God Becomes the Anointed One

I … [the spirit of God] dwelt on him, he fell down before the throne … O [K]ing, you are angry for ever and your years … your vision and all. For ever you … [the gre]at ones. An oppression will come to the earth … a great massacre in the provinces … the king of Assyria [and E]gypt … he will be great on earth … will make and all will serve … he will be called (or: call himself) [gran]d … and by his name he will be designated (or: designate himself). II The son of God he will be proclaimed (or: proclaim himself) and the son of the Most High they will call him. Like the sparks of the vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign for years on the earth and they will trample all. People will trample people (cf. Dan. vii, 23) and one province another province vacat until the people of God will arise and all will rest from the sword. Their (the people of God’s) kingdom will be an eternal kingdom (cf. Dan. vii, 27) and all their path will be in truth. They will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth, and all the provinces will pay homage to them. The Great God (cf. Dan. ii, 45) is their helper. He will wage war for them. He will give peoples into their hands and all of them (the peoples) He will cast before them (the people of God). Their dominion will be an eternal dominion (Dan. vii, 14) and all the boundaries of… (Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English [Penguin Books, Revised Edition 2004], 4Q246. An Aramaic Scroll, p. 673; emphasis mine)

“And I will appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place and not be disturbed again; and the unrighteous will not waste them anymore as formerly, even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. And I will subdue all your enemies. And I tell you that Yahweh will build a house for you. And it will be that when your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up one of your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; and I will not remove My lovingkindness from him, as I removed it from him who was before you. But I will cause him to stand in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.” 1 Chronicles 17:9-14

“Why do the nations rage And the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against Yahweh and against His Anointed, saying… I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like a potter’s vessel.’” Psalm 2:1-2, 7-9

“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And came near before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory, and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every tongue Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not be taken away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14

If you look at column 2 in the photograph, you will see that there is a blank space (vacat, in scholarly jargon) in the middle of the column, before the phrase “until the people of God arises.” Several scholars have taken this break as an indication of the turning point of the text. Everything before the break, then, would pertain to the rule of the nations, and would be viewed negatively from a Jewish point of view. So Milik, in his lecture at Harvard, argued that the one who would be called “Son of God” was a Syrian king, Alexander Balas, son of the notorious Antiochus IV Epiphanes who had persecuted the Jews in the time of the Maccabees (167–164 B.C.E.). Balas is called theopator (god-begotten) and Deo patre natus (born of a divine father) on coins. Puech, in his publication of our Dead Sea Scroll text, also allowed as one possibility that the reference might be to a Syrian king, although he preferred the better-known Epiphanes.

It was not uncommon in antiquity for pagan kings to be regarded as gods or sons of gods. In a Jewish context, however, “Son of God” is a highly honorific title. If this reference was to a Syrian king, we would expect to find some indication in this Jewish text that the title was inappropriate. If the Son of God was viewed negatively, we would expect the text to tell of his eventual downfall. In fact, however, there is no indication in the extant text that the Son of God was regarded with disapproval.⁵

True, the blank space in the second column of the Son of God text marks the transition to the final stage of the drama, the rise of the people of God. It does not follow, however, that everything before this is negative. This text belongs to the category of apocalyptic literature, broadly defined; that is, literature that reports visions about the end of days. It is very closely related to the Book of Daniel, which is itself a classic apocalyptic text. It is typical of apocalyptic literature that it does not tell its story in simple sequential order, but often goes over the same ground again and again to make its point. For example, Daniel 7 recounts a famous vision in which “one like a son of man” comes on the clouds of heaven (verse 13) and is given a kingdom. An interpretation follows, which says that “the holy ones of the Most High” receive the kingdom (verse 18). Finally, there is an elaboration of this interpretation, according to which the kingdom is given to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (verse 27). The giving of the kingdom, then, is narrated three times, but these are not three separate events.

The “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 represents the “people of the holy ones,” and receives the kingdom on their behalf. The Son of God text should be read in a similar way. The figure who is called the Son of God is the representative, or agent, of the people of God. That is why he is not mentioned again after the rise of the people of God in column 2. His career and the rise of the people of God are simply two aspects of the same event…

It may be well at this point to pause for a moment to comment on the word “messiah.” As is well known, the Hebrew word for messiah, mashiach, means simply “anointed.” Kings were anointed in ancient Israel, and so were some other figures, notably high priests. Originally, the word had no special reference to the future. When the Psalmist wrote in Psalm 2:2 that the kings of the earth take counsel “against the Lord and his anointed,” he was speaking of the king of the day, not of someone who was expected in the future. In later times, however, when there was no longer a Davidic king in Jerusalem and when the Jewish people looked increasingly to the future, the word “messiah” took on a new meaning. It now referred to the one who would restore the kingdom of Israel, and who was often conceived in a highly idealized way. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not restrict the word “messiah” to the one who would restore the Davidic kingship; they also speak of a priestly “messiah of Aaron” and use the word “messiahs” with reference to prophets. But they also attest the use of “messiah” with reference to the “branch of David.” Eventually the word “messiah” came to mean primarily the Davidic messiah in both Jewish and Christian traditions: Passages in the Psalms and in the Prophets that spoke of a messiah or of a Davidic king were commonly interpreted as referring to this figure who would come in the future. At the turn of the era, an heir to the Davidic throne, in an apocalyptic context, cannot be distinguished from the Davidic messiah, and we are fully justified in speaking of a messiah here, even though the word does not appear in the text.

The Hebrew Bible provides a clear basis for referring to the Davidic messiah as Son of God. Psalm 2, which uses the word “messiah,” or “anointed,” with reference to the king, goes on to say “I will tell of the decree of the Lord: he said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’” (Psalm 2:7). In Psalm 89:27, God says of the king “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” In 2 Samuel 7:14, the Lord promises that he will establish the kingdom of David’s offspring: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.” This latter passage is cited in the document known as 4Q174, or the Florilegium, from Qumran (this document consists of biblical citations followed by explanations; the citation commented on is from 2 Samuel 7:11–14):

“‘The Lord declares to you that He will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom (for ever). I (will be) his father and he shall be my son.’ He is the branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law (to rule) in Zion (at the end) of time.”

This passage from the Florilegium is a good illustration of how Scripture was read at Qumran. A text that originally referred to Solomon and the historical Davidic line now refers to the end of days. The son in question is now the branch of David who will appear in the future, or, in common parlance, the Davidic messiah.

In view of this background, it is not surprising that the Davidic messiah should be called “Son of God” or “Son of the Most High.” Indeed the Davidic association of these phrases is explicit in the verses previously quoted from the Gospel of Luke: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.” Our scroll text from Qumran (4Q246) is probably the oldest extant text that explicitly uses the title “Son of God” with reference to a future messianic king. (John J. Collins, A Pre-Christian “Son of God” Among the Dead Sea Scrolls; emphasis mine)

The individual most often designated as “the son of God” in the Hebrew Bible is undoubtedly the Davidic king, or his eschatological counterpart.⁴⁷ The adoption of David as God’s son is clearly stated in 2 Samuel 7:14 (“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me”) and in Psalm 89:26-27 (“He shall cry to me: ‘You are my Father’… I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”). The relationship is expressed in more mythological terms in Psalm 2:7 (“I will tell of the decree of the Lord: he said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you'”). The statements in the Son of God text, that the great God will be his strength and will give peoples into his hand, can apply equally well to the king in the psalm. Psalm 2 also refers to the king as “His (the Lord’s) anointed (meshicho)” (2:2).

The title “Son of God” takes on a clear messianic connotation in the New Testament, notably in the Lukan infancy narrative cited earlier. Fitzmyer, however, argues strongly that “Per se, the titles do not connote ‘messiah’ in the Old Testament, and only a naive interpretation emerging from tradition espouses that connotation. Nor do they do so in any Qumran texts.”⁴⁸ He further adds that “There were undoubtedly other kings in Israel’s history, who had sat on the Davidic throne, but were not accorded the title mashiach much less “Messiah” in the proper sense.”⁴⁹ I believe that these statements show confusion in regard to the Old Testament evidence, and fail to do justice to the evidence from Qumran.

