This companion file provides contextual and comparative study material. It does not redefine, expand, or control the main translation. Parallels do not prove dependence. Modern models do not define ancient intent. All entries are labeled by type and certainty and must be read as background, not as translation.
Curiosities and Open Questions
G2. Noach's silence
TEXTUALVerified
God speaks to Noach (Noah) at length (6:13-21). Noah's response: "And Noah did according to all that God commanded him; so he did" (6:22). No recorded speech from Noah until 9:25, the curse of Canaan. His first words are a curse. The silence is textually present and narratively striking.
G1. Noach/chen — reverse spelling?
TEXTUALPossible
Genesis 6:8: "Noach (Noah) (nun-chet) found chen (chet-nun) in the eyes of YHWH." The name and the word for "favor/grace" are spelled with the same two Hebrew letters, but in reverse order. Whether this is deliberate wordplay or coincidence is POSSIBLE but unprovable.
G3. 120 years — lifespan or countdown?
TEXTUALPossible
Gen 6:3: "his days shall be 120 years." Two readings: (1) a future human lifespan limit (but post-flood patriarchs live longer); (2) a 120-year grace period before the flood arrives. Neither is definitively supported; the text is ambiguous.
G4. Were the nephilim the offspring?
TEXTUALUncertain
The text says: "The nephilim were on the land in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God/the gods came to the daughters of the human, and they bore to them." The phrase "and also afterward" and the sentence structure make the relationship between the nephilim and the divine-human union genuinely unclear. They may be the same, they may be separate groups that coexisted. The text does not resolve this.
Historical and Archaeological Context
C2. Covenant (berit) in ANE treaty traditions
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALVerified
Mendenhall (1954) showed that biblical covenants follow the same structure as Hittite treaties (formal agreements between a great king and a lesser ruler, 2nd millennium BCE): preamble, historical background, terms, storage instructions, witnesses, blessings/curses. Gen 6:18 initiates the covenant concept; Gen 9:8-17 develops it with rainbow sign.
Source: Mendenhall, G., "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," BA 17 (1954).
C1. Archaeological flood evidence
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALProbable
- Woolley at Ur (1929): Clean flood layer below habitation, c. 3500 BCE. Too early and too localized to be "the" flood
• Schmidt at Shuruppak (1931): Flood layer above Jemdet Nasr remains, c. 2900 BCE. Significant because Shuruppak is the home city of Ziusudra in Sumerian tradition
• Kish flood layer: c. 3000-2900 BCE, chronologically closer to the legendary period
Multiple scholars conclude the flood traditions likely originate in devastating but regional Euphrates/Tigris floods c. 2900-2800 BCE.
Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis (SPECULATIVE): Ryan and Pitman (Columbia, 1997) proposed that Mediterranean water catastrophically broke through the Bosporus (the narrow strait connecting the Mediterranean to the Black Sea) c. 5600 BCE. Remains highly controversial; dating too early for Mesopotamian traditions.
• Schmidt at Shuruppak (1931): Flood layer above Jemdet Nasr remains, c. 2900 BCE. Significant because Shuruppak is the home city of Ziusudra in Sumerian tradition
• Kish flood layer: c. 3000-2900 BCE, chronologically closer to the legendary period
Multiple scholars conclude the flood traditions likely originate in devastating but regional Euphrates/Tigris floods c. 2900-2800 BCE.
Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis (SPECULATIVE): Ryan and Pitman (Columbia, 1997) proposed that Mediterranean water catastrophically broke through the Bosporus (the narrow strait connecting the Mediterranean to the Black Sea) c. 5600 BCE. Remains highly controversial; dating too early for Mesopotamian traditions.
Source: NCSE, "The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence"; Ryan & Pitman, Noah's Flood, 1999.
