Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anthony J. Tomasino
Bethel College, IN
we make our case strongly enough, that we might persuade a significant number of our
colleagues that our interpretation of the data at hand is correct. Once a consensus has been
reached, we may proceed to make extrapolations and develop hypotheses based on those
theories. This process generally advances scientific knowledge. The danger lies in a tendency
for a consensus to develop prematurely, if the proponents of an idea have sufficient clout to
persuade their colleagues with little evidence, or if the theory is attractive to others for
reasons that have little to do with its intrinsic scientific merit. A mature consensus is
personality. Once such notions take root and academic egos become invested in them, they
can be very difficult to dislodge, even if additional evidence should suggest the need.
Prof. Norman Golb has drawn attention to this phenomenon in the field of Dead Sea
Scrolls studies. Golb has demonstrated how the theory of Qumran-Essene origins of the
Scrolls, developed after the discovery of only the first of the Scroll caves, quickly attained
the state of a consensus.1 There have always been, and continue to be, dissenters to the
theory, but most scholars have proceeded under the assumption that the Scrolls were written
at Qumran by Essene monks. This theory has achieved the status of dogma in scholarship, as
1
Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, esp. chaps. 3-4.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 2
has been difficult for dissenting voices to find a podium, since major journals and academic
publishing houses use processes of peer review that discourage departure from the
consensus.2
But just as consensus views have tended to dominate discussions of Scroll origins, they
can also dominate the interpretations of individual texts. Sometimes, this process has been
facilitated by the Scrolls editors themselves. Before the release of the Scrolls in 1992, editors
who were fortunate enough to have been assigned particularly interesting texts would
frequently issue statements about their contents and reveal selected excerpts sometimes years
before the publication of the editio princeps. Apparently, this procedure was designed to
stimulate interest and disseminate “official” interpretations of the texts before the actual
contents were ever divulged. These editors might have attempted to create a consensus
regarding the meaning of their assigned texts, while other scholars lacked sufficient data to
draw their own conclusions. But since the release of the Scrolls to general study, and
especially since the publication of the entire corpus, the process of consensus-building has
been less contrived. Nonetheless, it is apparent that some interpretations of scrolls can obtain
a consensus rather rapidly, if they are espoused by the right people and appear in the most
prominent journals. Such accords can still be perilous to the progress of scholarship, if they
are based on ideologically driven investigation or knee-jerk reactions, rather than a thorough
2
I personally experienced this attempted censorship when my manuscript for Judaism before Jesus was
ridiculed by one of its reviewers because I questioned the identification of the “Yahad” group of the Scrolls with
the Essenes of Philo and Josephus.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 3
At first blush, it would hardly seem appropriate to use the term “consensus” in
connection with the Aramaic apocalyptic text designated 4Q246. Unlike some of the other
scrolls, differing opinions were expressed concerning the meaning of this text even before its
official publication in 1992 by Emile Puech, and continue to the present day.3 The
controversy is due primarily to its fragmentary state of preservation: only one and a half
columns of the text have survived. Even though the text is generally quite legible, readings of
several words are in doubt due to the lack of context. A tentative translation of the surviving
Column 1
Column 2
1. He shall be designated the son of God; they shall call him the son of the Most High. Like
the comets6
2. that you saw, thus shall be their kingdom. Years they shall rule over
3
Puech, “Fragment,” pp. 98-131.
4
The translation of the second column is generally straightforward. There have been several different
translations and reconstructions offered for the first context. I have not attempted a reconstruction, since that is
not my purpose in this paper. Nonetheless, several of my readings of the first column are conjectural, based on
the lack of context and the tendency of this scribe to make little distinction between waw and yodh. (Sometimes,
however, the yodh does appear to have a slightly larger head.)
5
This reading, which has been adopted from previous editions of the text, is difficult both paleographically and
grammatically. 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.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 4
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 rest7 from the sword. <VACAT>
5. Their (or “His”)8 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 . . .
While the state of preservation has made the interpretation of this text difficult, 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 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
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.9
Indeed, the text is identified in the catalogue of the Palestinian Archaeology Museum as a
6
The Aramaic word ziqaya’ has been translated “sparks” and “meteors,” but “comets” seems preferable. See
Tomasino, “Daniel and the Revolutionaries,” pp. 186-189.
