The Aramaic text 4Q246, better known as the “Son of God” text, is a document that has attracted an enormous amount of attention. Only two columns of the text are preserved with the first column torn in half. The fragmentary nature of the text makes it difficult for scholars to be certain of the activities, events, even persons who may be described within it. There is, however, clear mention of distress that will come upon the land, of the disastrous reign of enemies, but which will be short lived. This will last until there “arises the people of God and everyone rests from the sword” (2.4). The opening lines of the completely preserved second column mention a significant figure who is referred to as “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High.” The importance of these epithets is indisputable since they are the very same titles used in Luke 1:32-35 in reference to Jesus of Nazareth. However, the interpretations on the identity of this mysterious “Son of God” figure in its pre-Christian, Jewish setting have differed greatly. Differing restorations of the fragmentary first column have been proposed by various scholars, who base their restorations on their interpretations of this significant “Son of God” figure. In a previous paper, I discussed philological considerations regarding the Aramaic language of this text. The focus of this paper is to survey the major proposed interpretations suggested by scholars on the identity of the mysterious “Son of God” figure.
J. T. Milik: The Seleucid King, Alexander Balas
Any discussion on the interpretations of the “Son of God” in 4Q246 must begin with the work of J. T. Milik, who was the first to present this text in a lecture given at Harvard University in 1972. His views were made known within published works by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. According to Milik, a seer, moved by the spirit , kneels down before the throne of God and gives a historical description of the Seleucid period, as far as 2.4. From this point begins the description of global peace which is to come. The narrative of the coming evils would thus have an historical (not eschatological) character and the mysterious “Son of God” involved would be none other than Alexander Balas, son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and successor to Demetrius I Soter. According to Milik, those titles would suit him admirably since he appears as “Deo Patre Natus” and on coins. Thus, Milik reconstructs 1.9 as follows:
hnkty hmvbw arqty ab[r aklm tplx hl] // !wvmvy alkw
And all of them will serve [him. Successor of the G]reat [King] he will be called and with his name will he name himself.
That king would be no other than Alexander the Great, and Alexander Balas bore, in fact, his very name.
This interpretation by Milik is problematic for several reasons. First, it does not seem likely that a Jewish text of such importance would tolerate such an exalted title such as “Son of God,” “Son of the Most High,” or “Great King” (his restoration of 1.9) to a pagan king. As John Collins says, “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 is his downfall.” Cross also criticizes the identity of a pagan king and says that the Aramaic titles found in 2.1 (“Son of God” and “Son of the Most High”) are given in their Hebrew forms, not their Aramaic forms. He suggests that this makes it implausible that they be applied to anyone but an Israelite king. Second, it is not certain that the throne in this text is to be seen as the throne of God, as Milik suggested. It seems more fitting to picture the throne of a king here. A description of the course of the story before the king is perfectly in line with prophetic conduct and with the Book of Daniel, whose influence in col. 2 is obvious. Of a still more serious character and with no textual basis is the introduction of the mention of the “Great king” and of the idea of “succession.” According to García Martínez, even if one admits that the mysterious personage referred to be Alexander Balas, what is the meaning of the titles applied to him in this text? We do know that Balas bestowed the high priesthood onto Jonathan, but are we to conclude from this that the author of the text was a member of the Maccabean party and that he was therefore satisfied with the pagan titles of the Seleucid king, or whether he was an opponent of the Maccabeans and the Seleucids and his inclusion of the titles has no other purpose than that of identifying the enemy?
Messianic Interpretations of Collins and Cross
The majority of scholars who have studied this text hold to the interpretation that the “Son of God” is a messianic figure. This survey will describe the works of two such scholars, namely, John Collins and Frank Cross. John Collins considers the use of the title “Son of God” to be an early interpretation of the “one like the Son of Man” in Daniel 7:14. He admits that the word “messiah” is not (and most likely was not) in 4Q246. However, in defense of his messianic identification of the Son of God, he says that during the times 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 meaning beyond its base etymological sense of “the anointed one.” Collins says that reference to the “anointed one of the Lord” in Psalm 2:2 was originally written with reference to an earthly king, not of someone who was expected in the future. But he also says that passages like Psalm 2:2 in the Psalms as well as in the Prophets were commonly interpreted later as referring to that expected “Messianic” figure, who would restore the kingdom of Israel, and who was often conceived in a highly idealized way. Thus Collins states, “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.”
