#1. Descendants of Seth married descendants of Cain

#2. Nobles married commoners

#3. Angels married human women

###1 Enoch's Book of Watchers (3rd century BC)

###Jubilees 4.15-5.7 (2nd century BC)

###LXX Genesis 6.2-5 (2nd-1st century BC) Some copies of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew 'sons of God' into the Greek 'angels of God'.

###Philo, On the Giants (1st century AD)

###Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.3.1 (1st century AD)

###Jude 6-7 (1st century AD)

#Personal thought

1. Descendants of Seth married descendants of Cain

2. Nobles married commoners

3. Angels married human women

1 Enoch's Book of Watchers (3rd century BC)

Jubilees 4.15-5.7 (2nd century BC)

LXX Genesis 6.2-5 (2nd-1st century BC)

Some copies of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew 'sons of God' into the Greek 'angels of God'.

Philo, On the Giants (1st century AD)

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.3.1 (1st century AD)

Jude 6-7 (1st century AD)

Personal thought

1. Descendants of Seth married descendants of Cain

This view was popularized by Augustine (City of God, chapter 23), and the argument amounts to the following: the 'sons of God' designates people who are faithful to God (e.g. Romans 8.14), and hence are being contrasted to people not-faithful to God.

The account in Genesis 6.1-4, then, is telling us that there was a mingling of righteous men with unrighteous women, leading directly to the wickedness that prompted God to flood the world. Because Cain's descendants in Genesis 4 are inferred to be more wicked (based on the progression of Genesis 8.8-24), while Seth's descendants are inferred to be more righteous (based almost entirely on Genesis 4.25-26), it is common for adherents of this view to further identify the righteous 'sons of God' with Seth's offspring and the 'daughters of men' with Cain's.

A common criticism of this view is that the Genesis account mentions neither Seth nor Cain, so identifying the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' as their descendants, respectively, is accused of presupposing too much about the author's intention.

2. Nobles married commoners

Another view, originating in 2nd century AD rabbinic thought, is that 'sons of God' designates members of nobility. We know from a variety of texts from the Ancient Near East that rulers were regularly conceived as the 'sons of God'. For a biblical example, see Psalm 2 or Second Samuel 7.14, where God identifies the king of Israel as his 'son'.

In this case, the 'sons of God' — the rulers of the ancient world — are forcefully taking women from the common folk, which is attested in Ancient Near Eastern culture. (See, for example, the biblical book of Esther.)

3. Angels married human women

1 Enoch's Book of Watchers (3rd century BC)

Jubilees 4.15-5.7 (2nd century BC)

LXX Genesis 6.2-5 (2nd-1st century BC)

Some copies of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew 'sons of God' into the Greek 'angels of God'.

Philo, On the Giants (1st century AD)

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.3.1 (1st century AD)

Jude 6-7 (1st century AD)

Personal thought

#1. Descendants of Seth married descendants of Cain

This view was popularized by Augustine (City of God, chapter 23), and the argument amounts to the following: the 'sons of God' designates people who are faithful to God (e.g. Romans 8.14), and hence are being contrasted to people not-faithful to God.

The account in Genesis 6.1-4, then, is telling us that there was a mingling of righteous men with unrighteous women, leading directly to the wickedness that prompted God to flood the world. Because Cain's descendants in Genesis 4 are inferred to be more wicked (based on the progression of Genesis 4.8-24), while Seth's descendants are inferred to be more righteous (based almost entirely on Genesis 4.25-26), it is common for adherents of this view to further identify the righteous 'sons of God' with Seth's offspring and the 'daughters of men' with Cain's.

A common criticism of this view is that Genesis 6.1-4 mentions neither Seth nor Cain, so identifying the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' as their descendants, respectively, is accused of presupposing too much about the author's intentions.

#2. Nobles married commoners

Another view, originating in 2nd century AD rabbinic thought, is that 'sons of God' designates members of nobility. We know from a variety of texts from the Ancient Near East that rulers were regularly perceived as the 'sons of God'. For biblical examples, see 2 Samuel 7.14 or Psalm 2, where God identifies the king of Israel as his 'son'.

In this case, the 'sons of God' — the rulers of the ancient world — are forcefully taking women from the common folk, which is also attested in ancient Near Eastern culture. The biblical book of Esther depicts such an occasion.

#3. Angels married human women

###1 Enoch's Book of Watchers (3rd century BC)

###Jubilees 4.15-5.7 (2nd century BC)

###LXX Genesis 6.2-5 (2nd-1st century BC) Some copies of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew 'sons of God' into the Greek 'angels of God'.

###Philo, On the Giants (1st century AD)

###Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.3.1 (1st century AD)

###Jude 6-7 (1st century AD)

#Personal thought

The third view is that a group of angels (the 'sons of God') descended upon the earth and married human women (the 'daughters of women'). I would argue this is the most accurate interpretation of the text (see my 'personal thought' below), and it seems to have been the earliest view as evident in both Jewish and Christian texts:

The third view is that a group of angels (the 'sons of God') descended upon the earth and married human women (the 'daughters of men'). I would argue this is the most accurate interpretation of the text (see my 'personal thought' below), and it seems to have been the earliest view as evident in both Jewish and Christian texts: