it) occurs in the scapegoatpassage in Lev 16:8. One goat isfor the LORD, the other for Azazel, taking עזאזלas a proper noun instead of a term meaning "entire removal."[54] The word may well have been puzzling,and the reference in Lev 17:7 to goats as objects of worship might have ledearly interpreters to speculate that there was something supernatural about"Azazel." Charles notesthat "Dudael," the place of Azazel's binding in 1 Enoch 10:4, is in the wilderness and on "rough andjagged rocks" just like the place to which the scapegoat is taken in Tg.Ps.-J.[55]

Thus it appears that a number of details appearing in thevarious interpretations of Gen 6:2, 4 can be derived – rightly or wrongly– from other OT passages. This does not proved that they actually arose in this way.

Conclusions

We have now examined the ancient interpretation of Gen 6:2,4 in Jewish literature, in Christian literature and in the NT inparticular. The earliest extantview is the supernatural one, that the "sons of God" were angels andthat the "Nephilim" were their gigantic offspring. The sin in this case was the unnaturalunion between angels and humans. Going beyond the text of Genesis, this view pictures the offendingangels as being bound and cast into dark pits until the day of judgment. This interpretation seems to have beenpopular at the time of Christ. Thenonsupernatural interpretations are not extant until later and take two basicforms which we may for convenience label "Jewish" and"Christian." The Jewishview sees the "sons of God" as judges or noblemen and the"Nephilim" as violent warriors. The sin involved is unrestrained lust, rape, and bestiality. The Christian view sees the "sonsof God" as Sethites or believers in general, the "daughters ofmen" as Cainites or unbelievers, and the sin as mixed marriage.

After investigating possible NT references to this passage,it appears highly likely that the NT does refer to this incident, almostcertainly in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. Other passages are less certain, but 1 Corinthians 11:10 and Matthew22:30 are probable. Though seriousquestions can be raised whether Matt 22:30 and parallels endorse or oppose thesupernatural interpretation, Jude and 2 Peter clearly favor the supernaturalposition.

Do Jude and 2 Peter endorse this interpretation or only mention it? One might be inclined to dismiss Jude's reference as an adhominem argument against opponents whoaccepted the OT pseudepigrapha since he apparently quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 in v 14 and cites a no longer extant portion ofthe Assumption of Moses in v 9.[56] Yet there is no hint in the contextthat Jude in any way distances himself from these citations. In 2 Peter 2, the whole structure ofthe argument (vv 4-9) indicates that Peter endorses the historicity of this ancientsin: if God judged those notorioussinners of antiquity, then he will judge these current false prophets whoengage in similar activities.

Not only do Jude and 2 Peter seem to endorse thesupernatural interpretation of Genesis 6, they also mention some of the detailsfound in 1 Enoch and Jubilees which do not occur in the Genesis account. Liberal theologians have no difficultyhere, since they treat all of this as superstitious nonsense, but how are thosewho believe in the Bible to respond?

Although part of the evangelical resistance to the supernaturalinterpretation is exegetical and part is theological, some resistance seems tobe due to rationalistic assumptions. Especially in the fields of science, history and Biblical studies, a"minimal-miracle" stance may be adopted, if for no other reason thanthat miracles pose a roadblock to investigation. However, whenever a minimal-miracle approach begins toproduce a crop of problem passages, we should consider the possibility that weare wresting Scripture or other data.

It is also possible that evangelicals along with liberalshave adopted too readily the enlightenment-evolutionary view that the ancientwere ignorant and superstitious. Perhaps an over-reaction to the excesses of the medieval Catholic Churchis also to blame. Of course the ancients(except in the case of inspiration) were fallible and influenced by thedominant worldviews of their times, but so are we. They did not have the leisure, technology, communications,and libraries that we have, so we should not expect their scholarship to be asimpressive as ours. But theyweren't fools! When all of humanhistory testifies against our times to the reality of the supernatural and theoccult, we evangelicals (of all people) would be foolish to dismiss thistestimony out of hand, especially when it corroborates biblical testimony.

