“Son of Man” Have a Place in the Eschatological Thinking of the Qumran Community? Géza Xeravits*

Louvain Studies 26 (2001) 334-345

Does the Figure of the “Son of Man” Have a Place in the Eschatological Thinking of the Qumran Community? Géza Xeravits*

When approaching a particular theological issue (or one in any other discipline) the first important thing is to define the problem and its main elements as clearly as possible. The ancient Latin saying held: qui bene distinguit, bene docet. This saying becomes even more important if one faces a question, which has an extremely complicated background and history. In general terms, the question of the messianic expectations of intertestamental Judaism is one of the most intricate problems that can be found in the theologies of both Testaments. Before a more extensive treatment of our issue, however, it is necessary to comment first on the etymological inconsistencies of the term ‘messianism’. Strictly speaking, ‘messianism’ goes back to the Hebrew word msyÌ which means ‘anointed one’. In the eschatological sense, expectations that are generally called ‘messianism’ are often considered as concerning the waiting for the arrival of a positive future figure, who is anointed to his mission. In the Old Testament, however, the human agent of the eschatological events is not labelled as the anointed one. He is not even called ‘messiah’. That word was reserved to indicate the leaders of con- temporary Israel: her kings, (high) priests, and prophets.1 The eschato-

* Based on a lecture given at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 12 Jan. 2000. The lecture and the present written form were prepared during my research in Leuven funded by the Soros Foundation. I would like to thank Prof. Johan Lust, who kindly invited me to prepare this paper, and to present it on one of his seminars at K.U. Leuven. I would like to thank Ms. Beáta Tóth for revising the English of this paper. 1. K. Seybold, “cwm – masaÌ I; ciwm – masîaÌ,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 9: 43-54. A general treatment of the topic can be found: M. Saebø, “Zum Verhältnis von ‘Messianismus’ und ‘Eschatologie’ im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch ter- minologischer und sachlicher Klärung,” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 8 (1993) 25-55. THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 335 logical protagonist of biblical theology was often endowed with the characteristics of those historical figures but without the use of the very word msyÌ. Most of the intertestamental texts show the same picture, yet, in the intertestamental age we can already notice the eschatological use of the word msyÌ in a limited number of texts and passages.2 Most eschatological texts used different wordings, even when they presented the eschatological protagonist as king, priest, or prophet. For this reason, I would prefer to use some other terms instead of ‘messiah’, but this would involve the use of some complicated circumlocutions, e.g., ‘mediator-of- salvation’ or ‘positive eschatological protagonist’ or the like. These circumlocutions would complicate the discussion. Thuc I chose thus to use the customary term ‘messiah’ and ‘messianism’ – with the above mentioned restrictions. Among the texts that were found in the caves on the shore of the Dead Sea, some reveal an interest in eschatology. These texts – written either in Hebrew or in Aramaic – are rooted in the thoughts of the Old Testament and share in some points its concepts, yet they contain important developments.3 The Qumran Community sprang forth from a movement in which the eschatological voice had a prominent place.4 It seems however, that at the very beginnings of the Community this eschatological voice had not been emphasised at all: the first writings of the Qumranites show a primary interest in halakhic questions. If we analyse the primitive état of the ‘classic’ texts of the Community (such as the Rules and the Damascus Document), we find that at their early stage the eschatological horizon was not present in them.5 If we view the literary

2. See the contributions in J. Neusner, W. S. Green, E. S. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: University Press, 1987). 3. To this question see the standard introductory works, e.g., F. García Martínez & J. Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 159-189. 4. See inter alia J. J. Collins, “Was the Dead Sea Sect an Apocalyptic Movement?,” Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, ed. L. H. Schiffman; Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 8 – JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series, 2 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 25-51. 5. My own views on this question can be found: G. Xeravits, “Some Remarks on the Early History of Qumran’s Messianic Expectations,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76 (2000) 113-121. See further: C. Hempel, “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa,” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996) 253-269; J. H. Charlesworth & B. A. Strawn, “Reflections on the Text of Serek ha-Yahad Found in Cave IV,” Revue de Qumran 65-68 (1996) 403-435; J. H. Charlesworth, “Challenging the Consensus Communis Regarding Qumran Messianism (1QS, 4QS MSS),” Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, et al. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998) 120-134. 336 GÉZA XERAVITS heritage of the Qumran Community in a ‘canonical’ scope, however, the relevance of the eschatological texts becomes more striking.

