Collins, Daniel, 306.

Collins, Daniel, 306.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Zevit, “Structure,” 394–96; Daniel Boyarin, “Daniel 7, Intertextuality, and the History of Israel’s Cult,” htr 105/2 (2012): 139–62, at 148.

Zevit, “Structure,” 394–96; Daniel Boyarin, “Daniel 7, Intertextuality, and the History of Israel’s Cult,” htr 105/2 (2012): 139–62, at 148.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See the discussion of Israel Knohl, “Biblical Attitudes to Gentile Idolatry,” Tarbiz 64 (1994): 5–12 [Hebrew], which addresses this theme in a number of biblical texts (including Deut 32 and Ps 82) although he does not discuss Dan 7.

See the discussion of Israel Knohl, “Biblical Attitudes to Gentile Idolatry,” Tarbiz 64 (1994): 5–12 [Hebrew], which addresses this theme in a number of biblical texts (including Deut 32 and Ps 82) although he does not discuss Dan 7.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Collins, Daniel, 77–78; idem, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), 176; Puech, djd 22, 174; Sharon L. Mattila, “Two Contrasting Eschatologies at Qumran (4Q246 vs 1qm),” Biblica 75,4 (1994): 518–38, at 523; Johannes Zimmerman, “Observations on 4Q246—The ‘Son of God’,” in Qumran-Messianism (ed. J.H. Charlesworth et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 175–90, at 186; Karl A. Kuhn, “The ‘One like a Son of Man’ Becomes the ‘Son of God,’ ” cbq 69 (2007): 22–42, at 28.

Collins, Daniel, 77–78; idem, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), 176; Puech, djd 22, 174; Sharon L. Mattila, “Two Contrasting Eschatologies at Qumran (4Q246 vs 1qm),” Biblica 75,4 (1994): 518–38, at 523; Johannes Zimmerman, “Observations on 4Q246—The ‘Son of God’,” in Qumran-Messianism (ed. J.H. Charlesworth et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 175–90, at 186; Karl A. Kuhn, “The ‘One like a Son of Man’ Becomes the ‘Son of God,’ ” cbq 69 (2007): 22–42, at 28.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Józef T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumran,” RevQ 15/59 (1992): 321–406, at 383–84 (and already noted as his opinion by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays [sblms 25; Missoula: Scholars, 1979], 92–93), who suggested Alexander Balas. Edward M. Cook, “4Q246,” bbr 5 (1995): 43–66; Klaus Berger, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Truth Under Lock and Key? (trans. from German 1993; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 77–79; Puech, djd 22, 183–84; Hartmut Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 248; Annette Steudel, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God: Collective Expectations in Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1qm),” RevQ 17 (1996): 507–25 preferred Antiochus iv. Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 87–95 identifies the “son of God/the Most High” with Augustus. Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (rev. and ext. 4th ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 331–32, did not identify this character with a specific historical king, but rather as the final sovereign of the last empire prior to the eternal dominion of God.

See Józef T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumran,” RevQ 15/59 (1992): 321–406, at 383–84 (and already noted as his opinion by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays [sblms 25; Missoula: Scholars, 1979], 92–93), who suggested Alexander Balas. Edward M. Cook, “4Q246,” bbr 5 (1995): 43–66; Klaus Berger, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Truth Under Lock and Key? (trans. from German 1993; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 77–79; Puech, djd 22, 183–84; Hartmut Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 248; Annette Steudel, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God: Collective Expectations in Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1qm),” RevQ 17 (1996): 507–25 preferred Antiochus iv. Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 87–95 identifies the “son of God/the Most High” with Augustus. Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (rev. and ext. 4th ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 331–32, did not identify this character with a specific historical king, but rather as the final sovereign of the last empire prior to the eternal dominion of God.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

David Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” Immanuel 10 (1983): 31–37; repr. in idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 207–13.

David Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” Immanuel 10 (1983): 31–37; repr. in idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 207–13.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 48–74 (“Messiah and Son of God in the Hellenistic Period”), at 70–71.

Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 48–74 (“Messiah and Son of God in the Hellenistic Period”), at 70–71.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text,” 60.

Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text,” 60.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

As has already been noted Cook, “4Q246,” 60–61.

As has already been noted Cook, “4Q246,” 60–61.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Collins, King and Messiah, 68; idem, The Scepter and the Star, 177.

Collins, King and Messiah, 68; idem, The Scepter and the Star, 177.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See the discussion in Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 42–49. Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 39, adduces 1 En. 89:73 as an intriguing example of the passive form as a morpho-semantic marker. This verse, found in the Animal Apocalypse, describes the building of the second Jerusalem Temple: “And they began again to build as before and they raised up that tower and it was called the high tower. And they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure” (translation according to George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 387). The verb “it was called” is a translation of the Ethiopic yessammay < yetsammay, a denominative t-stem verb from the noun “name”, similar to the Aramaic verbs under discussion here. Mizrahi adopts the interpretation of Devorah Dimant, “Jerusalem and the Temple According to the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in the Light of the Ideology of the Dead Sea Sect,” Shnaton 5–6 (1981–1992): 177–93 [Hebrew], at 180 (similarly Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 394), according to which the tower was only called “high tower,” but in fact was viewed with disappointment when compared with the first Temple. The negative portrayal of the second Temple is made manifestly clear by the reference to polluted bread in the second half of the verse (compare both aspects to the description of the first temple in 89:50). Unfortunately, the text here has not been preserved in its original language, and it is therefore unclear if this meaning can be attributed to an Aramaic morpho-semantic marker.

See the discussion in Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 42–49. Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 39, adduces 1 En. 89:73 as an intriguing example of the passive form as a morpho-semantic marker. This verse, found in the Animal Apocalypse, describes the building of the second Jerusalem Temple: “And they began again to build as before and they raised up that tower and it was called the high tower. And they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure” (translation according to George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 387). The verb “it was called” is a translation of the Ethiopic yessammay < yetsammay, a denominative t-stem verb from the noun “name”, similar to the Aramaic verbs under discussion here. Mizrahi adopts the interpretation of Devorah Dimant, “Jerusalem and the Temple According to the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in the Light of the Ideology of the Dead Sea Sect,” Shnaton 5–6 (1981–1992): 177–93 [Hebrew], at 180 (similarly Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 394), according to which the tower was only called “high tower,” but in fact was viewed with disappointment when compared with the first Temple. The negative portrayal of the second Temple is made manifestly clear by the reference to polluted bread in the second half of the verse (compare both aspects to the description of the first temple in 89:50). Unfortunately, the text here has not been preserved in its original language, and it is therefore unclear if this meaning can be attributed to an Aramaic morpho-semantic marker.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 50–51.

See Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 50–51.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 52–53. Cook, “4Q246,” 55, suggests that the use of the Hebraic form here indicates that this is a title, although it is also found in ii 4, 7.

Mizrahi, “Aramaic,” 52–53. Cook, “4Q246,” 55, suggests that the use of the Hebraic form here indicates that this is a title, although it is also found in ii 4, 7.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation