An Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246) and the Perils of Premature Consensus

Anthony J. Tomasino

Bethel College, IN

Consensus is not necessarily a dirty word in scholarly investigation. We may hope, if

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

generally driven by the evidence; a premature consensus tends to be driven by ideology or

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

well as in popular treatments, where it is usually presented as an established fact. Indeed, it

1
Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, esp. chaps. 3-4.
TomasinoAramaic 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

consideration of the evidence.

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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 3

The Son of God Text

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

text is presented here:4

Column 1

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

2. o ki]ng to the world wrath shall come, and your years
3. ] your vision. All of it will come to pass, forever.
4. ] multitudes. Oppression will come upon the earth
5. ] and great carnage. The cities
6. ] king of Assyria [to E]gypt
7. ] shall become great over the earth
8. w]ill make, and all will s[er]ve5
9. ] he will be called; by his name he shall be designated.

Column 2

1. He shall be designated the son of God; they shall call him the son of the Most High. Like
the comets6

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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 4

2. that you saw, thus shall be their kingdom. Years they shall rule over
3. the earth and they shall trample all. People shall trample people, and nation nation,
4. <VACAT> until the people of God arise and all shall 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 Godwith 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

to the earth by its unconquerable might.

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

indicate that the eschatological scenario envisioned here was inspired by the Book of Daniel.9

Indeed, the text is identified in the catalogue of the Palestinian Archaeology Museum as a

Pseudo-Daniel composition (the Apocryphon of Daniel), and several scholars have

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).
TomasinoAramaic 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.

Interpretations of 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

Gods 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 Miliks 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 Miliks observations were published in Milik, Books of Enoch, p. 60. Most of Miliks reconstruction
of this text has appeared only in Fitzmyers 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 Miliks 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
TomasinoAramaic 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

oppresses the earth?

Since these initial discussions, a variety of studies have emerged expressing various

opinions on the Aramaic son of Gods 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

Antichrist.15 While Flussers choice of the word Antichrist was unfortunate, he

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

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 Godwhich is not necessarily the same thing.
15
Flusser, Hubris, pp. 31-37.
16
Also unfortunate was his argument that the Oracle of Hystaspes demonstrated notion of an Antichrist figure
in early Judaism. The section of the text that he cites from Lactantius clearly imported Christian ideas and
attributed them to the ancient Persian seer.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 7

structure of the apocalypse to be the crucial issue for the interpretation of the text. Puech,

followed by Cook and Steudel, identified the son of God figure as a Seleucid monarch,

perhaps Antiochus Epiphanes.17 Hofius likewise identified him as a usurper of divine

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

dogma. In New Testament introductions, commentaries, and a plethora of web pages, it is

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
Hofius, Thesen p. 109; Knohl, Messiah, pp. 88-95.
19
Hengel, Son of God, p. 45; Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 332.
20
Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, pp. 162-179.
21
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.
TomasinoAramaic 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 Kstenberger: The term Son [of God] was also a

current messianic title in Jesus day.23

The Bases for the Consensus View

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

God unless the usage were titular.25

22
While these sources are too numerous to list, some that specifically mention 4Q246 include Kstenberger,
John, p. 429; Wright, Jesus, p. 485; Green et. al., Dictionary, p. 770; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p. 103;
ONeill, 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
Kstenberger, John, p. 429.
24
Garcia-Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, p. 178. Cf. Fitzmyers 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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 9

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

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

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

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

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

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 angels annunciation to Mary, as well [as] the

Gerasene demoniacs 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, Evanss enthusiasm may perhaps be excused. The New Testaments

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

26
Collins, Scepter, p. 155.
27
Evans, Jesus, p. 94.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 10

source for this title would seem a most welcome development for the historical study of

Christian theology.

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 4Q246s son of God is an interpretation of

Daniels 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 Daniels eschatological

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

of God (2 Sam 7:12-14; Psa 2:7).

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

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 Daniels 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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 11

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

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

into early Christianity, applying them incorrectly to Jesus:31

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,

30
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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 12

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

discoveries have encouraged an interest in re-connecting Jesus to his Judaic roots.

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

discovering a Christology rooted in Judaism rather than Greco-Roman paganism that

Harnack and his school found so appealing.

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

conclusive! To them, the Messiah would be the Son of God!33

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

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.
33
Eastman, Messiah.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 13

the similarities increase the validity of Lukes account, by demonstrating that the angels

announcement to Mary was couched in terms with which she, as a Jew, would have been

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

Some Criticisms of the Consensus View

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 validand in fact, the case for the latter interpretation may be stronger.

Advocates of the messianic interpretation depend heavily on the texts 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 allthere 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

had been no New Testament).

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

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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 14

son of a god. He and his sister were later proclaimed sibling gods.35 Among the Seleucids,

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

Chrysostoms Orationes 4.21, the title son of god is treated as synonymous with the title

king. Thus, if 4Q246s son of God figure was part of the wicked empire, there would be

ample precedence for his divine appellation.39

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

35
Shipley, Greek World, pp. 159-160.
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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 15

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.

