Jerome shaped how Christians read Scripture by returning to the Hebrew text, weighing the Greek versions, and explaining choices to his readers.
In Hebrew Questions on Genesis, he pauses on Genesis 6:1–4 and addresses the Nephilim, the sons of God, and how ancient translators handled these terms.
For students of Genesis 6, Jerome is valuable because he shows how a fourth-century Christian exegete read the Hebrew, surveyed competing Greek renderings, and still allowed for an angelic understanding without sensationalism. (Oxford Academic, vulgata-dialog.ch)
Who was Jerome?
Jerome served the church as a scholar and translator, producing the Latin Vulgate and writing commentaries that interact closely with Jewish tradition and the Greek textual world.
His method in Hebrew Questions on Genesis is compact: cite the Hebrew, compare major versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, LXX), and draw pointed notes for readers. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
Jerome on “giants” and the “falling ones” (Gen 6:4)
Here’s the quote from Hebrew Questions on Genesis:
“Giants. In the Hebrew, it has the following: Falling ones (that is, annaphilim) were on the earth in those days. And after these things, when the sons of the gods used to go in to the daughters of men and breed with them, these were the mighty ones from the beginning, men called by name.”
Jerome highlights the Hebrew term often linked with the root npl “to fall,” noting how Greek and Latin tradition render it as giants while preserving the sense “falling ones.”
Modern surveys of his work confirm that he tracks these lexical choices and their theological implications. (vulgata-dialog.ch, Bryn Mawr Classical Review)
Jerome on “sons of God,” elohim, and the ancient versions (Gen 6:2)
Here’s the quote from Hebrew Questions on Genesis:
“So when the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were comely.” The Hebrew word eloim is of common number; for both “God” and “gods” are designated in the same way. For this reason Aquila dared to say “sons of the gods,” in the plural, understanding “gods” as holy ones or angels. “For God stood up in the assembly of the gods: moreover, to the midst of the gods He gives judgement.”
Jerome’s note shows his philological habit: he alerts readers that ’elohim can be singular or plural, then reports how Aquila (and by association, other literal versions) render “sons of the gods,” a phrasing that many Jews and Christians associated with angels.
He also gestures to Psalm 82:1, where ’elohim appears in both senses. Studies of Hebrew Questions underscore Jerome’s consistent comparison of Hebrew, LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
Jerome on the narrative sense of verse 4
Here’s the quote from Hebrew Questions on Genesis:
“Moreover there were giants on the earth in those days; and after these things, as the sons of God were accustomed to go in to the daughters of men, so they would breed with them. Those were the giants from of old, men called by name.”
Jerome restates the flow: unions between the sons of God and human women; offspring known as giants; and the memory of mighty men from ancient days. His wording reflects both the Hebrew and well-known Greek renderings that translate nephilim as giants and gibborim as mighty or powerful. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
What Jerome is doing theologically
Jerome does not write a long treatise on angelology here. He reports lexical facts, invokes Psalm 82, and notes how version history supports reading the “sons of God” as holy ones or angels while also acknowledging renderings like Symmachus that tilt toward “sons of the mighty.”
His approach leaves room for the angel interpretation while keeping attention on the text itself. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
Hayward’s commentary: context for Jerome’s choices
Here are the quotes from T. R. Hayward’s commentary (1995):
“CHAPTER 6 verse 2
This verse presented obvious problems for orthodox Jewish believers, since it might be interpreted in an anti-monotheistic sense. Hence, from early post-biblical times, these ‘sons of God’ were understood as ‘angels’.
Jerome cites Ps. 82:1 as a proof text for this exegesis.”
“Literal renderings of the Hebrew, however, were known and used from the first century and onwards, as LAB 3: 1 makes clear: hence Aquila’s version which Jerome cites here, that of Theodotion, and the transliteration of Pesh, which are equally ‘literal’.
