Sons of God

Not to be confused with Son of God or God the Son.

Sons of God (Heb: bənê hāʼĕlōhîm,[1] בני האלהים) is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. When applied to men, the phrase refers to the righteous who become conscious of God's fatherhood to his creation. The phrase is also used in Kaballah where Bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

Hebrew Bible

In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase "sons of the Elohim" occurs in:

Deuteronomy 32:8 also mentions "sons of Israel" bÿney yisra'el (בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל), which is translated as the "people of Israel" in the HCSB, "heavenly court" in the New Living Translation, and "heavenly assembly" in the New English Translation. [2][3] In some copies of Deuteronomy, the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the sons of God rather than the sons of Israel, probably in reference to angels. The Septuagint reads similarly.[4][5]

Literary origins

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

— Genesis 6:1-4

The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1-4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.[6]

This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism.

Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, though modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

The second interpretation of the passage is similar to many Christian interpretations, with some differences. Christians use the passage as evidence that humanity was originally quasi-divine or perfect before the fall of man, with Jesus being the quintessential perfect man as the Son of God.

Joseph Hong believes that Genesis 6:1-4 has gone through drastic abridgment by either the original writer or later editors.[9][10] Nahum M. Sarna believes that the text defies certain interpretation, based on difficulties with the text's themes, extreme terseness, vocabulary, and syntax. Sarna postulates that such a passage cannot be other than a fragment, or bare outline, from a well-known fuller story.[11][12]

Ugaritic text

Claus Westermann claims that the text of Genesis 6 is based on an Ugaritic urtext.[13] In Ugaritic, a cognate phrase is bn 'il.[14] This may occur in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.[15]

The phrase bn ilm ("sons of the gods") is also attested in Ugaritic texts,[17][18][19][20][21] as is the phrase phr bn ilm ("assembly of the sons of the gods").[22]

Elsewhere in the Ugarit corpus it is suggested that the bn ilm were the 70 sons of Asherah and El, who were the titulary deities of the people of the known world, and their "hieros gamos" marriage with the daughters of men gave rise to their rulers.[23] There is evidence in 2 Samuel 7 that this may have been the case also in Israel.[24]

Late text

J. Scharbert associates Genesis 6:1-4 with the Priestly source and the final redaction of the Pentateuch.[25] On this basis, he assigns the text to later editorial activity.[26] Rüdiger Bartelmus sees only Genesis 6:3 as a late insertion.[25]

Józef Milik and Matthew Black advanced the view of a late text addition to a text dependent on post-exilic, non-canonical tradition, such as the legend of the Watchers from the pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch.[25]

Translations

Different source versions of Genesis 6:1-4 vary in their use of "sons of God". Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have emendations to read "sons of God" as "angels". Codex Vaticanus contains "angels" originally. In Codex Alexandrinus "sons of God" has been omitted and replaced by "angels".[27] The Peshitta reads "sons of God".[28]

Second Temple Judaism (c.500 BCE-70 CE)

The Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees refer to the Watchers who are paralleled to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6.[29] The Epistle of Barnabas is considered by some to acknowledge the Enochian version.[30]

Interpretation

Christian antiquity

Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Commodianus believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels who engaged in unnatural union with human women, resulting in the begetting of the Nephilim.[31] Modern Christians have argued against this view by reasoning on Jesus' comment in Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry, although it only refers to angels in heaven.[1] Others saw them as descendants of Seth.[1]

Saint Augustine subscribed to this view, based on the orations of Julius Africanus in his book City of God, which refer to the "sons of God" as being descendants of Seth (or Sethites), the pure line of Adam. The "daughters of men" are viewed as the descendants of Cain (or Cainites). Variations of this view was also received by Jewish philosophers.[32]

Medieval Judaism

Traditionalists and philosophers of Judaism[33] in the Middle Ages[34] typically practiced rational theology. They rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels since evil was considered abstract. Rabbinic sources, most notably the Targum, state that the "sons of God" who married the daughters of men were merely human beings of exalted social station.[35] They have also been considered as pagan royalty[1] or members of nobility[36] who, out of lust, married women from the general population. Other variations of this interpretation define these "sons of God" as tyrannical Ancient Near Eastern kings who were honored as divine rulers, engaging in polygamous behavior.[1] No matter the variation in views, the primary concept by Jewish rationalists is that the "sons of God" were of human origin.[35]

Most notable Jewish writers in support for the view of human "sons of God" were Saadia, Rashi, Lekah Tob, Midrash Aggada, Joseph Bekor Shor, Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, David Kimhi, Nahmanides, Hizkuni, Bahya Ashur, Gersonides,[37] Shimeon ben Yochai and Hillel ben Samuel.[38]

Ibn Ezra reasoned that the "sons of God" were men who possessed divine power, by means of astrological knowledge, able to beget children of unusual size and strength.[36]