In the study of the eschatological writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a most important precaution must emerge from the fact that we appear to find a great diversity of eschatological views and concepts in them. This diversity stems from the fact that some of the texts found in the caves originated outside Qumran, so they did not reflect the theological system of merely one group in intertestamental Judaism.6 Rather, they mirror the thoughts of a broader Jewish movement, which was no uni- fied entity at all when those texts emerged. Furthermore, in the teaching of the scrolls, there is a certain line of inner development, one however that can hardly be satisfactorily described.7 Speaking about the final period of history, the authors of the texts often mention a privileged eschatological person. Sometimes, he is called the ‘anointed one’, yet this is not his only title. (The convergence of the various eschatological titles in the word msyÌ, i.e. christos, is the work of the first theologians of nascent Christianity.) One of the most particular phenomena of Qumranic messianism is its alleged duality. Since the beginning of Qumran-research most scholars have thought that the Community expected the arrival of two anointed ones. This assumption was based on two facts. First, in the scrolls many types of eschatological persons appear with practically two roles, that of the king and the high priest. Second, in some texts one can find the designation msyÌy ‘hrwn wyr’l (messiahs of Aaron and Israel). The

6. B. Z. Wacholder, “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature (500-165 BCE): A Classification of Pre-Qumranic Texts,” Archaeology and History, 257-281. D. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone; Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, II.2 (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984) 483-550; id., “Apocalyptic Texts at Qumran,” The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. Ulrich & J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 10 (Notre Dame, IN: Uni- versity of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 175-192; id., “Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, ed. D. Dimant & L. H. Schiff- man; Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah, 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 23-58. 7. See, e.g., J. Starcky’s tentative on the field of Qumranic messianism: “Les qua- tre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân,” Revue Biblique 70 (1963) 481-505. More recently, and with another reasoning: H. Stegemann, “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb, and to Qumran Messianism,” Revue de Qumran 65-68 (1996) 479-505. THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 337 latter concept is not unfamiliar from the theology of post-exilic Judaism, one can find its traces even in the Bible (see, e.g., the prophecies of the book of Proto-Zechariah on Zerubbabel and Joshua) and in some intertestamental writings (e.g. TestXIIPatr).8 A careful examination of the relevant texts shows however, that this quasi-general consensus cannot be main- tained.9 In fact, there is only one locus where the clearly plural form occurs (1QS 9:11); elsewhere the word msyÌ is in the singular. A better understanding of these other passages (all of them in the Damascus Document) reveals that they envisage only one anointed person, very likely a priest.10 In my opinion, in the teaching of the Community there was certainly room for the simultaneous activity of two (1QSa, 1QSb, CD 7:13–8:1, 4Q161, 4Q174) or even three eschatological persons (see 1QS 9:11, 4Q175) – even though this idea cannot be presented as the general characteristic of the Qumran writings, and seemed to be of secondary importance. The other eschatological texts of Qumran describe the future activity of one single person. He could be either a king (as in the case of 4Q252, 4Q246, 4Q285, 4Q369), a priest (CD B, 4Q541), a prophet (4Q374-377, 4Q521), or a heavenly person (4QAmram, 11QMelch).11 It is clear from this survey of the related texts that the majority testifies to the idea of a single eschatological protagonist. When they speak of a king, they present him with attributes that the Old Testament connected to the future Davidic ruler and warrior. His role is to liberate Israel from the burden of her foes and establish an everlasting kingdom of prosperity. The biblical background of these texts merits some remarks. Three main texts served as a basis for this presentation: Genesis 49, Numbers 24, Isa 10:34–11:5. All of them have strong Davidic connections, all present an aggressive war-scenario, and, as for their reception, all of them had messianic (re)interpretation in Judaism and in Christianity.

