Bulletin for Biblical Research (BBR) 1997
Bulletin
for Biblical Research 7 (1997) 51-62 [©
1997 Institute for Biblical Research]
The Background of the
"Son of God" Text
JOHN J. COLLINS
THE DIVINITY SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
E.
M. Cook has proposed that the background of 4Q246 is to be found in
Akkadian
prophecies (BBR 5 [1995] 43-66). This interesting suggestion has
the
merit of expanding the horizons of the discussions, but it is not ulti-
mately
persuasive. 4Q246 has far closer parallels, both in its visionary genre
and
in actual phraseology, in the Book of Daniel. The argument that the
"son
of God" should be understood as a negative figure is in no way cor-
roborated
by the alleged Akkadian parallels. The argument still depends on
the
assumption that there is a single turning point in the text, and that
everything
before it is negative. This assumption is not warranted by com-
parison
with other apocalyptic texts. By far the closest parallel to the lan-
guage
of 4Q246 about the "son of God" is found in the Gospel of Luke, where
the
"son of God" is associated with "the throne of David his
father" and so
is
explicitly messianic.
Key
Words: Son of God, messiah, Akkadian prophecies, Luke 1:32, 35;
4Q246;
4Q174; Psalm 2; 2 Samuel 7
4Q246,
better known as the "Son of God" text, was already the sub-
ject
of scholarly debate for twenty years before its official publica-
tion
in 1992, and has attracted renewed attention in recent years.1
Most
of the discussion has focused on the identity of the figure who
is
called "the son of God" and "son of the Most High" in col.
ii, line 1.
Scholarly
opinion is divided between those who regard this figure
as
a future Jewish king (usually identified as the messiah) and those
who
see him as a negative figure (usually a Syrian king).2 The editor
1.
See especially E. Puech, "Fragment d'une apocalypse en araméen (4Q246 =
pseudo-Danield et le 'Royaume de Dieu, " RB 99 (1992) 98-131; J. A. Fitzmyer,
"4Q246:
The
'Son of God' Document from Qumran," Bib 74 (1993) 153-74; J. J.
Collins, "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. M. C. deBoer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: JSOT
Press,
1993) 65-82.
2.
The messianic interpretation was originally proposed by F. M. Cross and the
negative
interpretation by J. T. Milik. Neither scholar has published his full analysis
of
the
text.
52 Bulletin for Biblical Research 7
of
the text, Emile Puech, insists that neither interpretation can be ex-
cluded.
Recently E. M. Cook has offered the most extensive defense
to
date of the negative interpretation, and has also broadened the
discussion
by attempting to place the text in a literary context.3 It is
Cook's
contention that the most convincing background for 4Q246 is
provided
by Akkadian prophecy. The relevance of Akkadian prophecy
to
Jewish apocalyptic literature, especially the Book of Daniel, has
long
been recognized,4 but Cook argues for a direct relationship with
the
Qumran text. I wish to argue, to the contrary, that while there is a
limited
relationship with Akkadian prophecy here, the primary back-
ground
of 4Q246 is provided by Jewish apocalyptic literature and
specifically
by the Book of Daniel. I also remain convinced that the
"son
of God" figure is most plausibly identified as a Jewish messiah.
THE AKKADIAN PROPHECIES
The
Akkadian prophecies in question are a corpus of five texts, rang-
ing
in date from the late twelfth century BCE to the Seleucid period.
The
genre is described as follows by A. K. Grayson:
Akkadian
prophecies are actually pseudo-prophecies, for they consist
in
the main of predictions after the event (vaticinia ex eventu). The pre-
dictions
are divided according to reigns and often begin with some such
phrase
as "a prince will arise." Although the kings are never named it
is
sometimes possible to identify them on the basis of details provided
in
the "prophetic" descriptions. The reigns are characterized as
"good"
or
"bad" and the phraseology is borrowed from omen literature.5
Grayson
goes on to say that "the relation of the prophecies . . . to
divination
is purely stylistic."6 At least some of these texts are pseud-
onymously
ascribed to famous ancient figures (Marduk, Shulgi). In
other
cases, the beginning of the text is lost. These prophecies also
share
some features that are commonplace in ancient Near Eastern
literature.