First, in the context of the Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 refer to the historical Davidic kings. They are not eschatological, and so not “messianic” in the sense in which we have been using the word. Fitzmyer’s strictures against naive traditionalists who read these texts as predictions of the messiah are fair enough if one is speaking about the original meaning of the text. Confusion arises, however, when he claims, without any supporting evidence, that some kings “were not accorded the title mashiach.” The word mashiach, anointed one, is an epithet applied to the king, in virtue of the fact that he was anointed.⁵⁰ Whether it is regarded as a title is a matter of definition, but the term was clearly applicable to any anointed king. There is no evidence that any king of Israel or Judah was not anointed. Fitzmyer here seems to load the term mashiach, anointed, with a special significance that it does not have in the Hebrew Bible. Correspondingly, a future “successor to the Davidic throne” in an apocalyptic or eschatological context is by definition a Davidic messiah. Fitzmyer’s notion of “a sectarian affirmation of God’s provision and guarantee of the Davidic dynasty” by a king who is not a “messiah” makes no sense in the context of ancient Judaism.⁵¹

Second, the claim that “Son of God” does not have messianic significance in any Qumran text overlooks the clear evidence of the Florilegium (4Q174). There we have an exposition of 2 Sam 7:14:

The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever]. I [will be] his father and he shall be my son. He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of days.

The citation from 2 Samuel 7 provides an explicit basis for identifying the Branch of David as the Son of God. Since the Branch is explicitly called the Messiah of Righteousness in the Patriarchal Blessings (4Q252 = 4QpGen), it is surely justified to speak of him as a Davidic messiah.⁵² Fitzmyer’s insistence that “There is nothing in the OT or Palestinian Jewish tradition that we know of to show that ‘Son of God’ had a messianic nuance”⁵³ cannot be maintained unless “messianic nuance” is equated with explicit use of the word “messiah” in the same passage. (Collins, “The Messiah as the Son of God”, in The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls [William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.: second edition, 2010], pp. 183-185; emphasis mine)

The attestation of “Son of God” as a messianic title in Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods is not extensive, but an important instance is found in 4 Ezra. The Latin and Syriac texts of this pseudepigraphon refer to the messiah as “my son” in a number of passages, in chapters 7 and 13 and finally in 14:9.⁵⁹ The originality of this reading has been disputed. Some versions use words that mean “servant” in a few instances, and there are other textual variations.⁶⁰ Michael Stone has argued that the Greek version, which has not been preserved, read pais, and reflected an original Hebrew “servant” rather than “son.”⁶¹ Yet the scene in chapter 13, where the messianic figure takes his stand on a mountain and repulses the attack of the nations, is clearly dependent on Psalm 2, where God sets his anointed king on Zion, his holy mountain, and terrifies the nations, and where the king is also told “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” Even if the Greek read pais, as the versions that read “servant” require, this term, too, could be used for “son,” as is evident from The Wisdom of Solomon, where the righteous man calls himself a child of God {pais theou, 2:13) and boasts that God is his father (2:16). The Latin and Syriac reading, “my son,” should be accepted as a faithful rendering of the original, at least in chapter 13.

4 Ezra 13 is of considerable interest for the interpretation of the Son of God text from Qumran. Ezra’s vision of a man coming up out of the heart of the sea and flying with the clouds is evidently inspired by Daniel 7. In the preceding chapter, 4 Ezra 12, Ezra had seen an eagle coming up from the sea, and was told that this was “the fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel, but it was not explained to him as I now explain to you or have explained it” (4 Ezra 12:11-12). A similar comment might be made about the man from the sea in chapter 13, who must equally be identified with the “one like a son of man” from Daniel’s vision, but is also interpreted in a new way. As in the Qumran text, the advent of this figure is preceded by conflict between the nations: “They shall plan to make war against one another, city against city, place against place, people against people and kingdom against kingdom” (13:31).

In 4 Ezra 13, the messiah repulses the attack of the Gentiles with a fiery breath (cf. Isa 11:4) and gathers the dispersed of Israel. He is also said to reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness (13:37). In the preceding vision of the eagle, the messiah has a more prominent judicial function: “First he will bring them alive before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them he will destroy them” (12:33). It is clear then that the messiah has taken over some of the function of judging the nations, which was usually reserved for God in the Hebrew Bible. There is no place here, however, for worship of this figure by the nations, since they are destroyed after the judgment, like the fourth beast in Daniel.

