Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity 9781646020089

Citation preview

Son of God

Son of God Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity

Edited by Garrick V. Allen, Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Madhavi Nevader

Eisenbrauns | University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Allen, Garrick V., editor. | Akagi, Kai, editor. | Sloan, Paul (Religious educator), editor. | Nevader, Madhavi, 1976–  editor. Title: Son of God : divine sonship in Jewish and Christian antiquity/edited by Garrick V. Allen, Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Madhavi Nevader. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “An interdisciplinary exploration of the diverse discourse on divine sonship in ancient Jewish and Christian literature. Authors focus on a range of issues including messianism, deification, eschatological figures, Jesus, interreligious polemics, and the Roman and Jewish backgrounds of early Christian writers and the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: lccn 2018053305 | isbn 9781575069920 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Son of God—History of doctrines—Early church, ca. 30–600. | Son of God ( Judaism) Classification: lcc bt216.3.s66 2019 | ddc 231—dc23 lc record available at https://​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2018053305 Copyright © 2019 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

Contents

vii

Abbreviations

Introducing Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity 1 Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Garrick V. Allen

Part I: Son of God in Early Jewish Literature 1. Son of God and Son of Man: 4Q246 in the Light of the Book of Daniel

9

Reinhard G. Kratz

2. Son of God, Sons of God, and Election in the Dead Sea Scrolls

28

George J. Brooke

3. Son of God in Wisdom 2:16–18: Between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament

41

Jan Joosten

4. Son of God in the Book of Revelation and Apocalyptic Literature

53

Garrick V. Allen

5. Whose Son Is the Messiah?

72

Matthew V. Novenson

Part II: Son of God in Early Christianity and the Gentile World 6. Jesus’s Use of “Father” and Disuse of “Lord”

87

Richard Bauckham

7. “Whoever Does the Will of God” (Mark 3:35): Mark’s Christ as the Model Son Max Botner v

106

vi Contents

8. Son of God and Christian Origins

118

N. T. Wright

9. Son of God in Gentile Contexts (That Is, Almost Everywhere)

135

Michael Peppard

10. “Declared to Be Son of God in Power”: Romans 1:4 and the Iconography of Imperial Apotheosis

158

Sarah Whittle

11. “To Become like His Brothers”: Divine Sonship and Siblingship in Hebrews

171

Mateusz Kusio

12. Son(s) of God: Israel and Christ: A Study of Transformation, Adaptation, and Rivalry

188

Menahem Kister

13. What Does God Get Out of It? Reciprocity and Divine Sonship

225

Michael A. Lyons

Bibliography List of Contributors Index of Ancient Sources

241 267 269

Abbreviations

AB ABD AGJU AJC ANF ANRW BBR BETL BGU BZAW CBQ CIJ CIL COS CSCO

Anchor Bible Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Meshorer, Ya‘akov. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills, NY: Amphora Books, 1982. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-​Nicene Fathers. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Temporini, Hildegard, and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–. Bulletin for Biblical Research Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 15 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895–1937. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Frey, Jean-​Baptiste, ed. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1936–1952. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1862–. Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2016. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium

vii

viii Abbreviations

DDD DPL DSD FAT GCS HALOT

HTR IG IGRR IKilikiaBM IMT JBL JSJ JSJSup JSNTSup JSOTSup LCL NPNF OGI OTP PG P.Oxy. RB RevQ

Toorn, Karel van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Hawthorne, Gerald F., and Ralph P. Martin, eds. The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Dead Sea Discoveries Forschungen zum Alten Testament Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. Harvard Theological Review Inscriptiones Graecae. Editio Minor. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1924–. Cagnat, R., et al., eds. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 3 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927. Bean, George E., and Terence B. Mitford, eds. Journeys in Rough Cilicia. 2 vols. Vienna: Böhlaus, 1965–1970. Barth, Matthias, and Josef Stauber. Inschriften Mysia und Troas. Munich: Leopold Wenger-​Institut, 1993. Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persia, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Loeb Classical Library Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 28 vols. in 2 series. 1886–1889. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903–1905. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Migne, Jacques-​Paul, ed. Patrologia Graeca [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca]. 161 vols. Paris: Migne, 1857–1886. Grenfell, Bernard P., et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898–. Revue biblique Revue de Qumrân

