I don't disagree, I lean toward them being angels reading scripture without Enoch. With Enoch, there is no debate, Enoch explicitly interprets the Genesis account in an angelic direction. In 1 Enoch 6, the beings are described as the Watchers or “sons of heaven,” and they are identified as angels who descend, take human women and father children. The following chapters develop the connection with the giants.
To make it clear,
1 Enoch is not part of the Jewish canon, nor of most Christian canons, though it is preserved in the
Ethiopian tradition. Still, it is extremely important for understanding how Genesis 6 was interpreted in the centuries before Christ.
The relevant section is 1 Enoch 6-7, often called the Book of the Watchers.
1 Enoch 6:1-2 describes the descent:
“And it came to pass, when the children of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born unto them, beautiful and comely.
And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’”
1 Enoch 6:6 names their leader:
“And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon…”
1 Enoch 7:1-2 describes the union and offspring:
“And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them…
And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells.”
Later in chapter 7, the giants devour humanity and turn violent.
1 Enoch 8 describes the angels teaching forbidden knowledge: weaponry, cosmetics, sorcery, astrology.
This becomes part of the explanation for escalating corruption before the Flood.
1 Enoch 10 then describes divine judgment against these Watchers, including their binding until final judgment.
1 Enoch (3rd-1st century BC)
This is the clearest example. As previously noted, 1 Enoch 6-16 presents the “Watchers,” angels who descend, take human wives, produce giants, and teach forbidden knowledge. This work was widely circulated in Second Temple Judaism and was influential enough that fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. That means it was not marginal.
Jubilees (2nd century BC)
Jubilees 5:1 states:
“And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply… that the angels of God saw them… and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose.”
Jubilees clearly assumes the angelic reading and integrates it into its retelling of Genesis.
Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran community)
The Book of Giants, found among the Qumran texts, expands on the Enochic tradition. It elaborates on the offspring of the angels and their judgment. The community at Qumran clearly accepted the Watcher narrative as historical reality.
Philo of Alexandria (1st century AD)
Philo does not narrate the story in mythic detail like Enoch, but in On the Giants (De Gigantibus), he refers to “angels of God” who fell and associates Genesis 6 with spiritual beings. His interpretation is more allegorical, but he does not deny the angelic referent.
Josephus (1st century AD)
In Antiquities of the Jews 1.3.1, Josephus writes:
“For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust…”
Josephus presents this as part of Jewish historical tradition. He does not treat it as speculative folklore. He assumes his audience will recognize it.
Rabbinic literature
Now here is where things begin to shift. Later rabbinic Judaism becomes increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of angels reproducing. Some rabbinic sources reinterpret “sons of God” as judges, nobles, or powerful men. But that shift appears later, and even rabbinic literature preserves traces of the older tradition.
For example, Genesis Rabbah contains discussions that reflect tension over the meaning of “sons of God,” with some strands acknowledging angelic associations while others resist them.
So, as you can see…
Before Christianity:
1 Enoch explicitly teaches the angelic view.
Jubilees affirms it.
Qumran literature expands it.
Josephus records it as Jewish tradition.
Philo does not reject angelic language.
That is not a minor stream. That is mainstream Second Temple Jewish interpretation.
So when early Christians like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus adopted the angelic view, they were not inventing something exotic. They were inheriting a Jewish interpretive framework already in circulation.
The later discomfort with angelic reproduction, whether in Augustine or later rabbinic Judaism, reflects theological development and philosophical concerns about the nature of angels, not the absence of earlier belief.
In other words, if someone claims
“no Jews ever believed angels mated with women,” history disagrees rather loudly.