The reading of Symmachus, however, betrays a shift of understanding towards a Rabbinic view or the phrase revealed in TO, PJ, and Gen. Rab. 26: 5 (R. Simeon bar Yohai), which also interpret the phrase as ‘sons of the mighty’. This may be compared with TN’s rendering ‘sons of the judges’, found also in Sifre Num. 6; Sifre Zutta 11:4; elohim was taken as ‘rulers’ or ‘judges’, the sense which it apparently has in Exod 22:28. All these interpretations seem designed to avoid any notion of angels or supernatural beings; indeed R. Simeon bar Yohai put a curse on those who spoke of ‘sons of God’ in this verse.
But Jerome appears to view Symmachus’ reading as generally consonant with that of Aquila.”
“The hebrew nepilim, which derives from the root npl, ‘to fall’, was rendered as ‘giants’ by LXX, and Jerome followed this in Vg; it is a common translation, found in Theodotion, TO, and TN, owing much to the appearance of nepilim in Num. 13:33 (34). There they are huge individuals, making Israel seem like grasshoppers. So they are seen as part of an ancient giant-band which has many names: Gen. Rab. 26:7 gives seven. Not entirely out of kilter with this interpretation is Symmachus, whose translation ‘violent ones’ emphasizes their character without commenting on their physical stature.”
“However, Symmachus provides a different translation for the second occurrence of ‘giants’ in the LXX, using the term ‘violent ones’ to emphasize their character rather than physical stature. The LXX’s rendering of ‘giants’ remains consistent in TO, TN, and PJ for the second occurrence. Aquila translates it as ‘the powerful,’ and Jerome follows this interpretation in the Vulgate, using the term ‘potentes.’ Jerome seems to suggest that Symmachus translated both nephilim and gibborim as ‘violent ones,’ implying that the supernatural beings and their offspring share a similar nature as ‘falling ones.’”
Hayward’s synthesis matches broader descriptions of Jerome’s practice: compare Hebrew with multiple Greek versions and use Psalm 82 to explain why “sons of God” can be read as angels without threatening monotheism. (Bryn Mawr Classical Review, Oxford Academic, vulgata-dialog.ch)
How Jerome’s notes fit the wider conversation
Jerome’s angel reading stands alongside early Christian writers who linked Genesis 6 to heavenly beings crossing a boundary, yet his focus remains philological and textual. He does not rehearse Enochic lore; instead, he shows how Aquila and others underwrite translations like “sons of the gods,” while Symmachus represents a trend to avoid explicit angel language by using “mighty,” “judges,” or “violent ones.” (vulgata-dialog.ch)
Plain definitions
- Sons of God: in Jerome’s note, a phrase that—by grammar and version history—can mean angels or, in some renderings, mighty ones; he reports both while allowing the angel sense. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
- Nephilim: often rendered giants (LXX, Vulgate), with the Hebrew root linked to falling; some versions emphasize character (“violent ones”) rather than size. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
- Gibborim: “mighty” or “powerful,” sometimes aligned with the same figures remembered as men of name. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
How this helps you read Genesis 6
Jerome helps modern readers keep text and tradition in balance. He shows why the Hebrew and ancient versions made space for an angel interpretation and how Psalm 82 contributes to that conversation.
He also shows how some translators avoided angel language by stressing power or violence, a move that shaped later Sethite or rulers readings. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
My thoughts
Jerome’s value is his method: start with the Hebrew, check the versions, and then make a careful note. He refuses hype and still preserves the supernatural reading many earliest interpreters knew, which keeps the text anchored and the discussion honest. (vulgata-dialog.ch)
Conclusion
Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis treats Genesis 6:1–4 with sober attention to language and sources. By noting “falling ones,” the plural potential of ’elohim, Aquila’s “sons of the gods,” and Psalm 82, he preserves a clear path to the angel view while acknowledging translators who softened that sense.
For readers sorting Genesis 6 today, Jerome models how to weigh Hebrew, versions, and tradition without losing sight of the Bible’s authority. (Oxford Academic, vulgata-dialog.ch)
