Genisis 6: 1-5

[Vanny]

Does the Catholic Church have an official interpertion for this passage?
In Protestantism, it depends on what group you belong to.
I’m reading a book right now that interperts the “Sons of God”
as fallen angels who had intercourse with the “daughters of men”
who were human women and the resultling “mighty men of renown” were the giants or the “nephulim”. The book says that’s why God caused the FLood, among other reasons(general evil) because Noah and his family were not tainted by this “demon” mixing.
Some groups (my church) believes the “Sons of God” were believing men and the “daughters of men” were heathen women.
It’s a strange bunch of verses in the creation story.
This book also claims that some Early Church Fathers and medivial theologians interetpreted this as fallen angels(incubi and sucubi)
I always thought that angels were pure spirit and though they could manifest physically-(i.e. appearing to Abraham and Lot
at Sodom) that they could certainly not copulate with human women and produce offspring!
Any Thoughts?

 

[Fidelis]

It surprises a lot of people to find out that the Catholic Church does not have an official interpretation for every verse of Scripture, especially obscure passages such as this that have no little or no bearing on one’s salvation. I’ve heard that there are only about five verses of Scripture that have an official Church interpretation, including Matthew 16:18.

With that in mind, you are free to look into any Catholic commentary on this passage and draw your own conclusions.

The New American Bible Commentary, for example, says:

1 [1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation–the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.

2 [2] The sons of heaven: literally “the sons of the gods” or “the sons of God,” i.e., the celestial beings of mythology.

4 [4] As well as later: According to Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites invaded Palestine and found there the tall aboriginal Anakim, they likened them to the Nephilim; cf Deut 2:10-11. Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of giants, whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin. The heroes of old: the legendary worthies of ancient mythology.

The Haydock-
Challoner has this to say:

CHAP VI., VER 2. – The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. Ch. – See S. Chrys. hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Sept. having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. Ch.

CHAP. VI., VER. 4. – Giants. It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature, in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust. Ch. – That there have been giants of an unusual size, all historians testify. Og, Goliah, &c. are mentioned in Scripture; and the sons of Enac are represented as much above the common size, as the Hebrews were greater than grasshoppers, Num. xiii. 34. If we should suppose they were four or five times our size, would that be more wonderful that they should live nine or ten times as long as we do? See S. Aug. C. D. xv. 9, 23. Calmet’s Dissert. &c. H. – Of old. The corruption of morals had commenced many ages ago, and some of the sons of Seth had given way to their lusts; so that we are not to suppose, that these giants were all born within a hundred years of the flood, as some might suppose from their being mentioned here, after specifying the age of Noe, chap. v. 31.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I personally believe the best interpretation is that “sons of God” refers to the righteous descendents of Seth whereas the “daughters of men” are the unrighteous descendents of Cain.

Also, I’d like to point out here that the NAB REALLY needs a new commentary. Giving the impression that the Biblical author “borrowed” from “ancient mythology” is incredibly scandalous, and basically serves to agree with the various skeptics (like Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code) who claim that Christianity is just some amalgamation of ancient myths. I think it’s absolutely horrendous to have in the NAB.

 

[Fidelis]

Lazerlike42:

I personally believe the best interpretation is that “sons of God” refers to the righteous descendents of Seth whereas the “daughters of men” are the unrighteous descendents of Cain.

Also, I’d like to point out here that the NAB REALLY needs a new commentary. Giving the impression that the Biblical author “borrowed” from “ancient mythology” is incredibly scandalous, and basically serves to agree with the various skeptics (like Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code) who claim that Christianity is just some amalgamation of ancient myths. I think it’s absolutely horrendous to have in the NAB.

I agree! :yup: I only provided them as an example.

That’s why I’ve switched to the RSV-CE. Even no footnotes are better than annoying footnotes.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Fidelis:

I agree! :yup: I only provided them as an example.

That’s why I’ve switched to the RSV-CE. Even no footnotes are better than annoying footnotes.

I have the same problem, sometimes I question if the footnotes are worth it, at the very least they should be stated in such a way as to not even give the hint of borrowing or myth or whatever. Even drbo.org doesnt talk like that in its footnotes.

Also do you know of a RSVCE online?

 

[Nan_S]

A few other sources:

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary:

The Nephilim: "the fallen ones " are the race of giants mentioned in Num 13:33 as the giant preconquest inhabitants of Canaan; they are the children of unholy unions.

The NIV Study Bible:

Nephilim: People of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means “fallen ones.” They were viewed by people as “the heroes of old, men of renown,” but in God’s eyes they were sinners ripe for judgment.Yes, I know it’s a Protestant source. :bigyikes:

(Catholic) Dictionary of the Bible:

Nephilim (Hb nepilim, literally “abortions” …)

 

[Vanny]

Thank you so much Fidelis and all.
The fallen angel interpertation almost seems to me like a parody of the virgin birth- I hope I’m saying that right.
I thought that all humans on earth were created in concert with God by the union of a man and a woman(except our Lord, of course.) Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Lazerlike 42- I know what you mean about the myth thing.