Pages 2-6: autumn 1991 IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK.... Farrell Till Like all literature contem
Pages 2-6: autumn 1991
IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK....
Farrell Till
Like all literature contemporary to the times, the Bible contains mythol-
ogy. Fundamentalists vehemently deny this, but it is an inescapable conclu-
sion that all objective Bible students eventually reach. When one's predisposi-
tion and determination to see the Bible as the inerrant "word of God" are laid
aside, the mythological base of many of the Bible stories becomes readily
apparent. An especially embarrassing myth for bibliolaters is the quaint little
story about "the sons of God" producing a race of terrestrial giants by
marrying the daughters of men:
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground,
and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they
were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they
chose. Then Yahweh said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals
forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred
twenty years." The Nephilim (giants) were on the earth in those
days--and also afterwards--when the sons of God went in to the
daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the
heroes that were of old, warriors of renown (Gen. 6:1-4, NRSV
with Yahweh substituted for the LORD).
Most versions of the Bible refer to the beings in this passage who took wives
of the daughters of men as "the sons of God," but the expression (beni ha-
elohim) in Hebrew literally meant "sons of the gods" and is so translated in
The Revised English Bible. So a definite hint of mythology is seen in the
very language that was used to tell this fanciful tale of angels marrying
earthly women, because any modern reader encountering a story that referred
to gods and the sons of gods would immediately know that it was fantasy
fiction or mythology, especially if it involved gods consorting with earthly
women.
Bibliolaters will quickly protest that the Hebrews used the plural word
elohim when referring to their god Yahweh. They call it "the plurality of
dignity," a way of expressing the majesty and greatness of God. Some even
think they see an early recognition of the triune godhead in the plural
term elohim. These matters were discussed in my exchange of articles with
Mac Deaver in the summer issue of TSR, so I won't get involved in rehashing
them here. Readers who keep their back issues, however, might want to
read the exchange again to review biblical passages that clearly show the
early Hebrews were polytheistic. They believed that the gods of the nations
around them were entities just as real as their own god Yahweh but that
Yahweh was vastly superior to the others, a God of gods, a sort of supergod
whose powers exceeded all the others.
Suffice it to say at this point that Genesis 6:1-4 literally refers to beni
ha-elohim (the sons of the gods) rather than "the sons of God" as it has
been deceptively rendered in most English translations. This fact alone gives
us our first clue that this passage is an ancient one that managed to survive
the piecemeal editing of the monotheistic era in which the J, E, P, R, and D
documents were patched together to give the Tanach (Hebrew scriptures)
their final structure. It reflects the thinking of a time when people saw the
world as a place ruled by gods (many) rather than Yahweh, the one and only
God.
Anyone who has studied the mythology of prescientific times knows that
giants figured prominently in the literature of that era. The Greeks had
their Hercules, who was so big and powerful that he supported the world on
his shoulders. Even the relatively modern fairy tale of Jack and the Beanstalk
1
involved an encounter with a giant. The prescientific Hebrews were no dif-
ferent from the other nations of superstitious times. They had their mytholo-
gy, and giants were part of their mythology.
As indicated in the Genesis 6 passage, the Hebrews called their giants
nephilim, which both Strong and Young define as "fellers," "fallen ones,"
or "giants." (Why they were perceived as "fellers" or "fallen ones" will
become very clear as I proceed.) After the men whom Moses sent ahead to
spy out Canaan returned to camp, they reported having seen "the Nephilim,
the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim: and we were in our own sight
as grasshoppers" (Num. 13:33). Upon hearing this, the people were terrified
and wept all night, fearing that Moses had led them out of Egypt only to face
certain death at the hands of the Nephilim (Num. 14:1-3). To their supersti-
tious minds, these Nephilim, sons of Anak, known also as Anakim, were "a
people great and tall" of whom they had heard said, "Who can stand before
the sons of Anak?"
