Sons of God
Sons of God (, literally: "sons of the gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and in Christian Apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies. Hebrew Bible. Genesis 6. 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. That the "sons of God" were separate enough from the "daughters of men" that they warranted such a distinction, has spawned millennia's worth of debate  regarding the meaning of the term. Historically, in Jewish thought, this passage has had two interpretations: Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and 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. Ugaritic text. Claus Westermann claims that the text of Genesis 6 is based on an Ugaritic urtext. In Ugaritic, a  cognate phrase is "bn 'il". This may occur in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. The phrase "bn ilm" ("sons of the gods") is also attested in Ugaritic texts, as is the phrase "phr bn ilm" ("assembly of the sons of the gods"). 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. There is evidence in 2 Samuel 7 that this may have been  the case also in Israel. Late text. J. Scharbert associates Genesis 6:1–4 with the Priestly source and the final redaction of the Pentateuch. On this basis, he assigns the text to later editorial activity. Rüdiger Bartelmus sees only Genesis 6:3 as a late insertion. 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 version of the Book of Enoch. 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". This reading of Angels is further confirmed by Augustine in his work City of God where he speaks of both variants in book 15 chapter 23. The Peshitta reads "sons of God". Furthermore the Vulgate goes for the literal "filii Dei" meaning Sons of God. Most modern translations of Christian bibles retain this whereas Jewish ones tend to deviate to such as "Sons of Rulers" which may in part be  due to Simeon ben Yohai who cursed anyone who translated this as "Sons of God" (Genesis Rabbah 26:7). Beyond this in both the Codices Job 1:6 and Deuteronomy 32:8 when the phrase "angels of God" is used in place of where the Hebrew says "sons of God". For the verse in Deuteronomy the Masoretic Text does not say "sons of God" but "sons of Israel" however in 4Q37 the term "sons of God" is used. This is probably the root reading for the reading we see in the Septuagint. Other mentions. The phrase "sons of the Elohim" also occurs in : Closely related phrases include: Second Temple Judaism (c. 500 BCE – 70 CE). The Book of Enoch, the Enochic Book of Giants, and the Book of Jubilees refer to the Watchers who are paralleled to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6. The Epistle of Barnabas is considered by some to acknowledge the Enochian version. Interpretation. Christian antiquity. 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. Some scholars view  Jesus' comment in that angels in heaven do not marry, as a refutation to this view. Other early Christians believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1–4 were the descendants of Seth. Augustine of Hippo subscribed to this view, based on the "Chronographiai" 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 were also received by Jewish philosophers. Medieval Judaism. Traditionalists and philosophers  of Judaism in the Middle Ages 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. They have also been considered as pagan royalty or members of nobility 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. No matter  the variation in views, the primary concept by Jewish rationalists is that the "sons of God" were of human origin. 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, Shimeon ben Yochai, and Hillel ben Samuel. 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. 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. 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.