The eschatology of 4 Ezra is considerably different from that of a document like the Qumran War Scroll. It has no place for an angelic deliverer, although the messiah has a transcendent character (he rises from the heart of the sea and flies with the clouds). Heavenly savior figures (Michael, Melchizedek) play a part in the Scrolls, but as we have seen the Davidic messiah also has an established place there. Since Michael or the Prince of Light is never called “Son of God,” and since there is a clear basis for applying this title to the Davidic king, whether past or future, the messianic interpretation of 4Q246 should be preferred. Indeed the parallel in Luke points strongly in this direction: “He will be great and will be hailed as Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will bestow on him the throne of his father David.”⁶² (Ibid., pp. 186-187)

It is difficult to say whether the Son of God figure should be regarded as an interpretation of the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7. If so, it would probably be the oldest surviving interpretation. No other adaptation or interpretation of that chapter has yet been identified in the Qumran corpus. The two earliest Jewish interpretations of Daniel 7 are found in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13. Both these passages assume that Daniel’s “one like a son of man” is an individual, and both use the term “messiah” with reference to him. In both these documents, the Son of Man figure is pre-existent, and therefore transcendent in some sense. The Son of God in the Qumran text is not identical with either of these figures, but he has much in common with them. It should be emphasized that the extant fragment from Qumran lacks clear allusions to Daniel’s “one like a son of man” such as we find in the Similitudes and in 4 Ezra. Nonetheless, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the author had Daniel’s figure in mind. The Danielic paradigm becomes an important factor in messianism in the first century of the Common Era. The Son of God text suggests that the messianic interpretation of Daniel 7 had begun already in the Hasmonean period. (Ibid., p. 188; emphasis mine)

“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, ‘Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.’ But she was very perplexed at this statement, and was pondering what kind of greeting this was. 30 And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of His kingdom.’ But Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:26-35

“And as the day came, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their Sanhedrin, saying, ‘If You are the Christ, tell us.’ But He said to them, ‘If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.’ And they all said, ‘Are You the Son of God, then?’ And He said to them, ‘You yourselves say that I am.’ Then they said, ‘What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.’” Luke 22:66-71 – cf. Acts 4:23-31; 7:55-56; 13:32-33; Hebrews 1:3-9, 13; 5:5-6

Following the publication of the full text, scholars have remained divided over whether the personage designated “Son of God” in the apocalypse should be viewed as a negative or a positive figure, with a slight majority favoring the latter.⁸ Among this majority, most view the figure as a Davidic, eschatological redeemer who will overthrow God’s enemies and establish the dominion of God’s people. This reading of the fragment is maintained in slightly different forms by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John J. Collins, Frank Moore Cross, and Johannes Zimmermann, among others.¹⁰ All but Fitzmyer argue that the figure should be understood as a messianic redeemer. Fitzmyer resists such an interpretation because the word “messiah” itself does not appear in the fragment.¹¹

I too hold that the figure designated as Son of the Most High and Son of God is best regarded as a Davidic (messianic), eschatological redeemer. In what follows, I present several reasons for adopting this position. The subject of this study, however, is the nature of the literary relationships between the fragment found near Qumran and the two canonical texts, Daniel 7 and Luke 1:31b-35, and what those relationships suggest concerning pre- and early Christian perspectives on divine sonship. Several scholars have argued that the author of 4Q246 drew from Daniel 7 and that Luke in some fashion made use of the Aramaic Apocalypse in composing Luke 1:31b-35.¹² I first attempt to demonstrate that the Aramaic Apocalypse not only borrows from Daniel 7 but also offers an interpretation of that text by designating the Danielic “one like a son of man” as the “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” These titles, I claim, cast Daniel’s eschatological redeemer against the royal background of the Davidic monarchy, and yet also mark a development in the transcendent character of this heavenly figure by attributing to him divine sonship. Next, by laying out in detail the evidence for Luke’s dependence on the Aramaic Apocalypse or on a close reproduction of it in another source, I attempt to strengthen the claim of Collins that Luke either directly or indirectly drew on the text now partially extant in 4Q246 when composing Gabriel’s announcement to Mary of Jesus’ birth (1:31b-35). Finally, I propose that Luke’s use of this text at the very point in his Gospel at which he establishes Jesus’ divine sonship (Luke 1:31b35) suggests, in tandem with other considerations, that Jewish apocalyptic traditions about a heavenly, eschatological redeemer served as important sources for early Christian understandings and expressions of the Messiah’s divinity. (The “One like a Son of Man” Becomes the “Son of God”, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Published by the Catholic Biblical Association of America, Volume 69, Number 1, January, 2007, pp. 23-24; emphasis mine)

