Son of God

Rethinking the Jewish Background of the “Son of God”

Anthony J. Tomasino

Bethel College

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the

Christ? Whose son is he?"

"The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking

by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,

" 'The Lord said to my Lord:

"Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '

If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and

from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

(Matt. 22:41-46, NIV)

According to the German philosopher Fichte, knowledge advances through a tortuous

process of postulation and reconsideration. A thesis is generated, which inspires a contrary

soul to posit its antithesis. Eventually, however, the strengths of both ideas are recognized,

causing the formation of a synthesis. Thus the pendulum swings from pole to pole before

finding its equilibrium in the state of happy medium.

While the universal applicability of this model has been frequently challenged, it seems

to provide some helpful perspective on some recent trends in the field of biblical studies.

Scholarship in our area seems to swing between extreme positions: the Patriarchal Narratives

reliably depict the lives and times of the founders of the Israelite nation—no, the Patriarchal

Narratives are historically worthless reflections of the sixth century B.C.E. Paul was a radical

innovator deeply influenced by Hellenistic ideals—no, Paul is merely a misunderstood son of

the synagogue. From thesis to antithesis we swing, only rarely ever settling on a comfortable

synthesis that recognizes the significant evidence that formed the opinions of earlier

Tomasino: “Son of God” 2

generations of scholars, while still embracing the more recent findings of our colleagues. Or,

to put it more simply, we have a nasty tendency to cast out the baby with the bathwater.

Such is the case with the subject of this paper. As recently as a few decades ago, it

could be confidently asserted that the Jews did not use the title “Son of God” for their

expected Messiah. The reasons behind this position were fairly straightforward. It is well

known, first of all, that the title “Son of God” is nowhere attested in rabbinic literature as an

appellation for the Messiah. Furthermore, there is little evidence for the phrase in any pre-

Christian Jewish literature, either. Indeed, outside the New Testament itself, only two Jewish

texts use the title “Son of God” for the Messiah. One of these references, found in the

Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch (105:2), is not found in the Greek fragments of the text, and is

generally considered a Christian interpolation. The same can be said of the apocalyptic 4

Ezra, where in its Latin translation, the eschatological deliverer is frequently called “My son,

the Messiah.” This text, unfortunately, was preserved only by Christians, and apparently its

scribes and translators could not resist the temptation to intercalate some Christian theology

into their work: Stone and others have argued that the Greek text of 4 Ezra did not read, “My

son, the Messiah,” but rather, “My servant (pais) the Messiah.”1 These facts led Ladd to

write in 1974 that “Contemporary scholarship agrees with Dalman that ‘Son of God’ was not

a common messianic designation in New Testament times.”2

Recently, however, there seems to have been a radical reconsideration of this position.

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls have generated a great deal of excitement among New

Testament scholars, leading several prominent researchers to declare the resurrection of the

1 Stone, Fourth Ezra, p. 207.

2 Ladd, Theology, 161.


pre-Christian Son of God. Commenting on one of these texts, Evans has declared, “Thanks to

4Q246 we now see that the angel’s annunciation to Mary, as well [as] the Gerasene

demoniac’s address to Jesus as ‘Son of the Most High God,’ was right at home in first

century Palestine.”3 Dunn is even more emphatic, claiming, “Qumran evidence should have

killed stone dead the old view that ‘son of God’ was not a messianic title in Second Temple

Judaism.”4 The idea has been adopted by popular writers, and Christian apologists in

particular have been caught up in the wave. To many, the idea that the “Son of God” title

originated in the Jewish milieu of Jesus and the apostles (rather than the Greco-Roman milieu

of the early church) is an impressive witness to the historical accuracy of the Gospel

narratives. One writer states: “To find a Messianic figure being called ‘the Son of God,’ the

‘Son of the Most High,’ by the Jewish believers in Qumran, is astonishing and conclusive!

To them, the Messiah would be the Son of God!”5

In the balance of this paper, I would like to consider the Qumran evidence that some

scholars have found so persuasive. It is my contention that these texts do not, in fact,

demonstrate the existence of “Son of God” as a messianic title in Second Temple Judaism. In

view of that absence, it might be argued that the title “Jesus Christ, Son of God,” was not so

much a product of Jesus’ Jewish milieu as a reaction against the Church’s Greco-Roman

environment, where the title “Son of God” was a common appellation for the Roman

emperor.

3 Evans, “Jesus,” p. 94.

4 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 709.

5 Eastman, “Messiah.”


The first of the Qumran texts that have been discussed in this connection is a

fragmentary document designated 1QSa (1Q28a), one of the Community Rule manuscripts.

The reference in question occurs in the second column of the text, which describes a banquet

where the Messiah is present. The text explains that when the Messiah appears, he is to have

a place of honor subordinate to that of the high priest and the other priests, since they are the

leaders of the entire congregation of Israel. The significant phrase appears in lines 11-12:

(?) dylwy M) dxyh tc(l d(wm [y)rwq] M#h y#n) b#[wm]b

Mt) xy#mh t[)] [l)]

“In a session of the prominent men who are [summoned] to the meeting of the council

of the Community, when [God] begets (?) the Messiah among them . . .”

The most significant word in the discussion, dylwy (typically translated “he shall beget”)

occurs in a damaged section of the text. Consequently, its reading is in doubt. There has been

much debate over whether the word should be read dylwy, or if it should instead be read

Kylwy, “He shall bring.” The question is still unresolved.6 Furthermore, because of the

damaged state of the text, there is a gap in the manuscript where the subject of the verb

should appear. The word l) ,, “God,” has been completely reconstructed. There are not even

any traces remaining on which to base the reading.