Scientific Correspondence and Non-Correspondence
E1. "The land was filled with violence" — anthropological perspectives
SCIENTIFIC COMPARISONPossible
Genesis 6:11–13 states the land was "filled with violence (chamas)" and this violence is the stated reason for destruction. Archaeological and anthropological evidence for violence in early civilizations is extensive: skeletal remains from early societies show that violent death accounted for 15–25% of deaths in some populations (Keeley, War Before Civilization, 1996; Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, 2011, ch. 2). Defensive walls appear among the earliest large-scale buildings (Jericho, c. 8000 BCE). The text presents violence as something that fills the entire created order ("all flesh had corrupted its way"), not merely as isolated acts. Whether this describes a historical reality, a theological principle about what happens when human violence goes unchecked, or both, is for the reader to judge. The evidence from early human societies confirms that widespread violence is not a literary invention.
Source: Keeley, L.H., War Before Civilization, Oxford, 1996; Pinker, S., The Better Angels of Our Nature, Viking, 2011.
The World at the Time
Cross-reference: For the full four-scenario, ten-category world context (Political, Economy, Daily Life, Social Structure, Education, Military, Arts, Science, Religion, Neighboring Peoples), see the Genesis 1 companion (Section I, `en/genesis/study/CHAPTER-1-CONTEXT.md`). The entries below address the historical circumstances specifically foregrounded in Genesis 6 — widespread violence, divine-human boundary transgression, flood announcement, boat-building instructions, and first covenant language.
Scenario A: If composed during the Mosaic period (~13th c. BCE) — Traditional attributionHISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
I-A1. The divine-human boundary in the Late Bronze Age
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Late Bronze Age cultures were saturated with divine-human boundary crossings: Egyptian Pharaohs were gods incarnate; Mesopotamian kings were appointed by gods and sometimes claimed divine parentage; Ugaritic myths (the Baal Cycle) depicted gods interacting with humans in war, love, and conflict. The bene ha-elohim taking human wives in Genesis 6:1-4 would be immediately recognizable — not as an unprecedented claim but as a report of exactly the kind of divine-human entanglement that the surrounding world took for granted.
I-A2. Violence and the moral case for destruction
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALVerified
Warfare in the Late Bronze Age was total and brutal. The Amarna Letters (14th c. BCE) document Canaanite city-states writing to Pharaoh begging for help against raiders ('apiru) and internal rivals — a picture of regional violence barely held in check by Egyptian oversight. Skeletal remains from this period across the Levant show high rates of violent death. Genesis 6's claim that "the land was filled with violence (chamas)" would describe conditions audiences recognized from living memory.
I-A3. Boat-building technology in the Late Bronze Age
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Large vessels were built and documented. Egyptian maritime trade ships carried grain, timber, and luxury goods across the Mediterranean and down the Red Sea coast. Byblos was a major timber-shipping port. The specifications for the tebah in Genesis 6:15 (300 × 50 × 30 cubits) describe a vessel larger than anything attested — but a Late Bronze Age audience would understand the building categories: sealed container, bitumen waterproofing, multiple decks, animal cargo.
I-A4. The flood tradition in Moses's world
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
The Atrahasis Epic (~1800 BCE) and related flood traditions were already ancient by the 13th century. Egyptian scribal education included Mesopotamian literary forms. If Moses was educated in the Egyptian court (Exodus 2), he would have had access to traditions about divine frustration with humanity, a warned survivor, and a world-destroying flood. The Genesis account's distinctive differences — moral cause (chamas), one God, a box not a boat, covenant rather than survival of divine food supply — would stand in sharp contrast.
Scenario B: If composed during the Monarchic period (~10th-9th c. BCE)HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALPossible
I-B1. Divine council and royal ideology
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
The Israelite monarchy developed in close contact with Phoenician and Canaanite culture. The divine council concept (bene ha-elohim as members of a heavenly assembly) is attested in Ugaritic texts and is reflected in Psalm 82 ("God stands in the divine assembly"). In the monarchic period, this cosmology would be a live theological question: do divine beings operate independently? Is YHWH's authority over them absolute or contested? Genesis 6:1-4 poses the boundary-violation problem in a world where the divine council was a real concept.
I-B2. Covenant (berit) in monarchic context
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Covenant language in the 10th-9th centuries BCE was primarily political: treaties between kings, between a great king and vassal states. Mendenhall's analysis shows biblical covenant structure parallels Hittite treaty forms. Genesis 6:18's first use of berit would resonate in a culture where covenant was the language of binding obligation between parties of unequal power. YHWH commits before the terms are spelled out — a distinctive move compared to treaty conventions.