9 A few scholars have followed Hengel’s suggestion in regarding the figure collectively as a reference to Israel. See, e.g., Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4th ed.; New York: Penguin, 1995) 332; Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) 268-70. As noted above, both Steudal (“Eternal Reign,” 507-25) and Puech (“Remarks,” 545-51) view the figure of 4Q246 2:1 as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. but interpret the third person singular references in 2:4-9 as referring collectively to Israel. Several factors tell against a collective interpretation, however. First, both Fitzmyer and Collins point to the reference to judgment in 2:6 as indicative of an individual redeemer, with Collins (Scepter, 154) arguing that “there is no parallel for the notion that the people, collectively, will judge the earth.” Similarly, the listing of attributes of the coming idyllic rule in 2:5-9 are in the Hebrew Scriptures much more commonly found in reference to an individual ruler than to God’s people in general: e.g., Isa 11:1-9, which describes the coming Davidic king as one who, guided by God’s wisdom and righteousness, will judge (vv. 1-4), kill the wicked (v. 4), and usher in a paradisiacal era of peace (vv. 5-9). Psalm 2 speaks of the Davidic king as God’s son (v. 7), who will be granted victory over the nations by God. Psalm 72 records a petition to God that the king may judge with righteousness (vv. 1-4), overthrow and receive homage from the nations (vv. 8-11), and establish an era of peace (v. 7). Moreover, two of the earliest interpretations of Daniel 7, the Similitudes(1 Enoch 37-71) and 4 Ezra, both refer to the Danielic son of man as an individual. (Ibid., p. 23; emphasis mine)

Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-cited view that Hellenistic influence was one of the key forces shaping the development of early Christian conceptions of Jesus’ divine sonship has remained influential to the present day.⁴⁵ The discovery of 4Q246, however, has led some to consider that the titular use of “Son of God” in Palestinian Judaism may be important for understanding its later employment in the NT.

Fitzmyer argues that “the Palestinian attestation of the title, Son of God, in a pre-Christian text makes it at least possible that this title was part of the early Christian kerygma that was carried abroad from its Jerusalem matrix to the Hellenistic world.”⁴⁶ Collins adds:

One need not subscribe to all aspects of Bultmann’s theories to grant that the title “Son of God” took on a new and more exalted meaning in Hellenistic Christianity. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that even in the Hebrew Bible the king could be addressed as a “god.” The titles “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High” imply that this figure stands in special relationship to the Deity, and that he is not an ordinary mortal. This is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ. But the notion that the messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism, and so there was continuity between Judaism and Christianity in this respect, even though Christian belief eventually diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources.⁴⁷

The significance that Fitzmyer and Collins, among others, attach to the Palestinian Jewish background for these titles constitutes a helpful corrective to the previously prevailing view that emphasized nearly exclusively their supposed Hellenistic coloring. But one wonders if this corrective has gone far enough. Although the need to consider the Palestinian background of the title “Son of God” is rightly noted, the common notion that in the NT writings and among early Christians “Son of God” took on meanings and associations far removed from its earlier Jewish usage continues to prevail. For instance, Collins echoes this perspective in the quotation above when he claims that “this is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ,” and that “Christian belief diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources.” Similarly, he later adds that the designation “Son of God” in 4Q246, as well as in the Gospel of Mark,

reflects the status rather than the nature of the messiah. He is the Son of God in the same sense that the king of Israel was begotten by God according to Psalm 2….The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, despite the common language in the latter and the Son of God text, have a more developed notion of what the Sonship of the messiah entailed, and express it in a narrative of Jesus’ birth.⁴⁸

Despite providing what may appear to be an attractive means of categorization, the purported distinction (utilized by a number of scholars) between “status” and “nature”–when applied to these early Jewish and Christian texts–is, in my mind, problematic. To be sure, clear distinctions between status and nature were made during the christological controversies four to five hundred years later. But the concepts themselves are somewhat ambiguous, and it is difficult to imagine how ideas related to “status” and “nature” would have been separated in the minds of these early Jews and Christians of the first century C.E. and before. Although “status,” in a general sense, refers to the appointment of authority and power (in this case, by God unto a messiah/redeemer), and “nature” to ontology (the kind of “stuff” [essence] of which the redeemer is comprised), the higher the status claimed of an individual the more we are led to wonder how the individual’s nature would have been perceived. In the case of 4Q246, what kind of mortal person could wield the sort of power (God’s) and enact the sort of reign (eternal) assigned to its redeemer? Collins’s comment above that “this figure stands in special relationship to the Deity, and that he is not an ordinary mortal” is telling. But is it only his status that is unique? Again, how many mortals could accomplish this calling without some major adjustments to their nature? Whether such a change takes place during the redeemer’s conception (as in the case of Matthew and Luke) or later on in life is not as important as is the recognition that such redeemer figures could have been viewed by early Jewish writers as having a transcendent character that made them more like God than like mortals. In other Qumran texts, as pointed out by García Martínez, the heavenly redeemer known as Michael, Melchizedek, or the Prince of Light is cast as an angelic figure.⁴⁹ Although we cannot know whether the author of 4Q246 had any knowledge of these Dead Sea texts, they at least demonstrate that some Jews of that time conceived of an awaited redeemer figure who would be more than, or other than, simply human.

