The Popularity of the Angel Interpretation of Genesis 6

I have been sitting on this article for a few years, so it's not all that timely. It's a response to a 2021 JBL article by Kim Papaioannou about the sinful angels mentioned in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. In that article, Papaioannou argues that the sinful angels referenced in those verses were not the Watchers from the Book of Enoch who engaged in illicit sex with human women, but rather these two New Testament passages had another had another group of sinful angels in mind, basically Satan and his minions. As soon as the article was published, I read it and had some misgivings about it. I started writing a response, imagining that I would send it to JBL, but I took look stretches of time off from writing and thinking about it. Eventually I decided to limit myself to the issue referenced in the title of this post, but then I forgot about the whole thing again—until a few days ago when I once again came across my attempt at a response. By now a formal response seems pointless, so I'll just plop down here some of the material I've gathered.

***

Two passages of the New Testament mention angels that are suffering punishment due to their sin. Given the popularity within ancient Judaism and Christianity of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) and related traditions, scholars have usually interpreted the comments of 2 Peter and Jude in light of the Watchers traditions, such that the sinful angels were those who had intercourse with human women, a tradition related to Genesis 6:1–4. (For a recent example, see Jörg Frey, pp. 86–90 on Jude and 326–29 on 2 Peter.) In a recent article, Kim Papaioannou attempts to overturn this consensus through an analysis of the structure of 2 Peter 2 and Jude, arguing that in both cases the angels sinned through blasphemy, not sex, and thus 2 Peter and Jude were not referencing the Watchers tradition. As a preliminary step to this argument, Papaioannou surveys the ancient interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4, attempting to show that while the Watchers interpretation was popular, it was not universal. The present essay responds to this preliminary element of Papaioannou’s argument. 

Papaioannou attempts to establish in the first major section of his article that “there were different approaches to the myth of angels uniting with women” (396). Anyone who has studied the history of the exegesis of Genesis 6:1–4 knows the truth of this statement, as some readers have thought that the “sons of God” in this passage were angels while others looked for a more mundane interpretation (perhaps judges or descendants of Seth). (See, e.g., Philip Alexander's article from 1972; or more recently the monograph by Doedens.) Most scholars in recent decades have thought that the angels-interpretation predominated in Judaism in the time preceding the writing of the New Testament. This is the belief questioned by Papaioannou. He argues that even in the early period the myth did not enjoy universal acceptance. Indeed, Papaioannou asserts that “there is an equally strong current of thought rejecting the myth” (393; see also 408). He claims that this rejection of the myth is demonstrated by its exclusion from “the majority of manuscripts of the LXX, and more fully so with Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; the targums and the Talmud; a number of pseudepigrapha; and, to some extent, Philo and even Josephus. The assertion therefore that the popularity of the myth is a strong argument in support of its influence on 2 Peter and Jude stands on a shaky ground” (396–97). As we will see, this assessment grossly exaggerates the ancient Jewish opposition to the Watcher myth. 

It is especially surprising to see Josephus on Papaioannou’s list of counter-evidence to the Watchers interpretation, since Josephus explicitly affirms the tradition. 

For many angels of God, consorting with women, fathered children who were insolent and despisers of every good thing because of the confidence that they had in their power. For, according to tradition, they are said to have committed outrages comparable to those said by the Greeks to have been done by giants. (Josephus, Antiquities 1.73; trans. Feldman)

Indeed, Papaioannou himself admits that Josephus “briefly acknowledges the myth” (395), but the appearance of the Watchers in Josephus is so brief that Papaioannou feels justified in claiming that the Watchers story is “theologically unimportant” for Josephus, apparently because Josephus did not go out of his way to attribute the cause of the Flood to the sinful angels. Nevertheless, Josephus clearly accepted the angelic nature of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6, so he provides no counter-testimony to the ubiquity of the tradition. 

The evidence of Philo is not straightforwardly opposed to the Watchers interpretation. Philo read “angels” in his Greek manuscript of Genesis; his quotation of Genesis 6:2 matches precisely the critical text constructed by Wevers (p. 108), save for the substitution of ἄγγελοι for υἱοί (Gig. 6; see LCL). It is not clear whether Philo was aware of the Watchers tradition. He interpreted the story allegorically in reference to humans. (See also Philo, Quod Deus Immutabilis sit 1–4; Quaestiones in Genesim 1.92.) Nevertheless, the reading “angels” in Genesis 6:2 apparently preceded Philo and determined for him the direction in which his allegory of the story needed to go. (On Philo's interpretation, see Wright, pp. 209–30; Stuckenbruck, pp. 131–41; Doedens, pp. 85–86.)