7
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.
8
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.
9
Some 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).
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 5
suggested that the seer was Daniel himself.10 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.”
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.11 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 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.12 In 1974, Joseph Fitzmyer published a portion of
the text.13 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.”14 Fitzmyer stopped short of identifying this figure as the Messiah,
10
Puech, “Fragment,” pp. 106, 126; so also Flusser, “Hubris,” Fitzmyer, with reservations, in “4Q246.”
11
Nock, “Review,” p. 584.
12
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.
13
Fitzmyer, “Contribution,” pp. 391-394; rev. version, “Qumran Aramaic,” pp. 90-93.
14
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.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 6
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. Thus already the
polarities had been established: was the “son of God” a positive figure, a leader or
representative of the people of God, or a negative figure, part of the wicked kingdom that
Since these initial discussions, a variety of studies have emerged expressing various
opinions on the Aramaic son of God’s identity. 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
nonetheless identified some of the most salient issues of debate.16 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,
15
followed by Cook and Steudel, identified the son of God figure as a Seleucid monarch,
authority, while Knohl has averred that he represents the Roman emperor Octavian.18
Obviously, however, the text flow has not been considered decisive by many scholars.
A growing majority of studies argue that the son of God is a positive figure of some kind.
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.19 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.20 Many scholars, however, have not hesitated to identify the son of God figure
with the Davidic Messiah. These include Kim, Collins, Cross, Oegema, Zimmermann, Evans,
and Kuhn.21
There is a clear majority among Dead Sea Scrolls researchers favoring the
identification of the “son of God” as the Messiah. But it is in the writings of generalists and
New Testament scholars that the messianic interpretation seems to have attained the state of
often stated that 4Q246 (or, more generally, “the Dead Sea Scrolls”) demonstrate that “son of
17
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.
18
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.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 8
God” was a Jewish messianic title before the birth of Jesus.22 In such sources, the statement is
usually made without qualification or nuance, as if the matter were obvious and
unchallenged, as in this quote from Köstenberger: “The term ‘Son [of God]’ was also a
The consensus view 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.24
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
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
22
While these sources are too numerous to list, some that specifically mention 4Q246 include Köstenberger,
“John,” p. 429; Wright, Jesus, p. 485; Green et. al., Dictionary, p. 770; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p. 103;
O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was?, p. 173; Porter, Messiah, p. 106; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, p. 45. Web
pages include Eastman, “Messiah,” Montgomery, “Doubts,” and even the Wikipedia entry, “Son of God.”
23
Köstenberger, “John,” p. 429.
24
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.
25
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.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 9
“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
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.”26 And according to Evans, “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.”27
One might wonder how a couple lines from a single text could lead to such a dramatic
conclusion. Nonetheless, Evans’s enthusiasm may perhaps be excused. The New Testament’s
use of the phrase “son of God” as a title for Jesus has long been a puzzle to scholars, given
the absence of similar messianic expectations in rabbinic Judaism. The discovery of a Jewish
source for this title would seem a most welcome development for the historical study of
Christian theology.
26
Collins, Scepter, p. 155.
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, 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”
For generalists and other writers, the issues at stake are often more apologetic than
academic. As mentioned, the use of the phrase “son of God” as a messianic title is unattested
in rabbinic Judaism. Indeed, evidence of such a messianic title is scant in other ancient
Jewish sources, as well. The only really prominent use outside of the New Testament occurs
in 4 Ezra, which repeatedly refers to the Messiah as “my Son the Messiah.” This Jewish
apocalyptic text, however, has been heavily retouched by Christian translators and copyists,
and probably did not original contain any such title at all.30 These facts led scholars of earlier
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, A 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.
30
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 11
generations to look outside of Judaism for the roots of this idea. Frequently, this search took
them to the Greco-Roman world of infant Christianity, to the classical ruler cults. The
Hellenistic world was full of stories of kings and heroes who had been fathered by gods—
indeed, even illustrious historical figures, including the likes of Alexander the Great,
Octavian, and even the philosopher Plato, were rumored to have had divine sires. Paul and
the Gentile converts to Christianity, it was argued, had brought these ideas from paganism
Hence we see in the ui(o/j qeou= belief, to which Jesus himself testified according
to the synoptic account--and only there the sole decisive heathen premiss, of Pauline
thought. All that belongs to it and flows from it (e.g., the condescending heavenly man
of Philippians, the dying with Christ, the realistic evaluation of the sacraments, etc.) is
un-Jewish and akin to heathen ideas of the time.