Indeed, these visionaries, unlike Christians debating christology four to five hundred years down the road, were probably not much concerned with distinctions between status and nature. But from this it does not follow that they held ideas relating only to the former and not the latter. Still, the angelic announcement to Joseph in Matthew, Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary in Luke, and John’s prologue are commonly identified as marking the point at which Christians began to be concerned with Jesus’ identity in terms of his ontology (nature), beyond simply his status. Yet there is another way to regard the development apparent in these gospel traditions. Instead of marking a major shift beyond matters of status to ontology, these traditions could just as well be offering more sophisticated ways of expressing their understanding of Jesus’ nature in terms of how–in Jesus–divine nature ended up in human form.⁵⁰ Collins’s claim, cited above, that these NT texts reflect “a more developed notion of what the Sonship of the messiah entailed” is, of course, at least partly true. But the development reflected in these NT texts need not be a sudden interest in the nature of the redeemer they proclaim beyond simply his status. The traditions they report are just as likely concerned to express how this carpenter’s son from Nazareth is also the transcendent, divine son of God.

Thus, although the Gospels-especially Matthew, Luke, and John-likely mark a development in the portrayal of Jesus’ divine sonship, it does not follow that they express an understanding of God’s awaited redeemer that categorically diverges from that of Mark or of texts such as 4Q246 and the Similitudes.⁵¹ Perhaps it is because these texts collectively share significant points of contact in the presentation of their respective agents of salvation that Luke thought it apt to draw on the Aramaic Apocalypse‘s recasting of Daniel’s “one like a son of man” at the very point in his Gospel at which he was laying the foundation for Jesus’ identity as the Son of God. Luke’s decision to do so suggests that he perceived the Apocalypse as foretelling the coming of an eschatological redeemer figure who, now fulfilled in Jesus, was unique in terms of his transcendence, his eternal dominion, and his filial relationship to God. (Ibid., pp. 38-42; emphasis mine)

47 Collins, Scepter, 168-69. Similarly, Zimmermann (“Observations,” 188) concludes: “As we attempted to show, much favors seeing 4Q246 as testimony that, already in pre-Christian times, the ‘son of man’ of Daniel 7 could be understood as ‘Son of God.’ This would also provide a plausible background, I submit, for the New Testament’s juxtaposition of the ‘son of man’ and ‘Son of God’ titles in connection with Jesus–and in the process, make unnecessary many of the speculations of recent decades.” Zimmermann, however, does not go on to specify what speculations he has in mind. (Ibid., p. 39; emphasis mine)

The nature and extent of the correspondences between these two texts indicate that the writer of the Aramaic Apocalypse intended to recast the Danielic “one like a son of man” as a figure to be known by the titles “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” Such a recasting suggests two significant developments in the portrayal of this eschatological redeemer. First, these titles present him in the royal tradition of the Davidic kingship. That the royal tradition is here in view is also argued by Fitzmyer, Kim, Collins, Cross, and Zimmermann. The latter four scholars all consider the character to be presented as a Davidic and messianic redeemer by virtue of the title “Son of God,” which they take as an allusion to 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7-8; and Ps 89:26-27.²³ Fitzmyer, while rejecting the messianic interpretation, concludes that this apocalyptic text speaks “positively of a coming Jewish ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, who will be a successor to the Davidic throne.”²⁴

A second element introduced by 4Q246 in its recasting of the Danielic figure–and the one more crucial to the present discussion–also resides in the author’s use of the titles “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High.” In adopting the language of these earlier royal traditions and forming it into a pair of titles (“he shall be called… he will be named…” [2:1]), the author of 4Q246 has focused attention on the divine sonship of the redeemer figure as a central feature of his personhood. This raises the question of what exactly such expressions of “divine sonship” were meant to convey. Collins argues that the titles simply continue to present the “adoptionist sonship” presented in 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7-8; and Ps 89:26-27; while implying a special relationship to the deity.²⁵ Yet the titular use of these expressions suggests that something other than adoptionist divine sonship may be in view. Beyond connecting Daniel’s transcendent “one like a son of man” to the royal, Davidic tradition, the titular form of these designations may also be meant to emphasize the exalted and unique character of the awaited redeemer. He is to be seen not merely as the adopted son of Yhwh as the other kings before him, but as the unique and transcendent divine Son, through whom God’s salvation is finally to achieve victory among God’s people.