Jewish commentator Isaac Abrabanel considered the aggadot on Genesis 6 to have referred to some secret doctrine and was not to be taken literally. Abrabanel later joined Nahmanides and Levi ben Gerson in promoting the concept that the "sons of God" were the older generations who were closer to physical perfection, as Adam and Eve were perfect. Though there are variations of this view, the primary idea was that Adam and Eve's perfect attributes were passed down from generation to generation. However, as each generation passed, their perfect physical attributes diminished. Thus, the early generations were mightier than the succeeding ones. The physical decline of the younger generations continued until the Flood, to the point that their days were numbered as stated in Genesis 6:3. It was immoral for the older generations to consort with the younger generations, whereby puny women begot unusually large children. Nephilim was even considered a stature.[32]

Jewish philosophic preachers such as Jacob Anatoli and Isaac Arama viewed the groups and events in Genesis 6:1-4 as an allegory, primarily for the sin of lust that declined man's higher nature.[39]

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2011, p. 1384
  2. ↑ Michael S. Heiser. "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God" (PDF).
  3. ↑ "lost in translation 3c: why aren't these verses in my bible? deuteronomy 32:8". August 2, 2011.
  4. ↑ Riemer Roukema (2010). Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma. T&T Clark International. p. 147. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
  5. ↑ Michael S. Heiser (2001). "DEUTERONOMY 32:8 AND THE SONS OF GOD". Retrieved 30 January 2014.
  6. ↑ Davies 1995, p. 22
  7. ↑ paleographically dated by Milik as c150BC see Michael E. Stone Selected studies in pseudepigrapha and apocrypha 1991 p. 248
  8. ↑ either stolen or purchased from street vendors by the British in the reign of Tewodros
  9. ↑ Joseph Hong. Problems in an Obscure Passage. Notes on Genesis 6.1-4: The Bible Translator XL, 2, 1989, p.420
  10. ↑ Davies 1995, p. 24
  11. ↑ Sarna. Genesis, JPSTC, 1989, p.45
  12. ↑ Davies 1995, p. 21,24
  13. ↑ C. Westermann, Genesis, BKAT 1/3. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 42
  14. 1 2 DDD 1998, p. 795
  15. ↑ Mark S. Smith The Ugaritic Baal cycle 1994 p249 "all the divine sons" (or "all the sons of God"). ESA sources may support this point."
  16. ↑ M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, J. Sanmartin Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit 2d ed. (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995)
  17. ↑ Jesús-Luis Cunchillos, Juan-Pablo Vita, A concordance of Ugaritic words 2003 p389
  18. ↑ Jesús-Luis Cunchillos, Juan-Pablo Vita, The texts of the Ugaritic data bank 2003 p82
  19. ↑ Marvin H. Pope El in the Ugaritic texts 1955 p49
  20. ↑ Rahmouni, A. Divine epithets in the Ugaritic alphabetic texts 2008 p91
  21. ↑ Young G. D. Concordance of Ugaritic 1956 Page 13
  22. ↑ G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren Theological dictionary of the Old Testament 2000 p130
  23. ↑ Parker, Simon B. (2000). "Ugaritic Literature and the Bible". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 228–31. doi:10.2307/3210794. JSTOR 3210794.
  24. ↑ Cooke, Gerald (1961). "The Israelite King As Son of God". Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (2): 202–25. doi:10.1515/zatw.1961.73.2.202.
  25. 1 2 3 Davies 1995, p. 23
  26. ↑ Scharbert, J. Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Gn 6 1967
  27. ↑ Jackson 2004, p. 75, "Rahlfs (1971) reports that Alexandrinus was emended by another hand at 6.2 crossing out the word uioi and writing the word aggeloi."
  28. ↑ Biblia Peshitta en español: traducción de los antiguos manuscritos arameos.. Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Bible Publishers. 2006. ISBN 9789704100001.
  29. ↑ Wright 2004, p. 20
  30. ↑ James Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: outlook and background 1994 - p10 "The quotation finds no precise equivalent in Enoch, which is probably explicable on the grounds that B. is inspired by something he remembers from Enoch at this point (see for a parallel to I Enoch 89:61-64; 90:17f.)"
  31. ↑ Douglas 2011, p. 1384
  32. 1 2 Bamberger 2006, pp. 150, 151
  33. ↑ Bamberger 2006, p. 148
  34. ↑ Bamberger 2006, p. 147
  35. 1 2 Bamberger 2006, p. 149
  36. 1 2 Bamberger 2006, p. 150
  37. ↑ Bamberger 2006, pp. 149, 150
  38. ↑ Jung 2004 Reprint, pp. 66, 67
  39. ↑ Bamberger 2006, p. 151

References

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, December 17, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.