8. See e.g. J. R. Villalón, “Sources vétéro-testamentaires de la doctrine qumranienne des deux Messies,” Revue de Qumran 29 (1972) 53-63. 9. See e.g. M. G. Abegg, Jr., “The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Dou- ble?,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 125-144; G. Xeravits, “Précisions sur le texte origi- nal et le concept messianique de CD 7:13–8:1 et 19:5-14,” Revue de Qumran 73 (1999) 47-59, and “Some Remarks on the Early History of Qumran’s Messianic Expectations.” 10. To the priestly character of this person see: M. J. Baumgarten, “Messianic For- giveness of Sin in CD 14,19 (4Q266 10 I 12-13),” The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues, ed. D. W. Parry & E. Ulrich; Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 537-544. 11. General overviews inter alia: García Martínez & Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 159-189, or G. S. Oegema, The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba, Journal for the Study of the Pseud- epigrapha Supplement Series, 27 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998). 338 GÉZA XERAVITS

A striking point of the Qumran texts is the manner in which some of them speak of the relation between the messiah and God. 1QSa, 4Q174, 4Q246 and 4Q369 describe this relationship with terms denot- ing linear descent. They present God as the father of the messiah. This idea is not alien to Judaistic thought either, yet some Qumran texts show an extremely close understanding of this descent. 1QSa holds – based on Psalm 2 – that God begets (dilvi)12 the messiah, and in 4Q246 he is called explicitly ‘Son of God’. Among the texts that deal with the messianic high priest, there is one that presents a different picture (of particular interest for us): the so-called Levi-apocryphon (4Q541).13 The hero of this text is a righteous man who will endure severe sufferings from his people. The writer presents him by citing and alluding to several passages from the Servant Songs of the Deutero-Isaianic corpus. These texts give examples of the emerging traditions in intertestamental Judaism that were more systematically developed later on in the theology of New Testament writings.

III

At first sight the figure of the ‘Son of Man’ does not seem to have influenced the teaching of Qumran Community. Its origins are to be found in Chapter 7 of the book of Daniel. It reached its full development in early Christian theology.14 The exact meaning of the expression ‘Son of Man’ in the Old and the New Testament is highly debated among

12. The reading is debated, cf. recently E. Puech, “Préséance sacerdotale et Messie- Roi dans la Règle de la Congrégation (1QSa ii 11-22),” Revue de Qumran 63 (1994) 351- 365. 13. E. Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique: 4QTestLévic-d (?) et 4QAJa,” The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, vol. I-II, ed. J. Trebolle Barrera & L. Vegas Montaner; Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 11 (Leiden/ Madrid: Brill/Ed. Complutense, 1992) 449-501; G. J. Brooke, “4QTestament of Levi and the Messianic Servant High Priest,” From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge, ed. M. C. de Boer; Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series, 84 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 83-100. 14. The literature on the ‘Son of Man’ is extremely vaste, some classical contributions of the topic includes: C. Colpe, “o uiov tou anqrwpou,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 8: 400-477; id., “Der Begriff ‘Menschensohn’ und die Methode der Erforschung messianischer Prototypen,” Kairos 12 (1970) 98-112; J. Coppens, La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal. II: Le fils d’homme vétéro- et intertestamentaire, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 61 (Leuven: Peeters, 1983). THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 339 scholars.15 The connections between the Danielic Son of Man and the one that can be found in the New Testament have also been challenged. The data provided by some intertestamental writings give very useful information on this complicated scholarly problem. Among the intertestamental writings, those that deal with the figure of the ‘Son of Man’ are not especially numerous. In fact, one can enu- merate only two works where this figure plays an important role. These are, the similitudes or parables in chapters 37–71 of the Ethiopic Enoch, and the Fourth Book of Ezra. Two excellent analyses have appeared recently concerning the use of the ‘Son of Man’ topic in these writings. The first is by J. J. Collins; the second is by G. W. E. Nickelsburg.16 Both have some correctly formulated common conclusions. They agree explicitly or tacitly that the Similitudes of Enoch and 4Ezra share the following views on the ‘Son of Man’: 1) both interpret the notion as an individual, and not as a collective symbol; 2) both interpret the figure mes- sianically; 3) both understand the figure as a pre-existent, transcendent, heavenly entity; 4) in both works he has an active role. It is interesting that, in using the term ‘Son of Man’, both texts establish direct contacts with the debated Chapter 7 of Daniel. Furthermore, in some layers in the formation (or interpretation) of this chapter one can find traces of an understanding of the ‘Son of Man’ that corresponds closely with the teaching of the mentioned intertestamental writings. The OG text of the chapter points towards an individual and even godly interpretation, when it identifies the ‘Son of Man’ with the ‘Ancient of Days’ who in that chapter is the symbol of God.17 Thus, in intertestamental literature, one can clearly see – despite the meaning that one attributes to the figure in Daniel 7 – that the ‘Son of Man’ appears as a heavenly, salvific figure of the eschatological times. (Later on, Jesus and the first Christian writers who interpreted his figure also highly esteemed the ‘Son of Man’ concept and gave it a central place in their theological systems.) There is, however, a further uncertainty, namely, the date of these intertestamental works. The case of the basic material of 4Ezra seems to be the simpler one. Both the historical allusions in the work and its