Given the poor preservation of the text, its interpretation must be considered dubious.

My preference is for the second reading, Kylwy, which I believe fits the context better: it is

the appearance of the messiah, not his parentage, that is at issue in this text. But even if we

6 See Collins, Scepter, 164-165.


grant that the text can be read dylwy, we can still not be certain of the meaning of the

phrase. The verb dly in the Hiphil stem usually means “to be(come) the father of” (Gen

5:4, 11:27, etc.), but it can also mean “cause to be born” (Isa 66:9). Given the purpose of

1QSa 2, the latter understanding would be preferable: the text is merely concerned with the

time when the Messiah will make his appearance, not with his unique relationship with God.

Indeed, it would seem rather strange that someone regarded as “God’s son” would not be

given a place of preeminence at the communal dinner.

Finally, it should be noted that the title “Son of God” never appears in this text. So no

matter how one translates it, 1QSa is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether “Son of God”

was a messianic title in Second Temple Judaism.

The next text of interest is 4QFlorilegium (4Q174). This fragmentary scroll has more

direct bearing on the issue of divine sonship: it actually quotes 2 Sam 7:10-14, Nathan’s

prophecy to David about the reign of Solomon, with its significant promise, “I will be a

father to him, and he shall be to me a son.” This passage underlies some of the messianic

expectations of the New Testament, establishing the unique connection between the notion of

Jesus as descendant of David and Jesus as son on God.7 Likewise, the Qumran Florilegium

also interprets 2 Samuel 7 as if it were a messianic prophecy. But 4Q174 is not the New

Testament, and focuses on a very different aspect of the text:

“The Lord declares to you that he will build a house for you, and I will raise up your

descendant after you, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom [foreve]r. I will be

to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” This is the Branch of David, who will

arise with the interpreter of the Law who will [arise] in Zi[on in the l]ast days. As it is

7 It is actually quoted in Heb 1:5, and alluded to in John 7:42, Acts 13:23, and probably Luke 1:32-33. See

further Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 77-88.


written, “I will raise up the booth of David which is fallen.” (Amos 9:11) This is the

fallen booth of David, which He will raise up to deliver Israel.

The figure designated “my (God’s) son” is clearly interpreted as the Messiah (“Branch of

David”), just as in the New Testament. But it is remarkable how this text passes over the

issue of the king’s adoption without comment. Rather, the interpreter focuses on the idea of

“building a house,” associating it with the notion of raising the fallen booth of David.

Apparently, the notion that the king would be God’s son seemed insignificant to this

interpreter, or else completely irrelevant to his purposes. Once again, it is clear that there is

no evidence in 4QFlorilegium indicating that Second Temple-period Jews called the Messiah

“Son of God.”

The final text we will consider, and the one that has certainly garnered the most

attention, is 4Q246, an Aramaic Apocalypse. Unlike the other texts we have considered, this

one very clearly uses the title “son of God.” The question that remains, however, is who, in

fact, the title is applied to.

Only one column of this text has survived in full. But enough of the previous column

remains that we can make some conjectures about the scenario envisioned here:

Column 2

Column 1

)yqyzk hnwrqy Nwyl( rbw rm)ty l) yd hrb )ysrk Mdq lpn tr# yhwl[( .1 l( Nwklmy Nyn# )wht Nhtwklm Nk )tyzx yd Kyn#w zgr ht) )ml(l)k•[ .2

hnydml hnydmw #wdy M(l M( /w#dy )lkw )(r) )ml( d( ht) )lkw Kyzj )•[ .3 brx Nm xyny )lkw l) M( Mwqy d( vacat )(r) l( )tt hq( Nybrb[r .4

[N]ydy +w#qb htxr) lkw Ml( twklm htwklm )tnydm •br Nyry#jnw[ .5 Psy )(r) Nm brx Ml# db(y )lkw +#qb )(r) Nyrc[ml] rwt) Klm[ .6

hly)b )br l) Nwdgsy hl )tnydm lkw )(r) l( hwhl br[ .7 Nhlk hdyb Ntny Nymm( brq hl db(y )wh Nw••#y )lkw Nwdb[(y .8 ymwht lkw Ml( N+l# hn+l# yhwmdq hmry hnkty hm#bw )rqty )b[ .9


Column 1

1. ] came to rest [up]on him, he fell down before the throne

2. o ki]ng to the world wrath shall come, and your years

3. ] your vision. All of it will come to pass, forever.

4. ] multitudes. Oppression will come upon the earth

5. ] and great carnage. The cities

6. ] king of Assyria [to E]gypt

7. ] shall become great over the earth

8. w]ill make, and all will s[er]ve8

9. ] he will be called; by his name he shall be designated.

Column 2

1. He shall be designated the son of God; they shall call him the son of the Most High. Like

the comets9

2. that you saw, thus shall be their kingdom. Years they shall rule over

3. the earth and they shall trample all. People shall trample people, and nation nation,

4. <VACAT> until the people of God arise and all shall rest10 from the sword. <VACAT>

5. Their (or “His”)11 kingdom is an eternal kingdom, and they shall be righteous in all their

ways. They [shall ju]dge

6. the earth in righteousness, and all will make peace. The sword shall cease from the earth,

7. and every nation shall pay homage to them. The Great God—with his help

8. they will make war. He will deliver the peoples into their hand, and all of them

9. he will throw down before them. Their dominion is an eternal dominion, and all the depths

of . . .

