“Sons of god” is a translation of the Hebrew by non-Jews and is just plain incorrect. It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God.
But If you ask Jews, who wrote that section of the Bible, benei elokim translates as something like “those who are free”:
“Who or what exactly are the benei elokim? Who are the nephilim? How are they related to each other? And what does it all mean?
One thing benei elokim does not mean is “sons of G‑d.” In fact, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would “curse” anyone who translated the term benei elokim as the “sons of G‑d.”1 The word elokim in Scripture, while generally referring to G‑d, is in essence merely an expression of authority.2 Similarly, the term benei does not necessarily mean “sons,” but is often just a title. Benei chorin, for example, means those who are free—not “sons of freedom.”
The Jews who wrote Genesis aren't the Jews who wrote the Midrash. The culture from which the myths concerning the Nephilim and Benei Elokim arose had no problems with God having sons, e.g. Mot, Yam. The Jews of Elephantine are documented as having a temple to Anat, daughter of El (God) by his wife Asherah, in the 5th century BCE.
The opposition to reading any of the Hebrew scriptures as referring to "Sons of god" likely arose as a reaction in Rabbinic Judaism to Christianity, both of which (along with Karaite Judaism) arose out of Second Temple Judaism.
That was an interesting read. Thanks. I'm not sure how the linked article expresses more than an alternate translation, though. It says that benei doesn't "necessarily" translate to sons, which doesn't rule out the translation but merely suggests an alternative. The word elokim also refers generally to God, as it says, but can be translated differently. It's an interesting alternative, but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source.
> It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God.
I've never heard of that before. Not sure where you would have, or how it even does reenforce that idea.
It reinforces “Christ as the son of God” because, if the phrase is translated as “sons of God”, that sets a precedent in the Old Testament that God has sons. The Jews do not believe God has sons. Christians do. So it is in the best interest of Christian translators to translate that phrase as “sons of God”.
> but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source.
No, I only provided one source (Chabad), but there are many others, including all Jewish translations of the Old Testament (Torah) from the original Hebrew to English. You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews.
> You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews.
Do the 70 Jewish authors of the Septuagint not count? In the LXX, it clearly reads "οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ", "the sons of God". The LXX precedes Christianity by quite some time.
Well, actually it is a bit more complicated than just God having a (or more than one) son:
„The Christian doctrine of the Trinity […] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one ‚substance, essence or nature‘. In this context, a ‚nature‘ is what one is, whereas a ‚person‘ is who one is“, from [0] where you can also read a lot more about it.
That's completely missing the point of Christianity: Christ does not require a precedent; he's considered God's "only begotten son", which sounds like an explicit denial that there has been a precedent like him. Considering some mysterious people mentioned in a single line in Genesis as being of similar stature as Christ also goes against the idea of Christ as part of the Trinity.
Also, Christianity considers all people to be children of God (though apparently not "begotten"). On top of that, almost every Christian interpretation of the Bible seems to skip over that mention of the nephilim like it's not there. There's far more reason for Christianity to argue against translating this as "sons of God" than for it.
But If you ask Jews, who wrote that section of the Bible, benei elokim translates as something like “those who are free”:
“Who or what exactly are the benei elokim? Who are the nephilim? How are they related to each other? And what does it all mean?
One thing benei elokim does not mean is “sons of G‑d.” In fact, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would “curse” anyone who translated the term benei elokim as the “sons of G‑d.”1 The word elokim in Scripture, while generally referring to G‑d, is in essence merely an expression of authority.2 Similarly, the term benei does not necessarily mean “sons,” but is often just a title. Benei chorin, for example, means those who are free—not “sons of freedom.”
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewis...