“There were giants (nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Genesis 6:4
Just about all ancient religions feature legendary characters who are the offspring of humans and gods. Some of the most obvious examples are Herakles (son of Zeus and the mortal Alcmene), Cuchullain (son of the Celtic god Lugh), Gilgamesh (whose mother was the goddess Ninsun), the Japanese Emperor Jimmu (grandson of the sea-god Ryujin and great-great-great grandson of Amaterasu, Goddess of the Sun) and Achilles (son of the nymph Thetis). The authors of the Bible would obviously have difficulty incorporating this feature into their mythology, since their god Yahweh was not given to physical interaction with His subjects, and was hardly one to brook other deities, even demigods, in His neck of the woods. Thus, they dropped in these few verses in Genesis, implying the existence of a race of legendary giants back in pre-Flood days. The origin of these giants, the Nephilim, is expanded upon in the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, which tells of how a group of angels, led by one Semjaza, found the newly created mortal women rather appealing, and decided to engage in a bit of seed-sowing of their own. Naturally, God finds out and zaps all the randy angels off to Hell. Given that He now has a bunch of superhuman giants running about the place, He decides the best course of action would be – can you guess? – to flood the whole fucking world. Overkill? Yahweh would say He was “being thorough.”
The ironic thing is, of course, that drowning everything on the face of the planet (bar Noah’s family and a hastily assembled floating bestiary) doesn’t seem to have worked. In Numbers 13, the Israelite spies whom Moses sent to Canaan report that, yes, there’s milk and honey and all kinds of sweet shit over there, but also:
“…we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Numbers 13:33
Giants, you say? Well, they can’t be the same giants as before, since all those big buggers drowned in the Flood, surely? Except that the Hebrew word used in Numbers is “nephilim” – that’s the same “nephilim” as is used to describe the half-angelic beings who were causing so much ruckus prior to Noah’s little boat trip. The Hebrew language has a number of other words for “giant” – “rephaim”is the one most commonly used to describe the giants they encountered in Canaan – so it’s telling that the spies specify that they saw “nephilim”, and not another sort of giant. Nowhere else in the entire Bible, save in the earlier Genesis passage, is the word “nephilim” featured, so there’s a clear link between the spies’ report and the angelic progeny of pre-Flood days. It looks as though these giants were bloody good swimmers.
Trying to get around this problem, the Book of Jubilees (also apocryphal) claims that God allowed the survival of one-tenth of the Nephilim, in order that they might act as demons and tempt humanity to sin. Cheers for that, God! Of course, if the whole point of the Flood was to cleanse the world of wrongdoing, allowing a group of sinners to stick around and perpetuate their evil scheming might somewhat hinder its effectiveness… You could have thought it through a little better, that’s all I’m saying.
So if the Nephilim managed to walk away from the Flood, what else might have survived? Unicorns, possibly? Perhaps the Yeti is actually a pre-Flood creature that managed to survive by climbing to high altitudes in the mountains. Maybe there are still a few dragons out there, who knows? Or – and here’s a really wild and out-there proposition – could it be that the antediluvian Nephilim, the Canaanite giants and the very Flood itself were all pre-existing mythic fictions woven together by the Judean editors of the seventh century BCE, to try and create a meaningful history for the state of Judah?
Now that’s a crazy idea!

36 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm
atimetorend
“It looks as though these giants were bloody good swimmers.”
Or could Noah have brought them aboard the ark? Just saying…
It was just embarrassing to have been a Christian and have to pretend stuff like that wasn’t in there… Now it is just embarrassing to think I bothered to pretend stuff like that wasn’t in there. And it opens up a whole new world of bible study — learning about Nephilim can be fun. Nice bible study yunshui.
June 22, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Personal Failure
Hey now- you keep your crazy ideas to yourself. I expect to see a Nephilim riding a unicorn to the Yeti’s house any day now.
June 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Robert Madewell
The “sons of God” mentioned in Gen 6 are actually a throwback to a time when Jews were polytheists. That’s why it says “sons”. The Book of Enoch is a retcon to explain this in monotheistic language. El Elyon used to be a leader deity and he had an extraordinary number of offspring. One of them was Yahweh.