It is quite apparent that the text was an account of an apocalyptic vision, foretelling the

rise of the kingdom of God. Someone (either the seer, or perhaps a king) has a vision, and the

8 I have only reluctantly adopted this reading, which is espoused in all previous editions of the text. Two of the

letters in the word translated “will serve” have been reduced to traces. Furthermore, in Col. 1 line 3 and Col. 2

line 6, the word “all” (kola`) is used as a noun with a singular verb. Here, the verb form is plural.

9The Aramaic word ziqaya’ has been translated “sparks” and “meteors,” but “comets” seems preferable. See

Tomasino, “Daniel and the Revolutionaries,” pp. 186-189.

10 Or, “he causes all to rest.” Because of the lack of distinction between the waw and yodh, it is impossible to

determine if the active or the causative form of the verb is intended.

11 The pronoun may refer to the “People of God,” since “people” is used as a collective noun in this text, as

indicated by the singular verb in 2.4. Another interpretation is that it refers to the Messiah.


vision is interpreted in these columns. Typical of the genre, the text predicts the coming of

“eschatological woes” on the world. A mighty kingdom will arise, oppressing the nations.

But its reign will be but a few years. The eternal kingdom of God will arise and bring peace

to the earth by its unconquerable might.

Several verbal parallels between this text and Daniel 7 (and perhaps Daniel 11 as well)

indicate that the eschatological scenario envisioned here was inspired by the Book of

Daniel.12 Indeed, the text is identified in the catalogue of the Palestinian Archaeology

Museum as a Pseudo-Daniel composition (the “Apocryphon of Daniel”), and several scholars

have suggested that the seer was Daniel himself.13 While this assumption is unnecessary

(Fourth Ezra and the Apocalypse of John both demonstrate heavy reliance on Daniel, while

neither features Daniel as its seer), it is clear that the Book of Daniel is the crucial key for

reconstructing this text, and for identifying (if possible) the figure who would be called “the

son of God.”

Opinions on this question have varied significantly. The earliest allusion to this text

apparently appeared in 1961, when A. D. Nock reported that he had heard from Frank Moore

Cross that evidence concerning the Messiah as God’s son would be forthcoming from the

Dead Sea Scrolls.14 It would be another eleven years, however, before the text in question

would be revealed. In 1972, J. T. Milik presented some of the contents of the text in a lecture

at Harvard University. But already, the controversy was apparent. According to Milik, the

12Some points of contact between this text and Daniel are observed by Collins, Scepter, pp. 157-160. (This

study is a reprint of Collins, “The Son of God Text,” pp. 64-82.) These include the phrase “His kingdom is an

everlasting kingdom” (cf. Dan 7:27) and the description of the wicked kingdom “trampling” the nations (cf.

Dan 7:7).

13Puech, “Fragment,” pp. 106, 126; so also Flusser, “Hubris,” Fitzmyer, with reservations, in “4Q246.”

14 Nock, “Review,” p. 584.


text did not refer to the Messiah as the “son of God,” but rather to Alexander Balas, the son

of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose coins bore the title theopator or De patre natus.15 In 1974,

Joseph Fitzmyer published a portion of the text.16 Fitzmyer rejected Milik’s historicizing

approach to the text, arguing instead that it is “properly apocalyptic.” On this basis, he

concluded that the son of God figure was a future king “on the Jewish side.”17 Fitzmyer

stopped short of identifying this figure as the Messiah, since the term “messiah” and its

equivalents (e.g., “Branch of David” or “Prince of the Congregation”) do not appear in the

text. Nonetheless, he did argue that the character was a positive one, perhaps a Hasmonean or

a descendant of the Davidic king. Since then, several more studies have been generated

arguing that the “son of God” is a positive figure. Hengel, followed by Vermes, have

identified him as a symbol of the people of God, much as the Son of Man figure in Daniel 7

seems to epitomize the rise of the people of God.18 Garcia Martinez has held that the figure is

a spiritual deliverer, the same one identified as Michael or the Prince of Light in other Dead

Sea Scrolls, rising to defend the people of God during the age of strife.19 Many scholars,

however, have not hesitated to identify the son of God figure with the Davidic Messiah. This

opinion has now become the most widely espoused, with its advocates including Kim,

Collins, Cross, Oegema, Zimmermann, Evans, and Kuhn.20

15 Some of Milik’s observations were published in Milik, Books of Enoch, p. 60. Most of Milik’s reconstruction

of this text has appeared only in Fitzmyer’s article cited below.

16 Fitzmyer, “Contribution,” pp. 391-394; rev. version, “Qumran Aramaic,” pp. 90-93.

17 Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, p. 105, rejects Milik’s proposal on the basis that “Would a Palestinian Jewish

writer admit that a Seleucid pagan king was the ‘son of God’?” This point is only persuasive, however, if one

assumes that the text is stating that this figure was, in fact, the son of God. Actually, the text says only that he

shall be called the son of God—which is not necessarily the same thing.

18 Hengel, Son of God, p. 45; Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 332.

19 Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, pp. 162-179.