Statements of the type "there will be a hard time in the
land"
(Uruk obv., line 9) and "confusion, disturbance, and disorder in
the
land" (Text A, first side, ii:13) can be paralleled from many
sources,
not least biblical prophecy.7 Parallels of this sort have little
3.
E. M. Cook, "4Q246," BBR 5 (1995) 43-66.
4.
E.g., W. G. Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic (London:
Athlone, 1978).
5.
A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press,
1975) 13.
6.
Ibid., 16.
7.
E.g., Isa 24:17: "Terror and the pit and the snare are upon you, O
inhabitant of
the
land." See also the remarks of S. A. Kaufman, "Prediction, Prophecy,
and Apocalypse in the
Light
of New Akkadian Texts," in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of
Jewish Studies . . .
13-19 August 1973 (ed. A. Shinan; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies,
1977) 1.227, who
points
to several instances of ex eventu prediction for propagandistic purposes in the
Hebrew
Bible.
COLLINS: The
Background of the "Son of God” Text 53
significance.
The analogy with Jewish apocalyptic writings, and also
with
4Q246, depends on the use of extended ex eventu prophecy and
the
particular, somewhat cryptic, way of referring to successive rul-
ers
("a prince will arise"). It should be noted that a very similar style
of
prophecy is found in the Greek Sibylline Oracles, where a rela-
tionship
to Akkadian prophecy cannot be demonstrated.8
The
purpose of the ex eventu prophecy is to establish that certain
events
that have come to pass were predicted long ago, and thereby
lend
credibility to a real prediction at the end. (In some cases, the end
of
the prophecy is lost.) The Uruk prophecy "predicts" a sequence of
events
culminating in the restoration of Uruk by Nebuchadnezzar II.
It
then concludes: "After him his son will arise as king in Uruk and
rule
the entire world. He will exercise authority and kingship in Uruk,
and
his dynasty will stand forever. The kings of Uruk will exercise
authority
like the gods."9 In this case, the prophecy appears to muster
support
for Awel-Marduk, son of Nebuchadnezzar II, by predicting
that
his dynasty would stand forever. The prophecies do not neces-
sarily
always support and justify the final reign. Grayson has sug-
gested
that the Dynastic Prophecy, which dates from the Hellenistic
period,
may have concluded with the capture of Babylon by Seleu-
cus
I, and characterized his reign as bad. If this is correct, the prophecy
"is
a strong expression of anti-Seleucid sentiment,"10 and would
have
presumably
either predicted or implied the overthrow of the Seleu-
cids.
The argument is tentative, since the end of the text is not extant.
Grayson's
suggestion is significant, however, in drawing attention to
the Babylonian origin and perspective of these oracles. Cook's state-
ment
that "it seems probable that the advent of the Seleucids was ac-
companied
by the dissemination of propaganda, including ex eventu
prophecies
of the Akkadian type" is pure speculation, unsupported
by
any evidence.11
THE BACKGROUND OF THE "SON OF GOD" TEXT
In
support of his contention that the Akkadian prophecies provide
the
most convincing background for 4Q246, Cook offers a list of
twelve
supposed "traits" that the Aramaic and Akkadian texts have
8.
Grayson (Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts, 18) suggests that Sib
Or 3:381-87
may
be Babylonian in origin and related to Akkadian prophecy. But there is no evi-
dence
for Babylonian oracles, sibylline or other, composed in Greek. On the alleged
Babylonian
elements in the Sibylline Oracles, see P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylo-
nisch-hellenistische
Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1923) 63-93; V. Nikiprowetsky, La
troisième
Sibylle (Paris: Mouton, 1970) 39.
9.
Kaufman, "Prediction, Prophecy, and Apocalypse," 224.
10.
Grayson, Babylonian Literary-Historical Texts, 17.
