Explore RESEARCH

Jaap Doedens (Ph.D. Kampen Theological University (2013), Pápa Reformed Theological Seminary, Pápa, Hungary) is college associate professor at the latter seminary. He has published articles on the Old Testament, the intertestamental period, and the New Testament in English, Dutch, and Hungarian

In "The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4," Jaap Doedens presents a scholarly and comprehensive exploration of the enigmatic text regarding the 'sons of God,' 'daughters of men,' and 'giants.' The book begins by meticulously analyzing the Genesis 6:1–4 passage.

It then traces the evolution of various exegetical interpretations from ancient times to the present day. Doedens also delves into the significance of the expression 'sons of God' in the context of the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. The final chapter focuses on deciphering the message and function of Genesis 6:1–4.

By gathering a wealth of ancient and modern exegetical insights, this volume invites ongoing dialogue on this complex and elusive biblical passage.

Available from Brill for €139.00

Nina Caputo is an Associate Professor in the Department of History of the University of Florida. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. Professor Caputo is a scholar of medieval Jewish history and interfaith relations in medieval Europe.

This essay examines Nahmanides’s interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4, a perplexing yet enticing biblical passage that tells of the union between benei ha-elohim, the sons of God, and benot ha-adam, daughters of men, and of their offspring, a passage that engendered highly creative com-mentary among commentators in late antiquity.

Caputo focuses on this biblical passage because Nahmanides’s commentary allows a glimpse of his conception to human physicality, historical change, and, she will argue, a subtle revision of the classic Christian understanding of the fall and human morality as well as a corrective to the dominant mode of Jewish interpretation.

Lee Anderson, Jr.

Which came first, Genesis 6:1-4 or pagan myths?

Lee Anderson Jr. dives into the heart of the matter by presenting an array of perspectives regarding the identity of "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. This portion of Scripture has sparked numerous interpretations, ranging from the idea that these "sons of God" were angelic beings to theories that they represented dynastic rulers or godly descendants of Seth.

Anderson examines these viewpoints, dissecting their strengths and potential weaknesses as well as looking to see if these interpretations arise from the text or show evidence of outside influence.

Short Excerpt: “All the views evaluated in this paper (at least in the versions presented) are resistant to the notion of Genesis 6 being adapted myth. They make no room for Scripture’s alleged acquiescence to the prevailing pagan ideas of its day.”

Henryk Drawnel

In this research paper, Drawnel focuses on the punishment of Asael, a fallen angel mentioned in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 10:4-8). Drawing from his expertise in Qumran studies, Drawnel investigates the possible influence of Mesopotamian anti-witchcraft literature on the portrayal of Asael's punishment.

He explores how the Book of Enoch employs Mesopotamian conceptions of witchcraft to convey a cautionary message about the dangers associated with it.

Robin Routledge

In our exploration of the Nephilim, we turn to Robin Routledge's 2015 paper "The Nephilim: A Tall Story?" The paper delves into the origins and implications of these mysterious figures within the context of the pre-flood era. After spending many pages on the actual textual evidence for the Nephilim and possible related groups and terms, Routledge proceeds to present his ideas on a variety of common questions.

Short Excerpt: The Nephilim figure prominently in some popular literature. Their portrayal is speculative, but also based on Second Temple texts, which portray the Nephilim as the giant offspring of angels and human women who were responsible for the corruption that resulted in the flood. This article argues that the Nephilim in the OT are associated, primarily, with the antediluvian era; though are, intentially, linked with postdiluvian ‘heroes’ to highlight the perversity of the pre-flood generation, who, in seeking liaisons with heavenly beings, seek to overcome their mortality.

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Loren T. Stuckenbruck uncovers Genesis 6:1-4 interpretations in Second Temple Judaism. Delve into early apocalyptic traditions, revealing cautionary tales of human-divine interactions and the origins of evil.

Short Excerpt: “The purpose of this article is, with reference to Gen. 6:1-4, to describe this diversity among the early Jewish apocalyptic writings and to consider what was at stake among those who read the biblical tradition as an account relating to the introduction of evil into the world.
In order to achieve this aim, I shall first briefly discuss the biblical texts, and then proceed to describe the role of "giants" in some of the euhemeristic sources, followed by a discussion of apocalyptic traditions which may in some measure be understood as a response to these sources.”

