Embedded in Genesis 6:1-2 is the remnant of a myth about a time when angels married earthly women and produced a race of giants that caused such corruption on earth that Yahweh felt compelled to destroy all life except for that which Noah and his family saved aboard the ark. I first wrote on this myth in the Autumn 1991 issue of The Skeptical Review ("If It Walks Like a Duck... pp. 2-6) and in the Winter 1992 issue ("Sons of God: Just the Godly Lineage of Seth?"). These articles were written in response to a short article in the June 1991 edition of Christian Courier in which editor Wayne Jackson, a Church-of-Christ preacher, claimed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-2 were merely the "godly" descendants of Seth and made no allusion at all to angels. Although Jackson was offered space to respond to these articles, neither he nor anyone else has attempted to reply to them.
In anticipation of a reply from someone whom I thought would surely come forth to defend the historical accuracy of the Bible in this matter, I wrote a third article in 1992 about this myth, which I have kept on hold. Since no one has yet accepted my offer of free publishing space either to respond to my articles or to defend the accuracy of the Genesis 6 story, I have decided to publish the third article. Those who wish to review the other two articles but don't have all back issues of TSR can find them on its web site at http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/91 (and 92).
Some very striking parallels are evident when Genesis 6:1-2 is compared to two texts from pseudepigraphic books that clearly presented the belief that angels had once consorted with human females and produced a race of giants that so corrupted the earth that Yahweh decided to destroy all life except for that which Noah and his family saved aboard the ark.
Genesis: 6:1-2, "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose" (NKJV).
1 Enoch 6:1-2, "In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them and desired them; and they said one to another, `Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children'" (Isaac Translation).
Jubilees 5:1, "And when the children of men began to multiply on the surface of the earth and daughters were born to them, the angels of the LORD saw in a certain year of the jubilee that they were good to look at. And they took wives for themselves from all of those whom they chose" (Wintermute Translation).
The Problem: I have quoted three separate passages from Hebrew literature. The first is a quotation from the book of Genesis, which Bible fundamentalists believe Moses wrote by verbal inspiration of God; the other two are from pseudepigraphic books, written by unknown Jewish authors purporting to be famous biblical characters. First Enoch presents itself as the work of Enoch, the seventh generation descendant of Adam who was so righteous that God translated him to heaven (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5), but few contemporary Bible fundamentalists believe that Enoch actually wrote this book, although many first-century Christians did believe the book was authentic. As if he considered it an authentic work of Enoch, Jude (v:14) quoted the ninth verse of chapter one and alluded to the fallen angels imprisoned beneath the earth (v:6) that Enoch wrote about in great detail. The author of Jubilees, whoever he was, also wrote extensively about fallen angels who had committed adultery with human women and thereby corrupted the whole world (chapters 4-5,8).
The problem that 1 Enoch and Jubilees pose for believers in Bible inerrancy is the clarity with which they described the carnal relationships that angels in antediluvian times established with human women. The descriptions are so graphic and so frequent that no one can seriously deny that the writers of 1 Enoch and Jubilees believed that angels had at one time cohabited with earthly women and brought about the corruption of the world. The text in Genesis that refers to this same myth is so brief that fundamentalists have been able to circumvent the problem it poses for the inerrancy doctrine by giving it an interpretation that excludes angels. The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were not angels but simply the righteous descendants of Seth, inerrantists argue, or men who were in covenant relationship with God and then fell away through their sexual promiscuity or some such interpretation that would seem sensible to gullible pulpit audiences who know very little about pseudepigraphic literature or even the Bible itself. However, when Genesis 6:1-2 is juxtaposed with 1 Enoch 6:1-2 and Jubilees 5:1 the similarities in the three texts are so obvious that honest, objective readers will admit that all three passages were referring to the same event. If the authors of the two pseudepigraphic works were describing a period of sexual activity between angels and human women, as the contexts from which the two quotations were taken will clearly show, then it is probably true that the Genesis writer was referring to the same thing.
Critical Analysis of the Texts: Just by reading straight through the passages as I have presented them, without pausing to absorb meaning, one can see obvious similarities in the three texts. For thirty years, I taught freshman writing at a community college, and I wouldn't even try to estimate how many times I discovered plagiarism in the student essays I read. Frequently, the discovery was made through similarities of expression that I found in different essays. Whenever this happened, I would know that two students working independently of each other had by chance gathered information from the same source. Without crediting their source, they would use the information as if it were their own, but in so doing they would retain enough of the original wording for a skilled reader to recognize that plagiarism had occurred. Students whom I caught doing this often expressed surprise that I was able to detect their plagiarism, but there was nothing at all mysterious about the way the discovery was made. It involved only a simple process of critical analysis.
