A Criticism upon Genesis VI. 1-5
J. C. Knight
1867
|
NOTE |
The question of the intended meaning of the Genesis passage on antediluvian giants (6:4) has prompted curiosity and investigation for more than 2,000 years. The following article, published by J. C. Knight under the initials J. C. K. in the Journal of Sacred Literature in October 1867 offers an early academic attempt to explicate the passage without appeal to the literal reality of giants but rather to a literary explanation of the Hebrew author's intentions in producing the text. The article follows a variation on the so-called Sethite theology, which holds that the Sons of God were godly humans rather than Fallen Angels. Knight, however, prefers to view the Sons of God as a class of people rather than a holy bloodline.
|
Giants and the Sons of God
A Criticism upon Genesis VI. 1-5
|
1, 2. “And it came to pass . . . . . that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took to them wives of all which they chose.
3. “And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4. “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.” |
The interpretations given by commentators to the expression “the sons of God,” and to the word translated “giants,” have partially removed the difficulties of these verses. But there is still so much of unremoved strangeness and obscurity in them, that we cannot but think that their translation may be improved; and, with reference to verse 4, venture to suggest an amendment, which, so far as we can ascertain, has never yet been proposed, but which nevertheless is, we believe, capable of being well sustained. It is only in reference to this verse that we have anything to offer that is strictly new. With respect to the verses that precede it, we adopt interpretations that have already been suggested, but with more or less of deviation. The expression, “the sons of God,” for instance, we are disposed¢ to understand as denoting not the descendants of Seth exactly (a frequent interpretation), but God’s avowed worshippers, the hitherto professedly or outwardly pious, in general, whether descended from Seth or not; and the “daughters of men,” in like manner, as denoting women generally. The interpretation which would restrict the former of these expressions to the descendants of Seth, and the latter to those of Cain, appears open to grave objections. For though it may have been in the family of Seth that piety chiefly flourished, and in that of Cain that impiety prevailed, we have no warrant for supposing that there existed, in regard to piety, that broad distinction between the two that the restriction supposes.
If these expressions be thus understood, the passage, so far as respects the intercourse of these “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” presents no difficulties, simply telling us that in the days preceding the deluge, those who, in virtue of their real or seeming piety, had hitherto borne that high designation, becoming ensnared by the beauty of the women of the time, polygamy prevailed to such an extent, that they took to themselves an unlimited number of wives, even “wives of all whom they chose.” The chief difficulty, then, that yet remains to be removed is verse 4. “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.” This is a verse that has perplexed us for years. Its difficulties, so far at least as our conception of them is concerned, consist not so much, we think, in the declaration that there were “giants in the earth in those days,” as in the general haziness of the verse, of its concluding portion more especially. In attempting its elucidation, the word Nephilim—the word translated giants—demands our first attention. For several reasons we should prefer to leave this word untranslated; partly because its meaning is very uncertain; but chiefly because—so far as the passage as a whole is concerned—a correct conception of its very meaning is not of much importance. It is not a word of frequent occurrence. It occurs only here and in Numb. xiii. 33, where the spies who had been sent by Moses to search the land of Canaan, preparatory to the attempt to take possession of the same, report, “We are not able to go up against the people [of this land], for they are stronger than we. All the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak.” There can be little doubt, however, from the connexion in which the word is used in this passage from the book of Numbers, that the Nephilim there and here spoken of were, at least for the most part, men of large stature; and could we feel sure that it was as such that they were called Nephilim, the word giants would of course be an appropriate translation. But we do not think that this was the case, and that for two reasons. In the first place, the idea conveyed by our word giant is, in every other instance, expressed in Hebrew by a different word--Rapha—a word which occurs in no less than twenty-two separate passages. Our second reason is, that there is nothing in the etymology of the word that would lead one to suppose such to be its signification. So far as its etymology is concerned, it would seem rather to be a word expressive of some moral characteristic, or of some customary course of action, than as designating superiority of stature. It has accordingly (its root being Naphal, to fall), been by many translated apostates (i.e., men who had fallen away from the fear and worship of God); and by perhaps as many more, assaulters, as being men who fell upon and assaulted others; as being, in short, men of lawless and predatory habits. Plausible reasons have been advanced in support of each of these suppositions, but as the correctness of neither of them can be decisively proved, it would, we think, be better to let the word remain untranslated, especially as its very meaning is not essential to a general understanding of the two passages in which alone it is found.