I-B3. Violence and divine patience — a monarchic question
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALProbable
The divided monarchy was a period of constant warfare, assassination, and political violence. Kings like Ahab faced prophetic indictments for injustice and bloodshed. The theological question Genesis 6 raises — at what point does divine patience reach its limit? — would be immediately relevant to a society whose political history was a series of increasingly violent failures.
Scenario C: If composed/finalized during the Exilic/Post-Exilic period (~6th-5th c. BCE) — Scholarly consensus for final formHISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALProbable
I-C1. Flood narratives in Babylon
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Jewish exiles in Babylon lived in a culture where the flood traditions were actively maintained. The Babylonian New Year festival (Akitu) included recitation of the Enuma Elish. Atrahasis and Gilgamesh XI were scribal school texts — scribes copied them as part of standard training. The exilic community would have encountered the flood story in its Babylonian form and been in a position to understand — and deliberately contrast — their own tradition. The differences are sharp: moral cause, not divine annoyance at noise; one committed God, not a confused divine council; covenant commitment, not divine regret about losing a food supply.
I-C2. The divine-human boundary under Babylonian religion
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Babylonian religion featured apkallu — seven semi-divine sages who transmitted civilization to humanity before the flood. Demigods like Gilgamesh (two-thirds divine, one-third human) blurred the divine-human line as a matter of course. Genesis 6:1-4's report of divine-human transgression, and its consequence, would engage this background directly. The exilic community's insistence on a sharp divine-human boundary reflects the theological pressure of living inside a culture where that boundary was routinely dissolved.
I-C3. Violence as theological indictment under empire
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALProbable
Babylonian conquest of Judah (597 and 586 BCE) was experienced as devastating violence — the destruction of the temple, mass deportation, and the killing of Zedekiah's sons before his eyes (2 Kings 25:7). In this context, Genesis 6's diagnosis of a world "filled with violence (chamas)" and the divine decision to destroy it carries weight not as abstract theology but as commentary on the community's recent experience: violence destroys the world, and no empire is immune.
I-C4. First covenant (berit) and Babylonian covenant concepts
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Mesopotamian treaty traditions (suzerainty treaties between a great king and vassal) provided the structural model for covenant language. In the exilic context, the first appearance of berit in Genesis 6:18 — God committing to a covenant with one man before the flood — would be read as the foundation of a theology that makes YHWH's covenant fidelity the counter-claim to Babylonian imperial power: the real binding obligation is not to Nebuchadnezzar but to the God who committed to Noah.
Scenario D: If redacted during the Persian/early-Hellenistic period (~4th-3rd c. BCE) — Associated with final Pentateuchal shapingHISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALPossible
I-D1. The flood narrative as cross-cultural literature
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
By the 4th-3rd centuries BCE, flood traditions circulated widely. Berossus of Babylon (c. 278 BCE) wrote a Greek-language account of the Babylonian flood for Hellenistic audiences, featuring the hero Xisuthros (= Ziusudra). Greek tradition had its own flood hero in Deucalion. In this context, the Genesis flood account would be understood as a contribution to a recognized genre of primordial history — but with distinctive theological content: one God, moral cause, covenant outcome.
I-D2. Divine-human relations in Greek philosophical context
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Greek philosophy (Plato's Timaeus, Aristotle's theology) was grappling with the relationship between divine and human in new ways. The Hellenistic period saw philosophical debates about whether gods intervened in human affairs, whether divine beings could desire humans, and what the proper relationship between the eternal and the temporal was. Genesis 6:1-4's account of divine-human boundary transgression and its catastrophic consequences would engage these questions — though from a very different theological starting point.
I-D3. Violence, covenant, and Persian imperial ethics
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICALDocumented
Persian imperial ideology under Achaemenid kings (Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes) included claims of cosmic order — the Persian king as agent of Ahura Mazda, maintaining asha (truth/order) against druj (chaos/falsehood). Violence against the established order was framed as cosmic transgression. Genesis 6's claim that violence (chamas) violates the created order — and that God responds to it — would resonate as a claim that YHWH's moral order supersedes imperial order, including Persian imperial theology.
