Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/244

 "The angels are not called 'sons of God' as if they had actually derived their nature from Him as a child from its father; nor in a less exact way, because though created they have received a nature similar to God's, being spirits; nor yet as if on account of their steadfast holiness they had been adopted into the family of God. These ideas are not found here. The name Elohim or sons (i.e. members of the race) of the Elohim is a name given directly to angels in contrast with men the name is given to God and angels in common; He is Elohim pre-eminently, they are Elohim in an inferior sense" (Davidson, Job, Camb. Bible, p. 6).

In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they were perhaps called simply. It is only a desire to save the credibility of the record as literal history, that has prompted the untenable interpretations mentioned in the note below.—2. These superhuman beings, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of men (i.e. mortal women) took to themselves as wives (strictly implying permanent marriages, but this must not be pressed) whomsoever they chose. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters

Ho. Einl. 97.—] see ''Oxf. Hex.'' i. 187.—2. []] Jb. 1$6$ 2$1$ 38$7$, [Dn. 3$25$]; cf. , Ps. 29$1$ 89$7$. In all these places the superhuman character of the beings denoted is evident,—'belonging to the category of the gods.' On this Semitic use of, see Rob. Sm. KM$2$, 17; Pr.$2$ 85, 389 f. (1) The phrase is so understood by G ( [also ] ), Θ, Jub. v. 1, En. vi. 2 ff. (Jude $6$, 2 Pe. 2$4$), Jos. Ant. i. 73; Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns. [S transliterates as in Jb. 1$6$ 2$1$.] (2) Amongst the Jews this view was early displaced by another, according to which the 'sons of the gods' are members of aristocratic families in distinction from women of humble rank: T$O$J, Σ , Ber. R., Ra. IEz. [Aq. is explained by Jer. as 'deos intelligens sanctos sive angelos']. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The prevalent Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles's valuable Note, B. of Jub. 33 ff.) has been to take the phrase in an ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line of Seth: Jul. Afr., most Fathers, Luth., Calv. al.: still maintained by Strack. Against both these last explanations it is decisive that cannot have a narrower reference in v.$2$ than in v.$1$; and that consequently  cannot denote a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant, Orig.$2$ 291 ff.; the Comm. of De. (146 ff.), Di. (119 f.), or Dri. (82 f.). On the eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were a wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenorm. 304 ff.— ] = 'marry': 4$19$ 11$29$ 25$1$ 36$2$ etc.—] 'consisting of all whom,'—the rare of explication; BDB, s.v. 3b (e); cf. G-K. § 119 w$2$: Gn. 7$22$ 9$10$.