Seeing that by the flood the whole human race perished, with the exception of Noah and his family, the very fact that there were Nephilim both before and after the flood is a clear proof that they were not a race, but a class. And since the Nephilim of the book of Numbers were men of great stature, and men of great physical strength, and since, in rude ages and in unsettled times, we universally find that the more robust invariably oppress, or plunder, or hold in subjection, those that are physically inferior to them, the probability is that the Nephilim, whether of Genesis or of Numbers, were men who, being physically and in appearance men of great stature and of great bodily strength, made use of their superiority in these respects to plunder and oppress their fellows; and that it is with special reference to their outrages and oppressions that a subsequent verse tells us that the whole earth was “filled with violence.” Respecting these Nephilim we have only to add, that in the Hebrew they are spoken of as the Nephilim, an article being prefixed which our translators, in their translation of the passage before us, have omitted, as if it were a mere expletive that might be retained or rejected at pleasure. As, however, its being prefixed seems to denote that these Nephilim, whoever they were, were men who, by tradition at least, were well known when this portion of the book of Genesis was written. We prefer to retain it.
The verse, as ordinarily translated, then goes on to tell us,— “And also, after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.” In attempting the elucidation of this somewhat confused statement, our first enquiry is, Who were they who are here spoken of as “the same?” Were they the children that were born of these marriages? or were they those who are previously spoken of as the sons of God? The common supposition is that they were the former; and such (as the verse is translated in our authorized version) would seem to be the obvious and natural meaning of the words. But it must be borne in mind that the word “children” is a supplemented word. А mere English reader may see this for himself, by noticing that in the English translation of the verse it is printed in italics—to indicate that it is not in the original—though of course implied. The strict translation of this portion of the verse is simply, “and they bare to them.” Grammatically, therefore, the words “the same” appear rather to refer to the sons of God, who, going in unto the daughters of men, begat the children, than to the children themselves.
Upon the supposition that such is their reference, the obscurity of the verse is already very much removed. A change in the punctuation of the words that follow, in which we are told of those who are spoken of as “ the same,” that they “became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown,” will tend to its yet further elucidation. By placing a comma after the words “which were of old,” and thereby separating them from the words which follow, our translators clearly understood these Words as asserting of those that are here spoken of as “the same,” three things:—1st, that they became mighty men; 2nd, that they were of old; and 3rd, that they were, or became, men of renown. But as the original is not punctuated, we have as much right, if the sense requires it, to omit the comma as to insert it. Omit it, and the verse reads thus, making not three separate assertions, but only one, viz., that “the same became mighty men, who hitherto (this being the sense in which we understand the words ‘of old’) had been men of renown.” In other words, that the polygamous marriages of these hitherto righteous men, these sons of God, acted injuriously upon their character, causing those who had hitherto been sons of God and men of renown, to aspire to be and to become, instead thereof, men of mere power—“mighty men.”
Of course, in themselves considered, the words “mighty men” imply nothing as to moral character. But when used in such a connection as that in which we here find them, when we are told that men who had borne the high designation of being sons of God, and of being men of renown, giving way to the self-indulgence of unbridled polygamous intercourse, took to themselves “wives of all whom they chose,” and became men of might, or mighty men, it does seem as if the words were intended to denote deterioration of character. Especially have we reason for so thinking when it is immediately added, as if to express that their becoming such indicated such deterioration—“and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.”
The only remaining cause of obscurity is the punctuation and translation of the Hebrew expression וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר “and also after that, when,” etc., a translation and punctuation by which that which is asserted of the sons of God, in verse 4, is inconsistently represented as being subsequent to itself. (See verse 2.)
