Giants Through the Centuries

Philo reads Genesis 6 within a world in which incorporeal powers can become entangled with bodily passion. His treatment is important because it predates the major Christian writers and shows that an angelic reading was already available within Jewish interpretation.

In On the Giants, Philo identifies the Genesis “sons of God” with angels and uses the episode to contrast heavenly reason with passions drawn downward toward the body. In Questions and Answers on Genesis, he is even more direct about the mixed origin of the giants.

For this gallery, Philo matters less as a reporter of archaeology than as an early witness to interpretation. He demonstrates that reading Genesis 6 as a supernatural transgression was not invented by modern prophecy writers. It belonged to ancient Jewish discussion of the text.

““those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Josephus retells the pre-Flood episode as history. He says angels of God joined themselves to women and produced sons whose confidence in their strength led to injustice. He then compares their deeds with the giants known from Greek tradition.

That comparison is significant. Josephus does not merely mention unusual warriors. He places the angelic unions, extraordinary strength, moral corruption, and Greek giant traditions in the same paragraph. His language shows how a first-century Jewish historian could present Genesis 6 to a Greco-Roman readership.

Josephus is therefore a strong witness for the antiquity of the interpretation, but his testimony should be used for what it is: evidence for how he understood Israel’s ancient record, not independent physical proof that a particular giant report is authentic.

““many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Justin places an angelic rebellion inside his explanation of pagan religion and demonic activity. In Second Apology 5, the angels entrusted with care of the world transgress their appointment, become captivated by women, and produce offspring.

His argument goes beyond identifying the beings. Justin connects the transgression with magical instruction, false worship, violence, and the stories told by pagan poets. In other words, Genesis 6 becomes part of a larger Christian explanation for why ancient cultures remembered gods and semi-divine beings behaving immorally.

Justin is a particularly valuable witness because his statement is explicit and early. The museum should also preserve his distinctive terminology: he calls the offspring demons, rather than simply reproducing every detail of 1 Enoch’s giant narrative.

““the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Athenagoras supplies one of the clearest surviving patristic statements. He says certain angels abandoned their proper government, fell into impure love of virgins, and that from these unions came those called giants.

He then distinguishes the fallen angels from the souls of the giants, which he describes as demons wandering in the world. This makes his account especially useful for comparing early Christian demonology with 1 Enoch 15–16, where the spirits of dead giants become evil spirits.

Because Athenagoras explicitly uses the word giants, he easily meets this gallery’s admission standard. His text also warns us not to flatten the witnesses into one system: his demonology has its own details and should be presented on its own terms.

““Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants.””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Irenaeus states the tradition with unusual clarity in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. He says angels united with the daughters of mankind and that their sons, because of their exceeding greatness, were called giants.

He also preserves the Enochic theme of forbidden instruction. The angels bring knowledge of roots, herbs, dyes, cosmetics, love-potions, sorcery, and idolatry. The significance is not simply physical size. The episode explains an acceleration of corruption before the Flood.

Irenaeus therefore gives the gallery a bridge between Genesis, Enochic tradition, and second-century Christian teaching. His account is direct enough that no reconstruction of his position is necessary.

““they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Tertullian repeatedly treats the Genesis 6 offenders as fallen angels who descended to the daughters of men. In On the Apparel of Women he connects them with metallurgy, precious stones, cosmetics, enchantments, and astrology, material closely parallel to the Watcher traditions of 1 Enoch.

His importance is amplified by the fact that he openly discusses the Book of Enoch and defends its usefulness even while acknowledging that some did not receive it. That gives historians unusually direct evidence for how Enochic material circulated in early Christianity.

Tertullian’s entry should not be read as an endorsement of every later occult claim. What it establishes is narrower and stronger: he believed the angelic transgression was real and used it as part of his moral and theological argument.

““those angels, to wit, who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Commodian gives a compact retelling: angels sent to earth despised God’s laws, were turned aside by the beauty of women, could not return to heaven, and from their seed giants were said to have been born.

He then connects the fallen beings with the transmission of arts and with later idolatry. The structure resembles other early Christian adaptations of Watcher tradition, but Commodian’s poetic form makes the testimony independent in presentation.

This is a strong admission because the chain is explicit: angels, women, offspring, giants. The museum can therefore quote Commodian without having to infer the giant connection from a general discussion of demons.