This facile explanation has always had its critics, but in light of the paucity of evidence of the
“son of God” title in Judaism, variants of this theory have had numerous proponents.
The last several decades have witnessed a re-assessment of this theory. Manuscript and
other discoveries have led to a new appreciation of the antiquity of some of the New
Testament documents, so that even the Gospels are now routinely dated to the first century
C.E. This re-dating has caused us to look for the roots of Christianity in the Judaism of Jesus
and the apostles, rather than the Greco-Roman world of the second-century Church Fathers.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, too, have demonstrated that many of the teachings attributed to Jesus,
along with some of the “distinctive” language of the Gospels, were not unique to
Christianity: they were, it seems, quite at home in Second-Temple period Judaism.32 These
Stone, Fourth Ezra, p. 207, contends that the Greek translation of 4 Ezra, which underlies the extant Latin
translation, read not “my son,” but “my servant” (pais).
31
Schoeps, Paul, p. 158. Classic formulations of this position may be found in Boussett, Kurios Christos;
Harnack, What Is Christianity?; Bultmann, Theology; and Conzelmann, Outline.
32
Among the many studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian origins, significant titles include La Sor,
Dead Sea Scrolls; Bruce, “Dead Sea Scrolls”; Charlesworth, Jesus; and Brooke, Dead Sea Scrolls.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 12
Conservative scholars (who in earlier generations tended to resist any lines of investigation
that seemed to undermine Jesus’ uniqueness) seem especially enamored with the idea of
But there is yet another reason that Christian apologists, in particular, have gravitated
toward the messianic interpretation of 4Q246. Some have cited this text as an important
confirmation of the historicity of the Gospel narratives. Attributing the title “Son of God” to
the Greco-Roman milieu of the early Church, rather than the Jewish milieu of Jesus and the
apostles, would certainly tend to undermine the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives.
If it could be demonstrated that Judaism identified its Messiah as “the Son of God” before the
time of Jesus, then the use of the term in the Gospels could not be regarded as out-of-place or
anachronistic. 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
Given the verbal similarities between Luke 1:32-35 and the Aramaic Apocalypse, one
might imagine that the messianic interpretation would make some Christians uncomfortable.
It could be argued, after all, that Luke composed his account based on the Aramaic
Apocalypse, rather than actual events. But that is not the case: apologists claim instead that
the similarities increase the validity of Luke’s account, by demonstrating that the angel’s
announcement to Mary was couched in terms with which she, as a Jew, would have been
33
Eastman, “Messiah.”
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 13
familiar. It has even been argued that the Scroll author was dependent on the Gospel of Luke,
proving the great antiquity of the Gospel tradition and the faithfulness of its transmission.34
While I would not deny the possibility that the “Son of God” figure in 4Q246 is,
indeed, the Messiah, I find at present little justification for a consensus. Given the
fragmentary state of the text, either the messianic or the “evil monarch” interpretation could
be valid—and in fact, the case for the latter interpretation may be stronger.
Advocates of the messianic interpretation depend heavily on the text’s literary milieu,
especially the New Testament and its messianic terminology. Although it is not stated
explicitly, the line of reasoning is quite simple: the New Testament calls the Messiah the Son
of God; 4Q246 calls someone the son of God; therefore, that person must be the Messiah. If
the New Testament had not existed, one might argue, the messianic interpretation would have
never been suggested at all—there would have been little basis for believing that “son of
God” could be a messianic title (considering the only other text to use the phrase in this
manner, Fourth Ezra, would not have been modified to reflect New Testament usage if there
But this line of argument is only persuasive if the title “son of God” is found nowhere
else in ancient literature. Of course, this is not the case. While “son of God” was rarely used
as a title by the Hellenistic monarchs, many were called gods. Ptolemy Philadelphos II began
the tradition by proclaiming his father divine, which presumably would have made him the
son of a god. He and his sister were later proclaimed “sibling gods.”35 Among the Seleucids,
34
Thus Jeffrey, “Extraordinary Evidence.” The argument is ill-informed, since the Gospel of Luke was almost
certainly written from several decades to a century after the composition of 4Q246.