11.
Cook, "4Q246," 65.
54 Bulletin for Biblical Research 7
in
common. On examination, however, this list becomes much less
impressive
than it may initially seem. It is padded with common-
places,
such as "tribulation will come upon the land," "oppression
and
submission," and "'the sword' as a symbol of violence," which
are
in no way distinctive to Akkadian prophecies. Even some of the
less
commonplace motifs have biblical parallels closer to hand. The
phrase
"his kingdom is an eternal kingdom" is paralleled more ex-
actly
in Daniel than in the Uruk prophecy. "He shall judge the land
in
truth" recalls Isa 11:3-4. The idea that "the great God is his help,
he
himself shall fight for him," would hardly bring Marduk to the
mind
of a Jewish reader.12 Some of the parallels require sleight of
hand.
"The people of God will arise" is offered as a parallel to "a
prince
will arise." The last line of 4Q246 col. i is read as "[his
son] will
be
called Great, and by his name he will be designated." This pro-
vides
a parallel to Akkadian prophecies about the succession of sons
only
because Cook has restored it so as to create the parallel; "his son"
is
not extant in the Aramaic. The meteors of col. ii line 1 are compared
to
"astrological omens of Text B." But the scholars who edited the
Akkadian
texts have long recognized that Text B does not belong to
the
genre of Akkadian prophecies.13 When all this padding is stripped
away
we are left with only one parallel that gives any reason to sug-
gest
a relationship to Akkadian prophecy. This is in 4Q246 col. v, which
Cook
construes to read "A prince of nations [will arise]." The text is
fragmentary
and problematic, and no other scholar has construed it
in
this way. Even if Cook is right, however, we must bear in mind that
precisely
this stylistic feature of Akkadian prophecy is also paralleled
in
Dan 8:23-25 and 11:3-45.14
Only
three words are preserved in 4Q246 line 5:
)tnyd[m]bX br Nwry#$xnw[
Another
lacuna follows in the next line. Cook reads )tnyd[ml], but the
trace
of the first letter descends vertically, and cannot be lamed. The
dot
of ink above the line, which Cook takes to be part of a lamed, is
too
far to the right. The upper stroke in the other lameds in this text,
are
either vertical or incline slightly to the left. In no case is the upper
tip
to the right of the lower part of the letter. Cook's translation,
"prince
of nations," must at least be emended to "a prince in the city
(or
province)."15
12.
See the biblical and Jewish parallels cited by Puech, "Fragment,"
122.
13.
Grayson, Babylonian Literary-Historical Texts, 15.
14.
Ibid., 21; Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic, 9.
15.
On the meaning of )nydm see J. A. Fitzmyer, The
Genesis Apocryphon from
Qumran Cave I (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1971) 138.
COLLINS: The
Background of the "Son of God” Text 55
Most
scholars who have commented on this text have taken br as
an
adjective qualifying Nwry#$xn, which is taken as a
singular noun.
Cook
objects that "there is no such word as Nwry#$xn," and that "the
word
is the plural of the normal Aramaic form wry#$xn." He does not
specify
where he finds this "normal" form. Presumably it is in Syriac,
and
in a single occurrence of the emphatic )twry#$xn in a medieval
manuscript
of the Aramaic Levi apocryphon from the Cairo Geniza.16
The
word is derived from Persian, and extremely rare in any form in
Aramaic.
It occurs in Hebrew in 1QM 1. This sparse attestation hardly
warrants
the finality of Cook's pronouncement. We may grant, how-
ever,
that it is better to read a form of the word that is attested once
than
one that is never attested at all. If Nwry#$xn is a plural, then br
must
introduce a new sentence, which is largely lost in the lacuna.
It
can be construed in more than one way; e.g. one might propose br
brq
)tnyd[m]bX ("great war in the city/province") or a similar
con-
struction.
I find Cook's proposal attractive, however, and I am in-
clined
to accept it. I merely want to make the point that the text is
very
uncertain, and that it provides a shaky foundation for the inter-
pretation
of the document.