15. For an aspect of the history of the research see: D. Burkett, “The Nontitular Son of Man: A History and Critique,” New Testament Studies 40 (1994) 504-521. 16. J. J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” New Testament Studies 38 (1992) 448-466; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Son of Man,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6: 137-150. 17. Cf. J. Lust, “Daniel 7,13 and the Septuagint,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 54 (1978) 62-69. 340 GÉZA XERAVITS theology point towards an origin in the first century AD, more precisely after the destruction of the Temple in 70.18 The Enochic corpus is more ancient. Its lengthy passages were found in the Qumran caves and the material seems to be pre-Essene.19 However, one important part of the book (that of the Similitudes) is missing from the Qumran texts. It is precisely this one that inter alia deals with the ‘Son of Man’ figure. The dating of the Similitudes of Enoch is debated. Some think that its composition took place in the 2nd century AD, during the reign of Traianus and J. T. Milik even thought it to have originated at the end of the 3rd century AD, but these views seem to be hardly acceptable.20 Most scholars agree, however, that the composition of the Similitudes can best be set in the first century AD, or rather at the end of that century.21 This does not mean though that one must necessarily assign a Christian origin to these writings. However, because of the date of their alleged emergence, they cannot inform us about the theology of pre-Christian times. Therefore, if one wishes to be cautious, one must exclude the testimony of these writings from the study of the pre-Christian ‘Son of Man’ figure.

One text in the Qumranic messianic corpus, generally called “The ‘Son of God’ text,” bears the official scientific siglum 4Q246.22 The