Frank Cross also identifies the “Son of God” as a messianic figure. 1.7-9 are fragmentary lines, which Cross restores as follows:
a[ra l[ hwhl br [$lm Xna rb ~wqyw]
!wXmXy alkw !wdb[[y Xna lkw hlk]
hnkty hmXbw arqty ab[r ahla Xydq hl]
7[And there shall arise a son of man] / He shall be a great king over the whole earth
8[And all mankind] shall serve [him] / And all shall minister [9to him
[The Holy One of the great God he shall be called / And by his name he shall be surnamed
Cross reconstructs the sequence of messianic epithets from 1.7 to 2.1, “Son of Man,” “Great King,” “Holy One of the great God,” all of which fit nicely in the lacunae. Not only do these epithets fit well with those preserved titles (“Son of God,” “Son of the Most High”), but they are the same titles found in Luke 1:32-35. Cross says that the epithets in Luke “are so striking as to suggest, if not require, that the author of the hymn quoted in Luke is dependent on a Danielic text very much like the one in 4Q246.”
As predominant as this interpretation of the “Son of God” may be, it has also faced opposition. Joseph Fitzmyer is one who has rejected this messianic interpretation of the “Son of God,” and he has done so for the following reasons:
1. The word xyXm does not occur in the text, and to import it is gratuitous.
2. The titles “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High” have background in the Old Testament, but there is no clear Old Testament passage where either of these titles is used of a figure called xyXm.
3. Many Old Testament passages that speak of a person being “anointed” must be understood generically as indicative of a divine guarantee for the future of the Davidic household, or dynasty, and that “anointed one” may be part of the continuation or even restoration of that monarchy of old. In other words, such passages express eschatological hope, but not directly eschatological messianism.
Fitzmyer does say that a lively messianic expectation existed in the Qumran community, that such an expectation was bipolar, expecting both a Davidic and a priestly Messiah. But he insists that there is nothing in the Old Testament or in the pre-Christian Palestinian Jewish tradition that shows that “Son of God” had a messianic nuance. To read any messianism into this text is to force a Christian interpretation upon a pre-Christian, Jewish text.
García Martínez: Heavenly-Super-Messiah
Still another interpretation is that of García Martínez. After analyzing various interpretations and finding them insufficient, he proposed interpreting the “Son of God” as an “eschatological liberator of angelic (or nonhuman) nature.” The figure that García Martínez envisions is one similar to Melchizedek in 11QMelch, the Prince of Light in 1QM, the archangel Michael, or even the “Son of Man” figure from Dan. 7. He uses the term “angelic” to describe this figure; however, he admits that such a term can be misleading since angels did not receive an anointing. For that reason, the better term that he prefers is “superhuman” because there is a human component to this figure as well.
Not only does he see the “Son of God” as such a “superhuman” agent of eschatological salvation, he says that this is in fact an eschatological, or “heavenly messiah.” In his defense that such a “Super-Messiah” was anticipated in Judaism at the time of the Qumran community, he says, “And yet it seems difficult to avoid using the adjective messianic to characterize this figure, since the functions attributed to him are messianic in nature. This seems to require a semantic widening of the term messiah to enable us to apply it to figures which are presented not only as human but also as superhuman.” Specifically in reference to the “Son of God” in 4Q246, he says, “He [Son of God] is thus a messiah, an almost divinized messiah, similar to Melchizedek and the heavenly Son of Man.” Thus he believes it is justified to use the term “heavenly messiah” in reference to this “Son of God” figure in this text, in spite of the fact that the term “messiah” does not seem to be used.
Fitzmyer: Coming, non-Messianic Jewish Ruler
In contrast to the Messianic interpretation is the identification made by Joseph Fitzmyer. He considers the “Son of God” as a coming Jewish ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, who is a successor to the Davidic throne, but who is not envisaged as a Messiah. Fitzmyer says, “the text should be understood as a sectarian affirmation of God’s provision and guarantee of the Davidic dynasty.” Thus he restores 1.9 as arqty ab[r la rb awhw], which he translates “(For) he shall be called son of the great God.” He bases this restoration upon 2.7, where la rb is used. He also says that the title may be inspired by 2 Sam. 7:14. Although this passage (along with Ps. 2:7-8) refers to a future, enthroned figure from the line of David as the “son of God,” he does not believe that this title refers to a Messianic figure. In fact, Fitzmyer believes that many Old Testament passages used to support the Messianic interpretation of the “Son of God” are to be understood generically of a guarantee of the future Davidic household or dynasty. He says, “Such passages refer to persons who have been ‘anointed,’ but they are not Messiahs.”
García Martínez raises several objections to Fitzmyer’s interpretation. He says that Fitzmyer implies a link between the emergence of the mysterious “Son of God” figure and the pacification, which is not found in the preserved text. He also states that it does not seem likely that, after an apparent peace-making arrangement, according to his reconstruction, the text continues to talk of one people crushing another people and one city another one.
