(The Apocryphon Of Daniel) Found with The Dead Sea Scrolls (50-1 B.C.)

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

I get it, I really do. I Hear and Understand Exactly what you're saying and the reason why you're saying this.


But .... Here's the biggest reason why To Me this is a different type of situation :
Because It is Literally Making the statement "He will be called The Son Of God, and they will call Him The Son Of The Most High." Before Before The Birth Yahushua Messiah and Christianity.



It's All Good. I understand your reason. I just wanted to show everyone that it exists.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But this goes to the point I made. Just because this group has similar language, categories and concepts about the/a "son of God" does not mean that translates well into Christianity. I think from the available documentation at Qumran, the group seems to have had a different conception of who the son of God was. And this isn't difficult to see since the concept of "son of God" appears in the Old Testament when talking about Israel in general or the king specifically.

Christianity also has a similar concept since it draws on the same source - the Hebrew canon. But in 2nd Temple Judaism, the agreement pretty much ends at the source. They didn't fully agree on what the son of God was, who the messiah was, what a messiah was supposed to do, what functions a messiah would serve, or even how many there were. The Qumran sect seemed to think there were TWO messiahs (or possibly even THREE), one a priest and one a king (and possibly a prophet like Moses), unlike Christianity which maintains one messiah who is both priest and king, and unlike some of Judaism today who thinks two messiahs, both kings one from Judah and one from Joseph.

This disagreement itself stems from the Hebrew canon where there are three messiahs: prophet, priest and king. At various times in Israel's history one of these offices had more power than the other (think Eli or Samuel), at other times they all coexisted somewhat equally (think Zerubbabel and Joshua), at other times offices were combined (such as with Aristobulus I, or arguably David himself), and at other times there were two kings (think Northern and Southern kingdoms). The Hebrew canon isn't quite conclusive as to what the messiah should do, who he should be, how many there are at one time, or what functions each individual should serve.

In any case, unlike the Qumran sect, Christianity came to believe in one messiah who was prophet, priest, and king and who was the teacher, warrior and sufferer. And they came to believe this solely because of the resurrection of said messiah in the middle of history and reflecting back on the things he did and said. Qumran and Christianity are independent strands of 2nd Temple Judaism whose commonality is really just a general cultural milieu and shared religious sources (the Hebrew canon). Other than that, they're quite different in their conclusions. The Qumran group no longer exists for a reason - the apocalyptic event and final battle between the armies of heaven and the forces of evil (which for them was the corrupt priesthood and Roman overlords), which they were waiting for out in the desert and why they were out there to begin with, never happened. Christianity says that apocalyptic event DID happen and the victory over the forces of evil occurred at the cross.

Alpha.Omega said:

This work is not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not part of the original Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament. It has no more value than the other uninspired extra-biblical books.

Click to expand...

No it is not canon. However, we can consider the fragment as what is called 'external evidence' of the Hebrew/Jewish belief of a future Messiah who would be called the Son of God.

It is important external evidence as Biblical skeptics and atheist historians have often opined that the Jesus Messiah of the NT was something unheard of in Hebrew and Aramaic texts prior to the birth of Christ. This fragment disarms the skeptics who have asserted the Biblical Christianity we know of was invented by later church fathers 'making stuff up.'

It also sheds some light on why the High Priest while interrogating Jesus asked:

And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63-64)

So my view is this Daniel fragment is a good external indicator that prior to the birth of Christ there were Jews of the opinion that the Messiah would have a title of the Son of God.

Good link to more details of the fragment in question:

Biblical Archaeology: Exploring The Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q246 Apocryphon of Daniel)

Another non-canon Messianic prophecy which aligns with Jesus stating the 'dead are raised' (Luke 7:22) is found in this text:


More here:

Was the Messiah expected to raise the dead? | CARM.org


Now of course Jesus could be quoting from this:


Great site if you want to look at the translation of the DSS Isaiah scroll:

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#35:8

Click the image at the page it will open a window to scroll through the Hebrew text. Highlight verses and the translation comes up. A wonderful display of how the Scriptures we have in our hands today are accurate.

HypnoToad said:

Paul quotes pagan philosophers in the New Testament several times. That doesn't mean that the pagan writings themselves were divinely inspired.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course.

redleghunter said:

No it is not canon. However, we can consider the fragment as what is called 'external evidence' of the Hebrew/Jewish belief of a future Messiah who would be called the Son of God.