Hey! Did you notice that Daniel is one of the bad angels in The Book of Enoch. Sounds like some good ol’ name recycling to me.
June 22, 2009 at 10:07 pm
yunshui
Yep, proper Jewish monotheism didn’t really take off until King Josiah (about 640-609 BCE), whose scribes and priests then retconned their entire religion in the manner of a 3.5 edition D&Der trying to explain why kobolds have the Draconic subtype, instead of being Goblinoids. Also known as: “making shit up as you go along,” a tried and tested method of solving religious conundrums.
June 22, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Postman
This can all be explained very simply.
Angels are very, very horny. Angels do not want to contract Celestial AIDS, so they never use condoms. Canaanite women often wore Naughty Nurse costumes. Ipso facto – 1, 2, 3 – Hey, Presto! Giants.
June 22, 2009 at 11:18 pm
PhillyChief
But why were they giants? Were the randy angels giants? If so, how’d they get their giant members into the ladies? How’d human women push giant babies out of their hoo-has? That must have been pleasant. The poor women of that time and their tortured hoo-has! Of course wearing the naughty nurse outfits, well, they had it coming to them, I guess.
June 22, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Robert Madewell
Yunshui,
Did you look at the first “Possibly related post”?
It’s a hoot! Has a picture of a man standing next to a 6 foot tall femur. They claim that the femur is human, but I recognized what I think it is.
Look at this.
June 23, 2009 at 1:34 am
the chaplain
The second link is pretty interesting too – it’s about how to avoid being an irritable parent. Gawd works in
mysteriousmischievous ways. :)June 23, 2009 at 1:54 am
Ebonmuse
Oh yeah? Well, if you wise-guy atheists doubt this story, then how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
(Regular readers of Pharyngula will get the joke…)
June 23, 2009 at 2:05 am
cl
Your argument rests on the assumption that the Nephilim in Numbers were either the same Nephilim from Genesis or direct descendants thereof, when it’s certainly reasonable that the Nephilim in Numbers represent another incarnation, as humans did survive the flood. I’d be interested in hearing someone make your argument without that presupposition.
June 23, 2009 at 2:50 am
Sabio Lantz
Giants were on the Ark
In the Rabbinic tradition, “The giant Og, king of Bashan, was among those save, but owing to his size had to remain outside, Noah passing him food through a hole cut into the wall of the Ark.” Even the Koran verifies a story about Og (son of Anak).
Even in one Misdrash, Noah had the angels gather the animals. Heck, a couple of half-bred angel-men giants could have slipped in then.
June 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Postman
Well, Sabio, it’s true that angels are woefully lax in the security department. Practically anything could have slipped in – mamoths, unicorns, jackalopes…
-
Ebonmuse,
Touche’, my friend. Touche’. That argument never loses its punch.
-
Philly,
Excellent questions. And here’s the excellent Biblical answer: As you may guess, anyone who would wear a Naughty Nurse costume not only has it coming but is most probably the sort of person who, (not to put too crass a point on it), has a somewhat “relaxed” hoo-ha.
Question answered. Sorry you’ll be going to Hell just for thinking of it.
June 23, 2009 at 7:46 pm
yunshui
cl:
So having drowned all the giants, God lets another boatload of randy angels out after curfew, who proceed to knock up a whole bunch of women and populate the world with their big-boned offspring? Again? That’s even more lax than letting a couple of them escape the flooding. Does this God have a clue what He’s doing?
Sabio:
Interesting midrash – certainly solves the problem conveniently. Of course, they then need a clever Rabbanic fiction to explain the present diversity of species, the size constraints of the Ark, the lack of geological evidence, the similarity to Babylonian myths… But you managed to explain why we still have giants, so well done, ingenious interpreters of Judaism.
Hang on… when’s the last time you saw a giant?
June 23, 2009 at 8:26 pm
PhillyChief
Perhaps we need to clarify just what they’d consider a giant back then. Would Kobe Bryant be a giant? Shit, maybe Tom Cruise would have been to them. What was average height back then, like 4′10″?
