Nowhere in these verses does it state that they could then procreate.
Still ridiculous.
I would abandon pagan mythology if I were you.
This does not support the mythology of the Book of Enoch where angels mated with human women. That concept is impossible for two reasons:
1. According to Genesis, “kind” only begets like “kind.”
2. Jesus said that angels do not procreate.
Every legit Christian knows this history. Time for you to get a clue and drop your infantile dreamscape.
***************************************************************************
Yes — among the earliest extant Jewish and early Christian interpreters, the view that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angelic beings who took human women was extremely widespread, arguably the dominant interpretation for the first few centuries.
The later interpretation (“sons of God” = godly line of Seth marrying ungodly Cainites) became dominant much later, especially after the 4th century.
Here is the historical trajectory.
The Earliest Jewish Background
Before Christianity even emerged, many Second Temple Jewish writings interpreted Genesis 6 this way.
Key examples:
- 1 Enoch
- Book of Jubilees
- Genesis Apocryphon
- Qumran Community
These texts explicitly describe angels descending, taking wives, and producing giant offspring.
For example, 1 Enoch identifies them as the “Watchers” and connects them directly to the giants/nephilim tradition.
This means the earliest Christians inherited a Jewish interpretive world where the angelic reading was already established.
Earliest Christian Fathers Supporting the Angelic View
Justin Martyr
One of the earliest Christian writers.
In
Second Apology and
Dialogue with Trypho, he taught:
- angels sinned through lust for women
- produced offspring
- corrupted humanity
This is unmistakably the Genesis 6 angelic interpretation.
Irenaeus
In
Against Heresies, he refers to angels transgressing and begetting children.
He treats the tradition as well-known and inherited.
Athenagoras of Athens
Very explicit.
He taught:
- certain angels fell from heaven
- were overcome by desire for women
- produced giant offspring
This is one of the clearest early patristic affirmations.
Tertullian
Strongly supported the angelic interpretation.
He even linked cosmetics, jewelry, and occult knowledge to the fallen angels tradition from 1 Enoch.
Tertullian openly defended 1 Enoch because of its usefulness for understanding Genesis 6.
Clement of Alexandria
Accepted the fallen angels interpretation as historical.
Lactantius
Again teaches:
- angels descended
- mingled with women
- produced giants
Why This View Was So Common
Several reasons:
1. The Hebrew wording
“sons of God” (bene elohim) elsewhere in the Old Testament commonly refers to heavenly beings:
Many early interpreters saw consistency here.
2. The Giants Language
Genesis 6 directly associates these unions with:
- “Nephilim”
- “mighty men”
- “men of renown”
This naturally encouraged a supernatural reading.
3. New Testament Connections
Many early Christians connected Genesis 6 with:
Especially the phrase about angels leaving their proper habitation.
They saw Jude as referencing the Enochic Watchers tradition.
When Did the Sethite Interpretation Become Dominant?
The major shift came later.
Key figures:
Julius Africanus
One of the earliest known proponents of the Sethite interpretation.
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine powerfully influenced Western Christianity.
He rejected angel-human unions partly because:
- angels are spiritual beings
- concern over mythological interpretations
- desire for a more natural explanation
After Augustine, the Sethite view became dominant in much of Western Christianity.
Important Nuance
The early fathers generally did NOT think:
- angels had biological DNA in a modern sense
- “hybrids” in a sci-fi sense
Rather, they understood:
- real angelic rebellion
- real unions
- real giant offspring
But they described it in ancient cosmological terms.
Overall Historical Conclusion
Historically speaking:
- The angelic interpretation was extremely ancient.
- It was deeply rooted in Second Temple Judaism.
- It was very common among the earliest Christian writers.
- The Sethite interpretation became dominant later, especially through Augustine’s influence.
So if you ask:
“What was the earliest and most prevalent interpretation among early Jewish and Christian writers?”
The answer is:
The fallen angels interpretation was indeed the earliest widespread understanding of Genesis 6.