Abbreviations ix

RITA RPC SEG SHR STDJ StPont SyrLex

TDOT

TLOT TSAJ TWQ UPZ VTSup WBC WUNT

Kitchen, K. A. Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Translations. 7 vols. Oxford: Blackwell; Chichester: Wiley-​ Blackwell, 1993–2014. Burnett, Andrew, et al., eds. Roman Provincial Coinage. London: British Museum Press; Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1992–. Supplementum epigraphicum graecum Studies in the History of Religions Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Anderson, J. G. C., Franz Cumont, and Henri Grégoire. Studia Pontica. 3 vols. Brussels: Lamertin, 1903–1910. Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-​Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Texts und Studien zum antiken Judentum Fabry, Heinz-​Josef, and Ulrich Dhamen, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011. Wilcken, Ulrich. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit: Ältere Funde. 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Introducing Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Garrick V. Allen

The discrepancy between the shameful death of a Jewish state criminal and the confession that depicts this executed man as a preexistent divine figure who becomes man and humbles himself to a slave’s death is, as far as I can see, without analogy in the ancient world. It also illuminates the riddle of the origin of the Christology of the early church.1 —Martin Hengel

So begins Martin Hengel’s deceptively thin Son of God, published in English in 1976. The present volume, which follows on the heels of the fiftieth anniversary of its publication, pursues the same constellation of ideas represented by the collocation “divine sonship,” reinterrogating the relevant sources and critical discussion that characterize exalted figures in the ancient Greco-​Roman, Jewish, and Christian worlds. While Hengel’s study confined its examination predominantly to Hellenistic traditions, some Jewish sources, Pauline letters, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, with a focus on early Christian Christology, this volume expands its scope by exploring the topic of divine sonship across a wide array of early Jewish and Christian sources, emphasizing the interrelationships between traditions that were once considered disparate, and introducing new texts into the discussion. Christian origins remain an essential component of this volume, but the discussion is much more diverse, and rightly so. The goal of this enterprise is to bring into conversation scholars from various contexts and subgroups of biblical studies in hopes of enriching the discussion of this important topic. The topic, in fact, requires this interdisciplinary approach as a plethora of cognate traditions employ 1.  Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-​Hellenistic Religion, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1.

1

2

Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Garrick V. Allen

the concept, including the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, early Jewish and Christian Pseudepigrapha, the New Testament, Greco-​Roman material culture, imperial ideology, and rabbinic literature, among others. The essays that follow analyze these sources, with a focus on the significance of divine sonship in its various contexts. The diversity of ancient divine-​sonship traditions calls for sustained attention to and adept analysis of the primary sources, a commitment that occasionally leads to an overlap in coverage on particularly important texts and also disagreement regarding the significance and basic interpretation of some traditions (e.g., 4Q246). This focus on primary sources and sometimes conflicting conclusions is a strength of the volume, which offers a range of perspectives on the most consequential texts. Reinhard G. Kratz begins the discussion and the first section of the volume (“Son of God in Early Jewish Literature”) by returning to the contentious issue of the identity of the “son of God” in 4Q246. Arguing from ancient Near Eastern myths, Kratz claims that theogonic narratives depict the creation of gods from gods, an idea present in certain biblical traditions such as 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2, which use comparable language to refer to Israel’s king as a “son of God.” This title is subsequently applied to the people of Israel, Israel’s exiles, and the pious. The polyvalence of the title consequently complicates the intended reference in 4Q246. After briefly reviewing the history of scholarship and the linguistic peculiarities of the text, he argues that the “son of God” in 4Q246 plausibly refers to a negative figure. Kratz’s goal is to interpret 4Q246 in light of the book of Daniel, based on their many concrete linguistic connections. He shows that features from Daniel referring to the presumption of earthly kings who claim to act as God are woven into 4Q246 and concludes that the “son of God” in the passage refers to an individual who unjustifiably self-​identifies as such, wrongly adopting for himself the honorific applied to the king of Psalm 2. Not all sons of God are good in early Judaism. The following chapter, by George J. Brooke, focuses more generally on the phrases “son of God” and “sons of God” in the Dead Sea Scrolls, examining in particular the relationship between the singular “son” and the plural “sons” of God. Brooke returns, however, to 4Q246 and surveys current proposals regarding the referent of its “son of God” in particular. One camp has argued that the title refers to a negative figure (as Kratz concludes), such as a blasphemous king who makes fraudulent claims about his own status or an angelic representative of an oppressive kingdom. Another group has understood the title positively, referring perhaps to a messianic figure or a peaceful eschatological king. Brooke then examines the phrase “sons of God” in biblical traditions (e.g., Genesis 6 and Deuteronomy 32, as mediated through Enochic traditions and Qumran). He argues that “sons of God” plausibly refers to angelic beings and deduces that the singular “son of God” may consequently refer to a single angel. He ties these results into considerations

