The 'One Like a Son of Man' Becomes the 'Son of God'

The Fragmentary Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246) found among the writings of Cave 4 near Qumran has yielded widely divergent interpretations.1 Even before the text was published in full by Emile Puech in 1992, the figure it designates as the Son of the Most High and the Son of God was variously understood.2 J. T. Milik held that the fragment refers to a Seleucid king proclaiming himself the Son of God, whose reign would fittingly end in destruction.3 David Flusser claimed that the first part of the fragment (1:1-2:3) refers not to a historical figure but to an Antichrist who leads Satan's forces against the people of God and takes for himself the title Son of God. Following the publication of the full text, scholars have remained divided over whether the personage designated "Son of God" in the apocalypse should be viewed as a negative or a positive figure, with a slight majority favoring the latter.8 Among this majority, most view the figure as a Davidic, eschatological redeemer who will overthrow God's enemies and establish the dominion of God's people.9 This reading of the fragment is maintained in slightly different forms by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John J. Collins, Frank Moore Cross, and Johannes Zimmermann, among others.10 All but Fitzmyer argue that the figure should be understood as a messianic redeemer. Thus, although the Gospels-especially Matthew, Luke, and John-likely mark a development in the portrayal of Jesus' divine sonship, it does not follow that they express an understanding of God's awaited redeemer that categorically diverges from that of Mark or of texts such as 4Q246 and the Similitudes.51 Perhaps it is because these texts collectively share significant points of contact in the presentation of their respective agents of salvation that Luke thought it apt to draw on the Aramaic Apocalypse's recasting of Daniel's "one like a son of man" at the very point in his Gospel at which he was laying the foundation for Jesus' identity as the Son of God.