NR\Reader checked\16/02/2015
The attempt to identify the obscure “son of God” figure in 4Q246 often begins with discussion of the structure of the fragment and the background of the titles employed. This article suggests there are problems with both approaches and offers an alternative: an examination of biblical naming traditions and a rhetorical analysis of the way in which the figure “is called” the son of God in i 9 and ii 1. It concludes that the “son” is probably identified positively given the fragment’s similarity with positive naming traditions in the biblical text, as well as its dissimilarity with other examples of Jewish and Christian polemic. Further, it is probable that the divine naming of the figure participates in a widespread messianic topos.