Two additional factors commend this way of regarding the function of the titles in 4Q246. First, the transcendence of the figure portrayed in 4Q246 is suggested already by the fact that the fragment is recasting the heavenly (transcendent) personage of Daniel 7.26 The author of the fragment further signals the wish to maintain this sense by also attributing to the redeemer of 4Q246 an eternal kingdom. Second, the portrayal of an eschatological redeemer as uniquely transcendent, and even as possessing characteristics that are normally assigned only to God in Hebrew tradition, is not out of character for Jewish writings of this era. In fact, 4Q246 appears to belong to a trajectory of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that presents Daniel’s “one like a son of man” as possessing quasi-divine characteristics. The Dead Sea fragment shares with these other texts a host of details concerning the character of the awaited figure, recasting Daniel’s eschatological agent of salvation in starkly exalted terms.²⁷… (Ibid., pp. 30-32; emphasis mine)

26 On the transcendent character of Daniel’s “one like a son of man,” see Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) 71-80; Collins, Scepter, 182; and Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Origin ofthe Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man,” HTR 80 (1987) 391-407, esp. 406. The transcendence of Daniel’s eschatological agent, however, has recently been disputed by Douglas R. A. Hare (Son of Man Tradition [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990] 10-21). Hare argues, citing Testament of Abraham (Rec. A, 10:1; B, 8:3); Rev 11:12 and 1 Thess 4:16-17, that there is ample evidence that the use of the clouds as a means of transport was not reserved for God in Jewish tradition, and “it is entirely unlikely that a second god was here portrayed by the Jewish apocalyptist” (p. 11). In these texts Hare cites as evidence for his view, however, it is God who transports the figures of Abraham (Testament of Abraham), the two prophets (Revelation 11), and the risen believers to heaven in a cloud. This is in contrast to Daniel, in which the figure himself appears to be in command of his transport and is said to be coming “with the clouds of heaven” rather than “up to” heaven. (Ibid., p. 31; emphasis mine)

Even more noteworthy, it is only in these two texts, 4Q246 and Luke 1:31b-35, that both titles appear together. Although both are present in Mark, they do not occur in close proximity to each other. “Son of God” is found in Mark 1:1; 3:11; and 15:39, and the one instance of the title “Son of the Most High” appears in 5:7, in the slightly different form “Son of the Most High God.” Furthermore, “Son of the Most High” has not been found in any of the canonical, apocryphal, or Jewish intertestamental writings, and virtually the same can be said of the titular use of “Son of God” with reference to an individual prior to the NT and other early Christian writings.³⁷ Although the title “Son of God” occasionally occurs in extant Hellenistic sources, “Son of the Most High” is not found in Greco-Roman literature.³⁸ (Ibid., p. 35; emphasis mine)

37 It is commonly known that the expression “sons of God” occurs in reference to heavenly beings (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 82:6; 89:6), and the Davidic king is three times related to Yhwh as “son” (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27); likewise, the Israelites are at times referred to collectively as “my son” (e.g., Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1). None of these occurrences, however, indicates the titular use of “Son of God.” The closest parallel is found in Wis 18:13, where the singular θεοῦ υἱόν refers to Israel. Yet it is doubtful that this is a title, since it functions as an allusion to Exod 4:22. Similarly, the expression “sons of the Most High” in Ps 82:6 is a collective designation that appears to be used as a poetic description rather than as a title.