If
we accept Cook's reading of line 5, we have one plausible in-
stance
of an idiom of Akkadian style prophecy in 4Q246. Col. i line 7,
("he
will be chief [br] over the land")
may be considered a second in-
stance.
Because of the fragmentary nature of the text, we cannot be
sure
how these figures are connected or related. In-between there is
mention
of "the king of Assyria and Egypt" but we do not know
whether
he is identical with either figure who is called br or even
whether
the phrase refers to one figure (Cook) or two (Puech). It is
probably
safe to say that the column refers to a sequence of at least
two
kings, possibly more. Is this point of resemblance sufficient to es-
tablish
Cook's conclusion that "the Akkadian prophecies provide the
most
convincing background for 4Q246"?
Not
quite. Fragmentary though the opening column is, it still pre-
serves
some clear indications of the genre of the text. It is an in-
terpretation
of a vision. Col. i, line 3, refers to "your vision." Col. ii,
line
1, refers to "the meteors that you saw." The opening lines describe
how
someone "fell before the throne." Cook himself interprets these
lines
as follows: "At the reception of divine inspiration, the inter-
preter
falls before the throne, implying that the figure requiring his
divinely
given interpretive powers is a king or other royal figure."17
Such
a scene finds no parallel in the Akkadian prophecies; they are
never
presented as interpretations of visions. There are, however,
16.
Cf. Puech, "Fragment," 112.
17.
Cook, "4Q246," 49.
56 Bulletin for Biblical Research 7
obvious
parallels to this scene in Jewish tradition, as even Cook rec-
ognizes:
"The situation, then, is similar to the biblical stories about
Daniel
or Joseph." The content of the interpretation is especially rem-
iniscent
of Daniel, even in those details that find parallels in the
Akkadian
prophecies, such as the succession of kings. Most notably,
two
phrases in column 2 correspond exactly to phrases in Daniel; in
Cook's
translation: "His kingdom is an eternal kingdom" (Dan 3:33;
7:27)
and "His dominion is an eternal dominion" (Dan 4:31; 7:14).18
These
parallels with Daniel are far more precise than anything ad-
duced
from the Akkadian prophecies, and there is no uncertainty
about
the readings or the construal of the text. They suggest that the
most
convincing background of 4Q246 is not to be found in Akka-
dian
prophecy but in Jewish apocalyptic visions. Cook's own reading
of
col. i, line 2, "to the world wrath is coming," also strongly
suggests
an
apocalyptic context.
Other
parallels confirm this conclusion. Craig Evans has pointed
to
parallels with Isa 10:20-11:16, a passage that is interpreted in a
messianic
sense in other Qumran texts, and also in the targum.19 As-
syria and Egypt figure in both texts. Both passages speak of a figure
who
"will judge the earth in truth" and who "will bring peace to the
land."
(Note especially the terminological parallels in the targ um).
There
are also noteworthy parallels in 1QM 1 (ry#$xn, Assyria and
Egypt, the people of God), a
passage that is also conspicuously in-
debted
to the Book of Daniel.
THE INTERPRETATION OF 4Q246
Recognition
of the appropriate background material makes a signifi-
cant
difference in the interpretation of the text. Cook proceeds on
the
assumption that it is largely ex eventu prophecy, like the Akkadian
texts.
The reconstruction of col. i, line 9, is crucial for this interpre-
tation.
Cook translates:
"[Likewise
his son] will be called The Great
And
by his name he will be designated."
The
words in brackets, which do not exist in the text, determine the
interpretation.
By restoring the text in this way, Cook makes the text
speak
of a dynastic succession, from father to son, in a way that is
paralleled
in the Akkadian texts. But the only "son" mentioned in
the
Aramaic text is "the son of God" in col. ii, line 1. The latter
figure
must
also be the referent in col. i, line 9; there is no indication of a
18. Pace Cook, "their kingdom" is not a possible variant
translation of htwklm.
19.