For full political, economic, social, military, and religious context of each scenario, see the Genesis 1 companion, Section I.
For full political, economic, social, military, and religious context of each scenario, see the Genesis 1 companion, Section I.
Hebrew Text Features Exposed by TT
A1. "Sons of God/the gods" — triple ambiguity preserved
TEXTUALVerified
The TT renders bene ha-elohim with a slash: "sons of God/the gods." This preserves three major readings: (1) divine or angelic beings (compare Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7); (2) rulers or nobles claiming divine status; (3) the godly line of Seth. The Hebrew text supports all three; the TT does not choose.
A2. Nephilim transliterated — not "giants"
TEXTUALVerified
The TT keeps nephilim as a transliteration per Rule 4. "Giants" comes from the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint), which used gigantes, a word that originally meant "earth-born," not "tall." The Hebrew root n-p-l (fall) may or may not be the actual origin of the word. The text does NOT say the nephilim are the offspring of the sons-of-God union. It says they were "on the land in those days, and also afterward."
A4. Divine regret — nacham root returns
TEXTUALVerified
Genesis 6:6: YHWH nacham (regretted/grieved). Same root as Noach (Noah)'s name-etymology at 5:29 (nacham = comfort). The one named "comfort" enters the narrative at the moment of divine "regret." The TT preserves both occurrences of the root literally.
A5. Creation reversal — "God saw" inverted
TEXTUALVerified
Gen 1: "God saw that good" (6×). Gen 6:5: "YHWH saw that great was the evil." Gen 6:12: "God saw the land, and see, it was corrupt." Same verb (ra'ah), inverted evaluation. The creation-evaluation formula is reversed.
A6. Destruction reverses creation order
TEXTUALVerified
Gen 6:7: "from human to livestock to creeping thing to bird of the sky." In Gen 1, creation goes forward: plants (Day 3) → sea creatures and birds (Day 5) → land animals and humans (Day 6). The destruction order in 6:7 runs backward through that same sequence.
A6b. The flood as water-reunion — undoing Day 2
TEXTUALVerified
Genesis 7:11 (previewed here because the mechanism is established in Gen 6:17): "all the fountains of the great deep (tehom rabbah) burst open, and the windows of the sky were opened." This precisely reverses Genesis 1:6-7, where the raqia (the solid dome of the sky) was placed to separate waters above from waters below.
The flood is not merely rising water. It is the undoing of Day 2's cosmic separation. The waters that were divided at creation are reunited in destruction. The tehom (the deep, present since 1:2) breaks through from below. The sky-windows (holding back the waters above the raqia) are opened from above. The entire water-boundary structure of Genesis 1 is directly relevant: the flood works BY reversing the raqia separation.
Then Genesis 8:2: "the fountains of the deep and the windows of the sky were stopped." Day 2's separation is re-established. The flood narrative is structurally a de-creation and re-creation of the cosmic water-boundary.
This is different from the "creation reversal" in A5–A6 (which tracks the evaluation inversion and destruction order). This entry tracks the specific water-mechanism: the same cosmological structure the TT preserves through transliterating raqia and rendering "waters above/below" literally is the structure the flood dismantles and rebuilds.
The flood is not merely rising water. It is the undoing of Day 2's cosmic separation. The waters that were divided at creation are reunited in destruction. The tehom (the deep, present since 1:2) breaks through from below. The sky-windows (holding back the waters above the raqia) are opened from above. The entire water-boundary structure of Genesis 1 is directly relevant: the flood works BY reversing the raqia separation.
Then Genesis 8:2: "the fountains of the deep and the windows of the sky were stopped." Day 2's separation is re-established. The flood narrative is structurally a de-creation and re-creation of the cosmic water-boundary.
This is different from the "creation reversal" in A5–A6 (which tracks the evaluation inversion and destruction order). This entry tracks the specific water-mechanism: the same cosmological structure the TT preserves through transliterating raqia and rendering "waters above/below" literally is the structure the flood dismantles and rebuilds.