3 Concerning the Hellenistic use of υἱὸς θεοῦ, Hengel (Son of God, 28-30) states: “the designation υἱὸς θεοῦ, son of God, is relatively rare in the Hellenistic world, and, with one exception, is never used as a title. The exception is the Greek translation of divi filius, son of the divinized, a title which Augustus took soon after the murder of Caesar and which is reproduced on Greek inscriptions as viὸς θεοῦ.” Τοo be sure, there were many stories in the Hellenistic world about rulers and heroes who were said to be begotten by divine beings. And perhaps Hengel overstates the case when he concludes, “there is no link between these παίδες Διός οf Hellenistic nature religion and the early Christian confession of the one Son of the one God” (p. 24). Nevertheless, his point that the meaning behind the titular use of “Son of God” is more discontinuous than similar to Hellenistic conceptions of the divinity of certain individuals is worthy of our attention (see discussion below). (Ibid., pp. 35-36; emphasis mine)

51 Mark’s portrayal of “Jesus Christ the Son of God” as the fulfillment of the awaited, eschatological coming of God would seem to reflect a much more complex understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship than the adoptionist sonship of Psalm 2 and related texts. In the conflated quotation of Mark 1:2-3, the insertion of the second person singular possessive pronoun in v. 2 takes the place of the first person singular possessive pronoun in Mal 3:1, where God is speaking, and the insertion of “his” takes the place of “God” as in Isa 40:3. Similar to what occurs in 11QMelch, where Melchizedek appears as an eschatological deliverer over all the powers of evil and ushers in the eschatological year of the jubilee (see Hengel, Son of God, 80), Mark or the compilers of these testimonia transfer to Jesus the eschatological deliverance that was previously prophesied to be fulfilled by God. In light of the fact that Jesus is further portrayed in the Gospel as one who wields the Holy Spirit (1:8); overthrows the chaos of creation, demons, disease, and even death (4:35-5:43); is identified repeatedly by evil spirits as the divine son; and will return after his death, coming in the clouds with great power and glory (13:26-27; 14:6), it is better to conclude that Mark, like 4Q246, transcends the adoptionist sonship of the Davidic traditions and follows the tendencies of the Jewish apocalyptic texts in assigning to Jesus activities and power (and hence, aspects of personhood) that were traditionally attributed only to God. (Ibid., p. 41; emphasis mine)

“But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” Matthew 28:16-20

“And when He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was sleeping. And they came to Him and got Him up, saying, ‘Save us, Lord; we are perishing!’ And He said to them, ‘Why are you so cowardly, you men of little faith?’ Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm. And the men marveled, and said, ‘What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?’” Matthew 8:23-27

“Immediately He made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side, while He sent the crowds away. And after He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone. But the boat was already many stadia away from the land, being battered by the waves; for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea. Now when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, ‘It is a ghost!’ And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.’ And Peter answered and said to Him, ‘Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.’ And He said, ‘Come!’ And getting out of the boat, Peter walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, ‘Lord, save me!’ And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’ And when they got into the boat, the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘You are truly God’s Son!’” Matthew 14:22-33

“Praise Yah! Praise Yahweh, O my soul! I will praise Yahweh throughout my life; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being. Do not trust in nobles, In merely a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his plans perish. How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in Yahweh his God, Who made heaven and earth, The sea and all that is in them; Who keeps truth forever; Who does justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry. Yahweh sets the prisoners free. Yahweh opens the eyes of the blind; Yahweh raises up those who are bowed down; Yahweh loves the righteous; Yahweh keeps the sojourners; He helps up the orphan and the widow, But He bends the way of the wicked. Yahweh will reign forever, Your God, O Zion, from generation to generation. Praise Yah!” Psalm 146:1-10

“The wilderness and the desert will be delighted, And the Arabah will rejoice and flourish; Like the crocus It will flourish profusely And rejoice with rejoicing and shout of joy. The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, The majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They will see the glory of Yahweh, The majesty of our God. Strengthen limp hands, and give courage to the knees of the stumbling. Say to those with an anxious heart, ‘Be strong, fear not. Behold, your God will come with vengeance; The recompense of God will come, But He will save you.’ Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness And streams in the Arabah.” Isaiah 35:1-6

“And it happened that soon afterwards He went to a city called Nain, and His disciples were going along with Him, accompanied by a large crowd. Now as He approached the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a sizeable crowd from the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, He felt compassion for her and said to her, ‘Do not cry.’ And He came up and touched the coffin, and the bearers came to a halt. And He said, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise!’ And the dead man sat up and began to speak. And Jesus gave him back to his mother. And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, ‘A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, ‘God has visited His people!’ And this report concerning Him went out all over Judea and in all the surrounding district. And the disciples of John reported to him about all these things. Summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, “Are You the One who is to come, or should we look for someone else?’ When the men came to Him, they said, ‘John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, “Are You the One who is to come, or should we look for someone else?”’ At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits, and He granted sight to many who were blind. And He answered and said to them, ‘Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.’” Luke 7:11-23