In his article, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” John Walton argues against interpreting the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as angels. Rather, he proposes that the identification of the “sons of God” is best made in light of parallels between Genesis 6 and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Walton argues that these parallels, along with information from several other ANE sources, provide a historical picture in which the most likely identification of the “sons of God” is ANE kings.
Walton begins with a brief overview of the debate. He explains that there are three basic interpretations of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. There are those who believe that they are men from the line of Seth. Others believe that the “sons of God” are angels. And lastly, others believe that the “sons of God” are rulers. Walton indicates that there are two recent variations on the second and third views. The variation on the second view is one in which the “sons of God” are understood to be “gods.” The variation on the third view (the position with which Walton aligns himself) is a position in which the “sons of God” are understood to be royalty.
Walton gives a significant amount of space to addressing arguments that have been made by those who hold to the position that the “sons of God” are angels. Walton first gives a brief overview of the basic arguments that have been used to support this position. He says that proponents of this view have argued that the author of this section in Genesis 6 sets the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” in antithesis to one another in such a way that the “sons of God” cannot be understood to be part of the “daughters of men.” Therefore, the “sons of God” cannot be human since advocates of this argument say that the “daughters of men” must be understood to refer to humanity in general. Another argument is that the “sons of God” should be understood to be angels since every other time the same form of the phrase appears in the Scriptures it refers to angels. Lastly, Walton explains that some have argued that the “sons of God” should be interpreted as angels since this is the only known interpretation prior to the time of Christ as well as the way the NT authors interpret it (Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4).
After having presented these basic arguments for this position, Walton then gives the reasons that he does not find these arguments compelling. Regarding the argument dealing with the antithesis between “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” he explains that it has long been recognized that there is no logical problem with the idea that the “daughters of men” refers to women in general while the “sons of God” could refer to certain men. Regarding the lexical argument, Walton points out that the number of times that the phrase “sons of God” occurs in the Scriptures is not sufficient to establish a lexical basis for limiting the meaning of that phrase to angels. Rather, Walton argues, the interpreter should draw from biblical and ANE uses of the formula “son(s) of X.” After examining the way this formula is used, Walton concludes that although it is theoretically possible that “sons of God” refers to angels, it is not an interpretation that is dictated by the use of the phrase “sons of God” or the formula “son(s) of X.” Lastly, with respect to the argument from tradition, Walton observes that while extra-biblical sources are interesting and sometimes helpful, that they are not finally authoritative. And finally, the idea that the NT authors understood Genesis 6 in this way is not definitively demonstrated by the texts in question. Jude 6 uses the word “fornication.” which does not seem to be the same thing that is being expressed in Genesis 6. Similarly, while 2 Peter 2:4 speaks about the sin of angels, it is not explicit about the specific sin which these angels committed.
As an alternative to interpreting the “sons of God” as angels, Walton proposes that the parallels between Genesis 6, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other ANE texts, suggest that “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to royalty. First, Walton indicates that Gilgamesh and other ANE kings are said to be of divine lineage and are therefore qualified for the title “sons of God.” Second, he indicates that Gilgamesh is depicted as a giant. If the Nephilim are also understood to be giants (as many interpreters understand them to be based on Numbers 13:33), then Gilgamesh may be understood to fit this category as well. Third, by virtue of his heroism, Gilgamesh qualifies as one of the “heroes of old.” Fourth, Gilgamesh seems to be depicted in the epic as detaining women (taking the daughters of men). Lastly, the fact that the “sons of God” find their longevity reduced would have been particularly fitting if they are understood to be royalty. The reason that this is the case is that kings were especially interested in immortality.
Walton concludes that the parallels between Genesis 6 and the Epic of Gilgamesh relate specifically to ANE royalty. And while there is no literary dependence between these two works, he says that both seem to reflect ANE concepts about royalty. If this is the case, then Genesis 6 can be understood as part of a progression from the individual rebellion of Adam, Cain, and Lamech, to the royal rebellion here in Genesis 6, to the societal rebellion in the narratives of the flood and Babel.
In this article, Dr. Walton demonstrates exemplary use background materials. Explaining material that is relevant to his proposal, he describes the historical background from the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ANE texts in relation to Genesis 6. As he presents this information, he compares it with the biblical passage and notes potential similarities between the two. Finally, he states the conclusions that can be drawn from his analysis and explains how one’s understanding of Genesis 6 is enhanced in light of this material.
In the final analysis, I did find Dr. Walton’s proposal convincing, but not definitively so. The problems he notes relating to the arguments for the view that the “sons of God” are angels are well-taken. Certainly, neither the lexical argument nor the antithesis argument is valid if they are presented deductively. However, if the conclusions of these arguments are simply presented as ways of making sense of the material found in Genesis 6, then they are not so easily dismissed. For example, while there is not an antithesis between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” that necessitates that they must be understood as non-humans and humans, respectively, they may be understood in this way without any kind of logical difficulty. Thus, this position cannot be completely dismissed on the basis that the argument does not deductively establish an understanding of “sons of God” as non-human. Similarly, Walton recognizes that while the lexical argument does not necessitate that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels, it also does not rule out the possibility that they may be.