May it not be possible that we enlightened, 20^thcentury Christians can learn something positive from the ancient exegetes? Perhaps they were right in seeing anangelic incursion in Gen 6:1-4 and we are wrong in denying it. Perhaps with a great interest in thesupernatural and angels, some ancient interpreters scoured the Scriptures tolocate any hints it might contain on this subject. In such a case, they might well have reached some validinsights which God preserved by inscripturation in the NT.

Addendum

(written, but notpublished with the original article)

This paper was not intended to be an exegesis of Gen 6:1-4,but I cannot refrain from one comment of an exegetical-theological sort. Doubtless many expositors feel thesupernatural interpretation is absurd since angels were created by God and(according to a reasonable reading of Matt 22:30) not designed to have a sexualfunction. Granting that this isso, how could angels mate with humans and produce offspring? The development of modern geneticswould seem to make this objection all the more insuperable, were it not for thefact that genetic technology may provide a solution: artificial insemination.

Assuming only that angels of primeval times could matchtwentieth century technology, they could easily implant human sperm in selectedwomen. The seed would be obtainedfrom selected men. Whereas thelatter liaisons would be brief, the former might well be extended (marriages)if the angels had any purposes for the mature offspring, say to produce humansfavorable to the occult who were larger and stronger than their opponents, asignificant advantage in an age of hand-to-hand combat. For rumors of such activities in occultcircles, see dictionary entries under "incubus" and"succubus" as well as Augustine's remarks in City of God 15.23. What we have suggested here need not be the technique actually used, butit does demonstrate that this objection to the supernatural interpretation ishardly insuperable.

[1] E.g., A.Richardson, Genesis 1-11 (London: SCM,1953); E. A. Speiser, Genesis(AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964); B. Vawter, On Genesis: A NewReading (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977); G. von Rad, Genesis:A Commentary (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973).

[2] E.g., G. Ch.Aalders, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981); H. G. Stigers, ACommentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); J. Murray, Principlesof Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 243-49.

[3] U. Cassuto, ACommentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I: From Adam to Noah, Gen 1-6⁸ (Jerusalem: Magnes and Hebrew University, 1961); H.M. Morris, The Genesis Record(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976); W. A.Van Gemeren, "The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4," WestminsterTheological Journal 43 (1981): 320-48.

[4] J. W.Wevers, "Septuagint," Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible 4 (1962): 273; E. M. Blaiklock,"Septuagint," Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible 5 (1976): 343-44.

[5] See therelevant textual footnotes in A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (7^th ed.; Stuttgart: WürttembergischeBibelanstalt, 1962), 8, and especially in J. W. Wevers, Genesis (Göttingen LXX: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1974), 108. The variantαγγελοι is the minority reading among extantMSS and versions, but it is supported by many witnesses, including CodexAlexandrinus (4^th century AD), as well as Philo and Josephus, bothwriting in the 1^st century AD though extant only in much laterMSS. These latter comment on thepassage insuch a way that their reading cannot be dismissed as a scribal errorfrom later Christian copyists. Υιοι is the majority reading, for which the mostimportant witnesses are papyrus 911 (3^rd century AD) and CodexCoislinianus (7^th century). The Göttingen LXX favors the latter reading since it is supported by allthe MS groups, though none are as early as Philo and Josephus. Yet the influence of the MT on thetransmission of the LXX might well explain υιοι, even ifαγγελοι were the original translation. It is therefore impossible to becertain whether αγγελοι was the originaltranslation or an early midrashic corruption.

[7] H. G.Liddell, R. Scott and H. Drissler, A Greek-English Lexicon. Based on the German Work of FrancisPassow (New York: Harper and Bros., 1879), 292 [Not in recent edition.]

[8] R. H.Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:163; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 618-19. M. Rist ("Enoch, Book of," IDB 2 [1962], 104) would date this section later, ca.100 BC. In any case, fragments ofthis part of Enoch have beenfound at Qumran: see O. Betz,"Dead Sea Scrolls," IDB1 (1962), 796; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 6, 139-40, 164.

