"Sons of X" in Hebrew idiom means "beings of the class X." E.g.,
the "sons of
the prophets" in II Kg.2:3, e.g., means "group of prophets." (NRSV translates
"company of prophets.) So when Amos (7:14) says "I am no prophet nor a
prophet's son" it means something like "I don't belong to the prophet's guild."
Similarly God's uusual address to Ezekiel,"son of man," means simply "man" or
(NRSV) "mortal." (By the time of the gospels of course "Son of Man,"
taking off
from the vision in Dan.7, has new meanings.)
Myths about gods & goddesses having affairs with humans & negetting or
giving birth to "hybrid" divine-humans abound in many cultures - think of all
the stories about Zeus & Leda, Europa &c & offspring like Hercules. Gen.6:1-4
makes use of such a myth but not in undigested form. As we have it
in Scripture
it is "broken myth," a pagan myth modified to make a theological point in the
service of the God of Israel. As used here it denies the popular notion found
in those pagan myths that divinity is something that can be transmitted by
biological means. & placed where it is in Genesis it represents the ultimate
transgression of boundaries & breakdown in the ordering of creation that will
bring on the flood.
Later ideas about angels in the NT - e.g., that they "neither marry nor are
given in marriage" - cannot be read back into the OT. They represent a further
development.
There are other examples of "broken myth" in the OT. (The term comes from
Brevard Childs who discusses the idea & examples in _Myth and Reality
in the Old
Testament_.) E.g., Is.14:12-15 is based on a Canaanite myth about the revolt
of the younger against the elder gods (cf. the Greek war of gods vs. titans),
but is used here to speak of the doom of historical Babylon. It is most
unfortunate that this & Gen.6:1-4 have been _re_mythologized by Christians and
made into an elaborate Christian myth about the fall of Satan &c. But in fact
the Bible contains at most little hints about any such prehistoric fall of
angels. What most people think of as the biblical version of this story is in
fact Milton's account in _Paradise Lost_.
& any attempt to find some historical niche for Gen.6:1-4 & perhaps some
historical evidence for the _nephilim_, the descendants of the "sons of the
gods" and "the daughters on men," seems to me to be a _reductio ad absurdum_ of
concordism.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
Dick Fischer wrote:
> Hi Darryl, you wrote:
>
> >It doe appear that way though why I don't know unless they have already
> >answered the questions about who were the "daugheters of men" and the "sons
> >of god" who caused all the trouble to begin with. I havn't a clue who they
> >were . Perhaps some has some thoughts?
>
> Here is my "two cents."
>
> Some contend these are angels, perhaps fallen angels. But is that
> the case here? The Hebrew phrase in this passage, and elsewhere in
> the Old Testament, can refer to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psa.
> 29:1; 89:6). But the same term also describes humans who lived their
> lives in service to God (Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Psa. 73:15; Hosea 1:10).
> How should it be interpreted here?
>
> For a start, what are angels supposed to do regarding us humans? In
> Hebrews 1:14, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
> minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" If that is their
> proper role, wouldn't it be out of character for them to be involved
> in these trysts? Also, even if they had the desire to sire human
> offspring would they be capable of that? Angels, while appearing as
> men at certain times, do not possess physical bodies as we do, and
> should not be able to father human children.
>
> Furthermore, angels do not marry. "The children of this world marry,
> and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy
> to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither
> marry, nor are given in marriage; neither can they die anymore, for
> they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the
> children of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36). And in Mark 12:25,
> "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are
> given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven.Ó
>
> Two relevant bits of information exude from these passages. Angels
> do not die or marry. Sons of God, who marry, should be humans.
> Throughout the New Testament, the term "sons of God" or "children of
> God" is applied exclusively to humans (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14,19; Rom.
> 9:26; II Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26). Nowhere in the New Testament do
> these terms apply to angels.
>
> Could they have been fallen angels? Would it have been possible that
> disenfranchised angels took possession of the bodies of humans in
> order to engage in marriage and procreation? Not likely; fallen
> angels or demons are not called "sons of God" anywhere in Scripture.
> They have forfeited that right.
>
> Furthermore, if these had been fallen angels dabbling with the human
> race, then the flood would have brought only temporary relief.
> Demons would not drown. Any marriage-minded demons could have just
> waited and preyed upon the next batch of humans. Besides, the notion
> of demons desiring to enter into holy matrimony is a bit curious.
>
> If the term "sons of God" refers to humans, then who could they have
> been? Perhaps those "who called upon the name of the Lord," the
> generations of Seth. Then who were the "daughters of menÓ? The
> daughters of men could have been the generations of Cain, or perhaps
> they came from the indigenous populations who co-existed with the
> Adamite population in the same region.
>
> Some have contended that what has been translated "sons of God" (bene
> elohim), refers instead to sons, or servants, of pagan gods. An
> example can be found in Exodus 18:11 which states, "the Lord is
> greater than all gods (elohim) ..." Daughters of ha'adam or "the
> Adam," then, would be Adamite women. Using this line of logic,
> Genesis 6:1-2 could be translated: "And it came to pass, when the
> Adamites began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters
> were born unto them, that the sons [or servants] of the gods saw the
> daughters of the Adamites that they were fair ..."
>
> What comes through in either translation is that there were two
> distinct populations, some were in the covenant line from Adam,
> others were not, and they were intermarrying. What was the
> consequence of such mixed marriages? Reduced life spans.
>
> Mixed marriages, probably between long-lived descendants from Adam
> and the indigenous populations, reduced life spans, not the flood..
>
> Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
> ÏThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoÓ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 11:49:59 EDT