If we apply the same process to the three texts I quoted at the beginning, we can easily determine that all three writers were relying on a common source, either written or oral. The opening statement in all three texts is essentially the same. Whereas the biblical text says, "(W)hen men began to multiply on the face of the earth," the other two say "children of men" rather than just "men," and one (1 Enoch) leaves off the reference to "the face (or surface) of the earth," and simply says that the "children of men had multiplied." Whoever or whatever the beings who married the "daughters of men" were, the Bible calls them "sons of God," whereas the other two texts more specifically identify them as "angels." One describes them as "angels, the children of heaven" (1 Enoch), and the other calls them "angels of the LORD" (Jubilees). In addition, the text from Jubilees contains the expression "in a certain year of the jubilee" that is not in the others. When these slight differences are removed, the reading of all three texts becomes essentially the same.
To illustrate the striking parallel in wording without these minor variations, I am going to substitute "sons of God" for "angels" and "men" for "children of men" in one of the pseudepigraphic texts and then juxtapose it with the passage in Genesis. I will ask the readers to lay their Bibles aside and then, without referring to them, try to identify the statement that is Genesis 6:1-2:
(W)hen men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
(W)hen men began to multiply on the surface of the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were good to look at. And they took wives for themselves from all of those whom they chose.
If you identified the first one as Genesis 6:1-2, you are right, and you apparently have a good eye for detail. Before we leave this point, I want you to look at the two texts again and then consider how slight the changes were that I made in Jubilees 5:1. I dropped "children of" before men and "in a certain year of the jubilee" and then substituted "sons of God" for "angels of the LORD." And that's it! That is how close the wording is in both passages. I now urge you to obtain a copy of Jubilees, which you could probably get through interlibrary loan, and read the context in which the statement in Jubilees 5:1 was made. If you do this, you will see that the writer of Jubilees obviously believed that angels had married earthly women in antediluvian times and corrupted the whole world. You will see it so clearly that no fundamentalist preacher will be able to explain it away.
Another Juxtaposition: If this is not enough to convince you, perhaps another juxtaposition will help you see that the Genesis writer understood the marriages of the "sons of God" and the daughters of men to mean the same as did the pseudepigraphic writers, who thought that angels and earthly women had married:
Genesis 6:1-8, 11-12: Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.... The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.
Jubilees 5:1-5,8: And when the children of men began to multiply on the surface of the earth and daughters were born to them, the angels of the LORD saw in a certain year of the jubilee that they were good to look at. And they took wives for themselves from all of those whom they chose. And they bore children to them; and they were giants. And injustice increased upon the earth, and all flesh corrupted its way; man and cattle and beasts and birds and everything which walks on the earth. And they all corrupted their way and their ordinances, and they began to eat one another. And injustice grew upon the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all mankind was thus continually evil.
And the LORD saw the earth, and behold it was corrupted and all flesh had corrupted its order and all who were on the earth had done every sort of evil in his sight. And he said, "I will wipe out man and all flesh which I have created from upon the surface of the earth." But Noah alone found favor in the sight of the LORD.... "And he said, "My spirit will not dwell upon man forever; for they are flesh, and their days will be one hundred and ten years.
I have italicized certain expressions in the passage from Jubilees for obvious reasons. Each italicized statement has its parallel in the Genesis passage! The order of the statements is not always the same, but the substance is, and sometimes even the exact statement was made in the Genesis text. In fact, if one took only the italicized statements in Jubilees, substituted "sons of God" for angels, omitted the one reference to the jubilee, and rearranged some of the expressions, he could almost reproduce the Genesis text. This is how it would look:
And when the children of men began to multiply on the surface of the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were good to look at. And they took wives for themselves from all of those whom they chose. "And [the LORD] said, "My spirit will not dwell upon man forever; for they are flesh, and their days will be one hundred and ten years." And they bore children to them; and they were giants.
