Noah’s Father Would Not Have Been Able to give His Wife a Satisfying Orgasm after She had Experienced a Gigantic Angelic Penis

devil-may-cry

On March 15, 2015, Jeremiah Bailey (PhD candidate, Baylor University) presented a stimulating paper at the Southwestern Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (the Southwest Commission on Religious Studies, or SCRS):

“Untouched by an Angel: Angelic Genitalia and Bitenosh’s Pleasure in the Genesis Apocryphon

Abstract:

The Genesis Apocryphon is a fascinating example of the genre of “rewritten Bible.” However, the fascination with its adherence and divergence from the biblical text has left aspects of its text underexplored. One such underexplored textual feature is found in Column II of the scroll wherein Lamech worries that his son Noah is the illegitimate offspring of the Watchers leading him to confront his wife about the nature of the conception. Most of the work on this passage has focused on its relationship to the version of the story in 1 Enoch 106-107, but the text is interesting even beyond its relationship to a group of stories at Qumran about the birth of Noah.  The Genesis Apocryphon uniquely gives Lamech’s wife, Bitenosh, a chance to answer the accusation of her infidelity.
In 1QAp Gen II, 9-10, 14, Bitenosh defends the legitimacy of Noah by demanding that Lamech remember the sexual pleasure she received during their intercourse. Why this should prove convincing is not immediately clear from the context of the passage. Despite the perplexing nature of the comments, most interpreters have made little more than passing reference to Bitenosh’s argument, and to date there have only been two real attempts—both recent and both dependent on Greek science—to provide a thorough and satisfactory explanation. This essay will provide an alternative interpretation to those currently on offer. It will argue that the key to understanding this passage lies outside Bitenosh herself, both physically and emotionally, and instead is rooted in the physiology of the Watchers and their offspring, specifically, the portrayal of the Watchers as endowed with absurdly large sexual organs.

Jeremiah Bailey’s interpretation comes after Pieter W. van der Horst’s alternative explanation, discussed earlier by Remnant of Giants.

Jeremiah’s suggestion certainly got me thinking again about Bitenosh’s sexual pleasure, and how it was meant to convince her husband Lamech of her fidelity. But I don’t know. It seems to me that Jeremiah is drawing a long bow.

Leave a comment

Filed under Angels, Biblical Giants' relatives

“And also afterward”: An example of the interpretation of Genesis 6:4 after Nephilim DNA and the racialized Curse of Ham

jdrucker

J.D. Rucker runs a website called Judeo Christian Church, on which he publishes various sermon-style talks on various topics related to the Bible and Christianity. His talk published on March 16, 2015 discusses the meaning of Genesis 6:1-4, the strange episode in which “sons of god” have sex with “daughters of men” and thereby sire Nephilim (the heroes of old or warriors of renown).

Most of the talk involves an interpretation of the “sons of god” as angels. But what interested me was his setting out of three options for interpreting the phrase “and also afterward” in Genesis 6:4. The biblical phrase, considered an interpolation in many historical-critical studies, indicates that the Nephilim were not only in the earth before the flood (when Gen 6:1-4 is predominantly set), but also after the flood.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward — when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. (Ge 6:4)

Rucker’s three options for understanding the phrase “and also afterward” are these:

1. The Flood did not kill all the Nephilim. They may have hid on the ark, or escaped somehow.
2. Other angels (“sons of god”) came down after the Flood and had sex with human women.
3. There was giant blood or giant genetics on the ark.

Rucker dismisses the first two options, as there is no explicit mention of this in the Bible. Instead, he suggests that the wife of Ham, the mother of Canaan, may have had tainted blood. She had “Nephilim coding” in her bloodline. Yet Rucker acknowledges that this is also speculation, not found in the Bible. On the face of it, then, he seems to give no distinct reason for favouring option 3 over the other two.

This is an interesting decision, I think, for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, the idea that there is a contamination of human DNA resulting from the Nephilim has been widely propagated in recent decades, in populist books and on websites. This idea can be found in end-times speculations, UFO speculations, and similar literature. Interestingly, Rucker seems to reject many of these theories. He doesn’t favour the idea of Nephilim DNA surviving today and the more conspiratorial versions of the Nephilim DNA theories. Yet he is still persuaded by option three in interpreting the phrase “and also afterward”. Second, the association of Ham and Canaan with tainted blood has a long history in racial interpretation of the “curse of Ham”. Rucker does not himself apply this racial line of interpretation, I emphasize. Yet he adapts the tradition (probably unconsciously) as an explanation, I suspect, of the mention of many giants in Numbers and Deuteronomy as inhabiting the land of Canaan (e.g. Anakim, Emim, Zamzumim, etc).

Rucker does claim to be simply interpreting the Bible. But his favoured interpretation in fact intersects with, and is a product of certain older and newer interpretive streams, including in particular traditions of the racial curse of Ham and Nephilim DNA. Reception history is a complex beast.

2 Comments

Filed under Ancient Jewish texts, Biblical Giants, Biblical Giants' relatives, Genesis 6.1-4, Heroes / Gibborim, Internet, Nephilim, sons of God

Aren Maeir on Goliath of Gath / Tell es-Safi: Confluence Archaeology and Biblical History

Schuldenrein

The Indiana Jones show on Voice America, hosted by Dr Joseph Schuldenrein, examines various issues in archaeology. The March 11, 2015 show features an interview with Dr Aren Maeir, director of the Tell es-Safi/”Gath” archaeological dig.