Nonetheless, the messianic interpretation has had, and still has, its opponents. David

Flusser presented the first major study arguing that the son of God was not the Messiah, but a

negative figure that he called the “Antichrist.”21 While Flusser’s choice of the word

“Antichrist” was unfortunate, he nonetheless identified some of the most salient issues of

debate.22 One of these significant issues is the general literary structure of the text. From

what little remains, there appears to be a clear contrast between the subject matter of columns

1.1 through 2.3 and the material coming after the third line of the second column. In the first

column and first three lines of column 2, the theme is strife and warfare, while the rest of

column 2 describes the peace and security of the reign of the people of God. The vacat in 2.4

seems to make this change of subject matter even more explicit, since a vacat is generally the

equivalent of a paragraph break in the Qumran manuscripts. Since the son of God figure is

part of the first section, the logical conclusion that we might draw is that he was a figure

from the age of strife, rather than the era of the people of God. After Flusser, several other

scholars have considered the structure of the apocalypse to be the crucial issue for the

interpretation of the text. Puech, followed by Cook and Steudel, identified the son of God

figure as a Seleucid monarch, perhaps Antiochus Epiphanes.23 Hofius likewise identified him

20 Kim, Son of Man; Collins, Scepter, pp. 154-172; Cross, “Notes,” pp. 1-13; Oegema, Anointed, pp. 122-125;

Zimmermann, “Observations,” pp. 175-190; Evans, “Jesus,” pp. 91-94; Kuhn, “One like a Son of Man,” pp. 22-

42.

21 Flusser, “Hubris,” pp. 31-37.

22 Also unfortunate was his argument that the Oracle of Hystaspes demonstrated notion of an Antichrist figure

in early Judaism. The section of the text that he cites from Lactantius clearly imported Christian ideas and

attributed them to the ancient Persian seer.

23 Puech, “Some Remarks,” pp. 545-551; Cook, “4Q246,” pp. 43-66 and in Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea

Scrolls, pp. 346-347; Steudel, “Eternal Reign,” pp. 509-21.


as a usurper of divine authority, while Knohl has averred that he represents the Roman

emperor Octavian.24

In my opinion, a straightforward reading of this text heavily favors the “evil monarch”

interpretation of the son of God figure, and were it not for that pesky application of the title

“Son of God” to Jesus, I doubt that there would be any argument about the interpretation of

the text. Nonetheless, I recognize that the messianic interpretation is not without merit, and

evidence supporting it has been cited from both within the text and from its historical/cultural

milieu. Much of the focus has been on the title “son of God” itself. Garcia-Martinez,

apparently assuming that the phrase “They shall call him the son of God” is the rhetorical

equivalent of “He shall be the son of God,” argues that the appellation is positive, and

therefore could not refer to an evil figure.25 Fitzmyer noted the Hebrew form of “God” (´el)

is used in the text rather than the Aramaic form. An Aramaic text, he argues, would be

unlikely to use the Hebrew form of the name of God unless the usage were titular.26

But most scholars base their case for the messianic interpretation on the literary milieu

of 4Q246, especially its biblical parallels. First, there is the Hebrew Bible use of the phrase

“son of God” to consider. While the phrase “sons of God” in the Hebrew Bible most

frequently designates angels, the singular “my son” or its equivalent is used in three passages

(2 Sam 7:14; Psa 2:7-8, 89:26-27) to designate the king of Israel (although the phrase “son of

24 Hofius, “Thesen” p. 109; Knohl, Messiah, pp. 88-95.

25 Garcia-Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, p. 178. Cf. Fitzmyer’s assumption observed in n. 14 above. While

this rhetorical equivalence is sometimes intended (e.g. Luke 1:32), it is not necessarily the case. The text may

literally mean that the figure will be called “son of God” by his subjects, while not actually being the Son of

God.

26 Fitzmyer, “4Q246,” p. 168. This argument assumes that the text would accurately record the foreign

appellations, rather than those in common use among the Jews. There is no indication of such concern for

accuracy in the biblical texts. In the Hebrew Bible, the king of Tyre actually claims to be ’El (Ezek 28:2), while

the king of Babylon says that he will be like `Elyon (Isa 14:13), using Hebrew divine titles. The rhetorical

impact of the texts would have been lost if the kings had claimed to be Baal or Marduk.


God” is never used as a royal title in the Hebrew Bible). These passages establish a precedent

for the idea that the Messiah (the king par excellence) would have some kind of a filial

relationship with God. Indeed, it is these passages that primarily seem to have inspired the

New Testament use of the title “Son of God” for Jesus. And it is precisely the New

Testament usage that seems to have persuaded several scholars that 4Q246 must also have

the Messiah in mind. The most obvious Gospel parallel to 4Q246 is found in Luke 1:32-35,

where an angel announces to Mary, “The child shall be called the Son of God.” Collins

remarks, “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke is dependent in some way, whether

directly or indirectly, on this long lost text from Qumran.”27

Yet another reason for the identification arises from the dependence of 4Q246 on

Daniel 7. In discussions of this biblical passage, attention is often focused on the figure

described as “one like a Son of Man” who is granted dominion over the earth. While few

scholars today hold that Daniel intended the figure to represent the Messiah, the New

Testament and some later apocalyptic and rabbinic texts clearly interpret him thus.28 The

question of how this Son of Man came to be understood as the Messiah has occupied scholars

for many decades. The Aramaic Apocalypse could provide yet another piece to the puzzle.

Kim, followed by Kuhn, have proposed that 4Q246’s “son of God” is an interpretation of

Daniel’s Son of Man.29 So if this “son of God” were, indeed, intended to be the Messiah,

27 Collins, Scepter, p. 155.

28 Studies on the Son of Man figure in Daniel are legion. Most scholars regard him to be a symbol of the

collective people of God; see, e.g., Bevan, Short Commentary, p. 118; Driver, Daniel, p. 102; Montgomery,

Daniel, pp. 317-324; Casey, Son of Man, pp. 24-25. On the interpretation of the Son of Man as the archangel

Michael, see Schmidt, “Son of Man,” pp. 22-28, followed by Box, Judaism, p. 213; Lacocque, Daniel, p. 133;

and Collins, Daniel, pp. 304-310. Finally, on the view that the Son of Man in Daniel 7 represented the Messiah,

see Beasley-Murray, “Interpretation,” pp. 44-58. On the interpretation of Daniel’s Son of Man as the Messiah in

apocalyptic and rabbinic sources, see Collins, “Son of Man,” pp. 448-66; Burkett, Son of Man, esp. chap. 9.