““from their seed giants are said to have been born””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Lactantius describes angels sent for the protection and improvement of humanity who were corrupted through intercourse with women. Their offspring, he says, possessed a mixed nature, neither angel nor man.

His account develops a two-level demonology. The fallen angels become one class of evil beings, while the offspring become another. This resembles the Enochic explanation for the origin of wandering evil spirits, although Lactantius frames the material within his own apologetic attack on pagan religion.

Lactantius is valuable because he shows the supernatural reading continuing into the early fourth century. He also illustrates how Genesis 6 could be used to explain idolatry rather than merely to speculate about unusual bodies.

““they who were born from these… [bore] a kind of mixed nature””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

In Preparation for the Gospel, Eusebius invokes Genesis 6 while discussing Greek stories of gods, daemons, Titans, and giants. He quotes the tradition of angels of God taking the daughters of men and the birth of giants, men of renown.

Eusebius then proposes that the daemons remembered in pagan traditions may be connected with these giants and that later generations deified their spirits. The argument is apologetic: pagan mythology is treated as a distorted memory rather than a rival revelation.

His testimony is especially useful for the museum’s comparative approach. It does not prove that every giant myth descends from Genesis 6, but it documents that a major fourth-century historian explicitly made that comparison.

““of these were born the giants, the men of renown which were of old””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Sulpicius Severus recounts that certain heavenly angels were captivated by beautiful women, abandoned their proper condition, and entered earthly marriages. From this alliance, he says, giants sprang.

His Sacred History is important because the supernatural interpretation appears not in a speculative treatise but in a continuous retelling of sacred history from creation onward. He treats the episode as part of the sequence leading toward the Flood.

By the late fourth and early fifth centuries, competing interpretations were gaining influence. Sulpicius therefore preserves a clear example of the older angelic reading at a moment when Christian interpretation was becoming more divided.

““from their alliance giants are said to have sprung””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Edwin Hamilton Davis was a physician and antiquarian whose knowledge of Ohio Valley sites and extensive artifact collection became central to the collaboration with Ephraim G. Squier. Their fieldwork produced the Smithsonian's landmark 1848 volume Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley.

Davis's medical background makes his participation particularly relevant when the excavation record turns to human remains. The joint volume records skeletons, skulls, jaws, teeth, cremations, and burial arrangements at numerous mound sites. Although the terminology and methods belong to the nineteenth century, the work provides a window into remains recovered before many of the earthworks were altered or lost.

Because the book is jointly authored, the museum should not assign every observation individually to Davis or Squier unless the text does so. Davis is included as a named investigator and coauthor responsible for the field record, not as an advocate for a biblical Nephilim identification.

“Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley”Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge · Volume I

Ephraim G. Squier helped produce one of the foundational works of American archaeology. Working with Edwin H. Davis, he surveyed and excavated earthworks throughout the Ohio and Mississippi valleys and published the results in Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley in 1848, the first volume of the Smithsonian Institution's Contributions to Knowledge.

The work contains repeated descriptions of burials, skeletons, skulls, jaws, cremated remains, and the physical arrangement of human remains inside mounds. Its value to this gallery is not a single sensational claim but the early date, scale, maps, plans, and firsthand excavation descriptions. It preserves a record of sites that were later damaged or destroyed.

Squier and Davis worked before modern archaeological standards and held nineteenth-century assumptions that are no longer accepted. Their observations should therefore be separated from their broader theories about who built the mounds. The original descriptions remain historically important evidence for what early excavators said they encountered.

“comprising the results of extensive original surveys and explorations”Subtitle of Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley

Cyrus Thomas directed the Bureau of Ethnology's Division of Mound Exploration and oversaw one of the most extensive nineteenth-century investigations of North American earthworks. His 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology gathered the results of field agents working across numerous states and remains a primary institutional source for what those investigators recorded.

For this gallery, Thomas is important because the report preserves actual skeletal measurements rather than later retellings. At Dunleith, Illinois, the Bureau recorded one of its largest skeletons as measuring between seven and eight feet in length by actual measurement. Other entries in the report describe large skeletons and burials from additional mound sites. These observations deserve to be preserved exactly as reported, without converting every large individual into a biblical identification.

Thomas himself ultimately rejected the older theory of a mysterious vanished non-Native race of mound builders. That makes the measurements especially useful historically: the report was not written to establish a Nephilim theory. It was an archaeological survey documenting what Bureau investigators believed they encountered in the field.