David Flusser: Anti-Christ
Other than the position of J. T. Milik, every interpretation described thus far has viewed the “Son of God” as a positive figure, a protagonist. However, Milik was not the only one to offer a negative interpretation. David Flusser identified the “Son of God” as the leader of the destructive nations described within the text, and is representative of the figure that will develop into the Anti-Christ described within Christian writings. According to Flusser, the true protagonist of the text “is not a Messiah, but Israel, the people of God who will be then the guarantor of world peace.” For Flusser, the vacat which opens 2.4 is the beginning of a new section, describing the rise and victory of the people of God. Thus, everything that precedes this line describes this destructive leader. All those who hold to a negative interpretation of the “Son of God” make this similar argument regarding the structure of the text with the transition from a negative section to a positive one at 2.4. Thus, Émile Puech says, “This way of understanding the general structure and interpreting the contexts is the only acceptable one.”
Flusser compares the “Son of God” to the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess. 1:1-12, “Beast of the Sea” in Rev. 13:8-12, as well as with other non-biblical, apocalyptic texts, such as the Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-16 and the Oracles of Hystaspes. Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-16 speaks of the incarnation of a negative figure, in whom all peoples will believe and to whom they will sacrifice, and the Oracles of Hystaspes describes one who will be destroy humanity, call himself God, and orders that he himself be worshipped. Thus, the Qumran texts speak of the “hubris” of such an Anti-Christ.
As noteworthy as these parallels may be, Flusser’s position rests primarily on a false understanding of the verb !wdb[y (1.8) as a Hebraism to mean “worship.” However, as both García Martínez and Fitzmyer have pointed out, the bigger failure is that he ignores the obvious Christian elements of the texts used, which indeed condition the formulations and give a different content to the expressions used. Flusser rightly points to the transition in the text in 2.4. It does not follow, however, that everything that precedes it is negative. It is characteristic of apocalyptic texts to describe themes or time-periods repeatedly through various different perspectives. As an example, John Collins suggests that Daniel 7 (which many scholars believe to be the background text for 4Q246) narrates the giving of the kingdom to the people of God three times, and this is not to be interpreted as three different events.
Émile Puech: Antiochus IV Epiphanes
Interestingly, Émile Puech interprets the “Son of God” very similarly to Milik. Where Milik identified the “Son of God” as the Seleucid king Alexander Balas, Puech identifies him as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He says, “But for historical background I have preferred a somewhat earlier Seleucid period and identified him with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, son of Antiochus III the Great, even if at the end of the preliminary edition I did not totally exclude a possible messianic interpretation.” He agrees with Fitzmyer that the absence of the word messiah confirms that this is not in fact a messianic figure. However, where Fitzmyer continues to view the “Son of God” positively (a Jewish king), Puech views him negatively (Antiochus IV Epiphanes).
One compelling defense of his interpretation is in his analysis of the overall structure of the text, an argument used by Flusser in his defense of an Anti-Christ interpretation. He sees the structure of this text as being in two parts. The first covers 1.1-2.3, in which negative descriptions are given, i.e. tribulations on earth, wars, slaughters between nations. It is in this section that the “Son of God” is mentioned, who is seen as taking upon himself this title of deity. Thus Puech sees that such a description fits very well with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who in 2 Maccabees 9:8-12 is described as possessing a near superhuman boastfulness and in Daniel 11:36-38 as arrogant and blaspheming, magnifying himself above every god. Only with the vacat in 2.4 does the positive part begin with the rise of the people of God and their subsequent receiving of the kingdom in peace.
It should be noted that Puech’s position is not very clear, and different scholars have understood him differently. Fitzmyer suggests that because he was allowed to publish this text by Milik he did not want to “reject outright Milik’s interpretation. Yet his otherwise wide-ranging discussion of the document in a messianic sense reveals where his preference lies.” Prior to his publication of the editio princeps, Puech published two preliminary articles, in which his opinion was not yet established on the identity of the “Son of God.” According to Puech, he only allowed for the possibility of a messianic interpretation in those earlier publications, but never explicitly held to such a view. Thus, he states, “I never proposed Alexander Balas as a candidate as Collins has wrongly attributed to me, nor ‘a forthright messianic interpretation of this Aramaic document.’” Although it is conceivable that his earlier publications did not exclude a messianic interpretation, it is clear from recent publications that he now strongly holds to the interpretation of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the “Son of God” in this text.