It is important external evidence as Biblical skeptics and atheist historians have often opined that the Jesus Messiah of the NT was something unheard of in Hebrew and Aramaic texts prior to the birth of Christ. This fragment disarms the skeptics who have asserted the Biblical Christianity we know of was invented by later church fathers 'making stuff up.'

It also sheds some light on why the High Priest while interrogating Jesus asked:

And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63-64)

So my view is this Daniel fragment is a good external indicator that prior to the birth of Christ there were Jews of the opinion that the Messiah would have a title of the Son of God.

Good link to more details of the fragment in question:

Biblical Archaeology: Exploring The Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q246 Apocryphon of Daniel)

Another non-canon Messianic prophecy which aligns with Jesus stating the 'dead are raised' (Luke 7:22) is found in this text:

"the heavens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And he will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal kingdom. He who liberates the captives. restores sight to the blind, straightens the bent, and forever I will cleave to the hopeful and in His mercy...and the fruit...will not be delayed for anyone. And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as...For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor...He will lead the uprooted and make the hungry rich..." (A Messianic Apocalypse, 4Q521).1 (Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin Books, 2004) 412-413)​

More here:

Was the Messiah expected to raise the dead? | CARM.org


Now of course Jesus could be quoting from this:

"Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits," (Isaiah 26:19).​

Great site if you want to look at the translation of the DSS Isaiah scroll:

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#35:8

Click the image at the page it will open a window to scroll through the Hebrew text. Highlight verses and the translation comes up. A wonderful display of how the Scriptures we have in our hands today are accurate.

Click to expand...

so you think that the Bible is not sufficient to speak for itself, and that we need uninspired writings to prove what we believe? This is a very dangerous position to take, as it opens the door for the use of writings that are not inspired being used for Bible Doctrine. Where do we draw the line? If we use such uninspired writings to show Bible Doctrines, then our opponents can also use these writings that say things in the Bible are wrong. We have to keep 100% to the Word of God, which is ONLY the Holy Bible.

Alpha.Omega said:

so you think that the Bible is not sufficient to speak for itself, and that we need uninspired writings to prove what we believe?

Click to expand...

Could you please point out where I advocate such? Thanks.

Alpha.Omega said:

This is a very dangerous position to take,

Click to expand...

I agree if someone actually holds to this. I have not.

Alpha.Omega said:

Where do we draw the line?

Click to expand...

For doctrine always with Inspired Holy Scriptures.

Alpha.Omega said:

If we use such uninspired writings to show Bible Doctrines, then our opponents can also use these writings that say things in the Bible are wrong. We have to keep 100% to the Word of God, which is ONLY the Holy Bible.

Click to expand...

For purposes of scholarship I think you miss the point entirely. External evidence is just that. For example, archeology is external evidence of the Biblical narrative. The Isaiah and Hezekiah seals which are recent discoveries which give physical external evidence both men of God as recorded in Inspired Holy Scriptures were contemporaries. These external evidences actually refutes skeptics who for years believed such men to be fables or legends or a group persona.

Another example of where the external evidence helps in scholarship are the writings of Josephus. Josephus gave the history of the Hebrew canon in Flavius Josephus against Apion. The same Hebrew and Protestant OT canon is confirmed externally by the historian Josephus.

redleghunter said:

Could you please point out where I advocate such? Thanks.


I agree if someone actually holds to this. I have not.


For doctrine always with Inspired Holy Scriptures.



For purposes of scholarship I think you miss the point entirely. External evidence is just that. For example, archeology is external evidence of the Biblical narrative. The Isaiah and Hezekiah seals which are recent discoveries which give physical external evidence both men of God as recorded in Inspired Holy Scriptures were contemporaries. These external evidences actually refutes skeptics who for years believed such men to be fables or legends or a group persona.

Another example of where the external evidence helps in scholarship are the writings of Josephus. Josephus gave the history of the Hebrew canon in Flavius Josephus against Apion. The same Hebrew and Protestant OT canon is confirmed externally by the historian Josephus.

Click to expand...

You said

"It is important external evidence as Biblical skeptics and atheist historians have often opined that the Jesus Messiah of the NT was something unheard of in Hebrew and Aramaic texts prior to the birth of Christ. This fragment disarms the skeptics who have asserted the Biblical Christianity we know of was invented by later church fathers 'making stuff up.'"