A7. First covenant (berit) — announced before its terms
TEXTUALVerified
Genesis 6:18: "I will establish my covenant (beriti) with you." This is the first time the word berit (covenant, a binding agreement) appears in the Bible. The TT flags this with 🔴 CRITICAL. The covenant is announced before its terms are laid out (those come at 9:8-17). God commits before explaining.
A8. "Two from all" vs. "seven pairs" — tension preserved
TEXTUALVerified
Gen 6:19: "two from all," one pair per kind. Gen 7:2: "from the clean livestock, seven seven," seven pairs of clean animals. The TT translates both as the MT (the standard Hebrew text) reads them without harmonization per Rule 22 and the No-Harmonization Principle. This is the most visible internal tension in the flood narrative.
A9. Tebah — a box, not a ship
TEXTUALVerified
The Hebrew tebah describes a sealed container with no rudder, sail, or navigation. The same word appears only one other place: Exodus 2:3,5, Moses' basket. Both are sealed containers entrusted to water and to divine providence.
A10. Kopher/kippur wordplay — covering that saves
TEXTUALVerified
Gen 6:14: the tebah is covered (kaphar) with kopher (pitch). Root כ-פ-ר (k-p-r) = cover/atone, the same root as kippur (as in Yom Kippur). The covering that seals the ark against flood-death shares the root of the covering that atones for sin. The TT flags this wordplay per Rule 14.
A11. YHWH vs. Elohim distribution in Gen 6
TEXTUALVerified
vv.1-8: YHWH (narrator describes divine emotional response, regret and grief). vv.9-22: Elohim/God (narrator describes divine instructions to Noach (Noah), covering covenant, ark, and animals). The alternation is a textual feature. The TT preserves it without importing documentary-hypothesis framing.
A3. yadon — genuinely uncertain verb
TEXTUALUncertain
Genesis 6:3: "My spirit shall not yadon in the human forever." The verb is genuinely UNCERTAIN. Scholars disagree on the root word. It could come from דון (remain/abide) or דין (judge/contend). The TT renders "remain/contend" with a slash to preserve both possibilities.
Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
B1. "Sons of God" and the divine council
COMPARATIVE PARALLELVerified
Bene elohim has exact parallels in Ugaritic (b'n il, "sons of El") and Phoenician texts, where the phrase refers to members of a divine council — a heavenly assembly of gods. Psalm 82 depicts God presiding over just such an assembly: "I said, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High'" (Ps 82:6). The divine-council concept is widely found across the ancient Near East.
Source: Smith, M.S., The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, Oxford, 2001; Heiser, M., The Unseen Realm, Lexham, 2015.
B2. Nephilim and the Watchers tradition
COMPARATIVE PARALLELVerified
The nephilim tradition is extensively developed in Jewish writings from the centuries before and around the time of Jesus:
• 1 Enoch 6-16 (Book of Watchers, 3rd c. BCE): 200 angels called Watchers descend on Mount Hermon, take human wives, produce giant offspring
• Book of Giants (Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered by Milik, 1971): giant-sons receive prophetic dreams of destruction, consult Enoch
• Book of Jubilees 7:21-25: ridding the earth of nephilim as divine purpose for the flood
• 1 Enoch 6-16 (Book of Watchers, 3rd c. BCE): 200 angels called Watchers descend on Mount Hermon, take human wives, produce giant offspring
• Book of Giants (Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered by Milik, 1971): giant-sons receive prophetic dreams of destruction, consult Enoch
• Book of Jubilees 7:21-25: ridding the earth of nephilim as divine purpose for the flood
Source: Charles, R.H., Book of Enoch, 1912; Milik, J.T., Dead Sea Scrolls publications, 1971.
B3. Mesopotamian flood narratives — the closest ANE parallels
COMPARATIVE PARALLELVerified
Three layered traditions:
1. Ziusudra (Sumerian, c. 2100-2000 BCE): earliest written flood account, fragmentary
2. Atrahasis (Old Babylonian, c. 1800 BCE): flood as divine response to human noise disturbing gods
3. Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh Tablet XI, c. 1300-1000 BCE): discovered by George Smith in 1872
Genesis shares: divine decision to destroy, one man warned, vessel built, animals aboard, birds sent out, sacrifice after. Genesis differs: the cause is moral corruption (chamas), not divine annoyance at noise. The vessel is a box (tebah), not a boat.