The Hebrews designated giants by other names too. Deuteronomy 2:10
spoke of "a people great, and many, and tall" known as Emim, who had
"aforetime" dwelt in the land of Moab. The passage called them Rephaim and
compared them to the Anakim. Joshua 11:21-23 credited Joshua with the total
destruction of the Anakim from the hill-country of Israel so that none were
left in the land except in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, which were all Philistine
strongholds that the Israelites were never able to control. David came to
prominence in Israel as a result of his famous battle with Goliath of Gath, a
giant whose height was "six cubits and a span" or about ten feet (1 Sam.
17:4), and battles with giants (Heb. raphaim) are mentioned in 2 Samuel
21:16-22 and 1 Chronicles 20:4-8. Other references to giants (rephaim or
anakim) were made in Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11,13 and Joshua 12:4; 13:12;
15:8; 17:15; 18:16. Many post-KJV translations have attempted to veil these
superstitious allusions to giants in "God's inspired word" by transliterating
the Hebrew terms Nephilim, Anakim, and Rephaim rather than translating
them to convey the idea of giantism. To unsuspecting English readers, the
terms simply become tribal or nationalistic designations like Syrian or Amorite
rather than mythological allusions to giants.
Wading through all of these references may be tedious, but they do
obviously establish that the Hebrews, like the superstitious nations around
them, believed in the existence of giants. Genesis 6:1-4 appears to be a
mythological attempt to explain the existence of giants, just as Genesis 3:14-
15 was an obvious mythological attempt to explain the natural enmity that
exists between man and snakes. To the prescientific Hebrew mind, giants ex-
isted because "the sons of the gods," had seen the fairness of "the daughters
of men" and had taken them for wives. In other words, giants had resulted
from the sexual union of angels and human women.
In my debate with Bill Jackson, I made brief mention of this passage just
to make a point about another matter, and he built it into a straw man that
he could knock around to avoid dealing with the issue being debated:
His (Till's) view is that Moses believed angels intermarried
with earthly women. And he is the one, mind you, who speaks
of the need for evidence! Wonder where he found angels in
Genesis 6:1-4? This from a character who doesn't even know if
he believes in God, having said the greater evidence lies on the
side of the atheist (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 19)!
From then on, Mr. Jackson made frequent derogatory remarks about my
interpretation of this passage, as if it were perfectly ridiculous for anyone to
see the intermarriage of angels and women in it. Before his death in April,
Mr. Jackson had agreed to write a reply to this article for simultaneous
publication in TSR. I sincerely regret not only his untimely death but the
opportunity he has missed to see just where I found angels in this passage.
2
They weren't at all hard to find.
The key to understanding the passage is the proper interpretation of beni
ha-elohim (the sons of the gods). Let bibliolaters believe that this expression
meant only "the sons of God" if they want to. That still will not help their
case, because usage of the expression, although infrequent in the Old Testa-
ment, clearly establishes it as a reference to celestial beings or spiritual
entities. Besides the Genesis 6 passage, this exact expression was used only
three other times in the OT, all three in the book of Job. In the beginning
of this book, reference was twice made to the day "when the sons of God
(beni ha-elohim) came to present themselves before Yahweh" (1:6; 2:1). On
both occasions, Satan "came also among them (the sons of God) to present
himself."
Now where did the writer of Job expect us to believe that these scenes
had taken place, on earth or in heaven? Surely, he didn't intend for us to
think that these were scenes that had happened on earth, for on both occa-
sions, after discussing Job's character with Yahweh, "Satan went forth from
the presence of Yahweh" (1:12; 2:7). To the Hebrew mind, "the presence
of Yahweh" would have been a location in heaven where Yahweh sat on his
throne (1 Kings 22:19; Ps. 11:4; 103:19; Is. 66:1), so whoever these "sons
of God" were, they were creatures who came to present themselves to Yahweh
in heaven.