And the LORD saw the earth, and behold it was corrupted and all flesh had corrupted its order and all who were on the earth had done every sort of evil in his sight. And injustice grew upon the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all mankind was thus continually evil. And he said, "I will wipe out man and all flesh which I have created from upon the surface of the earth." But Noah alone found favor in the sight of the LORD.... And injustice increased upon the earth, and all flesh corrupted its way; man and cattle and beasts and birds and everything which walks on the earth. And they all corrupted their way....
This rearranged version contains everything that is in the Genesis passage except for verses 4a and 6, where it was said, respectively, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men," and "the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." Anyone who can look at this rearrangement and deny that the writers of Genesis and Jubilees relied on common sources probably doesn't want to know the truth.
The Omitted Verses in the Jubilees Passage As the readers will notice by referring to the middle column, the passage from Jubilees 5, from which I re-created the Genesis 6 narrative, omitted a part where the ellipsis [...] was inserted. The two verses that were skipped clearly indicate that the writer of Jubilees, like the writer of 1 Enoch, believed that God had condemned angels who had consorted with human women to be imprisoned under the earth to await judgment:
And against his [the LORD's] angels whom he had sent to the earth he was very angry. He commanded that they be uprooted from all their dominion. And he told us to bind them in the depths of the earth, and behold, they are bound in the midst of them, and they are isolated. And against their children a word went forth from before his presence so that he might smite them with the sword and remove them from under heaven (Jubilees 5:6-7).
If the readers will return momentarily to the re-created passage (bottom of the middle column on this page) and insert these two verses at the first ellipsis (second paragraph), he will have, in addition to the re-created Genesis passage, an expansion of the text that provides more details about the myth or legend that the Genesis writer was alluding to in 6:1-12. Everything in the two texts (Genesis and Jubilees) is remarkably parallel except for these two verses in Jubilees that the Genesis account did not include. The additional verses leave no room to doubt what the author of Jubilees thought that these "sons of God" were. Like "Enoch," he clearly believed that they were fallen angels and that Yahweh had ordered them to be imprisoned under the earth to await judgment. In the face of these facts, it is remarkable that Bible fundamentalists will stubbornly deny that the Genesis writer was alluding to the fallen-angel myth that figures so prominently in pseudepigraphic literature.
Genesis as the Source: Since scholars generally agree that Jubilees was written around 100 B.C., inerrantists may ask why it would not have been possible that Genesis was the source of this section of Jubilees. In other words, it might be that someone with a wild imagination lifted certain expressions from Genesis and wove around them a fanciful yarn about angels and earthly women. Such is possible, of course, but then what do we say about the book of 1 Enoch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Qumran MS4? They all contain narrative passages concerning a myth about the unnatural marriages of angels and human women that corrupted the earth and caused God to destroy it with a great flood. Are we to assume that the writers of these works all had wild imaginations that they used to turn the Genesis flood into a fanciful tale about the marriages of angels and earthly women? Let's put this speculation to the cutting edge of Occam's razor. Which is more likely, that different writers working independently plagiarized a fragment of Genesis and turned it into an imaginative story of angels and women marrying or that different writers working independently wove their stories around a widely circulated myth about antediluvian marriages of angels and women? To ask the question is to answer it.
Conclusion: True biblical scholars abandoned the myth of verbal inspiration long ago. They did so because their studies of Mid-Eastern cultures that were contemporary to the Hebrews of Bible times had destroyed the fanciful notion that the Bible was a special revelation from God. They discovered that there was nothing at all "special" about it. It was based on the same myths that had circulated in the Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Canaanite, Persian, Egyptian, and Greek cultures that had surrounded the Hebrews. In fact, we now know that there was even very little originality in the Hebrew myths. They had borrowed them from neighboring cultures and adapted them to their society. The most obvious examples of this adaptation can be found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. The creation, the garden of Eden, the flood, the tower of Babel--these myths had all originated in neighboring cultures.
And so did the Genesis 6 myth about the "sons of God" (angels)
who married earthly women and made the world so corrupt that God
destroyed it with a great flood. Inerrantists will pooh-pooh everything
I have said in this analysis, because they know that their inerrancy
doctrine will collapse if it can be proven that at least part of the
Bible is based on mythology. I believe that I have established that
Genesis 6:1-2 alludes to an ancient myth that was still believed by
some when the Bible was written. All I ask of you, the reader, is a
fair hearing. Weigh everything I have said and do the follow-up studies
I have suggested, and I'm sure you will agree that elements of
mythology can be found in the Bible text.