18. See e.g. J. M. Myers, I and II Esdras, The Anchor Bible, 42 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 129-131, and recently M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990) 9-11. 19. The Qumranic remains of the Enochic literature were thoroughly treated in J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Claren- don Press, 1976). See further id., “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amran,” Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor; Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 46 (Paris/Leuven: Duculot/University Press, 1978) 91- 106; Wacholder, “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature,” 266-274. 20. This is the view of J. C. Hindley, “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch: An Historical Approach,” New Testament Studies 14 (1968) 551-565; see further the related works of Milik, esp. The Books of Enoch, 89-98. The critique of these authors can be found with ample bibliographical references in Coppens, La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal II, 148-155. Some results of Milik were rightly and clearly criticised in J. C. Greenfield & M. E. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Simil- itudes,” Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977) 51-65. 21. See e.g. E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” Old Testament Pseud- epigrapha, 1: 6-7. 22. E. Puech, “246. 4QApocryphe de Daniel ar,” Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Para- biblical Texts, Part 3, ed. G. J. Brooke, et al.; Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 22 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) 165-184. THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 341 palaeographic characteristics of this text point to a date of copying in the last third of the first century BC; thus the time of its writing provides it with a definitely pre-Christian origin. The text was written in Aramaic, is preserved in one fragment, and contains an entire column and a half column with nine lines each. The literary genre of the text is clearly an apocalypse. This is evident from its themes and formal characteristics.23 As to its origin, it probably antedates the Qumran Community.24 Lines 1:1-3 take the reader to a royal court, where an interpreter starts to explain to the king the meaning of his terrible vision. The interpretation starts at line 1:4. It has four major parts. First (1:4-6), the author introduces the reign of two hostile and cruel kings; he then (1:7–2:1a) relates the emergence of another king whose titles reflect a special connection between him and God. The third part (2:1b-3) describes the end of the dominion of the negative rulers; then follows (2:4-9) the reign of the people of God. According to this structure, the interpretation consists of two similar, bipartite parts. Both start by describing negative things, then turn to speak of positive ones. So, the person to whom the titles refer in 1:9–2:1 is a positive ruler. Some scholars argue, however, that this person is completely negative, either historical or purely eschatological. These scholars hold that the above-described interpretation of the structure of the text is insufficient in that it confuses the descriptions of positive and negative entities. Instead, they divide the text into two parts: a negative one (1:4–2:3) and a positive one (2:4-9). According to these scholars, the division is con- firmed by a vacat at the beginning of line 2:4.25 J. Zimmermann has recently demonstrated that the events narrated by the text have a concentric sequence, instead of a strict temporal-linear

23. See J. J. Collins, “Apocalypticism and Literary Genre in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment II, ed. P. W. Flint & J. C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 415, in a broader context: Dimant, “Apocalyp- tic Texts at Qumran,” 180-187. 24. Cf. E. Puech, “Fragment d’une apocalypse en araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu’,” Revue Biblique 99 (1992) 98-131; S. L. Mattila, “Two Contrasting Eschatologies at Qumran (4Q246 vs 1QM),” Biblica 75 (1994) 518-538, esp. 519-520. More generally: Wacholder, “The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature.” Differently: F. García Martínez, “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246,” in his Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah, 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1992) (= “4Q 246: ‘Tipo del Anticristo o Libertador escatológico’?,” El Misterio de la Palabra: Homenaje a L. Alonso Schökel, ed. V. Collado & E. Zurro [Madrid: Cristiandad, 1983] 229-244), 178-179. 25. See e.g. A. Steudel, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God – Collective Expectations in Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1QM),” Revue de Qumran 65-68 (1996) 514-516. 342 GÉZA XERAVITS one. This is obvious in the entire second column, and further in 2:4-7.26 According to this structure the alternate presentation of bad and good entities does not contain any confusion: the intention of the writer was to present opposing powers and leaders in a manner very familiar to classical biblical style. This understanding of the structure of the text is con- firmed by the similarities with Chapter 7 of Daniel, as previously Collins and Puech had demonstrated.27 It is also closer to the firstly-mentioned understanding than to the second one. The material of 4Q246 has other strong connections with the Book of Daniel. It is noteworthy that all the word-by-word correspondences point towards Chapter 7 of the book. These are the following:

4Q246 Daniel 7 1:8 fvwmwi alkv envwmwi fipla ula 7:10 2:3 etc. fvwdi alkv enwvdhv 7:23 2:5 jly hvklm ehvklm jly hvklm ehvklm 7:27 2:9 jly ftlw entlw jly ftlw entlw 7:14

There are other parallels with Daniel 7, in 4Q246 2:1-3, the allu- sion to changing dominions, and in 2:4, the rising of the people of God. These parallels can not be found on the level of lexical units. They are found on the level of their content.28 After this inquiry, one question remains, the interpretation of the one who bears the four titles mentioned in 1:9–2:1:29