Introducing Son of God 3

of election and characterizes sonship as a matter of election/declaration rather than birthright. Jan Joosten moves on from the scrolls, inquiring about the significance of the phrase “son of God” in Wis 2:16–18 and comparing it to cognate phrases in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and New Testament. Joosten begins by demonstrating that the phrase “son(s) of God” is not conspicuous in septuagintal texts, which often present “angels” (ἄγγελοι) or “children (τέκνα) of God” where the Hebrew phrase refers literally to “sons of God.” The phrase “son of God” in Wis 2:16–18 thus stands out in comparison to the Septuagint’s “relative indifference” to it. After showing that the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and New Testament employ the phrase to refer variously to angels, royalty, and Israel as a collective, Joosten argues that the phrase in Wisdom uniquely refers to a status conferred upon a person who conforms to God’s law, in contradistinction to scriptural norms in which election precedes conformity to God’s law. He situates his interpretation in light of the intra-​Jewish debate of the western diaspora over the acceptable degree of accommodation to Hellenistic customs. Moving on to a different class of early Jewish and Christian literature, Garrick V. Allen continues the trend of undermining the neat section boundaries of the volume by situating the concept of divine sonship in the New Testament book of Revelation alongside the various sonship traditions in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. He begins by surveying the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that “son(s) of God” frequently refers to angels or Israelite royalty. He then highlights common features shared by Jesus as son of God in Revelation and the various figures referred to as sons in apocalyptic literature roughly contemporary with Revelation. Allen argues that connotations of the title “son of God” in Revelation are not always coterminous with comparable figures in apocalyptic literature, demonstrating the elasticity of the title in its reference to servants, angels, messiahs, and messengers. The book of Revelation functions as a medial ground for tracing the diachronic development of sonship traditions in ancient apocalypses. The title is fungible across literatures but especially so in the apocalyptic tradition. Closing out the first section, Matthew V. Novenson surveys early Jewish literature while asking the centering question, “Whose son is the messiah?” Novenson notes that texts designating a figure as son of God do not always identify that figure as a messiah in an explicit way. At the same time, several patronyms do appear for messianic figures. These patronyms include “son of David,” “son of Aaron,” “son of Joseph,” “son of Ephraim,” and “son of God.” The question of whose son is the messiah, therefore, does not have a single answer; for many texts that do not provide a patronym, it does not have an answer at all. Not all messiahs are sons of God, and not all sons of God are messiahs. Beginning the second section of the book (“Son of God in Early Christianity and the Gentile World”), Richard Bauckham examines the canonical Gospels in