29 Kim, Son of Man, passim; Kuhn, “One like a Son of Man,” pp. 22-42.


then the text would demonstrate a hermeneutical link between Daniel’s eschatological

scenario and the expectation of an unconquerable Davidide who would be known as the “son

of God” (2 Sam 7:12-14; Psa 2:7).

Finally, several scholars have argued that the flow of 4Q246 may not be so

straightforward as it would first appear. Collins addresses the question of the structure by

comparing this text with Daniel 7, with which the text has obvious affinities.30 In Daniel 7,

the vision of four beasts is related, then an interpretation is given that summarizes the entire

vision. The narrative then returns to focus on the last of beasts and its interpretation. Collins

argues that 4Q246 followed the same pattern: there was a description of the wicked kingdom

followed by the rise of the people of God, including the Messiah, God’s Son (column 1.4-

2.1). Then, the text returned to describe the wicked kingdom once again (2.2-3), before yet

another description of the final triumph of God’s people (2.4-9). Collins claims that the

tendency to go over the same ground twice is “a well-known feature of apocalyptic

writing.”31

While these arguments are not insignificant, I do not find them persuasive. First, we

must consider whether the title “son of God” must be considered a positive appellation.

Certainly, if the text stated explicitly that someone was the son of God, we would probably

have to consider that a positive thing (although the sons of God in Genesis 6 do not seem to

have been especially praiseworthy figures). But that is not what the text says: it says only that

he will be called the son of God. Under some circumstances, this statement may be

30 Collins, Scepter, p. 158. A similar alternating structure is proposed by Cross, “Structure,” pp. 151-158.

31 Ibid.


considered the rhetorical equivalent of “he shall be the Son of God” (e.g., Lk 1:35), but such

is surely not always the case. In fact, it often implies the opposite: if a man says, “They say

he’s a great leader,” he probably implies that he does not share that opinion. Evil figures in

the Bible often laid claim to divinity. The king of Tyre claims to be ’El (Ezek 28:2), while

the king of Babylon says that he will be like `Elyon (Isa 14:13), using the same Hebrew

divine titles that we find in 4Q246. Also, the “little horn” of Daniel 7 makes great boasts,

including apparently self-divination, if the wicked figure of Daniel 11 can be identified with

him: “He shall make himself greater than any god, and speak astounding things against the

God of Gods” (11:36). Arguments that the title itself requires a messianic interpretation,

therefore, are not convincing.

As for the evidence from 4Q246’s literary milieu, it can be boiled down to a relatively

simple formulation: the New Testament calls the Messiah the Son of God; 4Q246 calls

someone the son of God; therefore, that person must be the Messiah. But this line of

argument is only persuasive if the title “son of God” is found nowhere else in the ancient

world. Of course, this is not the case. An ideology of divine kingship permeated the ancient

Mediterranean world. Many Hellenistic monarchs claimed descent from the gods. Alexander

traced his lineage back to both Heracles and Achilles—and through Heracles, to Zeus. His

connection to the gods was apparently used to justify his conquest of India.32 He also was

known in Egypt as the “son of Ammon,” and so established a precedent for such an exalted

title.33 Ptolemy Philadelphos II, while not claiming such an illustrious line as Alexander’s,

32 See W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great II: Sources and Studies (Cambridge: University Press, 1948), 358-359;

A. B. Bosworth, Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 101-102, 118-

119, 164-169.

33 See Tarn, Alexander the Great, pp. 358-359; Bosworth, Alexander and the East, pp. 101-102, 118-119, 164-

169.


did proclaim his father divine, which presumably would have made him the son of a god. He

and his sister were later proclaimed “sibling gods.”34 Among the Seleucids, it was Antiochus

III who first claimed divine honors during his lifetime.35 None of those, however, were

evidently known by the title “son of God.” But in the Roman imperial cult, the title “son of

god” finally came into its own, as the Emperor Augustus was designated the “son of god”

even on his inscriptions.36 In Dio Chrysostom’s Orationes 4.21, roughly contemporary with

the New Testament, the title “son of god” is treated as synonymous with the title “king.”

Thus, if 4Q246’s “son of God” figure was part of the wicked empire, there would be ample

precedence for his divine appellation. We need not look for parallels to the New Testament

alone.

The most systematic defense for the messianic interpretation of this text has come from

Collins.37 Collins addresses the question of the “flow” of the Aramaic Apocalypse by

comparing the text with Daniel 7, with which the text has obvious affinities.38 In Daniel 7,

the vision of four beasts is related, then an interpretation is given that summarizes the entire

vision. The narrative then returns to focus on the last of beasts and its interpretation. Collins

argues that 4Q246 followed the same pattern: there was a description of the wicked kingdom

followed by the rise of the people of God, including the Messiah, God’s Son (column 1.4-

2.1). Then, the text returned to describe the wicked kingdom once again (2.2-3), before yet

34 Shipley, Greek World, pp. 159-160.

35 Shipley, Greek World, pp. 157-158.

36On the divinity of Alexander, see Taeger, Charisma, vol. 1 pp. 191-208; on the divinity of Augustus, see

Taeger, ibid., vol. 2., pp. 210-225. On the political significance of the royal cult, see Santosuosso, Storming, pp.