How’s this for a solution? The randy angels were actually time travelers who had a fetish for short, hairy women. With such women being in short supply in their time, they travelled back to score some BC girls. Being all about 7′ themselves, the offspring their short, hairy girlfriends popped out were all nephilim, or giants compared to everyone else of that time.
Now being time travelers, they could have popped back at any time, meaning they could have made nephilim before and after this flood. Technically not the same nephilim, cl, but each branch could have been sired by the same randy daddies from the future.
June 23, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Postman
You just had to keep digging, didn’t you, Philly? You couldn’t just leave it well-enough alone.
Do you hear that noise outside? That’s the Black Helicopters coming for you.
June 23, 2009 at 9:49 pm
cl
yunshui,
I don’t know. I just wanted to see if your argument is possible without the stated presupposition that the Nephilim in Numbers were either the same Nephilim from Genesis or direct descendants thereof. Is it?
June 23, 2009 at 10:05 pm
PhillyChief
Perhaps for clarity, you should state what exactly you feel Yunshui’s argument is first, cl.
Postman: Why send black helicopters in the day time? I saw them coming, as if the chopper noise didn’t give them away, too. Next time, perhaps try ninjas, or something comparably stealthy.
June 23, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Postman
Doh! I’m used to dealing with people who believe in giants. I’ll have to step up my game if I want to catch you on behalf of The Pentaverate… oops. Forget I said that.
June 23, 2009 at 10:26 pm
cl
Philly, jab at me on your own blog – or mine. I see no need for you and I to flame out on yunshui’s turf. Away!
June 23, 2009 at 11:27 pm
PhillyChief
It’s not always about you, Queen of Hearts. You raised an objection about the argument of this post, twice now, so isn’t it sensible, before more time is wasted, to clarify exactly what you see as the argument? You can and must be willing to make sure there’s no misunderstandings before we could proceed, right? Oh wait, how did you recently put it? Oh yes, “Semantics can be a bitch and are usually the unrecognized culprit behind many an online dialog”. Indeed.
Another reason I would ask for you to state what you think is Yunshui’s argument is that on several occasions on my blog alone you’ve incorrectly identified what was my arguments and points of my posts, so experience dictates that it’s probable you may have once again erred. Even without this knowledge, I would think clarity would be enough of an impetus for you to elaborate, but in light of this knowledge, how could we proceed otherwise?
You also spend a tremendous amount of time crying “straw man” when someone allegedly misinterprets the meaning and intent of your words, so again, how could you so flippantly dismiss a request for you to clarify your position? If nothing else, don’t you want to make sure people understand you to avoid confusion and having to cry “straw man” all the time?
“Semantics can be a bitch.” So can archived comments on the internet. ;)
June 23, 2009 at 11:47 pm
cl
I wouldn’t flippantly dismiss yunshui’s request to clarify what I think the original claim was, but I certainly don’t care if you’re unsure whether or not I understand yunshui’s claim, so I dismissed your “call to clarity” because your mind is already made up about me and I see little that could be productive in talking to you – especially on other people’s blogs – until that changes.
Now let me be, and make use of yourself. Go.
June 24, 2009 at 7:27 am
Temaskian
It is only now that I realise God caused THE flood just so as to kill off some giants who are not even humans, strictly speaking. That’s a bit unfair. That so many humans had to drown (a painful death) just because of the misdeeds of some angels. Whether He actually managed to wipe out the Nehilim is kinda besides the point.
Thanks for the article, including all the comments, very informative. I had always wondered about the Nephilim and the ’sons of God’.
June 24, 2009 at 8:21 am
revatheist
cl,
philly is simply seems to be asking you to clarify your request. This is very practical especially when you repeat your request after yunshui has already answered you:
“So having drowned all the giants, God lets another boatload of randy angels out after curfew, who proceed to knock up a whole bunch of women and populate the world with their big-boned offspring? Again? That’s even more lax than letting a couple of them escape the flooding. Does this God have a clue what He’s doing?”
You asked for an explanation that didn’t require the later nephilim to be the same as the earlier ones or their descendants. Yunshui gave you an answer in which the later nephilim are created in the same way but at a later time; in what way does this not satisfy your request?
