[MOVED] The Nephilim Anchor Yale

SeamusDelion said:

Their heroic attributes were noted in translating Nephilim in the versions. Both the LXX and the Vulgate render the expression as gigantes. The Syriac has gnbrʾ. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Targums also follow this custom (Alexander 1972), using either gybryh (Samaritan), gybrym (Neofiti), or gbrʾ (Onkelos). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translates Nephilim with the names of the fallen angels (šmḥzʾy wʿzʾl) mentioned in 1 Enoch as leading the rebellion. Nephilim are referred to as “giants” in the Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha, usually with reference to their pride and wickedness, and to God’s judgment upon them (e.g., Bar 3:26–28). The fullest development appears in 1 Enoch 6–19, and this is followed by allusions in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Midrashim, and the NT (Dimant 1974; Hanson 1977).
2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 are the NT allusions to the Nephilim. Here they are identified as angels who rebelled and have been imprisoned by God. They lead a list of biblical examples of rebels and their punishments current in contemporary Jewish paraenisis (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter WBC, 46–47). Although elements of Greek Titan mythology have been identified here and in Gen 6:1–4 (Kraeling 1947, who separates the gibbōrı̂m from the Nephilim), the presence of a common source for the traditions of 1 Enoch and those of the Greek world is more likely (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter WBC, 50–53, 248–49). Speiser (Genesis AB, 46) identifies this source as Hurrian. Kilmer (1987) has sought to identify the Nephilim with the apkallu of Mesopotamian tradition.
The root npl, “to fall,” seems to be the basis of Nephilim, i.e., “the fallen ones.” This may refer to their fall from heaven, their “fall” into sin, or their fallen status as dead at the time when the events are recorded. The earliest use of the W Semitic npl supports the last option. It occurs in a military context, the 14th century B.C.E. letter of Lab’ayu of Shechem to the pharaoh (EA 252, lines 25–27), “Fall under them that they may smite you!” The sons of Anak, who are identified with the later Nephilim in Num 13:33, are also identified with the Rephaim in Deut 2:11 As the Rephaim are understood as ancient warriors slain by Israel and others, so the Nephilim, “the fallen ones,” are those who are doomed to die.
Source critics have ascribed Gen 6:1–4 to J, while recognizing it as uncharacteristic (WPGI, 329; Gunkel, Genesis BKAT, 52; Noth 1948: 29). Recent studies have ascribed the text to a Canaanite origin (Westermann, Genesis BKAT, 499–500) or to later editorial activity (Scharbert 1967: 66–78; Schreiner 1981: 65–74). Hendel (1987a; 1987b) argues that the improper mating of deities and humans was the original reason for the Genesis flood. However, later additions to this tradition changed the reason to the matter of a general evil in the imaginations of humanity.
As fathers of the Nephilim, the identity of the sons of God is important in understanding whether the Nephilim of Genesis 6 were semi-divine or completely human. The sons of God (hāʾĕlōhı̂m) have been understood as nonhumans (gods, angels), rulers, or descendants of Seth. The first interpretation is supported by the term’s use in Ugaritic myths, in the OT (Ps 29:1; Job 1:6), and in the intertestamental and NT material noted above. It allows for a real contrast with “daughters of men,” which would be nonspecific if it were to mean daughters of nonrulers or daughters of the descendants of Cain (Cassuto 1973; van Gemeren 1980–81; Wenham, Genesis 1–15 WBC, 139–40). Further, the mating of deities with women appears in ANE and Greek mythology (Bartelmus 1979: 36–78). Support of identification with rulers may be found in a similar designation given to the Ugaritic king Keret and to the Davidic king (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7), and in traditional Jewish exegesis (Alexander 1972; Tsukimoto 1979: 19–21). The Sethite interpretation has few modern adherents (Junker 1935; for a reversal of this argument, in which the Sethites are the daughters of man, cf. Eslinger 1979).
For Wenham (Genesis 1–15 WBC, 141), the key seems to be the limitation of human life span in v 3 The daughters of men willingly cohabited with divine beings in order to produce offspring who would gain much longer life spans and perhaps achieve immortality. By rejecting this attempt, God has established a rigid distinction between the mortal and the immortal (Clines 1979: 33–37; Petersen 1979: 58–59; Schreiner 1981: 70–72). The mating of the sons of God with the daughters of men became but one example of the “cosmic imbalance” created in Genesis 1–6

Click to expand...