Genesis 6:1 4

Abstract
Within Reformed exegesis, the narrative about the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ in Gen 6:1–4 is usually interpreted as a story about descendants of the pious Seth, who married daughters from the family of Cain, thus warning for close relationships between believers and non-believers. A brief research into the history of exegesis, however, shows that this interpretation is not the earliest explanation of Gen 6:1–4. The earliest exegesis viewed the ‘sons of God’ as ‘angels’. This article, therefore, tries to discover the provenance of the so called ‘Sethites-interpretation’. As turns out, the origin of this exegesis most likely is to be found in the Syriac church fathers. Interestingly, however, their exegesis retained many elements of the earlier ‘angels-interpretation’ as found especially in the Enoch-tradition. The phrasing of the ‘Sethites-interpretation’ suggests that perhaps a changed view on sexuality, differing from the Old Testament, and the ideal of celibacy, as expressed in the monastic tradition, influenced the exegesis of the passage.

What is the Biblical significance of the sons of the gods and the daughters of men and the great flood caused by their sexual behavior in Genesis?
The consequence of exogamy is destruction.
The consequence of endogamy is redemption.

With references from Richard Lynn's The Chosen People, A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement
Washington Summit Publishers, A National Policy Institute Book 2011


First essay on Genesis in the "Biblical Significance" series...

The opening verses of Genesis chapter 6 would seem to serve as a precursor to the Flood narrative that comprises the rest of the chapter plus all of the chapters 7-9. These four verses are also some of the most controversial and difficult to explain statements in all of the Bible, a fact which has been well attested for at least two millennia. Is there a key that unlocks the identity of the "sons of God"? I believe there is.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2015/12/doa398002.shtml
Whatever interpretive paths we choose, the giant remains alluring, even if a bit embarrassing. After the Hebrew Bible had (mostly) been completed, giants lived on, prolifically, in the traditions of third–first century BCE Judaism, most notably in 1 Enoch and the Qumran Book of Giants. These early Jewish traditions cannot simply be attributed to an arcane exegetical fascination with the weirdness or ambiguity of the giant; rather, early interpreters saw in these figures deeply meaningful opportunities to speak of the persistence of evil and the meaning of empire.

Significant aims of the ThWQ are to record as far as possible the vocabulary of Qumran texts and to note the vocabulary’s semantics and development. Also ThWQ means to analyze the development of the Hebrew language in the Second Temple period, the language’s extension by Aramaisms and Graecisms and the shift of its semantic valences on the level of words, phrases and syntactic structures. Contributors analyze the meaning of the lexemes and attend to the use of the lexemes in various literary genres (for example, Pesharim, calendaric texts, Toharot, etc.).

An English version of the entry is available from the author on request.

The Rig Veda describes India as the land of the Seven Rivers , showing that from the first historical or  religious documentations available about the country, water has been a defining attribute of its identity. Indeed one of the first known civilisations of the Indian sub-continent, Indus Valley  Civilisation, is also identified with the name of a river. Seafaring and navigation also have, ever since, determined the economic importance of India, the first evidence of sea trade being that of the people of Indus Valley with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In the present times, water crisis, various  water treaties as well as disputes govern the major thrust of India's foreign policies towards as well as its leverages against its neighbouring nations. Water, therefore, has more than mere geographic,  religious or environmental influence on the shaping of Indian identity. This paper attempts to look at one of the earliest water related myths of India: the Great Deluge that Manu survived (the parallels of which exist in other epics and religious texts such as The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Holy Bible) and ascertain if the genetic makeup of Indians, Iranians and inhabitants of Middle East as well as the history of the earth provides any evidence of its occurrence.