Confirmation of this conclusion can be found in the third reference in Job
to the "sons of God" (beni ha-elohim). Here Yahweh himself was speaking and
applied the term to entities who already existed when he began creating the
world:
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if you have understanding. Who determined the measure
of it, if you know? Or who stretched the line upon it? Upon what
were the foundations of it fastened? Or who laid the corner-stone
of it, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
Elohim (God) shouted for joy (38:4-7, Bethel Bible)?
Obviously these "sons of God" who shouted for joy on this occasion were not
humans, because man had not yet been created. So whoever these "sons of
God" (beni ha-elohim) were, they were beings who were already in existence
when God began his work of creation. The conclusion is unavoidable: the
writer of Job intended for us to understand that these "sons of God" were
spiritual or celestial beings.
So if the "sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair" and
"took them wives of all that they chose" (Gen. 6:2), whoever wrote this must
have believed that he was describing something more than just ordinary
marriages between human men and women, and especially so since "when the
sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" (v:4), the sexual unions
resulted in children who "were the mighty men that were of old"--the Nephi-
lim. To say that the writer meant nothing more here than when he wrote,
"And so-and-so knew his wife and she bore a son" is to stretch credulity to
the limits.
A striking but enlightening parallel to Genesis 6:1-4 can be found in the
apocryphal book of 1 Enoch:
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 to one another, "Come, let us
choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and
beget us children" (6:1-2, Isaac Translation).
3
The passage goes on to explain that 200 angels took an oath and bound one
another to a curse to carry out the proposal. Under the leadership of Sem-
yaz, they then descended upon Mount Hermon to execute their plan:
And they took wives unto themselves, and everyone (respec-
tively) chose one woman for himself, and they began to go unto
them. And they taught them magical medicine, incantations, the
cutting of roots, and taught them (about) plants. And the
women became pregnant and gave birth to great giants whose
heights were three hundred cubits. These (giants) consumed the
produce of all the people until the people detested feeding them.
So the giants turned against (the people) in order to eat them
(7:1-4).
Giants three hundred cubits (450 feet) tall--this is obviously mythology,
bibliolaters will no doubt say. And that is the point exactly; it is obviously
mythology. Yet the similarity of Genesis 6:1 and 1 Enoch 6:1 is so striking
that it cannot be lightly dismissed. If both passages were in secular books,
no reasonable critic would deny that the two had been derived from the same
source, either written or oral. Bibliolaters, however, are unwilling to apply
to the Bible the same common sense critical reasoning that they routinely
apply to secular works. The writer of 1 Enoch said that "the angels, the
children of heaven, saw them (the daughters of men) and desired them" and
later took them as wives, and bibliolaters agree that this is mythology. The
writer of Genesis said that "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that
they were fair... and took them wives of all that they chose," and bibliolat-
ers say that this is the inspired truth of God! By what reasoning process
does one arrive at conclusions so patently incongruous?
Inerrantists may react with "What do I care what the book of First Enoch
says?" all that they wish, but to do so is to flagrantly ignore the stamp of
approval that New Testament writers put on this "apocryphal" book. In his
introduction to the book, the translator (Isaac) commented on the esteem that
both apocryphal writers and early Christians had for it:
It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4
Ezra. Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted
with the work, and were influenced by it, including Jude, who
quotes it explicitly (1:14f.). At any rate, it is clear that Enoch-
ic concepts are found in various New Testament books, including
the Gospels and Revelation.
... Many church fathers, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, either knew 1 Enoch or were
inspired by it. Among those who were familiar with 1 Enoch,
Tertullian had an exceptionally high regard for it.... (F)ew
other apocryphal books so indelibly marked the religious history
and thought of the time of Jesus.