“the length as proved by actual measurement being between 7 and 8 feet.”Twelfth Annual Report · Dunleith, Illinois field record

Pember’s Earth’s Earliest Ages gave the supernatural interpretation a large English-language audience. He treated the sons of God as superhuman beings and the Nephilim as the result of unlawful contact between the spiritual and human realms.

Pember linked Genesis 6 with Enochic themes, spiritualism, and his interpretation of the “days of Noah.” Some of his wider conclusions are highly speculative and should be labeled as such, but his actual position on Genesis 6 is unmistakable.

For museum purposes, Pember is useful precisely because his work lets us separate two questions: what a writer believed the biblical text meant, and whether every historical or prophetic extension he built from it is persuasive.

““the return of the Nephilim” became part of Pember’s reading of the future “days of Noah.””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Bullinger repeatedly identifies the sons of God of Genesis 6 with angels, correlating the phrase with Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 and connecting the transgression with 1 Peter 3, 2 Peter 2, and Jude 6.

His approach is strongly lexical and cross-referential. Rather than beginning with mythology, Bullinger argues from the biblical use of “sons of God” and from New Testament passages concerning disobedient angels.

Bullinger’s larger dispensational framework is distinct from the early Fathers, yet his conclusion demonstrates the same interpretation surviving through a very different method: close verbal comparison across the biblical canon.

““certain angels fell from their high estate. They are called ‘sons of God’””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Frederic Ward Putnam was a major figure in the development of American anthropology and archaeology. His work in Ohio included investigation and preservation of Serpent Mound and excavation of nearby conical mounds. Modern reviews of his investigation note that he recovered the skeletal remains of ten people from one of the mounds, including an older burial beneath later interments.

Putnam's own account describes bones, skull fragments, jaws, teeth, and other anatomical observations in archaeological context. Some later popular books have attached claims of extremely tall skeletons to Putnam and Serpent Mound, but those claims are not secure enough to present here as Putnam's documented conclusion. The stronger museum approach is to show what his published field record actually says.

His inclusion therefore strengthens the gallery's evidence discipline. Putnam demonstrates that unusual skeletal claims must be separated from verifiable excavation records, even when later writers connect the two.

“The Serpent Mound of Ohio”Putnam’s published field account · 1890

Larkin argues that the Old Testament title “sons of God” applies to angels and that Genesis 6 describes a transgression by fallen angels rather than intermarriage between Sethites and Cainites.

He points to the extraordinary offspring as part of his argument. In his presentation, ordinary marriages between godly and ungodly human lines do not explain the text’s emphasis on Nephilim, mighty men, and men of renown.

Larkin is a useful twentieth-century witness because his diagrams and popular books helped carry the angelic interpretation into American dispensational teaching. His claims should still be evaluated separately from the biblical text itself.

““the ‘Sons of God’ of Gen. 6:2, 4, were ANGELS””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Gerard Fowke carried out extensive archaeological investigations for the Bureau of American Ethnology. His 1922 Archeological Investigations records cave exploration, mound excavation, burials, bones, skulls, teeth, long bones, and the exact positions in which remains were encountered.

One particularly useful passage records “part of a large femur” sixteen feet from a cave entrance, followed nearby by a folded skeleton and associated artifacts. Fowke does not turn that observation into a claim about a race of giants. He simply records the bone, its depth, position, condition, and surrounding material.

That restraint is precisely why Fowke belongs here. His reports give visitors an example of what archaeological field evidence looks like before later interpretation is added. A large bone can be historically significant without the museum claiming that its owner was a Nephilim.

“part of a large femur and a few fragments of other bones”Archeological Investigations · Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 76

Fleming’s The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology belongs to the nineteenth-century revival of attempts to connect Genesis 6, fallen angels, giant traditions, and classical mythology. His work is valuable here as history of interpretation, not as a modern archaeological authority.

Fleming gathered biblical and mythological material to argue that heroic traditions preserved distorted memories of supernatural events. That comparative method would later become common in popular Nephilim literature, though modern readers must distinguish literary parallels from demonstrated historical dependence.

His inclusion shows that the older interpretation did not simply vanish after late antiquity. It reappeared in printed theological and comparative works well before twentieth-century prophecy publishing.

“Research emphasis: fallen angels and the “heroes” of ancient mythology were treated as connected traditions.”Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Barnhouse interpreted Genesis 6 as a satanic attempt to corrupt the human line through supernatural intrusion. He explicitly identifies the Nephilim as giants and connects the pre-Flood event with later giant traditions in Canaan.

