Source: Peter Schäfer, “Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity”, Princeton University Press.
Son of the Most High in the Daniel Apocryphon from Qumran.wav
This podcast examines a fragment from Qumran, the Daniel Apocryphon, notable for its unique references to a "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High." Scholars debate whether these titles in the apocryphon refer to a negative figure, potentially a Hellenistic king, or a positive eschatological savior figure like the Son of Man from the biblical Book of Daniel. While some argue the text's structure points to a negative interpretation for the Son of God/Most High, the author suggests the wording describing judgment in the final lines strongly indicates a positive figure who, alongside the "people of God," holds an eternal kingdom, with the ultimate act of judgment reserved for this divine messenger.
The Daniel Apocryphon from Qumran: The source introduces a significant Aramaic scroll fragment from Qumran, known as the Daniel Apocryphon, dating from the late Herodian period (late first century BCE). This text has garnered considerable scholarly attention, particularly for its unique mention of specific divine titles. It is presented as relevant to the subject of the "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High," connecting itself directly to the biblical Book of Daniel, specifically the concept of the Son of Man.
Unique Titles: "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High": A central focus of the source is the straightforward and unique appearance of the titles "Son of God" (bera de-'el) and "Son of the Most High" (bar 'elyon) in Column II, line 1, of the Daniel Apocryphon. These titles are presented as particularly noteworthy features of this fragment, setting it apart and prompting various interpretations regarding the figure they describe.
Content of Column II, Lines 1-9: The source provides and discusses the text of Column II, lines 1-9. It begins with the declaration of the titles "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High." Following this, it describes kingdoms that will rule and crush others until the "people of God" ('am el) arises. After the people of God arise, a kingdom is described as eternal, its paths in truth, judging the earth in truth, bringing peace, ending the sword, and receiving homage from all provinces. This entity's strength is the "great God" (el rabba), who wages war for it, places peoples in its hand, and casts them down before it. Its rule is also described as eternal.
Strong Parallels with Daniel 7: A significant portion of the discussion highlights the clear and undisputed parallels between the Daniel Apocryphon (specifically Column II, lines 4ff.) and the biblical Book of Daniel, particularly Daniel 7. Key parallels include the mention of the "people of God" ('am el), which corresponds to the "people of the holy ones of the Most High" in Daniel 7:27. The emphasis on an eternal kingdom or eternal rule in the Apocryphon matches the everlasting dominion and kingdom described in Daniel 7:14, 18, and 26-27. Furthermore, the statement that "all the provinces will pay him/it homage" in the Apocryphon echoes Daniel 7:14 ("all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him") and Daniel 7:27 ("all dominions shall serve and obey them"). These parallels lead scholars to conclude that this section describes the eschatological period.
Identification Debate: The Positive, Eschatological Savior View: Given the parallels with Daniel 7 and its figure "one like a human being" (Son of Man), it is tempting for many scholars to identify the "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High" in the Daniel Apocryphon as a positive, messianic, or eschatological savior figure. This figure is seen as potentially related to or analogous to the Son of Man in Daniel 7. Other potential identifications discussed in this context include other significant figures found in Qumran scrolls, such as Melchizedek, Michael, or the Prince of Light, all of whom play roles in the final eschatological events in those texts.
Comparison with the Melchizedek Fragment (11Q13): The source draws a specific parallel between the figure in the Daniel Apocryphon and Melchizedek as depicted in the Melchizedek fragment from Qumran (11Q13). Dating earlier than the Daniel Apocryphon (late second to mid-first century BCE), this fragment presents Melchizedek as the leader of the Sons of Light in an eschatological battle against Belial and the forces of darkness. The Melchizedek fragment interprets Psalm 82:1 ("Elohim will stand in the assembly of El; in the midst of Elohim he judges") to distinguish Melchizedek (identified as "Elohim") from the Most High God ("El"). While the ultimate judgment belongs to God, Melchizedek is portrayed as carrying out God's vengeance and judgments. This makes Melchizedek a "second God (Elohim) beside the Most High God (El)," acting as God's agent and executive power, providing a parallel concept for interpreting the "Son of God" / "Son of the Most High" figure in the Apocryphon as an angelic or second divine figure.
Comparison with the War Scroll (1QM): Another parallel drawn from Qumran literature is the War Scroll (1QM). This text describes God himself leading the Sons of Light in the war against the Sons of Darkness from the heavens. However, it also states that God appointed the Prince of Light or the most high angel Michael to lead the Sons of Light to victory in this final battle. Michael is described as having dominance over all the "gods" (elim). This illustrates a pattern where God works through a powerful angelic agent (like Michael) to effectuate divine purposes, reinforcing the interpretation of the "Son of God" / "Son of the Most High" in the Daniel Apocryphon as potentially an angelic, second divine figure operating alongside the Most High God.
Striking Parallels with the New Testament (Luke 1): A surprising parallel is found in the New Testament, specifically the annunciation narrative in Luke 1:26-38. The source notes the use of remarkably similar expressions and concepts to the Daniel Apocryphon. The angel Gabriel tells Mary that her son, Jesus, will be "great" (megas), echoing the Apocryphon's "great" (col. I, line 9). He will be called "the Son of the Most High" (hyios hypsistou) and "Son of God" (hyios theou), directly paralleling the titles in the Apocryphon (col. II, line 1). Furthermore, Luke mentions the son's connection to David's throne and an everlasting kingdom, concepts present in the Apocryphon (col. II, line 5). These similarities have led some scholars to propose that Luke was directly influenced by the Daniel Apocryphon or that both texts draw upon a common underlying Jewish tradition.
Alternative Identification Debate: The Negative Interpretation: Not all scholars agree with the positive, messianic interpretation. Some are less impressed by the parallels and, focusing on the context of the Apocryphon, suggest a negative interpretation of the titles "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High." They argue that the negative tone of Column I (describing oppression, slaughter, and the rule of kings of Assyria and Egypt) and part of Column II (nations fighting) should influence the understanding of the figure in Column II, line 1. This figure is then interpreted as one of the Hellenistic kings, known for claiming divine status, or as the heavenly representative of one of the negative Hellenistic kingdoms from Daniel 7. Michael Segal is highlighted as a proponent of this view, arguing that the figure is definitely negative and not a human sovereign, divine messianic figure, or the Son of Man from Daniel 7. His argument is strongly based on the proposed literary structure of the fragment, which he sees as primarily negative up to Column II, line 3.
Ambiguity of the Suffix and a Synthesized Interpretation: The source delves into the ambiguity of the masculine third-person suffix (-eh, "his/its") used in Column II, lines 5ff., which describe the eternal kingdom, judgment, etc. While it's often translated as referring to the immediately preceding "people of God," the source argues that it could also refer back to the "Son of God / Son of the Most High" from line 1, as both figures have an eternal kingdom in Daniel 7. However, the act of judging the earth (lines 5-6) is identified as a function never performed by the people of God in Jewish tradition but always by God or his messenger/Messiah (citing examples like Melchizedek and the Davidic Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon). This leads to the suggestion that the ambiguity is deliberate, allowing the statements to apply to both the people of God and the Son of God / Son of the Most High. The synthesized interpretation posits that the Son of God / Son of the Most High represents the people of God, both receive an everlasting kingdom, but the specific role of judgment at the end of days is reserved for the Son of God / Son of the Most High. This figure is thus understood as a positive figure, similar to the Son of Man but with heightened titles indicating unprecedented proximity to God, while still distinct, as the "great God" provides the ultimate strength and ensures victory. This interpretation pushes the understanding of the figure beyond merely an angelic being towards a unique "Son of God."