35
it was Antiochus III who first claimed divine honors during his lifetime.36 None of those,
however, were evidently known by the title “son of God.” Alexander the Great came close,
being called the “son of Ammon,” and so established a precedent for such an exalted title.37
But it was in the Roman imperial cult that the title “son of god” became most prominent, as
the Emperor Augustus was designated the “son of god” even on his inscriptions.38 In Dio
Chrysostom’s Orationes 4.21, 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
Furthermore, the case for the messianic interpretation would be more persuasive if
there were in fact any evidence beyond the New Testament that Jewish writers called the
Messiah “son of God.” As noted above, the only text outside the New Testament that makes
extensive use of the notion of divine sonship is Fourth Ezra, a text whose integrity is very
much in doubt. While it has been argued that one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QFlorilegium
(4Q174), has direct bearing on the issue of divine sonship, the significance of the text
dubious. The relevant section cites 2 Sam 7:12-14 and offers an interpretation:
“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
written, “I will raise up the booth of David which is fallen.”
36
Shipley, Greek World, pp. 157-158.
37
See Tarn, Alexander the Great, pp. 358-359; Bosworth, Alexander and the East, pp. 101-102, 118-119, 164-
169.
38
On 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.
39
On the use of the Hebrew word for God in 4Q246, see n. 25 above.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 15
Here, the figure designated “my (God’s) son” is interpreted as the Messiah (“Branch of
David”). 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. Given that this text is the
closest the Scrolls come to asserting the Messiah’s divine sonship, it seems that Fitzmyer has
not overstated the case in averring, “There is nothing in the OT or Palestinian Jewish
tradition that we know of to show that ‘Son of God’ had messianic nuance.”40
The most systematic defense for the messianic interpretation of this text has come from
Collins.41 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.42 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
writing.”43
While Collins is certainly correct in noting the repetition of Daniel 7, his generalization
40
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, vol. 1 p. 206.
41
Collins, Scepter, pp. 154-172.
42
Collins, Scepter, p. 158. A similar alternating structure is proposed by Cross, “Structure,” pp. 151-158.
43
Ibid.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 16
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
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 between
4Q246 and the first column of the War Scroll, we should not be surprised if the
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 1.45 This point is not persuasive. In the
44
Collins, Scepter, p. 159.
45
Collins, Scepter, p. 161.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 17
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
But a more significant case appears in I Cor 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 Dan 7:22, which states,
“Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High.”46 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
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
46
See further Thiselton, First Corinthians, pp. 425-430.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 18
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).47 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.
This brief discussion is not intended to address all of the issues regarding the
identification of the Son of God figure. A number of philological and textual objections to the
messianic interpretation have been raised by other scholars, and need not be reiterated here.48
These issues have been raised to demonstrate that a consensus regarding the interpretation of
An Alternative Interpretation
the messianic approach. First, I would agree with Fitzmyer that this text is “properly
apocalyptic.” However, that does not mean that the “son of God” figure must be
eschatological (in the sense of a figure of the future). Indeed, apocalyptic texts are generally
very detailed in their depictions of events that occurred prior to or contemporaneous with the
author’s time, presented in the form of ex eventu prophecies. It is when the authors begin
47
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.
48
For a good discussion of several key objections, see further Cook, 4Q246, passim.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 19
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.49 Consequently, the
figure 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
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
49
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.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 20
emphasizes issues that were featured in Rome’s propaganda: the establishment of peace and
We can also observe that this interpretation of 4Q246 is consistent with the text’s
literary milieu. In the War Scroll, the Romans (i.e., the Kittim) were facilely transformed into
the eschatological opponent of God’s people, the “king of the North” from Daniel 11.51 It is
possible that the “Kittim” were the antecedent to the plural pronouns found in the
descriptions of the wicked empire in 4Q246: “they shall call him” (2.1); “thus shall be their
kingdom” (2.2, emphasis added). It is also evident that the wicked kingdom of Daniel 7 was
identified with Rome in the writings of Josephus, in the Revelation of John, and in 4 Ezra.52
Although these texts were, admittedly, considerably later than 4Q246, they could well
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.53
Most Qumranologists, it seems, are reluctant to assign the composition of the text to such a
50
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.