4

Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Garrick V. Allen

his exploration of Jesus’s distinct pattern of addressing God. He notes that Jesus rarely addresses God as “Lord” and most frequently refers to him as “God” (θεός). In his attempt to account for this phenomenon, he begins by noting that septuagintal texts often employ κύριος as a substitute for the divine name. However, Bauckham argues that in later biblical texts and other traditions in Hebrew and Aramaic (e.g., Nehemiah, Daniel, and Qumran literature), “God” became a substitute for the Tetragrammaton, often being employed in contexts in which previous biblical usage would have included the divine name. Bauckham then turns to Jesus’s use of “God language” and argues that Jesus, alongside his contemporaries, used “God” to avoid reference to the divine name but, in contradistinction to contemporary Jewish patterns, may have used “God” as a precise substitute for the name itself. The latter, Bauckham suggests, is demonstrable by Jesus’s non-​use of pronominal suffixes affixed to “God.” The missing “relational” aspect of Jesus’s use of God language is supplied by Jesus’s use of “father.” In comparison to Second Temple literature, his reference to God as father is both characteristic of Jesus’s speech and idiosyncratic. Repeated reference to God as father indicates that Jesus understood himself primarily as son with reference to the God of Israel. Following Bauckham, Max Botner continues to explore sonship traditions in the Gospels, drawing together the sonship of the Messiah and the fictive kinship of the Messiah’s people in his study of the Gospel of Mark. Observing that the function of sonship language designates the restored covenant community in Second Temple literature, particularly in Jubilees 1 and Psalms of Solomon 17, as well as New Testament texts, he shows that the prologue of Mark associates Jesus’s coming with restoration in a sin-​exile-​restoration framework. At the same time, however, the prologue pictures Jesus as other texts picture the covenant community: by his reception of the Spirit, identification as son of God, and presentation before angels. Jesus, by way of his divine sonship, then becomes the model for others in the covenant community in Mark 3:20–35. Divine sonship in this text, therefore, not only designates an individual to express the author’s Christology but also serves a sociological function to define a new covenant community. N. T. Wright provides needed historical context to critical conversations on divine sonship and Christian origins, summarizing pivotal moments in the history of scholarship before situating his own interpretation within the Jewish and Greco-​Roman contexts of Jesus’s and Paul’s time. He begins his survey of scholarship on the title “son of God” and related concepts with Hermann Samuel Reimarus and William Wrede, noting how they shaped the ensuing perspectives of Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, and Edward Schillebeeckx. He proceeds through the scholarship of Geza Vermes, John Hick, and C. F. D. Moule, once more not only noting their contextualized conclusions but also showing how such conclusions set the parameters of contemporary discussions held between Martin Hengel, W. D. Davies, Larry Hurtado, and James Dunn. Wright then turns to his

Introducing Son of God 5

own interpretation, arguing from various passages that “son of God” could refer to Jesus’s messiahship, to the sonship of believers who share God as their father and Jesus as their older brother, and to Jesus’s divinity. He argues that although such categories likely derive from a Jewish worldview, he affirms that such prerogatives would have certainly confronted imperial claims. The next chapter, by Michael Peppard, addresses a related but distinct set of interlocutors and analyzes the Roman imperial context of the development of Christology. Behind the canonical Psalms, Peppard argues that the Roman imperial context of Jesus’s ministry, Paul’s ministry, and the composition of the Gospels should be regarded as at least as informative as other contemporary Jewish sources for the interpretation of particular christological titles and New Testament utterances. After reviewing the pertinent views of major contributors on the subject, such as Adolf Deissmann and Larry Hurtado, he surveys applicable material culture from the first centuries BCE and CE to demonstrate the relevance of the Gentile context for interpreting the New Testament. Peppard argues that an inescapable background of the New Testament—which should actually be regarded as a foreground—is the Roman imperial context, in which Gentiles could not have failed to hear the resonances of Paul’s claims with those of Caesar. Sarah Whittle bridges the gap between literary and material culture in her essay on Rom 1:4 and imperial apotheosis in Roman iconography. Whittle questions what Rom 1:4 would mean in a context that included popular belief in the apotheosis of the emperor, affirmed by an array of iconographic evidence. Using Lise Vogel’s observed commonalities of (1) vehicle, (2) acclaiming figures as witnesses, and (3) ancestry, progeny, and inheritance in apotheoses, she compares four iconographic depictions of apotheosis (the Belvedere Altar, the Grand Camée de France, the Apotheosis of Sabena, and the Column of Antoninus Pius) with Rom 1:4. She finds an interesting network of correspondences between these iconographic apotheosis elements and the Pauline text, where the Spirit appears to function as the vehicle. Whittle argues that Rom 1:4 presents an alternative to the Roman imperial order that centers on Jesus as the resurrected son of God, continuing the discussion of the interrelationship of imperial ideology and the New Testament. Mateusz Kusio continues the comparison of the New Testament and Greco-​ Roman sources by exploring fictive kinship relationships and divine siblingship in Hebrews and other Greco-​Roman literary traditions. His examination of a diverse range of texts contemporary with Hebrews reveals ideals of brotherhood to include imitation of an older brother and an older brother’s benefaction for his siblings. While fictive siblingship is uncommon, it appears on occasion in voluntary associations and certain religious communities. In these contexts, its sociological functions define community identity while establishing both interpersonal bonds and hierarchy among members. Kusio argues that fictive siblingship functions similarly in Hebrews in a way consistent with the ideal of brotherhood, such that Jesus