26. J. Zimmermann, “Observations on 4Q246 – The ‘Son of God’”, Qumran-Mes- sianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, et al. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998) 181-184. 27. J. J. Collins, “The Son of God Text from Qumran,” From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge, ed. M. C. de Boer; Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series, 84 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 70-71, and Puech, “Fragment d’une apocalypse en araméen,” 130. The structure of the text according them is the following: hostile kings – messiah – changing dominions – everlasting dominion. See further J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1995) 158. 28. Recently A. Steudel called the attention to some points of connection towards Dan 11, but the importance of these passages are less than she supposed it: “The Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 507-525. All the possible Danielic parallels were collected together by G. W. Buchanan, “4Q246 and the Political Titles of Jesus,” Mogilany 1993: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Hans Burgmann, ed. Z. J. Kapera; Qumranica Mogilanensia, 13 (Kraków: Enigma Press, 1996) 77-80. 29. A good summary of the different scholarly views can be found in J. A. Fitzmyer, “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran,” Biblica 74 (1993) 167-174, and Zimmermann, “Observations on 4Q246,” 177-179. THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 343

Great will he be called, and he will be designated by His name. He will be called Son of God, and they will call him Son of the Most High.30 Some scholars try to interpret these titles historically. In their opinion, the titles refer to either some negative person involved in the Jew- ish history of Hellenistic times, as, e.g., Alexander Balas, Antiochus IV Epiphanes,31 or a positive one. The latter could be an unidentifiable Ptole- maide king32 or a Jewish ruler, perhaps from the Hasmonaean family.33 Others prefer a purely eschatological interpretation of the text; they regard its hero as a supernatural one. Thus, Flusser thought him to be a negative figure, the par excellence foe of God, the pre-Christian image of Antichrist.34 García Martínez plausibly refutes Flusser’s view and presents the hero in the text as an angelic person known from other Qumran texts (11QMelch, 4QAmram, 1QM): Melchizedek, Michael, Prince of Light.35 The positive and eschatological (messianic) connotations of 4Q246 become clear if one considers the messiah in a general sense as the mediator of salvation of the end-times. The presence of some Davidic allusions also seems possible and points towards a messianic interpretation,

30. Translation from F. García Martínez & E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1: 493-495. 31. J. T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qum- rân,” Revue de Qumran 59 (1992) 383: “On y décrit le règne désastreux d’un roi de Syrie … son règne blasphématoire sera le dernier du Royaume Séleucide suivi d’une ère eschatologique dont l’agent principal ne sera pas individuel mais collectif,” see the epithet used by these kings: qeopatwr and epifanjv. Further: Steudel, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 511-514. E. Puech, “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism,” The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. D. W. Parry & E. Ulrich; Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah, 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 545- 565: “The absence of any indication in favor of a messianic interpretation … confirms the conclusion that we have to interpret the figure as a negative or wicked historical character. The king Antiochus IV Epiphanes seems to fit best this identification” (549); and also in Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 22 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 183-184. 32. E. M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Light on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993) 168-170. 33. Fitzmyer, “4Q246,” 173: “I consider this apocalyptic text to speak positively of a coming Jewish ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, who be a successor to the Davidic throne, but who is not envisaged as a Messiah.” 34. D. Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” in his Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 207-213 (= Immanuel 10 [1980] 31-37). The refutation of his view can be found, inter alia: Fitzmyer, “4Q246,” 168-169; Steudel, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 513. 35. García Martínez, “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246,” 172-179; to his criticism see e.g. E. Puech, “Notes sur le fragment d’apocalypse 4Q246 – ‘Le Fils de Dieu’,” Revue Biblique 101 (1994) 551; S. L. Mattila, “Two Contrasting Eschatologies at Qumran (4Q246 vs 1QM),” Biblica 75 (1994) 523-525. 344 GÉZA XERAVITS although some scholars have made efforts to deny their presence.36 Their presence is evident from the evocation of the reminiscences of the David- tradition that have an eschatological reinterpretation in intertestamental times: the Nathan-oracle, or Ps 2, 89, 132 (the Son of God tradition),37 and especially Ps 72 (judgement over the gentiles). 4Q246 is obviously related to a tradition that has Daniel 7 as its basis and appears in a more elaborated manner in the intertestamental works of 1Enoch and 4Ezra. Verbal and contextual parallels point towards these writings. In all of them, one can find a clearly eschatological war- scenario with the following dramatis personae: cruel hostile peoples together with their kings, on the one hand, and, on the other, the people of God together with their (individual) representative. This figure is called in Daniel, Enoch and 4Ezra ‘Son of Man.’ In 4Q246 the above-mentioned titles refer to the divine sonship of the hero. In 4Q246 the title ‘Son of Man’ does not, however, appear at all. It is hard to decide whether this is so because the author wanted to develop the teaching of Daniel, or interpret it,38 or, his dependence on that chapter is more informal. What seems to be clear is the strong connection between the ‘Son of Man’ figure of Daniel and the aforementioned intertestamental writings, on the one hand, and the ‘Son of God’ of 4Q246, on the other. Some uncertainty exists to whether the Danielic, presumably collective picture of the ‘Son of Man’ or whether the explicitly individual one, found in 1Enoch and 4Ezra is more akin to the figure of 4Q246. It is not absolutely unthink- able that the bearer of the titles is the people of God that is present in the text and probably strongly connected to the figure of the ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel 7. However, the general picture given by the text points toward the individual interpretation.39 The messianic character of the texts has further support in the striking parallels with the Lucan infancy-narrative, namely, the words of