83-87; Zanker, Power, p. 297.

37 Collins, Scepter, pp. 154-172.

38 Collins, Scepter, p. 158. A similar alternating structure is proposed by Cross, “Structure,” pp. 151-158.


another description of the final triumph of God’s people (2.4-9). Collins claims that the

tendency to go over the same ground twice is “a well-known feature of apocalyptic

writing.”39

While Collins is certainly correct in noting the repetition of Daniel 7, his generalization

of the pattern to a “tendency” of apocalyptic literature is surely open to challenge. In some

apocalypses (e.g., the Apocalypse of John) there is some reiteration of major episodes, but

not smaller segments. Many apocalypses (e.g., the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch)

demonstrate no repetition at all. Likewise, Daniel 2—which may have served as a model for

4Q246—demonstrates no repetition, but merely a straightforward account of the dream

interpretation. So while it is possible that such repetition occurs in 4Q246, it is by no means

necessary. Furthermore, the vacat in 2.4 militates against this interpretation. It obviously

indicates a change in subject from the rule of the wicked oppressors to the rule of the people

of God. If this text consistently uses blank spaces to indicate changes in subject, then there

should also be a vacat at the end of 2.1, where Collins would have the text shift from the

triumph of God’s people to the end of the rule of the evil empire.

Also, if the first column of 4Q246 reached its climax with a description of the

Messiah’s reign, then why is the Messiah not named in column 2, which supposedly

reiterates the material of column 1? Instead, we find a description of the triumph of God’s

people, who rise up and subdue the wicked nation. This scenario is reminiscent of that found

in the Qumran War Scroll (especially 1QM), where the triumph of the Sons of Light is

played out with little reference to the role of the Messiah. Given the verbal connections

39 Ibid.


between 4Q246 and the first column of the War Scroll, we should not be surprised if the

eschatological expectations of the texts overlap, as well.40

Collins has argued that this collective reading of Column 2 must be rejected due to his

contention that “judging” is never the task of the aggregate people of God, but only an

individual. Thus, in 4Q246, the singular pronoun of Column 2 must refer back to the

Messiah, who was presumably mentioned in Column 1.41 This point is not persuasive. In the

Hebrew Bible, “judging” the wicked can be euphemistic for destroying them in war (Ezek

35:1-11; Joel 3:9-12; I Chron 20:12), which generally involves the collective body of an

army. Also, in Isa 5:3, God calls on the collective inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of

Judah to judge between “me and my vineyard.” In Second Temple Jewish texts, there are

several references to collective judgment. In 1QS 8.1-10, the Council of the Community is

charged with judging the land. In 1QpHab 5.4, we read, “By the hand of his chosen ones God

will judge all the Gentiles.”

But a more significant case appears in I Corinthians 6:2, where Paul writes, “Do you

not know that the saints will judge the world?” This expectation, unanticipated in the

prophetic descriptions of the “Day of the Lord,” is apparently based on Daniel 7:22, which

states, “Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High.”42 The text may have originally

meant that judgment would be passed (in an angelic court) in favor of the saints, but Paul

interpreted it to mean that the saints would be granted authority to act as judges of the

nations. Furthermore, his exclamation “Do you not know?” may suggest that he regarded this

interpretation as common. Given that 4Q246 also draws heavily on Daniel 7, it seems quite



42 See further Thiselton, First Corinthians, pp. 425-430.


possible that the eschatological scenario of 4Q246 column 2 is based on the same interpretive

tradition, one that assigned a significant role to the People of God in the judgment of the

nations.

There is yet another issue that arises from the apparent connections between this text

and Daniel 7. While several scholars have maintained that the son of God of this text is an

interpretation of Daniel’s “one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13-14), they fail to observe that the

“son of man” is not the major focus of Daniel 7. Daniel’s primary interest is in the “little

horn” of the vision, the oppressor of the people of God (7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-26), who no doubt

originally represented Antiochus Epiphanes. The behavior of this horn can be compared to

that of the figure described in 4Q246: the horn utters arrogant words, which (according to

later chapters) include attempts at self-deification: “He shall make himself greater than any

god, and speak astounding things against the God of Gods” (11:36).43 According to the

messianic interpretation of 4Q246, the wicked monarch of Daniel 7 is passed over without

notice, while the Son of Man becomes the focus of the exposition.

In light of these issues, I would suggest a different interpretation of 4Q246. It is likely

that the violent conflicts described in the first section of 4Q246 reflect the author’s

perception of his own age. Apocalypticists generally believe that the end of the age is

imminent, so the apocalyptic woes they “predict” preceding the messianic era are frequently

a real or exaggerated reflection on the trials of their own age.44 Consequently, the figure

43 Such behavior is not unique to Daniel’s wicked monarch. In Isa 14:13, the king of Babylon claims, “I will be

like the Most High.” In Ezek 28:2, it is the king of Tyre who says, “I am God; I sit on the throne of God.” In

Acts 12:22, Herod Agrippa received honor as a god. So, if the figure in 4Q246 was indeed a wicked king

claiming divinity, he would find himself in the company of a number of notorious biblical characters.