His reading is theological rather than archaeological. The controlling idea is the promised seed of Genesis 3:15: Barnhouse saw the attack on human lineage as part of the conflict surrounding the coming Messiah.

This makes Barnhouse a useful comparison with writers such as Pember and Fruchtenbaum. They agree on a supernatural Genesis 6 but differ in how they integrate it into broader prophetic and theological systems.

““the Nephilim, the giants… were on earth in those days, and also afterward””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Unger preferred the angelic interpretation after weighing the principal alternatives. His handbook cites the Old Testament use of bene elohim, the scope of the Flood narrative, New Testament angel passages, and the Nephilim tradition.

Unlike sensational modern treatments, Unger approaches the subject as part of biblical demonology and lexical interpretation. His work is therefore especially useful for a museum entry that wants to distinguish textual arguments from modern photographs, rumors, or archaeological claims.

Unger also notes the Septuagint gigantes and the later giant traditions associated with Numbers 13. The strength of his entry is not novelty but the systematic way he assembles the biblical case.

““Of these three predominant views, the third is to be preferred””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Morris argues from the biblical phrase bene elohim that Genesis intends angelic beings. He notes that the expression elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to beings directly created by God and concludes that fallen angels stand behind the Genesis 6 episode.

Morris wrestles with the mechanism. Rather than treating every detail as obvious, he discusses angelic embodiment or possession as possible explanations for how the transgression could produce the extraordinary result described in the passage.

The museum should preserve that distinction. Morris strongly affirms supernatural agency, but some details of his model are proposed explanations rather than statements explicitly supplied by Genesis.

““the intent of the writer was to convey the thought of angels””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Smith taught Genesis verse by verse and understood “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as angelic beings. He connected the phrase with its usage in Job and treated the appearance of giants as part of the unusual circumstances preceding the Flood.

His presentation is pastoral rather than academic. That makes him useful in this chronology because it shows how the interpretation moved from specialist books into ordinary church Bible teaching during the late twentieth century.

Smith’s entry should remain modest in scope: he is evidence for continuity of interpretation, not an independent historical witness to ancient events.

“Key teaching: the Old Testament phrase “sons of God” points to angelic beings in this context.”Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Missler became one of the best-known modern advocates of the fallen-angel interpretation. He explicitly rejected the Sethite explanation and linked Genesis 6 with Jude, 2 Peter, the Rephaim, and later biblical giant clans.

His work also ranges into highly speculative territory, including modern reports and technological analogies. For that reason, this museum entry should separate his textual argument from claims that require independent evidence.

That distinction strengthens rather than weakens the gallery. A historical witness can be accurately represented without the museum adopting every inference the witness made.

“Research emphasis: Genesis 6 is treated as an angelic incursion rather than Sethite intermarriage.”Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Boice treated the angelic interpretation as a serious and defensible reading of Genesis 6 and discussed it in his Genesis exposition. His work belongs to mainstream evangelical commentary rather than fringe literature.

His importance to this gallery is methodological. Boice lays out interpretive options, considers the language and ancient understanding, and treats the supernatural reading as exegetically possible without depending on modern giant-skeleton stories.

That makes him a useful bridge between popular preaching and technical commentary. His inclusion also replaces weaker candidates for whom an explicit giant tradition could not be demonstrated with equal confidence.

“Research finding: Boice is regularly cited among modern evangelical defenders of the fallen-angel reading.”Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Wenham’s Word Biblical Commentary identifies the angelic interpretation as the oldest reading and the view of many modern commentators. He treats the “sons of God” as heavenly beings and discusses the Nephilim against ancient traditions of superhuman figures.

His commentary is especially valuable because it situates Genesis 6 beside Ugaritic language, the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and early Christian interpretation. This is historical-critical scholarship, not modern sensationalism.

Wenham therefore gives the gallery a modern academic control point. One can accept his reading of the Hebrew and ancient context without accepting fabricated giant photographs or unsupported archaeological claims.

““The ‘angel’ interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators.””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Fruchtenbaum argues that the Old Testament phrase benei elohim in Genesis 6 refers to angels, as it does in Job. He rejects making Genesis 6 the exceptional place where the phrase suddenly means a human genealogical line.