Craig Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries (AGJU 25; Leiden: Brill, 1995)
108.
COLLINS: The
Background of the "Son of God” Text 57
change
of referent at the beginning of col. ii. If we ask by whose name
this
figure will be designated, we are given our answer in col. ii,
line
1: "He will be called the son of God and the son of the Most
High
they will call him." The internal evidence of the text, then, re-
quires
that some reference to God/ the Most High be restored in the
lacuna
as the antecedent of "his name." Puech's suggestion, "[Son of]
the
great [Lord] he will be called" is plausible, and, unlike that of
Cook,
does not introduce any idea that is not already found in the
text.
Cook,
however, contends (p. 62) that "if the reconstruction given
here
is correct, the historical referent must be sought in a king of both
Assyria
(= Syria) and Egypt who is succeeded by a (sic!) arrogant son
of
the same name." He goes on to argue (p. 64) that "the Maccabean
revolt
immediately suggests itself as the true referent of 'the rise
of
the people of God.' The 'son of God,' in that case, would be Anti-
ochus
IV Epiphanes, a supposition that fits our textual reconstruction
('[also
his son] shall be called Great, and by his name [Antiochus] he
shall
be designated'). The extension of the Seleucid realm under
Antiochus
III to include Palestine might be referred to in the frag-
mentary
first column . . . "
But
this reconstruction is clearly wrong on two counts. Antiochus
Epiphanes
was not called "the Great" and Antiochus III was never
king
of both Syria and Egypt. To suggest that he was called king of
Egypt because he conquered Palestine (if that is what Cook means) is
without
any hint of support in any ancient text, and would be lu-
dicrous
in any case. There is a passage in Porphyry of Tyre (third
century
CE) that claims that Antiochus IV Epiphanes defrauded his
nephew
Ptolemy Philometor and had himself crowned king of Egypt
during
his first invasion of that country in 169, but Otto Mørkholm
has
shown that this account crumbles at a close scrutiny, and that
Epiphanes
"certainly did not assume the crown of Egypt in 169."20
The
only king who might be said to have ruled both Syria and Egypt
was
Alexander the Great, but there is no reason why he should ever
be
referred to as king of [As]syria and Egypt.
Cook's
assumption that "the rise of the people of God" must refer
to
the Maccabean revolt is simplistic, and oblivious to the great bulk
of
Jewish apocalyptic literature. Virtually all Jewish apocalypses of
the
historical type conclude with "the rise of the people of God" in
some
form or other (e.g., the rule of "the people of the holy ones of the
Most
High" in Daniel or the salvation of the people of God in 1QM
20.
O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel,
1966)
83. 1 Macc 1:16 claims that Epiphanes aspired to become king of Egypt and rule
over
both kingdoms, but does not say that he did so.
58 Bulletin for Biblical Research 7
1:5).
In all the apocalypses, this is an eschatological event that remains
in
the future. Even the apocalypses that appear to be pro-Maccabean
(the
Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch) do
not
regard the rise of the Maccabees as the fulfillment of history. It is
far
more likely that the rise of the people of God is a future, escha-
tological
event here too.
In
fact, if the reference to "the king of Assyria and Egypt" in col-
umn
1 is to a single king, it is likely that the entire interpretation of
the
vision is future (relating to "the wrath to come") and that there
is
no ex eventu prophecy here at all. Even if the reference is to a king
of
Syria and a king of Egypt (as Puech suggests), this could still be
part
of an eschatological scenario, as we can see from the first col-
umn
of the War Scroll, where the Kittim of Assyria and the Kittim of
Egypt are mentioned
separately.