“When” (in one single word) would, we believe, more correctly express the meaning of the Hebrew; as in Deut. xxiv. 4, “He may not take her again after-when (i.e., when) she is defiled;” and as in Josh. ii. 7, “And after-that-when (i.e., And when) they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate.”
Thus translated and thus explained, the whole verse reads as follows*:—
If these expressions be thus understood, the passage, so far as respects the intercourse of these “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” presents no difficulties, simply telling us that in the days preceding the deluge, those who, in virtue of their real or seeming piety, had hitherto borne that high designation, becoming ensnared by the beauty of the women of the time, polygamy prevailed to such an extent, that they took to themselves an unlimited number of wives, even “wives of all whom they chose.” The chief difficulty, then, that yet remains to be removed is verse 4. “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.” This is a verse that has perplexed us for years. Its difficulties, so far at least as our conception of them is concerned, consist not so much, we think, in the declaration that there were “giants in the earth in those days,” as in the general haziness of the verse, of its concluding portion more especially. In attempting its elucidation, the word Nephilim—the word translated giants—demands our first attention. For several reasons we should prefer to leave this word untranslated; partly because its meaning is very uncertain; but chiefly because—so far as the passage as a whole is concerned—a correct conception of its very meaning is not of much importance. It is not a word of frequent occurrence. It occurs only here and in Numb. xiii. 33, where the spies who had been sent by Moses to search the land of Canaan, preparatory to the attempt to take possession of the same, report, “We are not able to go up against the people [of this land], for they are stronger than we. All the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak.” There can be little doubt, however, from the connexion in which the word is used in this passage from the book of Numbers, that the Nephilim there and here spoken of were, at least for the most part, men of large stature; and could we feel sure that it was as such that they were called Nephilim, the word giants would of course be an appropriate translation. But we do not think that this was the case, and that for two reasons. In the first place, the idea conveyed by our word giant is, in every other instance, expressed in Hebrew by a different word--Rapha—a word which occurs in no less than twenty-two separate passages. Our second reason is, that there is nothing in the etymology of the word that would lead one to suppose such to be its signification. So far as its etymology is concerned, it would seem rather to be a word expressive of some moral characteristic, or of some customary course of action, than as designating superiority of stature. It has accordingly (its root being Naphal, to fall), been by many translated apostates (i.e., men who had fallen away from the fear and worship of God); and by perhaps as many more, assaulters, as being men who fell upon and assaulted others; as being, in short, men of lawless and predatory habits. Plausible reasons have been advanced in support of each of these suppositions, but as the correctness of neither of them can be decisively proved, it would, we think, be better to let the word remain untranslated, especially as its very meaning is not essential to a general understanding of the two passages in which alone it is found.
Seeing that by the flood the whole human race perished, with the exception of Noah and his family, the very fact that there were Nephilim both before and after the flood is a clear proof that they were not a race, but a class. And since the Nephilim of the book of Numbers were men of great stature, and men of great physical strength, and since, in rude ages and in unsettled times, we universally find that the more robust invariably oppress, or plunder, or hold in subjection, those that are physically inferior to them, the probability is that the Nephilim, whether of Genesis or of Numbers, were men who, being physically and in appearance men of great stature and of great bodily strength, made use of their superiority in these respects to plunder and oppress their fellows; and that it is with special reference to their outrages and oppressions that a subsequent verse tells us that the whole earth was “filled with violence.” Respecting these Nephilim we have only to add, that in the Hebrew they are spoken of as the Nephilim, an article being prefixed which our translators, in their translation of the passage before us, have omitted, as if it were a mere expletive that might be retained or rejected at pleasure. As, however, its being prefixed seems to denote that these Nephilim, whoever they were, were men who, by tradition at least, were well known when this portion of the book of Genesis was written. We prefer to retain it.