The Septuagint should not be cited as evidence against the Watchers interpretation. As Papaioannou points out, the Old Greek reconstructed by Wevers offers a straightforward interpretation of the Hebrew phrase in Genesis 6:2, 4, “sons of God.” (Wevers’ apparatus notes that some Greek manuscripts, notably Codex Alexandrinus, read “angels of God” at Gen 6:2—but most do not have this alternative reading at Gen 6:4.) Such a rendering in the OG neither favors nor disfavors the Watchers interpretation, any more than does the Hebrew text. Papaioannou thinks that the OG Genesis can be cited against the Watchers interpretation because of the evidence of LXX Job, where the same Hebrew phrase (בני האלהים) appears three times (1:6; 2:1; 38:7, without the article) and is translated each time as "angels of God" or "my angels." (See Ziegler's edition of Job.) Papaioannou concludes that OG Genesis departed from the normal LXX rendering of בני האלהים. “This departure suggests that the translators were hesitant to interpret Gen 6:2 in light of the Watcher myth” (394). But, of course, the Greek translator of Genesis did not depart from the normal LXX rendering of בני האלהים since the Pentateuch was the first portion of Jewish Scripture translated into Greek; the translator of Genesis was the pioneer in LXX translation technique. (See Fernández Marcos, p. 50.) His translation of the phrase בני האלהים tells us nothing about how he understood these beings.

It seems likely that the LXX rendering of Genesis 6:1–4 arose from a belief that the “sons of God” were angels—or, at least, its rendering could easily give that impression. For the LXX is often interpreted by modern scholars as indicating more clearly than the Hebrew that the offspring of the “sons of God” are giants. (For such scholars, see Harl, p. 126; Wevers, pp. 77–78; Brayford, p. 261; Henze, pp. 100–101.) (The LXX uses γίγαντες for both the nephilim and the gibborim of Genesis 6:4.) Certainly Philo (QG 1.92), our earliest interpreter of the LXX version of this story, regarded the giants as offspring of the marriages, as did Josephus (Ant. 1.73). Gigantic offspring resulting from the mixed marriages of Genesis 6:2 suggests that supernatural beings were involved. This interpretation is strengthened by comparison with the later translators, Aquila and Symmachus, who (as we will see) apparently did want to avoid giving the impression that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 were angels. Symmachus, like the LXX, rendered both nephilim and gibborim in Genesis 6:4 with the same Greek word, βίαιοι, “violent ones.” On the other hand, Aquila gave two different renderings: for nephilim, οἱ  ἐπιπίπτοντες, “the falling ones”; for gibborim, δυνατοί, “strong ones,” or δυσίατοι, “incurable ones.” While the preserved material for these translations does not allow us to know whether their renderings presented these beings mentioned in Genesis 6:4 as the offspring of the marriages of Genesis 6:2, as in the LXX, or whether the newer translations mirrored the ambiguity of the Hebrew text in this respect, these beings—whether described as violent or falling or strong or incurable—present no supernatural qualities. The LXX, on the other hand, which not only clarifies that the beings in Genesis 6:4 were the offspring of the marriages but also identifies these beings as giants, implies a supernatural interpretation of the “sons of God.”

Regarding the later Greek translators Papaioannou again reports inaccuracies. He claims: “Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus likewise use ‘angels’ for the three Job texts but deliberately avoid any reference to angels in Gen 6:2 and 4, indicating that, within the tenets of Judaism that these writings represent, the myth was not the accepted way to interpret the Genesis account” (394). The assertion that these three translators “use ‘angels’ for the three Job texts” is incorrect. (See the second apparatus in Ziegler's edition, or Meade, p. 287. All three translators are cited for Job 38:7. Aquila’s reading at Job 1:6 is also attested.) The translation of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion for the relevant expression in Job is attested as “sons” and not “angels.” This evidence demonstrates that these translators, at least in Job, intended to provide a literal translation of the phrase rather than indicating their interpretive preference. Surely they understood these “sons of God” in Job as angels, in line with other Jewish interpretations. (The angel-interpretation of the “sons of God” in Job is found in the Job targum from Qumran for Job 38:7 (11QtgJob xxx 5, DJD 23, p. 149), as well as in the rabbinic targum to Job. See also the discussion in Driver and Gray, pp. 9–10; Clines, pp. 18–19.)