Here, the figure designated my (Gods) son is interpreted as the Messiah (Branch of

David). But it is remarkable how this text passes over the issue of the kings 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 Messiahs 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, Gods 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 Gods people (2.4-9). Collins claims that the

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

writing.43

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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 16

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

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

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

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

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

4Q246demonstrates no repetition, but merely a straightforward account of the dream

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

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

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

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

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

triumph of Gods 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

Messiahs 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 Gods

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

eschatological expectations of the texts overlap, as well.44

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

44
Collins, Scepter, p. 159.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will judge all the Gentiles.

But a more significant case appears in I 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

45
Collins, Scepter, p. 161.
46
See further Thiselton, First Corinthians, pp. 425-430.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 18

interpretation of Daniels 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. Daniels primary interest is in the little

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

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

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

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

god, and speak astounding things against the God of Gods (11:36).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 4Q246 seems premature.

An Alternative Interpretation

Although it is not my primary purpose, I would like to propose an alternative reading to

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

47
Such behavior is not unique to Daniels 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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 19

very detailed in their depictions of events that occurred prior to or contemporaneous with the

authors time, presented in the form of ex eventu prophecies. It is when the authors begin

speculating about the future that they tend to become vague.

It is likely that the violent conflicts described in the first section of 4Q246 reflect the

authors 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 eschatologicalsince the

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

identify this son of God figure with Antiochus Epiphanes or any other Seleucid monarch,

because no Seleucid monarch ever bore the title son of God. We must look instead to the

Roman Empire for this appellation.

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. Octavians 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.

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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 20

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

emphasizes issues that were featured in Romes propaganda: the establishment of peace and

order, and the divinity of Caesar.50

We can also observe that this interpretation of 4Q246 is consistent with the texts

literary milieu. In the War Scroll, the Romans (i.e., the Kittim) were facilely transformed into

the eschatological opponent of Gods 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

represent the earliest written expressions of a persistent oral interpretive tradition.

50
Knohl, Messiah, pp. 91-93, also adds the interesting observation that the Romans placed great significance in
a comet that was seen during Octavians 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 Josephuss identification of Daniels 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.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 21

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

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

manuscriptbut how long? There is no compelling reason to insist that the text must have

been composed before the Roman era.

Conclusions: The Dangers of the Consensus

The potentially deleterious effects of the growing consensus regarding the Aramaic

Apocalypses 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 Dunns statement that,

Qumran evidence should have killed stone dead the old view that son of God was not a

53
These include Knohl, Messiah, pp. 91-93; Lendering, Messiah.
54
Puech, Fragment, p. 105.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 22

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

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

promulgation of this interpretation, a generation of textbooks shall remain in circulation for

many years disseminating the incorrect notion that the pre-Christian messianic use of the

son of God title has been conclusively demonstrated.

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 Gods identification seems to have

been closed, particularly by Collinss 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

unfortunate indeed. There is undoubtedly yet much to be learned from an unprejudiced

investigation of this most intriguing text.

55
Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 709.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 23

Bibliography

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

John. Lanham, MD: University Press, 1984.

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

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

Cambridge: University Press, 1892.

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

1996.

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

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

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

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

2005.

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

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

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

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

University Press, 2000.

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

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

1992.
TomasinoAramaic 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1995.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leiden: Brill, 1996.

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

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

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

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

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

TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 25

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

Eerdmans, 2003.

Eastman, Mark. MessiahThe Son of God? Available from Blue Letter Bible

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

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

(Accessed 19 November 2008).

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

Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

Doubleday, 1981.

_______________. 4Q246: The Son of God Document from Qumran. Bib 74 (1993):
153-174.
________________. The One Who Is to Come. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

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

(1980): 31-37.

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

York et. al.: Scribners, 1995.

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

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

InterVarsity, 1992.
TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 26

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

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

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

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

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

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

MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

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

Available from: Prophecy Online Today

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

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

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

Kstenberger, Andreas. John. In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old

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

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

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

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

Press, 1981, 237-258.

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

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

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

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

University Press, 1976.

TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 27

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

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

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

Religionsgeschichte, Gnomon 33 (1961): 584.

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

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

ONeill, J. C. Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Leiden: Brill, 1995.

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

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

Puech, Emile. Fragment dune apocalypse en Aramen (4Q246 = pseudo-Danb) et le

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

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

Roman Empire. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2001.

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

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

Trans. Harold Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

Son of God (2009). Available from: Wikipedia

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

Steudel, Annette. The Eternal reign of the People of GodCollective Expectations in

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

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

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

Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1957 and 1960.

TomasinoAramaic Apocalypse 28

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

1948.

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

Eerdmans, 2000.

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

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

Chicago, 1995.

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

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

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

Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.
London: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Yarbro Collins, Adele. The History of Interpretation B: The Christian Tradition, in Daniel.
Hermeneia Commentary, by John J. Collins. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 102-112.

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

University of Michigan Press, 1988.

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

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

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

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