The verse, as ordinarily translated, then goes on to tell us,— “And also, after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.” In attempting the elucidation of this somewhat confused statement, our first enquiry is, Who were they who are here spoken of as “the same?” Were they the children that were born of these marriages? or were they those who are previously spoken of as the sons of God? The common supposition is that they were the former; and such (as the verse is translated in our authorized version) would seem to be the obvious and natural meaning of the words. But it must be borne in mind that the word “children” is a supplemented word. А mere English reader may see this for himself, by noticing that in the English translation of the verse it is printed in italics—to indicate that it is not in the original—though of course implied. The strict translation of this portion of the verse is simply, “and they bare to them.” Grammatically, therefore, the words “the same” appear rather to refer to the sons of God, who, going in unto the daughters of men, begat the children, than to the children themselves.
Upon the supposition that such is their reference, the obscurity of the verse is already very much removed. A change in the punctuation of the words that follow, in which we are told of those who are spoken of as “ the same,” that they “became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown,” will tend to its yet further elucidation. By placing a comma after the words “which were of old,” and thereby separating them from the words which follow, our translators clearly understood these Words as asserting of those that are here spoken of as “the same,” three things:—1st, that they became mighty men; 2nd, that they were of old; and 3rd, that they were, or became, men of renown. But as the original is not punctuated, we have as much right, if the sense requires it, to omit the comma as to insert it. Omit it, and the verse reads thus, making not three separate assertions, but only one, viz., that “the same became mighty men, who hitherto (this being the sense in which we understand the words ‘of old’) had been men of renown.” In other words, that the polygamous marriages of these hitherto righteous men, these sons of God, acted injuriously upon their character, causing those who had hitherto been sons of God and men of renown, to aspire to be and to become, instead thereof, men of mere power—“mighty men.”
Of course, in themselves considered, the words “mighty men” imply nothing as to moral character. But when used in such a connection as that in which we here find them, when we are told that men who had borne the high designation of being sons of God, and of being men of renown, giving way to the self-indulgence of unbridled polygamous intercourse, took to themselves “wives of all whom they chose,” and became men of might, or mighty men, it does seem as if the words were intended to denote deterioration of character. Especially have we reason for so thinking when it is immediately added, as if to express that their becoming such indicated such deterioration—“and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.”
The only remaining cause of obscurity is the punctuation and translation of the Hebrew expression וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר “and also after that, when,” etc., a translation and punctuation by which that which is asserted of the sons of God, in verse 4, is inconsistently represented as being subsequent to itself. (See verse 2.)
“When” (in one single word) would, we believe, more correctly express the meaning of the Hebrew; as in Deut. xxiv. 4, “He may not take her again after-when (i.e., when) she is defiled;” and as in Josh. ii. 7, “And after-that-when (i.e., And when) they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate.”
Thus translated and thus explained, the whole verse reads as follows*:—
|
“The Nephilim (whom we may suppose to have been a well-known and daringly wicked class of men, whatever may have been the precise nature of their wickedness) were in the earth in those days; and also, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare to them, the same (i.e., they also, the sons of God, the hitherto righteous,) became men of might, who heretofore had been men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.”
|
There were Giants in the earth in those days: and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown. And God saw, etc. |
The statement of the passage then is simply this:—That there were two causes that moved God to punish the wickedness of men; the one, the existence (and, as we may fairly assume, the wickedness) of the Nephilim; the other, the apostacy and altered character of those who hitherto had been men of‚ good renown, and had borne the high designation of “Sons of God.” Thus understood, it no longer relates a mere marvel, as in the common translation, “And there were Giants in the earth in those days,” etc., but records a solemn fact; telling us that in those days the earth was so filled with violence that even those who had been sons of God and men of good repute, ended by becoming, like the rest of men, men of violence and might.
* We subjoin the Authorized Version, italicising those portions of it from which we deviate, and bracketing the supplemented words.
* We subjoin the Authorized Version, italicising those portions of it from which we deviate, and bracketing the supplemented words.
Source: The Giants and the Sons of God: A Criticism upon Genesis VI. 1-5, Reprinted from "The Journal of Sacred Literature" for October, 1867 (London: Williams and Norgate, c. 1868).