... (E)ven though Charles (R. H.) may have exaggerated
when he claimed that "nearly all" the writers of the New Testament
were familiar with 1 Enoch, there is no doubt that the New
Testament world was influenced by its language and thought. It
influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthi-
ans, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy,
Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation
(with numerous points of contact). There is little doubt that 1
Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concern-
ing the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic
kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment,
the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder,
therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the
4
earliest apostolic and Church Fathers (The Old Testament Pseude-
pigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, "1 Enoch: a New Transla-
tion and Introduction," pp. 8,10).
With a critical reputation like this, whatever is in the book of 1 Enoch cannot
be waved aside with a disdainful, "What do I care what the book of First
Enoch says?" Even if one chooses to think that the preceding quotation great-
ly exaggerates the influence of 1 Enoch on the formation of the New Testa-
ment, he cannot deny what was twice noted in the quotation, i.e., the writer
of Jude explicitly quoted the book, and in a way that attributed prophetic
powers to its author:
And to these (ungodly men troubling the church) also Enoch,
the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying the Lord came with
ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and
to convict all the ungodly of their works of ungodliness which
they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which
ungodly sinners have spoken against him (vv:14-15).
This is obviously a direct quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9, a fact that, to say the
least, should give believers in the divine inspiration of Jude ample reason to
respect the book. After all, if the Holy Spirit deemed the book important
enough to direct Jude to quote it, they surely couldn't ask for a better
recommendation than that.
Furthermore, the "inspired" Jude identified the author of this quotation as
"Enoch, the seventh from Adam," so if Jude thought that Enoch had made
this statement, he must have been endorsing the Enochian authorship of the
book. And if the Holy Spirit (as the doctrine of verbal inspiration teaches)
was directing Jude in what he wrote, then the Holy Spirit must have actually
known that Enoch had written the book. The inerrantists, then, have
nowhere to go except to conclude that 1 Enoch was actually written by Enoch,
the seventh-generation descendant of Adam who "walked with God" and "was
not, for God took him" (Gen. 5:24). So if bibliolaters are looking for some-
thing to give credibility to 1 Enoch, they surely have it in these facts.
They have to believe that the book was written by a man who was so right-
eous that he was translated directly to heaven without seeing death (Heb.
11:5). Yet with all that to commend it, the book is not even in the holy
canon. But that's another article for another time.
After telling us that angels, the children of heaven, married human women
and produced a race of giants 450 feet tall, this book (which Jude said was
written by Enoch, the seventh from Adam) tells of the earthly corruption that
was caused by these celestial half-breeds. Their angelic fathers taught them
"eternal secrets which are performed in heaven" (9:6), and as a result the
earth became corrupt:
(Moreover) Semyaz, to whom you have given power to rule
over his companions, co-operating, they went in unto the daugh-
ters of the people on earth, and they lay together with
them--with those women--and defiled themselves, and revealed to
them every (kind of) sin. As for the women, they gave birth to
giants to the degree that the whole earth was filled with blood
and oppression (9:7-9).
This corruption became Enoch's explanation for the flood. "The Most High,
the great and Holy One," sent an angel to the son of Lamech (Noah) to warn
him of a great deluge that would destroy all upon the earth except his seed
(10:1-3). In this, we see another obvious parallel between this account and
the Genesis record, for immediately after telling of the "sons of God" marry-
ing the daughters of men, the Genesis writer said that "Yahweh saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth" and determined to destroy all life
on earth, except for Noah who had "found favor in the eyes of Yahweh"
5
(6:5-8). Both writers saw the flood as a consequence of wickedness resulting
from the "sons of God" (children of heaven) marrying "daughters of
men," so both obviously relied on the same source or tradition, the only
essential difference being that Enoch gave many more details about the cor-
ruption that had been caused by the intermarriages.