THE "SON OF GOD"
The
identity of the figure who is called "the son of God" is not ul-
timately
determined by the background material against which the
text
is read, important though this is. The argument turns on the con-
strual
of the logical progression of the text. The reference to the "Son
of
God" is followed by a situation where "people will trample on
people
and city on city, until the people of God arises (or: until he
raises
up the people of God)." There is a lacuna before the word "un-
til"
which strengthens the impression that this is a point of transition
in
the text. Those who see the "son of God" as a negative figure read
the
text on the assumption that events are reported in strict chro-
nological
sequence. They infer that the "son of God" belongs to the
time
of distress, and so must be a negative, evil figure. This inference
is
not warranted by comparison with other apocalyptic texts. It is quite
typical
of apocalyptic literature that the same events are repeated
several
times in different terms. Apocalypses such as Daniel, the Si-
militudes
of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and Revelation all juxtapose mul-
tiple
visions that go over the same ground with different imagery.
Within
the single chapter of Daniel 7, the same events are presented
first
in the form of a vision, then in two successive interpretations, so
that
the kingdom is given, in turn, to the "one like a son of man," the
holy
ones of the Most High and finally to the people of the Holy Ones.
I
have argued elsewhere that 4Q246 should be read in this way, so
that
the coming of the "Son of God" parallels the rise of the people
of
God rather than precedes it.21 It is true that the repetitions in
21.
Collins, "The 'Son of God' Text," 70-71; The Scepter and the Star (New York:
Doubleday,
1995) 158.
COLLINS: The
Background of the "Son of God” Text 59
Daniel
7 are occasioned by the process of interpretation, and this is
not
overtly the case in 4Q246. The Qumran text does, however, refer
to
a vision in col. i, and the remainder of the text is presumably the
interpretation
of that vision. Even Cook admits that the setting of
this
text is especially reminiscent of Daniel, and that some phrases
are
found verbatim in both texts. These correspondences raise the pos-
sibility
that 4Q246 is dependent on Daniel. If that were the case, the
repetitions
in Daniel 7 would be highly relevant to our understanding
of
4Q246. Even if the parallel with Daniel 7 is not accepted, however,
a
second consideration should warn against the simple sequential
understanding
of the text. The appearance of a savior figure does not
inevitably
mean that the time of strife is over. In Dan 12:1 the rise of
Michael
is followed by "a time of anguish, such as has never occurred
since
nations first came into existence." No one suggests that Michael
therefore
belongs to the time of distress and is a negative figure. In
4
Ezra 13, the apparition of the man from the sea is followed by the
gathering
of an innumerable multitude to make war on him. The
strife
that follows his coming is described in terms that directly par-
allel
4Q246: "and they shall plan to make war against one another,
city
against city, place against place, people against people and king-
dom
against kingdom" (4 Ezra 13:31). It is possible then that the text
envisages
an interval of warfare between the apparition of the deliv-
erer
and the actual deliverance. So, while the order of the text may
suggest prima facie that the figure who appears is called "son of God"
belongs
to the era of wickedness, this is not necessarily the case.
Two
other factors strongly suggest that the one who is called
"son
of God" is accepted as a positive figure in this text. First, the title
is
never disputed, and no judgment is passed on this figure after the
people
of God arises. Cook cites several examples of biblical polemic
against
the divine pretensions of foreign rulers. In each case, how-
ever,
the figure in question is unambiguously condemned. Isa 14:13-
14,
cited by Cook, continues in v. 15: "But you are brought down to
Sheol,
to the depths of the pit" (not cited by Cook),. In Ezekiel 28 the
one
who says "I am god" is told unambiguously: "you are not a god
but
a man." In Psalm 82, the "sons of the Most High" are told:
"you
shall
die as men do, fall like any prince." The hybristic pretensions of
Antiochus
Epiphanes in Daniel 8 and 11 lead directly and very ex-
plicitly
to his downfall. It would be truly extraordinary if the figure
in
4Q246 were an impostor and this was never pointed out. Second,
by
far the closest parallel to the titles in question is explicitly messi-
anic.