6

Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Garrick V. Allen

bestows benefits as an older brother and Christians should imitate him. Christian identity is derived from membership in the household of God, as children of God and siblings of Jesus as their older brother. In the penultimate chapter of the book, Menahem Kister offer a wide-​ranging examination of numerous Jewish and Christian sources, including the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and polemical texts from the ninth century CE, among others. He demonstrates that some biblical texts differ with respect to the identity of God’s son(s) and the conditions by which one becomes God’s son. Exod 4:22 and Deut 14:1, for example, state that Israel is God’s son, while Hos 2:1 indicates that Israel will be God’s son in the eschatological period. Kister shows that Second Temple texts notice this disparity and provide the conditions by which one would become a son in the eschatological period. Passages from Jubilees, Testament of Judah, and Qumran are shown to indicate that the righteous will receive the status of son in the eschaton due to their performance of the law in the present, while Pauline texts evidence a christological basis, in which Gentiles derive their sonship from Christ’s. Kister then moves to polemical texts between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, which exploit prooftexts from New Testament documents to prove or disprove the identity of and the capacity to become God’s son. Concluding the book, Michael Lyons takes an unexpected approach to the sonship question by asking what it is that God gains from this relationship. While researchers have amply discussed the benefits of the son in the reciprocal father-​ son relationship, discussion of the benefits of the father remains a desideratum. Lyons suggests that the typical benefits that accrue to God as father are having a son who functions as his agent; devotion from the son; delight in the successes of the son; and the son as a heritage. Lyons concludes by discussing some of the rhetorical effects of employing the father-​son metaphor, including its capacity to shape human identity and praxis by virtue of the reciprocal obligations required by the relationship. These essays represent some of the findings of the St.  Andrews Symposium for Biblical and Early Christian Studies, held at the University of St. Andrews, St. Mary’s College, in June 2016. They examine not only a broad range of sources but of a wide array of critical questions that inform analysis. While some authors enquire about the meaning or identity of the title “son(s) of God” within a single work or corpus of literature, others situate the phenomenon of divine sonship within its Jewish and/or Greco-​Roman cultural milieu more broadly. These essays demonstrate that one can assume neither a univocal reference to the title “son of God” in either Jewish or Greco-​Roman sources nor a uniform approach in examining these traditions. However, far from simply intending to problematize previous scholarship, this volume offers new vistas on important texts, suggesting that they have yet more to tell us.

Chapter 1

Son of God and Son of Man: 4Q246 in the Light of the Book of Daniel Reinhard G. Kratz

1. “SONS OF GOD” IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND ANCIENT JUDAISM

The claim of Jesus to be the son of God, asserted by the New Testament, is one of the most difficult aspects of Christian religion. It not only makes Christianity’s relationship to its mother religion, Judaism, difficult but also presents significant problems for Christianity in the modern world. The description of a person or a heavenly being as “son of God” is not self-​evident, particularly under the conditions of the Enlightenment and according to our categories of understanding. God and heavenly beings belong to a reality that defies the worldview of the modern era. This applies even more to the genealogical relationship that is expressed by the term “son.” To put it quite simply: since, with our usual (modern) categories of understanding, we cannot say who or what God is, there is no way we can know who or what a “son of God” is. Philology helps us a little here. “Son of God (the gods)” (‫ בן אלהים‬or similar) is a generic term and means nothing but “god” in the same way that “son of man” (‫ )בן אדם‬is “man” and “son of an ox” (‫ )בן בקר‬is “ox.” This means that the title “son of God” in itself does not describe the relationship of father and son but expresses the divine nature of an earthly or heavenly figure—something that is difficult enough to understand in terms of our modern thinking or on the basis of Jewish and Christian monotheism. In the ancient Near East, however, as in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and other writings of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, we encounter statements that conform neither to grammar nor to pure doctrine. In the myths of Ugarit and other ancient Near Eastern cultures, gods and divine couples have children by means of procreation and birth. The myth of the procreation and birth of a god spells out the idea of the divine attribute in the form of a narrative. This 9