On the other hand, the Genesis translations of these translators—or, rather, two of them—probably does confirm Papaioannou’s judgment that they rejected the Watchers interpretation. (For these readings, see the second apparatus of Wevers' edition.) Aquila rendered the phrase בני האלהים in Genesis 6:2 as οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν θεῶν, adjusting the LXX’s οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ so that the grammatical number of θεός corresponded to that of אלהים (morphologically considered), thereby clarifying that in this instance אלהים does not refer to YHWH. (See Doedens, pp. 79–80; Wevers, p. 76 n. 3, who says that Aquila takes the term as referencing pagan gods; Alexander, p. 65, who mentions two possibilities for interpreting Aquil’s version: pagan gods and judges.) (Augusitne, Civ. 15.23, cited Aquila’s translation and interpreted it through the lens of Psalm 82:6 [as interpreted in John 10:34] such that the “gods” of Aquila’s version of Genesis 6:2 were themselves human beings. Jerome cited the same passage, Psalm 82:6, to explain Aquila’s rendering, but he related the term elohim to angels.) Symmachus offers at Genesis 6:2 οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν δυναστευόντων, “sons of the powerful.” (See Salvesen, pp. 31–32.) This translation by Symmachus perhaps gestures toward the human-interpretation of Genesis’ “sons of God” preferred in rabbinic literature. (See Genesis Rabbah 26.5.) Both Aquila and Symmachus produced their translations in the second century CE, so it is not surprising that they would reflect the interpretive trends attested among the Rabbis. The dating of Theodotion is a debated issue, with some scholars (e.g., Kreuzer) maintaining the traditional second-century date based on information provided by Epiphanius while other scholars (e.g., Gentry; Carbajosa, p. 7 n. 12) argue for an earlier date, in the first century. Potentially, then, Theodotion could provide a very early attestation for a non-angelic interpretation of Genesis 6. Alas, Papaioannous inaccurately reports the data. In fact, Theodotion does not “deliberately avoid any reference to angels in Gen 6:2 and 4,” any more than does the LXX, since Theodotion retained the LXX reading here, οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ. 

Now we may turn to the pseudepigrapha, where we again find Papaioannou claiming more than the evidence allows. The pseudepigrapha discussed by Papaioannou (396) either do not offer any interpretation for the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 (Ps-Philo, LAB 3; Sib. Or. 1.65–125; Apoc. Adam 3), or they even mention the Watcher myth (2 Baruch 56:10–14), as Papaioannou admits. As in the case of Josephus (mentioned earlier), Papaioannou feels justified in citing these pseudepigrapha as counter-examples to the Watcher interpretation of Genesis 6 because these works do not attribute the cause of the Flood to the Watchers but rather to human sin. But, of course, that may mean that (like Josephus) they did believe that Genesis 6 referred to angels cohabiting with humans without blaming this cohabitation for the onset of the flood. That is clearly the case with 2 Baruch, which does include a version of the Watcher myth. It seems to me that the Nag Hammadi text Apocalypse of Adam 3 simply provides no evidence as to whether Genesis 6 mentions sinful angels. Papaioannou is on somewhat more solid ground with Ps-Philo, who offers a basically straightforward summary of Genesis 6:1–3 (with a literal rendering of the “sons of God,” filii Dei) before narrating the flood; LAB 3 skips the Nephilim entirely, which perhaps means the author did not consider the “sons of God” to be angels. On the other hand, Ps-Philo did not feel the need to guard against the the angels-interpretation, as did R. Simeon b. Yoḥai, who a century later pronounced a curse on anyone who called the beings in Genesis 6 “sons of God” (Gen. Rab. 26.5). Book 1 of the Sibylline Oracles, however, does support Pappaioannou’s argument, inasmuch as it omits any reference to angels in the lead up to the flood and identifies the Watchers as human beings of humanity’s second generation. Does book 1 of the Sibylline Oracles present to us Jewish or Christian interpretation? The question has long occupied scholars, but the authoritative text and commentary by Jane Lightfoot (not cited by Papaioannou) identifies books 1–2 as a Christian work of the second century CE. (On the relationship between 1 Enoch and the Sibylline Oracles, see Lightfoot, pp. 352–56.)

What does that leave of Papaioannou’s list of early sources opposing the Watchers interpretation? Without the LXX, or Theodotion, or Philo, or Josephus, the list is dominated by works of the second century CE and later (Aquila, Symmachus, Targums, Talmud), along with the Sibylline Oracles book 1 (of contested date and provenance) and the uncertain evidence of the first-century Ps-Philo. Certainly there is nothing before the second century that approaches the rejection of the angel-interpretation that we see with R. Simeon b. Yoḥai as quoted in Genesis Rabbah 26.5 or the character Trypho, who criticized Justin Martyr for advancing the angel-interpretation (Dial. 1.79.1). It would seem that the second century CE was the time when Jewish interpretation shifted away from the angel-interpretation, just as Philip Alexander argued five decades ago. 

Certainly there is no indication that anyone before the second century CE “endeavored to steer clear of the myth,” as Papaioannou alleges (408).