In Luke 1:32 the angel Gabriel tells Mary that her child "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. He will reign over
the
house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
60 Bulletin for Biblical Research 7
In
1:35 he adds: "he will be called the Son of God." The Greek titles
"son
of the Most High" and "Son of God" correspond exactly to the
Aramaic
fragment from Qumran. (Note also the reference in both
texts
to an everlasting kingdom). The fact that these parallels are
found
in the New Testament does not lessen their relevance to the
cultural
context of the Qumran text. Neither Cook nor anyone else
has
been able to adduce a parallel of comparable precision from any
other
source. Whether Luke is dependent on the Qumran text or
the
parallel is due to "coincidental use by Luke of Palestinian Jewish
titles
known to him"22 makes little difference for the significance of
the
parallel. Luke would hardly have used the Palestinian Jewish
titles
with reference to the messiah if they were hitherto associated
negatively
with a Syrian king.
The
messianic connotation of "son of God," when applied to a
future
king,23 has its basis in two biblical texts. In Nathan's oracle in
2
Samuel 7, God promises David: "Moreover, the Lord will make you
a
house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your an-
cestors,
I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth
from
your body, and I will establish his kingdom. . . . I will be a father
to
him and he shall be a son to me." This text is the Magna Carta of
Da-
vidic
messianism. When the Davidic line lapsed in the Second Temple
period,
this text was the basis of hope that it would be restored. Cf.
Jer
33:20-21: "If any of you could break my covenant with the day
and
my covenant with the night, so that day and night would not
come
at their appointed time, only then could my covenant with my
servant
David be broken, so that he would not have a son to reign on
his
throne . . . " The second text that refers to the king as son of God
is
Psalm 2: "Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in
vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take coun-
sel
together against the Lord and his anointed (wxy#$m) . . . I will tell of
the
decree of the Lord: He said to me, 'You are my son; today I have
begotten
you."
The
Psalms and the historical books were regarded as a store of
prophetic
utterances by the Dead Sea sect. Both 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7
are
cited in an eschatological midrash, 4Q174 (the Florilegium). The
"anointed"
of Psalm 2 is read as a plural and interpreted with refer-
ence
to God's elect people.24 The interpretation of 2 Sam 7:14, how-
22.
Fitzmyer, "4Q246," 174.
23.
For the full range of meanings of the title "Son of God," see M.
Hengel, The
Son
of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic
Religion (Phil-
adelphia:
Fortress, 1976).
24.
The psalm is interpreted in a messianic sense in the Midrash on Psalms and
in b. Sukk. 52a (Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries, 97).
COLLINS: The
Background of the "Son of God” Text 61
ever,
is explicitly messianic: "[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."
If
the "son of God" text is read as messianic, it fits nicely with
everything
we know about the Davidic/royal messiah in the Scrolls.
He
functions as a warrior to subdue the Gentiles: God will make war
on
his behalf and cast peoples down before him. Cook's interpreta-
tion,
in contrast, requires us to posit a kind of Seleucid propaganda
for
which there is no other evidence.25 It also requires us to suppose
that
Luke applied to Jesus, without explanatory comment, a title that
had
hitherto in Palestine carried "overtones of (spurious) divinity." I
find
such suppositions implausible and unnecessary.
CONCLUSION
The
results of our discussion may be summarized as follows:
1.
4Q246 is an eschatological prophecy presented as the interpreta-
tion of a vision. The closest parallels are found in Jewish apoca-
lyptic writings, especially in the Book of Daniel. The features of
Akkadian prophecy found in this text are also found in Daniel.
2.
Cook's attempt to read this text as an ex eventu prophecy of
Antiochus III and his son Antiochus IV fails. No Seleucid was
ever king of both Syria and Egypt. The extant text never refers to
anyone as the son of another human ruler.
3.
The sequential logic of the text does not require us to regard
everything prior to the rise of the people of God as negative. In
apocalyptic writings we often find continued conflict after the
initial manifestation of the savior figure (Daniel 12; 4 Ezra 13).
4.
By far the closest parallel to the language of 4Q246 col. ii line 1
("he shall be called the son of God") is found in Luke 1:32, 35,
where the relevant terms are explicitly messianic. The messianic
interpretation of 4Q246 remains overwhelmingly probable.
25.
Cook, "4Q246," 55.
|