36. M. G. Abegg, Jr., “The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 138: “It is noteworthy that the manuscript itself makes no Davidic messianic connections,” or Fitzmyer, “4Q246,” 171. Fitzmyer denies the pre- Christian messianic interpretation of some passages, which heavily influenced our text, e.g., 2Sam 7, Ps 2; 89; 110; this position however more than questionable. 37. The Qumranic reflexion of these texts were dealt by C. A. Evans, “A Note on the ‘First-Born Son’ of 4Q369,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 185-201; “Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls,” Qumran-Mes- sianism, 135-153; G. Xeravits, “Az Üdvösségközvetítõ születésének témája Qumrânban,” Theologiai Szemle 41 (1998) 336-338 (in Hungarian). 38. Thus Buchanan, “4Q246,” 80: “It is apparent that 4Q246 is a midrash based on various words and themes of Daniel.” 39. Cf. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 157, 160-161; Zimmermann, “Obser- vations on 4Q246,” 184-185. THE “SON OF MAN” AND QUMRAN 345

Gabriel to the Virgin. These parallels were collected by Fitzmyer.40 The most important ones are as follows: yra ly evel br outov estai megav envrqi fvily rbv uiov ucistou kljqjsetai rmahi la id erb kljqjsetai uiov qeou jly hvklm ehvklm basileusei … eiv touv aiwnav In the theological system of Luke, the messenger announces the birth of the mediator of salvation (messiah). The titles that were also used by the author of 4Q246 had individual and messianic meaning for the Christian writer. Naturally, this does not guarantee that the titles had the same meaning in the Qumran text. But it seems to me unlikely that the first Christian writers used titles for Jesus that had explicitly negative connotations in Jewish thought some decades or a century before their activity. 4Q246 is therefore an important text, since it can reveal the tran- sitional phase of a tradition. In this transition the collective view of the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ was interpreted individually as the eschatological ruler of the chosen people. The author of 4Q246 avoided the use of the title itself; its meaning may have been well known for the Judaism of his time. But this author made a very important step towards forming the ‘Son of Man’ figure present in 1Enoch, 4Ezra, and the New Testament.

Géza Xeravits is a doctoral student at the Qumran Institute of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands and a lecturer at the Theological Academy of Pápa, Hungary. Address: H-1213 Budapest, Toportyan u. 21, Hungary.

40. J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, SBL Monograph Series, 25 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979) 93.