44 Cf. the Apocalyptic Discourse of Jesus (Mark 13 par), which associates the Great Revolt and the destruction

of the Temple with the advent of the messianic age.


identified as the “son of God” could well be historical (and eschatological—since the author

believed he was living on the brink of the eschaton). Nonetheless, I would hesitate to identify

this son of God figure with Antiochus Epiphanes or any other Seleucid monarch, because no

Seleucid monarch ever bore the title “son of God.” We must look instead to the Roman

Empire for this appellation.45

We can easily demonstrate how this interpretation of 4Q246 accords with the historical

realities of Judean society in the early Roman period. To the Jews, the coming of the Romans

had brought nothing but strife. With the conquest of Pompey, the struggles between the

Triumvirs, the ambitions of Cleopatra, the uprisings of the last of the Hasmoneans, and

battles against the Parthians and the Nabateans, Judea had known constant conflict since the

appearance of Rome on the scene. From this morass the figure of Octavian emerged finally

supreme. Octavian’s consolidation of the Empire certainly brought some respite to Judea, but

the memory of violence was still very real in the Jewish mind, and the passion for revolt still

burned in the Jewish hearts. Unlike Epiphanes, Octavian did not actually persecute the Jews,

and 4Q246 acknowledges this fact by refraining from vilification of the emperor.

Nonetheless, his claim of the title “son of God” was a blatant demonstration of hubris that

could not fail to attract Jewish indignation. It may be no accidental irony that 4Q246

45 An identification of this figure with the Roman emperor has been suggested by a couple of scholars to my knowledge, but no specialists in the field have championed the theory.( These include Knohl, Messiah, pp. 91-

93; Lendering, “Messiah.”) Most Qumranologists, it seems, are reluctant to assign the composition of the text to

such a late date. It should be noted, however, that the manuscript has been dated on paleographic grounds to the

last third of the first century B.C.E. (Puech, “Fragment,” p. 105.) While I personally question whether

paleographic dating can provide the kind of precise dating of texts that some scholars would claim, there would

seem to be little call for Qumranologists to dismiss the possibility of a Roman-era provenance for this text out

of hand. Obviously, our text is a copy, not an autograph, and must have been composed some time before the

time to which we date the manuscript—but how long? There is no compelling reason to insist that the text must

have been composed before the Roman era.


emphasizes issues that were featured in Rome’s propaganda: the establishment of peace and

order, and the divinity of Caesar.46

Having examined the three Qumran texts most often cited as evidence of a pre-

Christian messianic Son of God, I must ask: what evidence remains of such an expectation

among the Jews? If my interpretation of 4Q246 is correct, there is not a shred of literary

evidence for “Son of God” as a messianic title, nor for a Jewish expectation that the Messiah

would be fathered by God. Indeed, that is precisely what Matthew 21:42-46, quoted at the

beginning of this paper, implies. According to Matthew, the Jews were puzzled by the idea

that the Messiah would be the Son of God rather than the (mere) Son of David. Thereby there

hangs a question: just where did the Christians get such an idea?

New Testament scholars of earlier eras have talked this question to death. I could not

begin to do justice to their opinions here, both because the volume is overwhelming and

because I am not a New Testament scholar, and would quickly find myself in over my head.

But if I can offer a brief summary, it appears that most scholars would agree:47

—The identification of Jesus as “son of God” was made quite early, and may even go

back to Jesus himself. This idea has even been espoused by those of the “History of

Religions” school, who would nonetheless deny that the title originally implied Jesus’

divinity (an idea they would attribute to Paul).48

46 Knohl, Messiah, pp. 91-93, also adds the interesting observation that the Romans placed great significance in

a comet that was seen during Octavian’s games honoring the divinized Julius Caesar. The comet was regarded

as the harbinger of a new “golden age” for the world. If the Jews were aware of this bit of propaganda, they

might have deliberately lampooned it in this text: it was not the sign of a golden age, but an ephemeral empire.

47 I would refer the readers to the discussion of Ladd, pp. 159-169.

48 See, e.g., Schoeps, p. 158.


—The title was understood in various ways by New Testament writers. In some cases,

it was associated with Jesus’ unique authority (Matt 4:3, 6; 14:33; 27:54; Mk 3:11; Jn 5:25).

In other cases, it seems to be based on his obedience to God (Matt 3:17; Heb 1:8). Some

verses connect Jesus’ Sonship with his exaltation to Heaven after his resurrection (1 Thess

1:10; Heb 1:3-4).

—In spite of these various uses of the title, however, the messianic use of “Son of God”

seems to have been derived exegetically from 2 Samuel 7 and Psalms 2 and 89, which were

interpreted in Second Temple Jewish literature as messianic prophecies.

—In the New Testament, the title “Son of God” is never connected with the notion of

the Virgin Birth. Contrary to an often expressed opinion, this statement is even true of Luke

1:26-38, where the concept of the Virgin Birth and the sonship of the Messiah occur in the

same context. Mary is told that her child shall be conceived by the Holy Spirit, but then she is

told that God will give him the throne of his ancestor David—and for this reason he will be

called the Son of God. Since divine sonship is not tied to the Virgin Birth, there is little basis

for attributing the Christian use of the title Son of God to direct influence from pagan ruler

cults, where the miraculous conception of the monarchs was the basis for this appellation.

—Nonetheless, the prominence of the Son of God title in Christianity cannot be

attributed to exegesis alone. There are surely factors that differentiated Christian messianic

titles from the expectations of the greater Jewish community. One of those factors might well

be the Roman state cult. The Emperor’s arrogation of the divine title might well have

inspired the Christians living in a Greco-Roman context to elevate this aspect of the

messianic hope to a place it never had held and never would hold in Judaism.


Bibliography

Beale, G. K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St.

John. Lanham, MD: University Press, 1984.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. “The Interpretation of Daniel 7.” CBQ 45 (1983): 44-58

Bevan, A. A. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students.

Cambridge: University Press, 1892.

