I'd like to take a brief break from Joseph and backtrack to Genesis 6. I came across a strange observation recently concerning a couple of seemingly perplexing verses. Here they are:
"The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose." (Genesis 6:2)
"Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)
The interpretation I read recently (which is an age-old interpretation apparently) is that the "sons of God" were not men of the earth, but were creatures of a supernatural nature, possibly angels. And these angels came down to earth to mate with the human "daughters of men." And that they produced a frightening hybrid offspring called the Nephilim. Many Bibles translate Nephilim to the slightly more generic "giants." Well, I found this interpretation to be pretty over the top. It seems to be an example of hyper-literalism. It does have some textual basis, since apparently some copies of the Septuagint use words indicating not "sons of God" but "angels of God," leading some people to believe that actual angels descended to earth to mate with women (and most interpreters say these were actually fallen angels). The problem is that these interpretations seem to be derived from the pagan myths in which gods commonly mate with mortals to create hybrid beings. It is not Biblical in any sense. For starters, angels don't possess the bodily means to take it upon themselves to accomplish such an act. Angels don't have bodies the way men do. And furthermore, the giants, or Nephilim, alluded to aren't necessarily monsters or other such chimerical creatures like some interpreters assume. The Nephilim seem to have grown in legend as time has gone on, so that they are now thought of as quite fearsome, mythical beings.
What most level-headed interpretors believe is that the "sons of God" were the descendants of the pious Seth, while the "daughters of men" were the descendants of the impious Cain. Seth's heirs, originally at least, were close to God and lived in accordance with Him, while Cain's heirs, being exiled, were worldly and prone to evil ways. Eventually the heirs of Seth lost their ways and began to marry whomever they liked, which led to mingling with the heirs of Cain and producing an offspring that was now prone to paganism. The "giants" alluded to do not necessarily imply hulking ogres twenty feet tall. It could simply be a references to a race of men maybe a foot or two taller than the average human at the time. These things, of course, cannot be known completely. But what's most important is to take the passage in its proper context. The purpose of Genesis 6 is to set up the scene for the Flood, which is coming in the very next chapter. Therefore it was important to state how far mankind had strayed from God. The antediluvian period was filled with men who did whatever they pleased. Evil men roamed the earth. Almost no one lived in any sort of pious, obedient manner. The situation was so dire that something as catastrophic as the Flood was needed. And therefore we have the "strange" language of Genesis 6: "sons of God," "daughters of men," "giants," "Nephilim." It was a crazy world before the Flood.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed a problematic set of verses for the modern theologian. However, I would suggest that the writer of Genesis (who by tradition is Moses) is working is a world populated by gods, and such sayings could be attributed to the world in which they lived.
For example, what is to be made of the plural "we" verse in Genesis 3:21? Hebrew does not have a royal "we" phrase, and it has been kept throughout the manuscript history (even though it could be seen as problematic by the earliest theologians, such as Irenaeus of Lyons, who struggles with this. Also, why should there be "no other god before me" if there were no other gods?
The point that I am trying to make is that, especially in Genesis, the author does not seem to hold to a strictly monotheistic point of view. He obviously sees Yahweh as the main God who created all of Earth and Man, but He is not the only being out there.
Perhaps this is just me, but I feel that trying to explain these Nephilim away as humans not only distorts the text, but doesn't take the text seriously. These texts don't alwsys say what we want them to say, and their world, being so far removed from out own, may not fit into our own perceptions.
By saying this I am not arguing against you, simply putting out another option for interpretation. I look forward to your futuure posts!
All points well taken.
ReplyDeleteI will just say that the "we" in Genesis seems to suggest a Holy Trinity. And without a doubt the world of Genesis was a polytheistic world. True monotheism doesn't seem to come for a while. And it seems to be the great early struggle -- worshipping just ONE God! Hence the First Commandment -- God's assertion that He is the only one to be worshipped, because (though it is unstated) He is the only one that exists!
As far as the Nephilim go, I think it's safe to interpret the text rationally regardless of what Moses's generation thought they were. Many of the Old Testament prophets spoke of things even they themselves didn't understand. But the revelation came years and years later.