Edward Cook: Antiochus IV Epiphanes
Edward Cook is yet another scholar who holds to a negative interpretation of the “Son of God.” However, Cook’s analysis of the text is very new and insightful, and offers the most extensive defense to date of a negative interpretation . It is Cook’s contention that the most convincing background for 4Q246 is provided by Akkadian prophecy. In fact, Cook argues that there is a direct relationship with between Akkadian prophecy texts and this “Son of God” text.
In addition to common literary elements and expressions which the two texts share, Cook also suggests that 4Q246 shares the method of Akkadian prophecies to “foretell” history in terms of the rise of a series of unnamed rulers, their reigns characterized as either disastrous or propitious. The final ruler is the series always inaugurates an era of prosperity. He suggests that the purpose of 4Q246, like the Akkadian prophecies, was for political propaganda to support and justify the final reign. This discussion on the intent and purpose of 4Q246 is new, not having been adequately dealt with in previous publications. According to Cook, if we assume that 4Q246 is to be characterized as political propaganda, then the Maccabean revolt immediately suggests itself as the true referent of the rise of the people of God. Consequently, Cook is lead to seriously adopt Puech’s interpretation: “The ‘son of god,’ in that case, would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and his father would be Antiochus III the Great.” He suggests that the extension of the Seleucid realm under Antiochus III to include Palestine might be referred to in the fragmentary first column, and the continual battles with the Ptolemies is behind hnydml hnydmw Xwdy ~[l ~[, “people will crush people, nation (will crush) nation” (2.3).
There is a significant difference between the Akkadian prophecies and its Qumran counterpart. The message in 4Q246 is almost a near reversal of Akkadian prophecy that is most closely resembles, the Uruk prophecy. The end of that Akkadian text tells of the rise of a benevolent ruler, who is succeeded by a son, who then initiates an eternal dynasty. For Cook, 4Q246 reflects a similar scenario with the rise of a father and son, but their reign is brief hwht !htwklm !k atyzx yd ayqyzk, “like the comets which you saw, thus shall their kingdom be” (2.1-2). The eternal kingdom belongs to the people of God, as does the eternal dynasty and peace. In response to this clear reversal, Cook suggests that this text is to be seen as an example of Judean “counter-prophecy” to the prophecies possibly used by the Seleucids. According to Cook, it is conceivable that the advent of the Seleucids was accompanied by the dissemination of these Akkadian-type prophecies as propaganda to speak favorably of the Seleucid reign. Seen from this perspective, Cook suggests that 4Q246 is understood as a sample of Jewish counter-propaganda to the Seleucid, “which resulted in turning the Akkadian prophecy genre against itself.”
The entire notion of Akkadian prophecy texts as the literary background to 4Q246 is a novel suggestion that has merit of expanding discussions on this text. However, scholars who hold to a positive interpretation of the “Son of God,” such as John Collins, are not persuaded. In response to Cook, Collins states that he is ultimately unconvinced by Cook’s suggestions, although very intrigued by them . The reasons for his rejection are:
1. The parallels to the Akkadian prophecy texts are still conjectures, whereas the allusions to Jewish apocalypticism, such as the Book of Daniel (specifically Daniel 7 ) are explicit and obvious. The apparent parallels with the Akkadian prophecy texts may be indirect since the Book of Daniel and the Akkadian prophecies share similar features.
2. Antiochus IV Epiphanes was never called “the Great” and Antiochus III was never king of both Syria and Egypt. In fact, no Seleucid king ever reigned over those two regions.
3. If the “Son of God” figure was indeed a reference to a Seleucid king at the time of the Maccabean revolt, it stands to reason that such a figure would be subject to judgment. No such judgment is passed when the people of God arises.
4. As we have seen Collins argue before, the sequential logic of the text does not require us to regard everything prior to the rise of the people of God as negative since apocalyptic texts often repeat an event over and over again.
5. The closest parallel to the titles found in 4Q246 2.1 are those found in Luke 1:32-35.
Concluding Remarks
The work done by Edward Cook is significant. Surprisingly, Collins is the only scholar to have published a response to the comments made by Cook. In addition to his literary analysis of 4Q246 and its impact on the interpretation of the “Son of God,” Cook also offers insightful, and often times persuasive, remarks regarding philological matters on the text (eg. hta in 1.2, 3 is the G participle and not the 2ms independent pronoun). Collins offers no challenge to Cook’s linguistic arguments; in fact, he admits that he is inclined to follow Cook’s reading in at least one area (br in 1.5 is the start of a new poetic line and is identifying a significant individual ). However, much of the linguistic and syntactic work of Cook remains unanswered, and such philological considerations may prove to be insightful in answering the larger questions this text elicits.