Bosworth, A. B. Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph. Oxford: Clarendon,

1996.

Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of

Christianity to Irenaeus. Trans. J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970.

Box, George A. Judaism in the Greek Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Brooke, George J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress,

2005.

Bruce, F. F. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity.” In A Mind for What Matters:

Collected Essays, by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1956.

Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2000.

Casey, Maurice. Son of Man: The Interpretation of Daniel 7. London: SPK, 1979.

Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Doubleday,

1992.


Conzelmann, Hans. Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. New York: Harper and

Row, 1969.

Collins, John J. “The ‘Son of Man’ in First Century Judaism.” NTS 38 (1992): 448-466.

________________. Daniel. Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

_______________. “The Son of God Text from Qumran,” in From Jesus to John: Essays on

Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge, ed. Martinus C.

De Boer. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993, 65-82.

_______________ . The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and

Other Ancient Literature. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday,

1995.

________________. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997.

Cook, Edward. “4Q246.” BBR 5 (1995): 43-66.

Cross, Frank Moore. “Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran and the

Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246).” In Current Research and Technological

Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean

Desert, Jerusalem. 30 April 1995. Edited by W. Parry and Stephen D. Rick. STDJ 20.

Leiden: Brill, 1996.

____________________. “The Structure of the Apocalypse of 'Son of God' (4Q246).” In

Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of

Emanuel Tov. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A.

Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields, with the assistance of Eva Ben-

David, 151-158. Leiden: Brill, 2003.


Dunn, J. G. Jesus Remembered. The Making of Christianity, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2003.

Eastman, Mark. “Messiah—The Son of God?” Available from Blue Letter Bible

<http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=15&conten

tID=3136&commInfo=9&topic=The%20Search%20for%20the%20Messiah>

(Accessed 19 November 2008).

Evans, Craig. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New

Testament.” NTS 20 (1973-74), 382-407.

_______________. “Qumran Aramaic and the New Testament.” In A Wandering Aramean:

Collected Aramaic Essays. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979, 90-93.

_______________. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible 28. Garden City:

Doubleday, 1981.

_______________. “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran.” Bib 74 (1993):

153-174.

________________. The One Who Is to Come. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Flusser, David. “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran.” Immanuel 10

(1980): 31-37.

Golb, Norman. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran. New

York et. al.: Scribners, 1995.


Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels:

A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity, 1992.

Harnack, Adolf von. What is Christianity? Translated by Thomas Bailey Sanders.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-

Hellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.

Hofius, Otfried. “Ist Jesus der Messias? Thesen,” JRTh X (1993): 103-129.

Hurtado, Larry. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Jeffrey, Grant R. “Extraordinary Evidence About Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” (n.d.)

Available from: Prophecy Online Today

<http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm> (Accessed 10 December 2008).

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in

Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992.

Knohl, Israel. The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Trans. David Maisel. Berkeley: University of California, 2002.

Köstenberger, Andreas. “John.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007, 415-512.

Lacocque, Andre. The Book of Daniel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979.

______________. “The Vision of the Eagle in 4 Esdras: A Rereading of Daniel 7 in the First

Century C.E.” In SBL 1981 Seminar Papers, ed. K.H. Richards. Chico, CA: Scholars

Press, 1981, 237-258.


Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. (rev. ed.

1993).

LaSor, W. S. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Lendering, Jona. “Messiah.” Available from: Livius <http://www.livius.org/men-

mh/messiah/messiah_12.html> (Accessed 20 November 2008).

Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1976.

Montgomery, Ted. “Doubts and Confirmations of Jesus’ Messiahship.” Available on

<http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/C_3c.html> (Accessed 1 November 2008).

Nock, A. D. Review of H. J. Schoeps, Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen

Religionsgeschichte, Gnomon 33 (1961): 584.

Oegema, Gerbern S. The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the

Maccabees to Bar Kochba. JSPSup 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

O’Neill, J. C. Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum

Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.

Puech, Emile. “Fragment d’une apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Danb) et le

‘Royaume de Dieu’.” RB 99 (1992): 98-131.

Santosuosso, Antonio. Storming the Heavens: Soldiers, Emperors, and Civilians in the

Roman Empire. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2001.

Schmidt, Nathaniel. “The Son of Man in the Book of Daniel,” JBL 19 (1900): 22-28.

Schoeps, H. J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History.

Trans. Harold Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.


“Son of God” (2009). Available from: Wikipedia

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God> (Accessed 10 December 2008).

Steudel, Annette. “The Eternal reign of the People of God—Collective Expectations in

Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1QM).” RevQ 17 (1994): 507-525.

Sweet, J. P. M. Revelation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979.

Taeger, Fritz. Charisma, Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes, 2 vols.

Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1957 and 1960.

Tarn, W. W. Alexander the Great II: Sources and Studies. Cambridge: University Press,

1948.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2000.

Tomasino, Anthony J. “Daniel and the Revolutionaries: The Use of the Daniel Tradition by

Jewish Resistance Movements of Late Second-Temple Palestine.” Diss. U. of Chicago,

Chicago, 1995.

Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New

Translation, rev. ed. New York: Harper, 2005.

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.

London: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Yarbro Collins, Adele. “The History of Interpretation B: The Christian Tradition,” in Daniel.

Hermeneia Commentary, by John J. Collins. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 102-112.


Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, tr. Alan Shapiro. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press, 1988.

Zimmermann, Johannes. “Observations on 4Q246: The 'Son of God'.” In Qumran-

Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James

H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, 175-190. Tübingen:

J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998.

Son of God

Documents

Transcript of Son of God