1. Ziusudra (Sumerian, c. 2100-2000 BCE): earliest written flood account, fragmentary
2. Atrahasis (Old Babylonian, c. 1800 BCE): flood as divine response to human noise disturbing gods
3. Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh Tablet XI, c. 1300-1000 BCE): discovered by George Smith in 1872
Genesis shares: divine decision to destroy, one man warned, vessel built, animals aboard, birds sent out, sacrifice after. Genesis differs: the cause is moral corruption (chamas), not divine annoyance at noise. The vessel is a box (tebah), not a boat.
Source: Finkel, I., The Ark Before Noah, 2014; Pritchard, J.B., ANET, 3rd ed., 1969.
B4. Ark dimensions across traditions
COMPARATIVE PARALLELVerified
| Feature | Noah's Tebah (Genesis) | Utnapishtim's Boat (Gilgamesh) | Atrahasis Ark Tablet |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shape | Rectangular (300×50×30 cubits) | Cube (180 ft each side) | Round coracle (230 ft) |
| Deck area | ~15,000 sq cubits | ~14,400 sq cubits | ~14,400 sq cubits |
| Waterproofing | Pitch (kopher) | Bitumen | Bitumen |
| Decks | 3 levels | 6 decks | Multiple |
The near-identical deck areas (~4% difference) across all three traditions suggests a shared source tradition for the vessel's scale.
Source: Finkel, I., The Ark Before Noah, 2014.
Linguistic and Philological Deep Dives
D1. Yetser — inclination (first occurrence)
TEXTUALVerified
Gen 6:5: יֵצֶר (yetser) = "inclination, bent, formation" (from the root y-ts-r, the same root as yatzar = "to form/shape"). This is the word's first appearance. It later becomes the basis for the rabbinic concept yetzer ha-ra (the evil inclination), a key idea in Jewish thinking about human nature. Here it describes the full direction of human moral life: "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the day."
D2. Chamas — violence as named sin
TEXTUALVerified
Gen 6:11,13: חָמָס (chamas) = violence, wrongdoing. This is the specific sin named for the generation before the flood — not idolatry, not sexual immorality, but chamas. The word points to active injustice and oppression, not just general moral decay.
D3. Gopher — the only unknown wood
TEXTUALUncertain
גֹּפֶר (gopher) appears only at Gen 6:14. No one knows what wood this is. Suggestions include cypress (because it sounds somewhat like the Greek word kuparissos), cedar, or a species that no longer exists. The TT keeps the Hebrew word untranslated per Rule 4. Any translation would be a guess.
Later Reception in Other Traditions
F_. The Watchers tradition
LATER RECEPTIONDocumented
Genesis 6:1-4 is famously puzzling. 1 Enoch's Book of the Watchers (chapters 1-36, ~3rd c. BCE) is the most influential ancient expansion. It identifies the bene ha-elohim as 200 fallen angels led by Shemyaza and Azazel, who descend to Mount Hermon, take human wives, father the nephilim as giants, and teach humans forbidden knowledge. This reading dominated Jewish interpretation in the centuries before Jesus and is reflected in the New Testament: Jude 6 ("angels who did not stay within their proper position"), 2 Peter 2:4 ("God did not spare angels when they sinned"), and Jude 14-15 quoting 1 Enoch 1:9 directly. The reading was accepted by early Christian writers (Tertullian, Clement, Justin Martyr) but was largely replaced in Western Christianity by Augustine's "Sethite" interpretation (which reads "sons of God" as the godly line of Seth). It remained authoritative in Eastern Christianity, where 1 Enoch is part of the accepted scriptures of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The TT translates Genesis 6:1-4 as the Hebrew stands, preserving the ambiguity per Rule 2.
Source: Nickelsburg, G.W.E. & VanderKam, J.C., 1 Enoch, Fortress Press, 2004 (PEER-REVIEWED); Reed, A.Y., Fallen Angels, Cambridge, 2005 (PEER-REVIEWED); Wright, A.T., The Origin of Evil Spirits, Mohr Siebeck, 2005 (PEER-REVIEWED).