10

Reinhard G. Kratz

narrative of the coming into being of a god is intended to confirm that the figure in question is indeed a god. As in the myth of the creation of the world, myth is not only an image of reality, it interprets and generates reality through the narration of its creation. Closely related to the myth of the divine procreation and birth of the gods is the idea of the birth of the king as a god. In Ps 2:7, the earthly king is called “my son, whom I have begotten today” (‫)בני אתה אני היום ילדתיך‬. As in Egypt, the act of enthronement signifies the procreation of the king as a god. We are dealing here with a metaphorical understanding of the title “son of God.” The image depicts the generic concept in concrete terms and expresses the divine quality through the idea of biological descent. This figurative use of language is also the basis of the promise to David in 2 Sam 7:14 (quoted in Ps 89:27): ‫אני אהיה־לו לאב והוא‬ ‫יהיה־לי לבן‬. Furthermore, this usage is transferred to the people of Israel, to the exiles, and finally to the pious, who are called “sons of God.”1 Addressing God as “father” in prayers also makes use of figurative speech.2 The title “son of God” thus refers to the divine attribute of a heavenly or earthly being, be it as a generic term for “divine” or as a mythical and figurative way of speaking about the procreation and birth of a god. This is also the case in the few places in the Hebrew Bible that mention “sons of God.” Of all the locations in which we encounter the plural “sons” (‫אלים‬/‫)בני [ה]אלהים‬, only in Dan 3:25 do we also find the singular “son of God,” ‫ בר אלהין‬in Aramaic. The usage continues in parabiblical writings and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.3 The expression refers to heavenly beings that belong to the court of the Most High God (YHWH) and in other texts are simply called “gods” (‫אלהים‬, ‫)אלים‬, “angels” (‫מלאכים‬, ἄγγελοι), “princes” (‫)שרים‬, “holy ones” (‫)קדושים‬, “spirits” (‫)רוחות‬, or—in Aramaic—“watchers” (‫)עירין‬. As a rule, these divine beings reside in heaven and surround, serve, and praise God (Psalms 29, 89; Job 38; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice). Also among them there may be a divine adversary—Satan ( Job 1–2) or Mastema ( Jubilees)—surrounded by his own army of heavenly beings (4Q225, 11QMelch). Some of these divine beings represent the peoples on earth (Deuteronomy 32, Daniel). Others are occasionally also active on earth, such as the “sons of God” who intermingle with the “daughters of man” (Gen 6:2) or the divine being who saves Daniel’s three friends from the flames of the fiery furnace (Daniel 3). We also encounter a figure that is called “son of God” and “son of the Most High” in the Aramaic Apocryphon of Daniel (4Q246) from Qumran. Unfortunately, the 1.  See Deut 32:5–6, 19–20; Isa 1:2, 43:6; Hos 11:1; Wis 2:18, 5:5. 2.  See Ps 103:13; Isaiah 63–64 (esp. 63:16, 64:7); Tob 13:4; Sir 23:1, 4; 51:1, 10; 1QHa XVII, 34–36; 4Q372; Wis 2:16, 14:3–4; Matt 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4. 3.  See 1QHa XXIII, 23; 4Q491 24, 4; 5Q13 16; 11QMelch II, 14.



Son of God and Son of Man 11

manuscript is not fully intact, so we do not know who this figure is—a primary reason why the significance of the title in this text is disputed. In the following, I will focus on this text and discuss the interpretations that have been put forward in scholarship. The text is the earliest Jewish witness of the terms “son of God” and “son of the Most High” (in parallel) and is thus highly significant, if not decisive, for the understanding of the notion of divine sonship in ancient Judaism and early Christianity (cf. Luke 1:32–35). First, I will introduce the text and discuss the different interpretations suggested by scholarship on the basis of its structure. Following the approach of Michael Segal, I will then discuss 4Q246’s inner-​biblical references, especially to Daniel 7, the book of Daniel as a whole, and some other texts brought into play by Segal, in combination with the linguistic debate on 4Q246. I argue that neither the structure nor the inner-​biblical references support any kind of messianic interpretation but that the text suggests instead that “son of God” is a negative appellation that likely refers to Antiochus IV or another Seleucid king. 2. THE “SON OF GOD” IN 4Q246

4Q246 col. i

‫ [—ע]לוהי שרת נפל קדם כרסיא‬1

‫ב?>עלמא אתה רגז ושניך‬/‫ [—מ]לכא