I was also not completely comfortable dismissing early extra-biblical interpretations of “sons of God” as angels. While it is true that these interpretations are not ultimately authoritative, sometimes those who are more contemporary to the historical context are better able to understand the text. In addition, such interpreters may also be connected with an interpretive tradition that stems back to the original reading of the text. Of course, in this particular case, this is merely speculative. But while there may not have been a sufficient allotment of space to devote to the question of ancient interpretations in this article, it may be something that could be examined more deeply.
With respect to the specific ANE parallels that Walton observes between Genesis 6, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other ANE texts, I was convinced that ANE kings could very easily have been categorized as “sons of God.” It is also very intriguing that Gilgamesh is depicted as somehow detaining women. However, the purpose for which these women were being detained is not clear. In addition, the parallels between Gilgamesh and the Nephilim, and between Gilgamesh and the heroes of old, are contingent upon certain understandings of the Nephilim and an identification of the “sons of God” as the Nephilim and/or the heroes of old. Thus, if these conditions could be further established, Walton’s argument might be better established.
In conclusion, while there are still some unanswered questions regarding these parallels, I was swayed by the force of Walton’s argument. And although I do not think that all of the parallels are equally clear, the overall picture seems to enhance the role of the narrative within the greater context. Thus, the progression from individual rebellion, to royal rebellion, to societal rebellion that can be seen through this paradigm, seems to add strength to the overall argument by allowing the interpreter to see a kind of literary structure that is typical of such literature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One’s tempted to reply, “How else would Walton interpret the text, but through the lens of ANE sources?”
ReplyDeleteAlso, several NT exegetes interpret critical NT passages with the understanding that the authors held the “sons of God” to be non-elect angels.
Should we allow the apostolic revelation of the NT dictate our OT interpretation, or ANE source criticism? I guess that would be my central question. I had long held the view that the “sons of God” were Sethites, who erringly mingled with the Cainite women. Of course this was perfectly consistent with the ‘two seed antithesis,’ but I don’t believe it can stand up to exegetical scrutiny.
Should we allow the apostolic revelation of the NT to dictate our OT interpretation or comparative studies? I'm not sure we should allow comparative studies to "dictate" our interpretation of the Old Testament. Yet I would argue that comparative studies should influence Old Testament exegesis. If an OT parallel sheds light on the way the text would have been understood by the original readers, then we should allow it to influence our interpretation of the text. This isn't something that would stand over or against the New Testament interpretation of the text. Rather can help us to understand what the New Testament author is doing with the text.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, then, we must understand an OT text on its own terms. For example, there are those who would divorce Hosea 11:1 from it's context based on the NT use of the passage. Within its context in Hosea it seems to be a reference to Israel, not the Messiah. And so there are those who would basically ignore the context and then try to explain away the immediate literary context in Hosea 11. But if we understand Hosea 11:1 on its own terms and in its own context, we recognize that it is a reference to Israel. This sheds light on what Matthew is doing with the text. By applying to text to Jesus, Matthew is saying that Jesus is true Israel. The same kind of thing is true with ANE comparative studies. It may influence our understanding of the OT text and then may influence what we see the NT author doing.
I see your point, and concede most all that you say. My qualm is not so much with Walton’s method as it is with his conclusion. Using the same comparative analysis, NT exegetes have found that the NT authors understood the “sons of God” as fallen angels. Comparative studies of passages about the “watchers” in 1 & 2 Enoch, for instance, with pretty ridged parallels in 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, are one line of evidence that many use to support this position.
ReplyDeleteUsing the same method as Walton does, it can be demonstrated that those writing with apostolic authority and inspiration viewed the “sons of God” as fallen angels. If that is so, then we should either suspend judgment altogether with respect to the identity of the “sons of God,” or we should adopt one or the other’s conclusion—Walton’s or the apostle’s—as they are clearly contrary to one another.
Everyone does some measure of eisegesis, it’s unavoidable. Walton is not “ultimately understanding the OT on its own terms,” but in terms of other sources, which he in turn reads into the text of Gen 6. Nothing in the context of Gen 6 explicitly says that these were royalty; the evidence he must import from without. To understand the OT purely on its own terms, according to Paul, would be a veiled reading. It must be read through Christ and his consummation of the entire OT canon (2 Cor 3:15; Lk 24, etc).
All I’m suggesting, then, is that while comparative studies are sometimes helpful, at the end of the day they must bow the knee to the analogia Scripturae, where other texts of Scripture act as the control in our interpretation; not the texts of paganism.
When we speak about reading the OT in light of comparative studies, we are talking about interpreting the text on an exegetical level. When we wpeak about reading the Old Testament through the Christ and His consummation of the OT canon, we are talking about theological interpretation. Both types of reading must occur and I don't think they in any way conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhen I speak about taking the OT on its own terms, I'm only speaking about exegeting the text. It's not that we don't allow anything to influence our interpretation (we must rely upon other sources in order to inform our understanding of the Hebrew language, ancient culture, ancient Hebrew literary genres, etc.). When I say we must look at an OT passage on its own terms, I just mean that we need to read it on an exegetical level before we begin to think about the way it is developed theological in the NT.
I'm vaguely familiar with the argument for understanding "sons of God" as fallen angels based on the background materials. I'm not sure this is a problem. It might just mean that the NT authors were doing something with that particular understanding of Genesis 6. Such a thing would make sense given the understanding of the audience.