51
The identification of the Kittim in the War Scroll with Rome, argued by Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the
Sons of Light, pp. 22-26, has been widely accepted. As early as 1962, Greenfield, Interpreters’ Dictionary of
the Bible, s.v. “Kittim,” wrote, “The identification of the Kittim in these works with the Seleucid Greeks,
proposed by many scholars on the basis of the early publication of only a few columns of 1QM, was almost
entirely abandoned with the publication of all of 1QM, in which the identification of the Kittim with the
Romans is clear.” On the use of Daniel 11 in 1QM 1, see Tomasino, “Daniel and the Revolutionaries,” pp. 18-
24.
52
For Josephus’s identification of Daniel’s fourth kingdom with Rome, see Tomasino, “Daniel,” pp. 262-268,
and studies cited there. On Daniel in the apocalyptic texts, see Beale, Use, pp. 112-153, 154-305. For
Revelation, see Sweet, Revelation, pp. 17-21; Yarbro Collins, “History,” pp. 102-112. On 4 Ezra, see Lacocque,
“Vision,” pp. 237-258; Stone, Fourth Ezra, pp. 343-423. The most comprehensive studies on the use of Daniel
in 2 Baruch is that of Beale; cf. also Casey, Son of Man, p. 129.
53
These include Knohl, Messiah, pp. 91-93; Lendering, “Messiah.”
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 21
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.54 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
The potentially deleterious effects of the growing consensus regarding the Aramaic
Apocalypse’s “Son of God” must be given serious consideration. It must be borne in mind,
first of all, that this text represents the only pre-Christian evidence of the title “son of God” in
a Jewish context. Even if it were to be demonstrated that the text refers to the Messiah, it
hardly can be said to bear witness to a widely held messianic expectation. Scholars should
therefore beware exaggerated claims of its significance, such as Dunn’s statement that,
“Qumran evidence should have killed stone dead the old view that ‘son of God’ was not a
messianic title in Second Temple Judaism.”55 The Aramaic Apocalypse is but a single
fragmentary manuscript of dubious meaning. It is not the Missing Link between Judaism and
Christianity.
Furthermore, the interpretation of this text should still be very much in doubt. As
demonstrated above, there is ample reason to believe that the messianic interpretation has not
54
Puech, “Fragment,” p. 105.
55
Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 709.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 22
been demonstrated with any level of certainty. But as this interpretation has come to be
regarded as the consensus, we increasingly find that the identification of the “son of God”
figure as the Messiah is made without the necessary caveats. Due to the uncritical
many years disseminating the incorrect notion that the pre-Christian messianic use of the
The principal danger in the consensus, however, is that it can quell further investigation
of alternatives. For many scholars, the issue of the son of God’s identification seems to have
been closed, particularly by Collins’s treatment of the text. Students or scholars who have not
thoroughly studied the issue may assume that the final word has already been spoken, and
that there will be little gained by further pursuit of the matter. Such a state of affairs would be
Bibliography
Beale, G. K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St.
Bevan, A. A. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students. Cambridge:
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
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
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.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 24
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.
_______________. “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.
_______________ . The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Ancient Literature. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday,
1995.
Cross, Frank Moore. “Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran and the
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.
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-
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&contentID=3136&commInfo=9&topic=The%20Search%20for%20the
Evans, Craig. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers
Fitzmyer, Joseph. “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New
_______________. 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
Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Dictionary of Jesus and the
InterVarsity, 1992.
Tomasino—Aramaic Apocalypse 26
Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-
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,
Jeffrey, Grant R. “Extraordinary Evidence About Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” (n.d.)
Knohl, Israel. The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
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.
______________. “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
LaSor, W. S. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Oxford
Nock, A. D. Review of H. J. Schoeps, Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen
Oegema, Gerbern S. The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the
Maccabees to Bar Kochba. JSPSup 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.
Santosuosso, Antonio. Storming the Heavens: Soldiers, Emperors, and Civilians in the
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.
Taeger, Fritz. Charisma, Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes, 2 vols.
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
Chicago, 1995.
Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
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:
Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James