Also, stop whining about philly and telling him (sorry philly, I don’t know your actual gender) to be quiet. Only yunshui has the right of moderation on this blog. If you wanted a private conversation with yunshui that other people couldn’t criticize or comment on, you should have used email or some sort or private chat. A blog is by its nature a public forum, so stop whining and grow up.
A final note. If I haven’t mistaken the entire point of yunshui’s post, it is that the two groups of nephilim separated by the flood creates a conundrum of explanation for how they were still around. I would like to note that though it does throw a possible monkeywrench into the logical procession of the narrative (which you want to fix by finding a different explanation for the second group of nephilim), nephilim, angels, gods, and Noah’s frickin’ ark do not, and have not ever, existed; therefore your entire drive toward rationalizing the inconsistencies in the story are pretty much pointless.
cl (or others) feel free to criticize my thoughts. yunshui, it’s your blog, feel free to delete my comment altogether.
June 24, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Postman
Rev,
I don’t see that any criticism is called for. You spoke to the kernel of the matter. It’s all made-up stories. I tend to just ridicule this stuff and the people who believe it, but I forget that sometimes one should just come right out and say that the emperor has no clothes.
June 24, 2009 at 10:04 pm
yunshui
cl:
My “argument” in this particular post is little more than a minor diversion, and a flippant one at that, but it does contribute to my over-arching argument that the Torah is a collection of contradictory myths and legends edited together by Judean scholars during the seventh century BCE and intended to promote Judah’s divine right to kingdomhood.
However, since you insist:
Observation 1: Nephilim existed before the Flood. (Genesis)
Observation 2: The Flood was intended to destroy the Nephilim. (Enoch, Jubilees)
Observation 3: Nephilim existed after the Flood (Numbers)
Conclusion: The Flood did not succeed in the goal of destroying the Nephilim.
Somehow, a species which was not intended to survive the Flood did so. Whether because of a second bout of angel-rape or the midrash Sabio quoted is irrelevant. God set out to achieve a certain goal, used an incredibly inefficient, cruel and wasteful means to attain it, and failed anyway. Yahweh comes out with egg on His face regardless of whether you accept the later Nephilim as direct descendants of the first lot or not.
However, (deep breath) since, as revatheist pointed out, the whole thing is a myth anyway, who the hell cares?
June 24, 2009 at 10:06 pm
yunshui
revatheist:
Cheers, I couldn’t have put it better. And Philly’s a boy, by the way. Either that or he’s an extraordinarily ugly and gruffly-voiced woman.
June 24, 2009 at 10:18 pm
PhillyChief
Why ugly and gruffly-voiced? I would think a couple of good female versions which would fit for me would be Sigourney Weaver from Aliens or Starbuck from the recent BSG series (which, btw, someone needs to be seriously hurt for that series finale).
June 24, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Sabio Lantz
Seriously, could someone please tell me if they find Signourney Weaver a “good female version”? I have always been stumped by that. Please, Philly, tell me that was more of your unforgivable sarcasm.
June 25, 2009 at 3:26 am
cl
Revatheist,
Mind your own business. Philly and I have a special relationship and I don’t need or appreciate you antagonizing it.
It satisfied my request. Why do you assume it didn’t?
Stop whining about me and mind your own business. You’re speaking without knowledge of how Philly and I roll. I realize comments on blogs are open to criticism. I do not wish to engage Philly here out of respect for yunshui.
There really aren’t many to criticize. I addressed the ones that interested me. The rest of your comment constitutes opinions I don’t share.
yunshui,
I don’t accept Observation 2, and Observation 3 doesn’t support your conclusion. I’m game to discuss further, but really, there are probably better things we could discuss. Up to you.
That’s your assumption, at least.
Opinion noted, but I’d rather discuss logic.