We do NOT need ANY extra "evidence". Either people are convinced by the Holy Bible as God's Word, or not. We do NOT need anyone or thing to "support" what Scripture says.

Alpha.Omega said:

We do NOT need ANY extra "evidence". Either people are convinced by the Holy Bible as God's Word, or not. We do NOT need anyone or thing to "support" what Scripture says.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing Biblical canon faith and doctrine with historical and archeological scholarship.

Do you believe Biblical archaeology, manuscript evidence and history are futile efforts? Or learning the history and culture of the people and nations in the Bible through external examination? How do you think we can properly exegete the Bible if we don't know our very best about the actual people receiving the direct inspiration of and revelation from God?

redleghunter said:

I think you are confusing Biblical canon faith and doctrine with historical and archeological scholarship.

Do you believe Biblical archaeology, manuscript evidence and history are futile efforts? Or learning the history and culture of the people and nations in the Bible through external examination? How do you think we can properly exegete the Bible if we don't know our very best about the actual people receiving the direct inspiration of and revelation from God?

Click to expand...

Lets put it this way. tomorrow some leading scientist says, we now have scientific proof, that God did create the world in six days, out of nothing. SO WHAT? the Bible, God's Infallible, Inerrant Word has already told us this thousands of years ago! We need NOTHING to add to the Word of God, in way of confirming things.

Alpha.Omega said:

Lets put it this way. tomorrow some leading scientist says, we now have scientific proof, that God did create the world in six days, out of nothing. SO WHAT? the Bible, God's Infallible, Inerrant Word has already told us this thousands of years ago! We need NOTHING to add to the Word of God, in way of confirming things.

Click to expand...

As a Bible thumping classic Fundamentalist I agree with you.

As a defender of our Christian faith (1 Peter 3:15) I also know the value of the external historical evidence to refute the skeptics whose assertions are built on a throne of lies. One major goal of Biblical apologetics is to refute the external skeptic claims.

For example, in the late 19th century most liberal theologians and secular historians laughed at any scholar who defended the historical claims and markers Luke and Paul provided in their NT writings. An archaeologist names Sir William Ramsay, a Christian NT scholar and archaeologist of the skeptical school set out to investigate the historical claims of Luke in the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. The following quotes can be found here.


So Ramsay set out to confirm or deny the Biblical claims:



Ramsay concluded:



What's interesting, about the time (late 19th early 20th century) Ramsay was investigating and making his discoveries, RA Torrey was compiling essays defending the faith from liberal theology. Torrey et. al published (between 1910-1915) The Fundamentals. These works would prove to fuel the Fundamentalist movement.

For the most part the Fundamentals did not have the completed works of Ramsay, but Ramsay's discoveries provided the historical and archaeological evidence to support the works published in the Fundamentals. Volume 1 can be found here.

This is just one historical example of how historical and archeological investigations confirm the Biblical narrative. An entire century of theological skepticism was crushed to dust by the efforts of orthodox (little o) Christian theologians upholding the Truth of Holy Inspired Scriptures and the Christian historians and archaeologists refuting liberal skeptic assertions.

That is why I believe the external evidence is useful and important.

redleghunter said:

As a Bible thumping classic Fundamentalist I agree with you.

As a defender of our Christian faith (1 Peter 3:15) I also know the value of the external historical evidence to refute the skeptics whose assertions are built on a throne of lies. One major goal of Biblical apologetics is to refute the external skeptic claims.

For example, in the late 19th century most liberal theologians and secular historians laughed at any scholar who defended the historical claims and markers Luke and Paul provided in their NT writings. An archaeologist names Sir William Ramsay, a Christian NT scholar and archaeologist of the skeptical school set out to investigate the historical claims of Luke in the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. The following quotes can be found here.