Prior to telling the story of the flood and Noah's salvation in the ark,
Enoch devoted much more space to a description of man's wickedness than did
the Genesis writer. Man's corruption had been caused by the intermarriage
of angels and earthly women, so God instructed the archangels Raphael,
Gabriel, and Michael to punish the fallen angels for what they had done:
And secondly the Lord said to Raphael, "Bind Azaz'el (a
leader of the fallen angels) hand and foot (and) throw him into
the darkness." And he made a hole in the desert which was in
Duda'el and cast him there; he threw on top of him rugged and
sharp rocks. And he covered his face in order that he may not
see light, and in order that he may be sent into the fire on the
great day of judgment.... And to Gabriel the Lord said, "Pro-
ceed against the bastards and the reprobates and against the
children of adultery; and destroy the children of adultery and
expel the children of the Watchers (see Dan. 4:13,17,23, FT)
from among the people...." And to Michael God said, "Make
known to Semyaza and the others who are with him, who fornicat-
ed with the women, that they will die together with them in all
their defilement. And when they and all their children have
battled with each other, and when they have seen the destruction
of their beloved ones, bind them for seventy generations under-
neath the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment
and of their consummation, until the eternal judgment is conclud-
ed. In those days they will lead them into the bottom of the
fire--and in torment--in the prison (where) they will be locked
up forever. And at the time when they will burn and die, those
who collaborated with them will be bound together with them from
henceforth unto the end of (all) generations" (10:4-6, 9, 11-14).
Several times after this, Enoch mentioned the condemnation that God had
pronounced upon the Watchers (angels) for "begetting giant sons" upon wives
of "the children of the earth" (15:4). He told how that they would be "put
in bonds" and "imprisoned inside the earth" to be "detained here forever"
until "the great day of judgment in which they shall be judged until they are
finished" (13:2; 14:5; 21:10; 19:2).
God's pronouncement of judgment upon the fallen ones went on and on,
and if it all sounds vaguely familiar, that is because it is familiar to all
students of the New Testament. I have already noted that Jude (vv:l4-15)
quoted directly from 1 Enoch 1:9. Prior to this, he referred to the archangel
Michael's contention with the devil over the body of Moses (v:9), an allusion
to a scene in an apocryphal book known as the Assumption of Moses. Obvi-
ously, then, Jude was familiar with apocryphal works, and it was in this
context that he warned his readers of the ever present danger of apostasy by
referring to the section of 1 Enoch summarized above:
And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left
their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest
darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom
and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which in the same
manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued un-
natural lust, serve as an example by undergoing punishment by
eternal fire (vv:6-7, NRSV).
That Jude was here referring to angels who had engaged in sexual immorality
after leaving "their proper dwelling" is apparent from his comparison of their
6
sin with the wickedness of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. What could he
have possibly had in mind regarding these fallen angels except the situation
that Enoch wrote about in the section of his book summarized above? To
deny this is to grasp in desperation for any straw in sight to preserve an
untenable belief in Bible inerrancy.
The writer of 2 Peter made a similar allusion to the damnation of fallen
angels:
For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but
cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest
darkness to be kept until the judgment... then the Lord knows
how to... keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day
of judg- ment--especially those who indulge their flesh in de-
praved lust (2:4-10, NRSV).
So Enoch told of fallen angels whom God imprisoned in darkness inside the
earth to await judgment for having taken wives from the daughters of men.
Both Jude and Peter wrote about fallen angels who have been imprisoned in
chains in deep darkness to await judgment for having engaged in sexual
immorality. The similarity is too striking to deny. The sin of the angels
whom Enoch wrote about had produced a race of giants. Can there be any
doubt, then, that the Genesis writer believed exactly as Enoch did, that
angels (sons of God) had come down from heaven, married human women, and
produced giants on the earth?
We have all heard an adage that tells a reliable way to settle controversy.
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be reasonably sure
it is a duck." Genesis 6:1-4 looks like mythology, sounds like mythology,
and reads like mythology. What else is there to conclude but that it is
mythology? Who would believe otherwise if this were in any book but the
Bible?þ
********************************
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: A free one-year subscription to The Skeptical
Review can be obtained by writing to P. O. Box 617, Canton, IL 61520-0617.
7
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank