The Nephilim Were Flesh—Beshagam בְּשַׁגַּם, a Biblical Hapax Legomenon

[1] The term בני [ה]אלהים in the Bible always refers to divine or angelic beings (e.g., Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Editor’s note: For a discussion of the nature of these divine beings, see Rachel Adelman, “Reintroducing the Myth of the Fallen Angels into Judaism,” TheTorah (2015).

[2] This article is a translation and expansion of an excursus in Michael Segal, “The Sins of the Watchers in 1 Enoch 12–16,” Meghillot 17 (2024): 3–28 (21-22) [in Hebrew].

[3] Bible translations from NJPS with modifications, unless otherwise indicated.

[4] See Gen 3:22 and 11:1–9, which also reflect concerns about maintaining boundaries between the heavenly and earthly worlds. In contrast, some scholars have interpreted the short story as an etiology of the presence of the Nephilim in the land (Num 13:33); see, for example, Umberto Cassuto, “The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, 2 vols., trans. I. Abrahams (Magnes, 1973), vol. 1, 17–28; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. J.H. Marks (Westminster Press, 1972), 113–116. The Septuagint (ca. 3rd century B.C.E.) renders both הַנְּפִלִים and הַגִּבֹּרִים as hoί gίgantes (“the giants”). Editor’s note: For more on different ways this story has been interpreted, see Adelman, “Reintroducing the Myth of the Fallen Angels into Judaism;” Benjamin D. Sommer, “Why are There Demigods in a Monotheistic Torah?” TheTorah (2015); and Miryam Brand, “The Benei Elohim, the Watchers, and the Origins of Evil,” TheTorah (2016).

[5] The term יָדוֹן is a hapax legomenon (a word that appears only once) in the Bible, whose meaning is uncertain. This interpretation understands it as a stative verb based on the root ד-ו-ן, cognate with the common Akkadian verb dunnunu (D stem of danānu) meaning “to strengthen, to increase” (CAD, D, 84b). See Karl Vollers, “Zur Erklärung des ידון Gen 6,3,” ZA 14 (1889):349–356; Ron Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4,” JBL 106 (1987):13–26 (15, esp. n. 10). In a previous study, I proposed a similar meaning for the verb תדין in Zech. 3.7 (“strengthen/reinforce [my house]”); see Michael Segal, “The Responsibilities and Rewards of Joshua the High Priest according to Zechariah 3:7,” JBL 126.4 (2007): 717–734. For a discussion of the reading ידור in 4Q252 and the testimony of the Septuagint, see M.J. Bernstein, “4Q252 i 2 לא ידור רוחי באדם לעולם: Biblical Text or Biblical Interpretation?” RevQ 16 (1994): 421–427. Editor’s note: For more on hapax legomena, see Gary A. Rendsburg, “Hapax Legomena: Ten Biblical Examples,” TheTorah (2023).

[6] The issue of how to translate this term (the second hapax legomenon in this challenging verse) and the pronoun הוּא following it will be the main subject of the discussion that follows.

[7] The Hebrew follows the Masoretic text. The translation, which is the author’s own, renders the singular term אָדָם and the singular suffix in יָמָיו as plural (more on this later). Another translation option that maintains the sense of the singular is “humankind…his/its days.”

[8] Ibn Ezra interprets the term as “because”:

^{אבן עזרא על בראשית ו:ג} ...בעבור שהאדם בשר...

^{Ibn Ezra Gen 6:3} …because man is made of flesh…

Translations of rabbinic texts are by the author and editors unless otherwise indicated.

[9] Although the ancient versions do not always represent all the morphological elements, which is probably the result of the difficulties they had in analyzing the word. The Septuagint renders בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר as διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας, “because they are flesh”; similarly, the Peshiṭta (ܡܛܠ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܗܘ); the Vulgate (quia caro est); and Targum Neofiti (מן בגלל דאינון בשר).

[10] See also the ESV (“for he is flesh”); NKJV (“for he is indeed flesh”); Everett Fox, The Five Books Of Moses (“for they too are flesh”); E.A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 1 (Doubleday, 1964), 44: “since he is but flesh”; and Menahem Zvi Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006), who renders it מפני שגם הוא בשר (1038).

[11] For the full range of the preposition בְּ, see BDB, 88-91.

[12] While the form שֶׁ is far more common, the use of the patach here (שַׁ) is similar to Judg 5:7 (עַד שַׁקַּמְתִּי, “until you rose”). For more on the range of שֶׁ , see BDB, 979-980.

[13] Or “because/since also/too,” for that matter. In light of the difficulty inherent in the morphemic combination, HALOT, 1366, includes this in the category of “questionable instances” of שׁ־. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion Sr. (Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 375-376, opts for this interpretation while noting its shortcomings, commenting that -ש is not attested anywhere else in the Torah as an abbreviation for אשר, and that גם in this context is difficult to make sense of. Moreover, he adds (376), “But the real difficulty is that the reason for Yahweh’s judgment must be an action, not a state. The judgment would be better in content and style were no reason given.” See also David Clines, “The significance of the 'Sons of God' episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the context of the 'Primeval History' (Genesis 1-11),” JSOT 4.13 (1979): 33-46 (40). Speiser, Genesis, 44, while preferring this to the second option (discussed below) adds that this interpretation is “still highly uncertain.”