Eἰς τὸ Γεν. 6:1-4 περιέχεται: «Kαὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτοῖς. Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο. Kαὶ εἶπε Kύριος ὁ Θεός· οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας, ἔσονται δὲ αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν ἔτη. Oἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις· καὶ μετ' ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς· ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπ' αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί». Eἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦτο «οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ» κατὰ τὴν ἐπικρατοῦσαν ἑρμηνείαν εἶνε οἱ εὐσεβεῖς ἄνδρες, ἀπόγονοι τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς Σήθ, ὑπὸ δὲ «τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων» ἐννοοῦνται αἱ ἀσεβεῖς γυναῖκες, ἀπόγονοι τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς Kάιν. Ἀλλὰ διατί νὰ δεχθῶμεν, ὅτι εὐσεβεῖς ἄνδρες προῆλθον μόνον ἐκ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς Σήθ, ὄχι δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς Kάιν; Διατί ἐπίσης νὰ δεχθῶμεν, ὅτι ἀσεβεῖς γυναῖκες ἦσαν τῆς γενεᾶς μόνον τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς Kάιν, ὄχι δὲ καὶ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς Σήθ; Oἱ εὐσεβεῖς ἄνδρες τῆς γενεᾶς τοῦ Σὴθ κατὰ τὴν ἐν λόγῳ ἑρμηνείαν ἔλαβον ἀσεβεῖς γυναῖκας τῆς γενεᾶς τοῦ Kάιν παρασυρθέντες ἀπὸ τὴν ὡραιότητά των. Ὡς εὐσεβεῖς ἄνδρες ἔπρεπε νὰ λάβουν ὡς συζύγους γυναῖκας εὐσεβεῖς, ἀλλὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας προετίμησαν τὸ σωματικὸν κάλλος. Kατέπεσαν πνευματικῶς, κατήντησαν ἄνθρωποι σαρκικοί. Kατ' ἄλλην ἑρμηνείαν, «οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ» εἶνε ἄγγελοι, οἱ ὁποῖοι ἠράσθησαν τοῦ κάλλους τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ συνεμίγησαν μετ' αὐτῶν. Δηλαδὴ ἔγινε γάμος ἀγγέλων μετὰ τοῦ ὡραίου ἀνθρωπίνου φύλου, τῶν γυναικῶν! Ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ προῆλθον «οἱ γίγαντες», ἄνδρες «ὀνομαστοί». Aὐτὴν δὲ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ἔδωσεν ὁ ἅγιος Ἰουστῖνος ὁ φιλόσοφος καὶ μάρτυς. Ἐπίσης αὐτὴν τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ἔδωσαν καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς ἅγιοι, Πατέρες καὶ ἁπλῶς ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ συγγραφεῖς. Ἀλλ' ἡ ἑρμηνεία αὐτὴ δὲν εἶνε ὀρθὴ διὰ τοὺς ἑξῆς λόγους. Tὸ κείμενον λέγει «οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ», ἑβραϊστὶ «μπενὲ χα Eλοχίμ», δὲν ὁμιλεῖ δι' ἀγγέλους. Oἱ ἄγγελοι εἶνε πνεύματα, δὲν ἔχουν σῶμα, οὔτε λαμβάνουν σῶμα. Kαὶ ὅταν ἄγγελοι ἐμφανίζωνται μὲ σωματικὴν μορφήν, ἡ μορφὴ εἶνε φαινομενική, ὄχι πραγματική. Kαὶ ὅταν ἐμφανίζωνται τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, φαινομενικῶς τρώγουν καὶ πίνουν, ὄχι πραγματικῶς. Aὐτὸ εἶνε τὸ νόημα τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου Pαφαὴλ ἐν Tωβ. 12:19. Ἐπίσης, ἂν ἄγγελοι εἶχον ἢ ἐλάμβανον σῶμα καὶ εἱλκύοντο ὑπὸ τοῦ κάλλους γυναικῶν καὶ συνουσιάζοντο μετ' αὐτῶν, διὰ τὴν πτῶσιν καὶ ἁμαρτίαν θὰ ἐτιμωροῦντο αὐτοί, οἱ ἄγγελοι, ἐνῷ τώρα τιμωροῦνται «ἄνθρωποι» ὡς καταντήσαντες «σάρκες», σαρκικοί. Ὁ Kύριος εἶπε: «Oὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐ ν τ ο ῖ ς ἀ ν θ ρ ώ π ο ι ς τ ο ύ τ ο ι ς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας, ἔσονται δὲ αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν ἔτη». Ὡς πρὸς «τοὺς γίγαντας», αὐτοὶ «ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις», προϋπῆρχον δηλαδὴ τῆς ὑποτιθεμένης συνουσίας ἀγγέλων μετὰ γυναικῶν, καὶ ἄρα δὲν προῆλθον ἐκ τοιαύτης συνουσίας. Ἐγεννῶντο δὲ καὶ ἔκπαλαι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα γίγαντες, ἄνδρες μεγαλόσωμοι καὶ ὀνομαστοί, διότι τότε τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος εὑρίσκετο εἰς μεγαλυτέραν ἀκμὴν παρ' ὅσον μετὰ ταῦτα. Kαθ' ἡμᾶς ἡ ἐσφαλμένη ἑρμηνεία, ὅτι «οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ» εἶνε ἄγγελοι, προῆλθεν ἐκ παρανοήσεως τῆς φράσεως, «Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων». Ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῇ φράσει ταύτῃ περὶ μὲν τῶν υἱῶν λέγεται, ὅτι εἶνε «τοῦ Θεοῦ», περὶ δὲ τῶν θυγατέρων, ὅτι εἶνε «τῶν ἀνθρώπων», ἐδημιουργήθη ἡ ἐντύπωσις, ὅτι οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ δὲν εἶνε ἄνθρωποι, ὅπως αἱ θυγατέρες, ἀλλ' ἄγγελοι. Ἂν ἡ ἐν λόγῳ φράσις ἦτο διαφορετική, «Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τοῦ Θεοῦ», τότε δὲν θὰ ἐδημιουργεῖτο ἡ ἐντύπωσις, ὅτι «οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ» εἶνε ἄγγελοι, ἀλλὰ θὰ ἦτο σαφές, ὅτι «οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ» εἶνε εὐσεβεῖς ἄνδρες, καὶ «αἱ θυγατέρες τοῦ Θεοῦ» εἶνε εὐσεβεῖς γυναῖκες. Ἀλλὰ τώρα τὸ ἱερὸν κείμενον δὲν λέγει «τὰς θυγατέρας τοῦ Θεοῦ», ἤτοι τὰς εὐσεβεῖς γυναῖκας, ἀλλὰ λέγει «τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων», ὑπὸ τὰς ὁποίας ἐννοοῦνται γενικῶς αἱ γυναῖκες, καὶ αἱ εὐσεβεῖς δηλαδὴ καὶ αἱ ἀσεβεῖς. Ἡ δὲ φράσις, «ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς