Naming the Messiah: A Contribution to the 4Q246 ‘Son of God’ Debate

Abstract

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 alterna tive: 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 tra ditions 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 partici pates in a widespread messianic topos. Keywords 4Q246 -Messiah -Daniel 7 -eschatology -intertextuality -Qumran Aramaic -son of God Text and Key IssuesHistory has preserved less than two columns of 4Q246. But of what has sur vived, it is hard to say anything without stepping on some critic's toes. The fragment reads: * Many thanks to Dale Allison, James Durlesser, and Daniel Frayer-Griggs for their feedback on an earlier version of this article. Thanks also to the participants in the "Non-Canonical Texts" session at the 2013 e g l b s in Erie, p a for their queries and comments.