[9] Charles, Pseudepigrapha, 6; S. Tedesche, "Jubilees, Book of," IDB 2 (1962), 1002; Eissfeldt, OT Introduction, 608; J. C. VanderKam, Textual andHistorical Studies in the Book of Jubilees(HSM 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars,1977), 283-84.

[10] Eissfeldt, OTIntroduction, 631-36; M. Smith,"Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," IDB 4 (1962), 575-79; M. E. Stone, "Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs," IDB Supp (1976), 877.

[11] J. A.Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary (BibOr18A: Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971), 15.

[12] G. Vermes, Scriptureand Tradition in Judaism: HaggadicStudies (SPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 124-25; Fitzmyer, GenesisApocryphon, 16-19.

[13] F. M.Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev. ed.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), 81-82n; G. Vermes, The Dead SeaScrolls in English (Baltimore: penguin, 1968), 95.

[17] See S.Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria (NewYork: Oxford, 1979), 150, 162, whonotes that Philo denies the historicity of Sarah and Hagar in OnMating 180.

[19] T. W.Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus (BibOr 35; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979), 80-81.

[20] J. Bowker, TheTargums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge:University, 1969), 14; M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1972), 86-89.

[21] Bowker, Targums, 26; McNamara, Targum and Testament, 178.

[24] See therelevant articles in F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the ChristianChurch (London: Oxford, 1958).

[25] G. W. E.Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 265-68.

[26] J. W.Wevers, "Aquila's Version," IDB 1 (1962), 176.

[28] See thelower set of footnotes in the Göttingen LXX for the readings from these otherGreek versions.

[29] M. G.Kline, "Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4," WestminsterTheological Journal 24 (1962), 187-204.

[30] See Bowker,Targums, 16-20; McNamara, Targumand Testament, 186; M. McNamara,"Targum," IDB Supp(1976), 858-59; R. LeDeaut, "The Current State of Targumic Studies," BTB 4 (1974), 5, 22-24.

[31] A. DiezMacho, Neophyti 1: Genesis (Madrid andBarcelona: Consejo Superior deInvestigaciones Cientificas, 1968), 33, 511.

[32] S. Lund andJ. Foster, Variant Versions of Targumic Traditions Within Codex Neofiti 1 (SBLASP 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), 12, 14; our passage and marginal note arenot discussed.

[34] Bowker, Targums, 22-26; McNamara, Targum and Testament, 173-76.

[35] A. Sperber,The Bible in Aramaic: I: Targum Onkelos(Leiden: Brill, 1959), 9.

[36] J. W.Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and of Jonathan ben Uzziel on thePentateuch with Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum (London: 1862-65;reprinted New York: Ktav, 1968),1.46; M. Aberbach and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis (New York: Ktav, 1982), 52.

[37] A. Roberts,J. Donaldson, A. C. Coxe and A. Menzies, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1886), 6.131.

[38] H. L.Strack, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash(Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1931), 218, 65; I. Epstein, "Midrash," IDB 3 (1962), 376.

[39] L.Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews(Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1937), 5.152, explains how "Shamhazai" may be derived from"Uza."

[41] Withattestation in the Qumran fragments; see Milik, Books of Enoch, on 4QEn^c.

[42] E.g., R. C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 445.

[43] E.g.,Murray, Principles of Conduct, 246;Stigers, Genesis, 97; C. F. Keiland F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (1875; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 1.131.

[44] D. Patte, EarlyJewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (SBLDS 22;Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975),303.

[46] Patte, Hermeneutic, 182; D. S. Russell, Method and Message ofJewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 172.

[49] F.Gardiner, The Last of the Epistles: A Commentary Upon the Epistle of St. Jude (Boston: John P. Jewett,1856), 72.

[50] See Patte, Hermeneutic, 184, and throughout, on anthological style.

[53] SeeCharles, Pseudepigrapha, 191; Ginzberg, Legends, 5.152-53; Milik, Books of Enoch, on 4QEn^a

[56] For ancientpatristic evidence that this incident appeared in the Assumption of Moses in their times, see C. Bigg, A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC: New York: Scribners, 1909), 331; a complete list of texts is given inR. H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses (London: Black, 1897),107-10.