The basic reliability of the Book of Acts is illustrated in the story of Sir William Ramsay. In the nineteenth century it was widely believed that the New Testament was an invention of the second-century church. Sir William Ramsay provides us with an example of how an honest scholar of history can change his perspective when faced by incontrovertible evidence from history and archaeology. Ramsay began his historical research toward the end of the nineteenth century. He was taught that the New Testament was not written in the first century and was not historically reliable. Although the New Testament Book of Acts contained a variety of eyewitness historical references, liberal critics rejected its historicity and declared it untrue.​

So Ramsay set out to confirm or deny the Biblical claims:

As a young historian, Ramsay was determined to develop an independent historical/geographical study of first-century Asia Minor. He assumed the Book of Acts was unreliable and ignored its historical allusions in his studies. The amount of usable historical information concerning first-century Asia Minor, however, was too little for him to proceed very far with his work. That led him, almost in desperation, to consult the Book of Acts for any help possible. Ramsay discovered that it was remarkably accurate and true to first-century history and topography. Ramsay testified to what changed his mind:​

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusions which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely, but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations (Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul The Traveler and Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1962, p. 36).​

Ramsay concluded:

"Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness" (Ramsay, ibid. p. 81) and Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953, p. 222).​

What's interesting, about the time (late 19th early 20th century) Ramsay was investigating and making his discoveries, RA Torrey was compiling essays defending the faith from liberal theology. Torrey et. al published (between 1910-1915) The Fundamentals. These works would prove to fuel the Fundamentalist movement.

For the most part the Fundamentals did not have the completed works of Ramsay, but Ramsay's discoveries provided the historical and archaeological evidence to support the works published in the Fundamentals. Volume 1 can be found here.

This is just one historical example of how historical and archeological investigations confirm the Biblical narrative. An entire century of theological skepticism was crushed to dust by the efforts of orthodox (little o) Christian theologians upholding the Truth of Holy Inspired Scriptures and the Christian historians and archaeologists refuting liberal skeptic assertions.

That is why I believe the external evidence is useful and important.

Click to expand...

I know where you are coming from, as I have been studying textual issues, and apologetics for over 30 years. However, If a person cannot believe that Jesus Christ existed, without the testimony of Pliny the Younger; or that Luke wrote the Gospel by his name and the Book of Acts, unless Sir William says so, then they seriously lack the faith and trust in God's Word, as being sufficient and completely Trustworthy. We do not need "extra" stuff to persuade us. The Word of God is sufficient.

Alpha.Omega said:

I know where you are coming from, as I have been studying textual issues, and apologetics for over 30 years. However, If a person cannot believe that Jesus Christ existed, without the testimony of Pliny the Younger; or that Luke wrote the Gospel by his name and the Book of Acts, unless Sir William says so, then they seriously lack the faith and trust in God's Word, as being sufficient and completely Trustworthy. We do not need "extra" stuff to persuade us. The Word of God is sufficient.

Click to expand...

I don't argue at all with the above when it comes to our faith and doctrine. I was pointing out the apologetic value of the external evidence in refuting skeptic assertions, outright lies and errors.

redleghunter said:

I don't argue at all with the above when it comes to our faith and doctrine. I was pointing out the apologetic value of the external evidence in refuting skeptic assertions, outright lies and errors.

Click to expand...

I will ask this once more. Are you saying that we do not have sufficient evidence in the Perfect, Infallible, Inerrant Word of God, on ALL matters on which it Speaks? Do we need science to argue against Richard Dawkins, because what the Bible says on Creation out of nothing, is not enough to convince him?

Alpha.Omega said:

I know where you are coming from, as I have been studying textual issues, and apologetics for over 30 years.

Click to expand...

If you truly have been doing the above for over 30 years, you would not be asking me the questions below.

Alpha.Omega said:

I will ask this once more. Are you saying that we do not have sufficient evidence in the Perfect, Infallible, Inerrant Word of God, on ALL matters on which it Speaks? Do we need science to argue against Richard Dawkins, because what the Bible says on Creation out of nothing, is not enough to convince him?

Click to expand...

I am so sorry you have not been comprehending what I have been writing.

Alpha.Omega said:

What we have in the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, is ALL that God wants us to have. If He thought we should have had others, then He would have made sure that we did!

Click to expand...

How were those 66 books decided?

DawnStar said:

How were those 66 books decided?

Click to expand...

Under the direction of God the Holy Spirit.

Alpha.Omega said:

Under the direction of God the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

When and where?

DawnStar said:

When and where?

Click to expand...

When the two Canons of the Bible, the Old and New Testaments were closed.

7. The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

But it Does disarm the skeptics.

Click to expand...

does it really? Is not the Holy Bible capable of doing this?