Peter Gentry and Andrew M. Fountain

Few New-Testament verses spark as much debate as Jude 14-15. When the apostle quotes a prophecy “of Enoch, the seventh from Adam,” many assume he is treating 1 Enoch as Scripture. Dr. Peter J. Gentry (with Andrew M. Fountain) challenges that near-consensus in this paper, offering a meticulous look at (1) how the Enochic material actually reached us, (2) how Jude arranges his letter, and (3) what his purpose is in citing an extra-biblical tradition.

This is a reader-friendly yet scholarly walkthrough of Gentry’s findings, with added context from Genesis 6 studies and early church writers.

Short Excerpt: Jude cites Enoch—but does that canonize the book? Manuscript evidence, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jude’s own structure show otherwise. Learn why quotation ≠ canon.

Nicholas J. Moore

When Jude quotes 1 Enoch, many readers worry. Did an inspired New Testament writer give Scripture-level authority to a non-canonical book? And did that quote cause the church to doubt Jude?
Nicholas J. Moore’s study, published in the Journal of Theological Studies (2013), answers both questions with careful history rather than speculation. Moore is a faculty member at Durham University and Warden of Cranmer Hall, specializing in the New Testament and Greek. His conclusion is clear: early doubts about Jude were not caused by his use of 1 Enoch. The “Enoch problem” appears later, as the biblical canon solidified and as 1 Enoch declined in status.

Short Excerpt: Earlier doubts concerning Jude were due almost entirely to nonuniversal attestation, despite its early and increasing use through the second to fourth centuries. This study has sought to demonstrate that – as far as can be discerned from extant sources – these two causes of doubt are separate issues, that up until the early fourth century there is no evidence of Jude’s citation of an apocryphal text being seen as a ‘problem’ by its readers. It is only in the mid- to late-fourth century that writers such as Didymus and Jerome, who themselves accept Jude’s authority, apparently identify fourth-century doubts about Jude with second- and third-century doubts, thereby conflating and masking the differences between distinct causes for these doubts (citation of apocryphal literature versus non-universal attestation). Significantly, this development coincided with that of the canon, which as it grew more defined clearly excluded 1 Enoch, and included Jude.

Matthew Goff

We review Matthew Goff’s analysis of 1 Enoch’s giants, compare Watchers with Genesis 6, and explain how food laws, forbidden knowledge, and Hellenistic fears shaped this striking retelling.

Short Excerpt: One can reasonably understand the Enochic Book of the Watchersas engaging in a kind of monstrous exegesis. The scribal intellectuals who produced the work in the third century BCE reconfigured older textual traditions regarding the flood in a way that made the sons of the angels much more monstrous. The composition reinvents the gibbōrîmfrom legendary warriors intocannibalistic giants. As I have tried to show, this development is not simply an exegetical issue. I have also attempted to demonstrate that this transformation is intelligible in the Hellenistic context in which thebook was written. The field of monster studies helps us understand the giants’ anthropophagous rampages as not only acts of profound violence but also a way to delineate social norms and conduct, especially regarding food, by putting forward disturbing portrayals of life on earth before such norms were in effect. The heightened monstrosity of the Book of the Watchers, discernible when compared to older Genesis traditions, becomes intelligible in the context of a climate of cultural anxiety and epistemological uncertainty that was pervasive in the early Hellenistic period. It is a valuable exercise to engage ancient Jewish literature through the lens of monster theory.

Joseph T. Antley

Throughout his research, Antley highlights significant excerpts that provide invaluable insights into the complexities of Tartarus.

One, the myth of the fallen watchers originating from Genesis 6:1-2,4, plays a crucial role in shaping the concept of Tartarus in later traditions. Second Temple Jews understood the "sons of God'' to be angels, evidenced in some LXX translations and other Jewish writings. However, the Genesis account does not mention the angels' punishment or allude to Tartarus in any way. Rather, it exists merely as the setting from which the expanded myth, which included Tartarus, would derive from.