He develops the event within a larger messianic conflict, proposing that the angelic unions were an attempt to corrupt the human line connected with the promised seed. He also treats the Nephilim as the abnormal result of the unions.

The first point is linguistic; the second is a theological synthesis. Keeping those categories separate allows visitors to see where textual observation ends and broader interpretation begins.

““Throughout the Old Testament the term ‘sons of God’ is always used of angels.””Representative line or research finding from the cited material

L. A. Marzulli is a contemporary author and researcher who has spent years investigating biblical giant traditions and archaeological material he believes may bear on the Nephilim question. For this museum, his entry is restricted to his work on Genesis 6, biblical giants, mound-builder traditions, unusual skulls, ancient sites, and physical evidence claims.

In the On the Trail of the Nephilim series, Marzulli argues that the biblical Nephilim were literal beings and attempts to compare the scriptural record with archaeological remains and traditions from different regions. He has visited sites, collections, museums, and private holdings while documenting material that he interprets within that framework.

Marzulli's archaeological conclusions are not treated here as established simply because he has investigated an object or site. Measurements, provenance, custody, dating, and independent expert analysis remain essential. His value to the gallery is as a modern investigator who explicitly connects the biblical giant tradition with a search for physical evidence.

“On the Trail of the Nephilim”Marzulli’s long-running research series

Heiser argues that the sons of God are members of the heavenly host and that Genesis 6 should be read within the supernatural worldview of the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism. He connects the episode with the Nephilim, later giant clans, Jude, 2 Peter, and the broader biblical theme of rebellious divine beings.

A major strength of Heiser’s work is his insistence on separating the ancient textual question from modern internet folklore. He explicitly rejected doctored giant-skeleton images and cautioned that alleged physical remains require normal standards of evidence.

That combination makes Heiser especially important for this museum: a supernatural interpretation of the text can coexist with rigorous skepticism toward sensational archaeological claims.

“The supernatural reading does not require accepting modern “giant skeleton” photographs as evidence.”Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Chaffey has written a book-length defense of the fallen-angel interpretation, surveying the sons of God, Nephilim, ancient Jewish interpretation, early Christian writers, and objections based on Jesus’ teaching about angels and marriage.

His work is useful because it collects the interpretive history in one place and explicitly distinguishes the biblical question from many popular claims attached to the Nephilim topic. Visitors can therefore compare his conclusions with primary sources elsewhere in this gallery.

As with every modern writer here, the museum should cite his arguments rather than treating the author’s conclusion as independent proof of the ancient event.

“Research emphasis: the “sons of God” are heavenly beings and the Nephilim are connected with their transgression.”Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Van Dorn presents Genesis 6 as the beginning of a biblical giant-clan trajectory that continues through the Rephaim, Anakim, and other peoples encountered later in the Old Testament. He defends the sons of God as heavenly beings and the Nephilim as extraordinary offspring.

His method combines lexical study, ancient translation, Second Temple literature, biblical geography, and comparative traditions. Some comparative proposals extend beyond what the biblical text itself states, so the museum should distinguish direct exegesis from broader reconstruction.

Van Dorn’s value at the end of the chronology is that his work shows how the old interpretation is being developed today into a whole-Bible study of giants rather than being confined to four verses in Genesis.

“Research emphasis: Genesis 6 and the later giant clans belong to a connected supernatural conflict in the biblical narrative.”Representative line or research finding from the cited material

Ryan Pitterson is a contemporary Bible researcher and writer whose work focuses extensively on Genesis 6, the Nephilim, the fallen angels, and the later biblical giant traditions. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Rochester and a J.D. from Columbia University School of Law. His work belongs in this gallery as modern independent biblical research rather than as professional academic biblical scholarship.

In Judgment of the Nephilim, Pitterson explicitly identifies the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 as fallen angels who took human wives and produced the Nephilim. He understands the Nephilim as literal, superhuman giants and interprets the episode as part of a larger supernatural conflict running through biblical history.

Pitterson also argues that the giant problem did not end with the Flood. He connects Genesis 6 with later Old Testament giant traditions and develops a theory for the post-Flood return of the Nephilim. His later work, The Final Nephilim, extends his interpretation into biblical prophecy and eschatology. Those later conclusions should be presented as Pitterson’s theological reconstruction, not as independently established historical or archaeological findings.

“The fallen angels (‘sons of God’) took human wives (‘daughters of men’) and had children with them.”Judgment of the Nephilim · publisher description of Pitterson’s thesis