June 25, 2009 at 3:41 am
Sabio Lantz
Yunshui — fun post, as always ! Now let’s all go to bed ! ;-)
June 25, 2009 at 11:29 am
revatheist
cl:
I hope you do realize that the more you tell me to shut up and mind my own business, the more likely I am to continue to talk for the simple reason that I CAN and you can’t stop me; again, as I pointed out earlier, only yunshui has the power to censor here, so learn to like it, it’s a cool new concept called freedom of expression! Since you imply that I have been rude to you, philly, and yunshui, then I must apologize to philly and yunshui.
philly, I find your comments to be to the point and full of sarcasm: traits which I love!
yunshui, I’ve been following your blog ever since you hosted The Carnival of the Godless. I must say that I am impressed by your choice of subjects and your obviously well developed intellect. If I have offended you, I most certainly do apologize because I hope to contribute to conversations here in the future if you don’t mind.
cl, I do not apologize in any way to you because I find your tendency to tell people to shut up rather than dealing with their statements in a straightforward manner to be quite disturbing. Further, though you’re welcome to flame away, I will not be responding to any other of your comments in this thread so that it will not get further off topic (out of respect for your excellent forum, yunshui). Further, feel free to comment (or troll) on my blog if it will make you happy, but don’t expect kindness.
Again, yunshui, I apologize for this use of your space and promise to do my best to stay on topic in the future.
June 25, 2009 at 2:05 pm
PhillyChief
rev (and anyone else): I hope you realize that the more you respond to cl’s crap, the more likely it will continue, ’cause that’s how he rolls.
Yes, like refusing to clarify your objections, stating you don’t accept Yunshui’s points without saying why, and generally being dismissive. What school of logic is that?
Yes, like anything else, for your only purpose is derailing discussions. That’s how the Douchebag Gambit works.
June 26, 2009 at 9:26 am
revatheist
Point well taken Philly. I look forward to good discussions with you, yunshui, and others!
June 26, 2009 at 8:54 pm
cl
Let the record show that my opening sentence articulated my problem with yunshui’s argument, and that protestations to the contrary are unfounded. Let the record also show that I articulated my problem with yunshui’s response, and said I was perfectly willing to discuss it further.
yunshui,
I’m not trying to get you to keep talking on this one. I just wanted to voice my dissent, that’s all. What people do with it is up to them. I also wanted to dispel false claims that I’ve not “clarified my objection.” I enjoy your blog, and think you and I will do just fine.
revatheist,
Listen, you came at me when I didn’t address you, and started telling me how to live my life: “..stop whining about philly and telling him (sorry philly, I don’t know your actual gender) to be quiet.” Then you made all these assumptions like, “If you want a private conversation..” Uh, no, that’s not it. So I told you to “stop whining about me.” What’d you expect, a bowl of Cheerios?
Cool, it seems you got my point, but realize I never told you to “shut up” – I told you to “mind your own business.” At least get the words right.
I never thought otherwise, I like it, and thanks for the lesson. All I ask is that you stay out of me and Philly’s business here, not that you stop talking. He who is often censored reproaches censorship.
Stop making oversensitive assumptions. I cannot imply anything about your behavior because I don’t know your motives. I implied that it would be rude for me to argue with Philly on yunshui’s blog, due to the volatile nature of our relationship. The reason it would be rude is because Philly has no desire to learn from me, only to belittle me, as you can clearly see he’s currently fixated on calling me a douchebag. He and I can roll how we roll on his blog.
I care about your judgment of me and your inability to apologize. [/sarcasm] In the interest of clarity, could you quit complaining that I told you (or anyone) to “shut up?” Those are your words, not mine.
Perfect!
June 26, 2009 at 10:09 pm
yunshui
Hey, you guys are welcome to argue all you like: just keep it civil and you can carry on sparring ’til the proverbial cows come home. I’m bowing out of the discussion at this point, since a) I don’t check my blog often enough these days to be able to contribute a coherent thread of argument, and b) cl and revatheist are both right, this is a rather trivial debate in the grand scheme of things. However, please feel free to carry on without me; I read all the comments on Right To Think (sooner or later) and will moderate if I see the need – although I think that’s unlikely, we’re all grown ups here.
June 27, 2009 at 4:52 pm
cl
yunshui,
Noted. revatheist claims he/she’s done with me, and I’m done with Philly (here at least), so it should be smooth sailing now. Enjoy the weekend.