[14] The verb ש-ג-ג is attested in Lev 5:18; Num 15:28; Job 12:16; and Ps 119:67.

[15] See the apparatus in the edition of C.D. Ginsburg, Pentateuchus; diligenter revisus juxta Massorah atque editiones principes cum variis lectionibus e mss. atque antiquis versionibus collectis, vol. 1. (British and Foreign Bible Society, 1908), 8, with the base text vocalized with a qametz according to the Second Rabbinic Bible, ed. Jacob Ben-Haim Ibn Adoniyah, Venice 1524–5. See also the apparatus of BHS, 8.

[16] Speiser, Genesis, 44, note 3. Among those who prefer this interpretation are GKC §67p (“in their error”) and BDB, 393, following Gesenius (“by reason of their going astray”). See also (Robert) Young’s Literal Translation, which renders the phrase “in their erring they [are] flesh,” and Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, vol. 1 of Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (T. & T. Clark, 1866), who render it “in their wandering they are flesh.”

[17] The issue of the plural suffix not agreeing with the subject of the sentence (אָדָם), which is in the singular, or the later singular suffix (יָמָיו) is not necessarily a problem. More on this later.

[18] Ge`ez, also referred to as classical Ethiopic, is a South Semitic language that was used in ancient Ethiopia and Eritrea and it is still used today as the primary liturgical language for services in the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo churches and Catholic churches, as well as by the Ethiopian Beta Israel Jewish community. For more on the latter, see Sharon Shalom, From Sinai to Ethiopia (Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books, 2012) [in Hebrew].

[19] Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge`ez (Otto Harrasowitz, 1987), 526. Jonathan Ben-Dov independently suggested a similar origin of the word (oral communication).

[20] This interpretation assumes an etymological derivation which takes the consonant ש as reflecting ś, instead of š as attested in the Masoretic vocalization and in the ancient translations. The interchange of ś/š is unsurprising, especially in a rare word, since they are both reflected by the same grapheme in the Hebrew original.

[21] On the phenomenon of interpretive glosses and the use of the 3rd person pronoun to introduce them in the Hebrew Bible, see: G.R. Driver, “Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament,” in L’Ancien Testament et l’Orient, Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 1 (Publications Universitaires, Université de Louvain, 1957), 123–161; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford University Press, 1985), 44–48, 124–126; Yair Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Exegesis (Reches, 1992), 20–21 [in Hebrew]; Emanuel Tov “Glosses, Interpolations, and Other Types of Scribal Additions in the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” in Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr, ed. S.E. Balentine and J. Barton (Clarendon Press, 1994), 40–66; reprinted with a discussion of his reservations in Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Brill, 1999), 53–74, esp. pp. 63–66.

[22] August Dillmann (August Dillmann and Werner Munzinger, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae Cum Indice Latino [T.O. Weigel, 1865]), 267-268, saw a connection between this word śǝgā in Ge`ez and the Aramaic word שגה/א, “to, grow, be large, great,” (e.g. Ezra 4:22; Dan 3:31; 6:26) as well as Arabic ashjaʿ (أَشْجَع), shajʿam (شَجْعَم), and shajawjā (شَجَوْجَى), also meaning “great,” especially in the context of the human body or animals, and therefore he suggests that it is of Semitic origin. However, Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge`ez, doubted this, and it must be admitted that the semantic fields of the words in the different languages do not overlap for the most part. Leslau believed the word in Ge`ez is of Cushitic origin, which would weaken the argument here. I thank Shraga Assif, Joseph Witztum and Iyas Nasser for their help with the Arabic sources.

[23] See similarly Gen 15:13; Num 16:3; 1 Sam 2:8; and Zeph 2:7. See also GKC §123b, 135p; Joüon-Muraoka, §149a; Steven E. Fassberg, An Introduction to Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Bialik Institute, 2019), §§97, 351 [in Hebrew].

[24] The same variation is preserved in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Note that the Septuagint, Peshitta, T. Onkelos., T. Neofiti, and T. Pseudo-Jonathan all homogenize the text in their translations so that it reflects only plural possessive pronouns.

We find a similar example in Jeremiah:

^{ירמיהו ז:כח} וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם זֶה הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לוֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹל יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהָיו וְלֹא לָקְחוּ מוּסָר אָבְדָה הָאֱמוּנָה וְנִכְרְתָה מִפִּיהֶם.‏

^{Jer 7:28} Then say to them: This is the nation that would not obey YHWH their (Heb: singular) God, that would not accept discipline. Faithfulness has perished, cut off from their (Heb: plural) mouths.

The possessive pronouns in the verse referring to the collective antecedent גּוֹי appear side-by-side in both singular (אֱלֹהָיו) and plural (מִפִּיהֶם). The alternation in this verse is even more pronounced, and the demonstrative pronoun זה is in the singular, while the following verbs (שמעו, לקחו) are in the plural. The Septuagint does not reflect the word אלהיו, but translates both verbs in the singular, and retains the plural possessive pronoun of מפיהם. The Vulgate retains the variation in the pronouns, but translates the verbs as singular. The entire first half of the verse is absent in the Peshiṭta. Targum Jonathan homogenizes the text so that it reflects only plural possessive pronouns.