The mp3 may be downloaded here. The iTunes file is here.

Goliath gets a mention, too:

A Confluence Archaeology and Biblical History
Episode Description

To be called a Philistine is to evoke an image of one that is hostile or indifferent to culture and arts. The real story of these ancient people may suggest the contrary. The last thirty years has produced an abundance of new archaeological information about the Philistines during the biblical period. The Indy Team focuses on one area today, Goliath’s hometown Gath. Most scholars believe that biblical Gath was located at the site known as Tell es-Safi, one of the largest biblical sites in Israel. We start our interview today with the findings at Gath, a veritable mine of archaeological evidence ranging from the Chalcolithic period (5th mill. BCE) until modern times, and delve into the recent developments in biblical archaeology. Dr. Aren Maeir, director of the Gath/Tell es-Safi Project, shares with us the discoveries of this biblical site and how they may clarify or change our understanding of the history mythologized in scripture.

Given the biblical association of Goliath and Gath, and the identification of Tell es-Safi with one of the two locations that the Bible gives for Gath, the excavations and their director Aren Maeir have been a popular topic at Remnant of Giants. You can also read these other posts about Tell es-Safi and Aren Maeir:

We must be Aren Maeir’s biggest fan!

1 Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Biblical Giants, Goliath

A classic David versus Goliath story

better-call-saul

“This is a classic David versus Goliath story. I mean you’ve got your gigantic law firm stomping all over the little guy.”
– James Morgan McGill (Saul Goodman), Season 1, Episode 4 (“Hero”), Better Call Saul

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Giants, Goliath

David Clines: “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1–11)”

David J.A. Clines: One of the גברים אשר מעולם?

David J.A. Clines: One of the the גברים אשר מעולם?

David Clines has made available a paper he wrote in 1972 on the unusual story found in Genesis 6:1-4 about “the sons of god(s)” who had sex with “the daughters of men” and sired Nephilim (the “heroes of old”, the “warriors of renown”).

The Significance of the “Sons of God” Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the “Primeval History” (Genesis 1–11), originally published in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13 (1979): 33-46.

Scholars have made a few different suggestions regarding the meaning of the phrase “sons of god(s)” (בני האלהים). Does it refer to demigods or angels? or to the Sethite line of human beings (in Genesis 5) in contrast to the Cainite line (of Genesis 4), or vice versa? or to human rulers or princes? In general, there is a debate as to whether “sons of god(s)” refers to divine or human entities.

Anticipating an issue which has come up in the current debate about monotheism and polytheism in ancient Israel and classical and later Greece and Rome, David Clines suggests that this split between human and divine options may not be so clear-cut, in particular with respect to rulers, and even more in particular to antediluvian rulers:

[T]he author of Gen. 6.1-4 in its present form did not work with a system of closed categories in which ‘sons of God’ must be either human or non-human. Are the בני האלהים here then both divine beings and antediluvian rulers?
(p. 4)

Interpreted this way, the strange episode does not appear to be such an intrusion into the Primeval History (Genesis 1-11). Clines goes on to document other connections that he sees Gen 6:1-4 as sharing with the remainder of Genesis 1-11 and with the following Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:5-9:17).

7 Comments

Filed under Biblical Giants, Genesis 6.1-4, Nephilim

Mary Gold: “I used to think that I was a Nephilim”

New Orleans hip hop artist Mary Gold defines, or used to define, her “spirituality” in terms of being a Nephilim.

I’m a spiritual person, I don’t really believe in a structured religion. I don’t know. I’ve had so many weird experiences with spirituality and religion period. Like my life revolves around that. Being in North Carolina pretty much changed my whole life and the way I look at things. I remember meeting the weirdest people, I met this one guy who thought he was the Devil. We would get high in the bathroom and turn the showers on and once everyone left the bathroom, all of the fog would leave. Because you know you put on the shower and it would fog up the windows. We would talk about how he felt like he was going to destroy the world, and the fog would come back and fog up the windows and nothing would happen, like why stuff like that would happen?

I used to think that I was a Nephilim. I entice people, people would come to me if they were looking for something and I would help them find their way. Because a lot of my relationships and friendships ended when my friends found different paths, or found themselves, or went in different directions to become better people.

– Mary Gold

In Genesis 6:1-4, the Nephilim are all men, Gibborim (heroes) of antiquity, men of renown. Mary Gold, who is the first female signing to Curren$y’s Jet Life recordings, uses the term to describe her own dominant, superhuman personality.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Biblical Giants, Music, Nephilim

“Searching for Goliath”: Aren Maeir’s Skype Lecture on the Philistines and Tell es-Safi/ “Gath”

Professor Aren Maeir (Bar Ilan University and director of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project) delivered a lecture on the Philistines called “Searching for Goliath” on January 18, 2015. He lectured from a lab at Tell es-Safi, via Skype, to students from Grand Valley State University (Allendale, Michigan).

H/t: Aren Maeir

1 Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Biblical Giants, Goliath