Cook also raises questions regarding the “parallelism” of this text, and even attempts a stichometric breakdown, as does Puech. Naturally, this raises questions regarding the prosody of this text, an area of study that has received no attention. If such prosodic constraints can be determined (or measured), what of the larger structure? The lines in column two seem to be grouped together into what can be called “strophes.” 1.9 and 2.1 focuses on the naming of this significant figure with the use of verbs like arqty, hnkty, and rmaty. 2.2-3 deals with the destruction of a group (perhaps kings) whose kingdom will be like the comets from the vision. 2.4 can be considered a unit in itself due to the possible twin vacats at the beginning and end of that line; if the apparent vacat at the end of that line is merely an open space, then line four most likely is to be grouped with what follows. 2.5-7a describes the activity of either the “son of God” or the “people of God,” depending on how one identifies the 3ms verbs and pronominal suffixes. 2.7b-9a shows a relationship between either the “Son of God” or the “people of God” with la himself; it also describes the activity of God on behalf of His son/people.
Similar strophing can be made out within the extant sections of column one as well. 1.2-3 provides an opening to the interpretation where we are told that “wrath is coming.” 1.4-5a describes the destruction that may be associated with a powerful group (possibly /ybr[br]). 1.5b-6 focuses the text to a particular figure, or possibly two significant figures (br, /yrx[mw] rwta ilm). 1.7-8 seems to describe the activity of the figure(s).
The dominant interpretation of the “Son of God” as a Jewish Messiah is not as clearly obvious as it may initially appear. The criticisms the messianic interpretation has received is only symptomatic of the greater confusion that exists on the larger issue of messianism as a whole in a pre-Christian, Jewish setting. If in fact a messianic interpretation is not salvageable and those who hold to a negative interpretation are triumphant, what affect does this have on our reading of the birth narratives in Luke 1:32-35. In any case, as Fitzmyer said, “the debate over this important sectarian Qumran text is far from over.”
Bibliography
1. Collins, John. “A Pre-Christian ‘Son of God’ among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Bible Review 9 (1993): 34-38, 57.
2. ------------. “Messiahs in Context: Methods in the Study of Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 213-299 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran site: Present Realities and future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994.
3. -------------. “The Background of the ‘Son of God’ Text.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 51-62.
4. ------------. “The ‘Son of God’ Text from Qumran.” Pages 65-82 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. Edited by Martinus De Boer. Vol. 84 of Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1993.
5. -------------. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Literature. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1995.
6. Cook, Edward. “4Q246.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 43-66.
7. Cross, Frank. “The Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246).” Pages 1-13 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks. Vol. XX of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Edited by F. García-Martínez and A. S. Van der Woude. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
8. Eisenman, Robert and Wise, Michael. “The Son of God (4Q246).” Pages 68-71 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1992.
9. Fitzmeyer, Joseph. “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran.” Biblica 74 (1993): 153-174.
10. -------------. “The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text.” Pages 163-178 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran site: Present Realities and future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994.
11. -------------. “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 20 (1973-74): 382-407. Repr. pages 85-107 in A Wandering Arameam: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979.
12. -------------. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
13. -------------. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.
14. Flusser, David. “The Hubris of the AntiChrist in a Fragment from Qumran.” Immanuel 10 (1980): 31-37.
15. García Martínez, Florentino. “Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts.” Pages 14-40 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks. Vol. XX of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Edited by F. García-Martínez and A. S. Van der Woude. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
16. -------------. “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246.” Pages 162-179 in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. Edited by F. García Martínez. Vol. IX of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Edited by F. García-Martínez and A. S. Van der Woude. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
17. -------------. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (ed. F. García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar; Grand Rapids, MI: Brill, 1998
18. Grayson, A. K. and Lambert, W. G. “Akkadian Prophecies.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 18 (1964): 7-30.
19. Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origins of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
20. Hunger, Hermann and Kaufman, Stephen A. “A New Akkadian Prophecy Text.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 95 (1975): 371-375.
21. Kim, Seyoon. The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 30. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983.
22. Milik, J. T. “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân.” Revue de Qumrân 15 (1992): 321-399.
23. -------------. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.
24. Peuch, Émile. “Fragment d’une apocalypse en araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le ‘royaume de Dieu.’” Revue Biblique 99 (1992): 98-131.
25. -------------. “Notes sur le fragment d’apocalypse 4Q246 –
26. -------------. “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism.” Pages 545-565. in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks. Vol. 30 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Edited by F. García-Martínez and A. S. Van der Woude. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
27. -------------. “4QApocryphe de Daniel ar.” Pages 165-184 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical texts, Part 3. Edited by G. Brooke et al. in consultation with James VanderKam. Discoveries in the Judean Desert XXII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
