First, 4Q246 describes a figure who will be "son of God" and "son of the Most High." It is unclear whether this Qumran text is prophesying a Messiah figure or criticizing a real political figure for having (false) Messianic pretensions. Either way, our canonical text of Luke 1:32-35 uses both of these titles for Jesus, both times in the voice of Gabriel. Of course, Luke calls Jesus the Son of God elsewhere too. On this Brooke comments:
However, we could also follow Knox and Tyson (see Tyson's book Marcion and Luke Acts) and say that Luke 1-2 is a later addition to GMcn. In this case the textual relationship becomes even more complicated, but the addition of these titles could have served to undermine Marcion's claim that Jesus's Father is a different God from the Israelite God."The motif of the Son of God occurs again in the opening sections of Luke’s Gospel at the baptism of Jesus where its use depends upon Mark, in the genealogy where the sonship eventually involves the descent of Adam from God himself, in the temptation narrative which seems to depend upon Q, and in the summary of his healing ministry in Luke 4:40–41. It is not too far-fetched to suppose that Luke develops his theme of “Son of God” by considering that both Mark and Q need to be supplemented by adding material which can support a reading of Jesus’s sonship as that emerges from the application of and reflection upon early Palestinian traditions in Aramaic or in translation from Aramaic."
Second, in 1 En. 10:12 (4QEnb 1 iv 10) the archangel Michael receives instructions to bind the Watchers (cf. Gen 6:1-4) “for seventy generations under the hills of the earth until the [great] day of their judgment.” This helps to explain why Luke's genealogy has Jesus at the 77th place, seventy places after Enoch. Brooke writes: "Thus, the last judgement will occur in the seventieth generation thereafter; in the light of such a scheme Jesus is the last generation before the judgement." Brooke also makes a number of other interesting connections, some more tenuous, that you can read in the paper.
Third, the narrative of Abram healing Pharaoh in Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 20:26–30) rests behind Luke's narrative of Jesus healing the woman in Luke 13:10-17. So Brooke writes, citing Daniel Machiela,
Tying this back to Luke 13, Brooke writes,First, the plagues that strike Pharaoh and his household are associated with evil spirits, a “pestilential spirit” (20:16), an “evil spirit” (20:16–17), a “spirit of pollutions” (20:26). Second, Harkenosh assumes Abram has power over spirits which the king’s magicians and healers do not have (20:21–23), a power that reflects the same kind of specialist knowledge associated with divine favour as is found in Abram’s skills in writing, wisdom and truth which make him sought after (19:23–29). Third, Machiela has noted that such power and knowledge are explicitly associated with the figure of Enoch (19:25, 29), not unlike what was said of Noah’s insights in Jub. 10. Fourth, two items in the language of the Apocryphon (smk and ’tg‘r) are widely held also to lie behind the choice of epitithēmi and epitimaō (rebuke) as occur in Luke 4:40–41.
Brooke also highlights that George W. E. Nickelsburg has argued for a Galilean provenance for the traditions about Enoch, Levi, and Peter, due to mention of the land of Dan and Mt. Hermon in 1 Enoch 13 and in T. Levi 2:3-5. However, Luke has a known geographical focus on Jerusalem as the center of the world, and accordingly he locates the significance of these texts not in Galilee but in events that take place in Jerusalem.With particular attention to Luke 13, there are three matters. First, the spirit of infirmity (pneuma astheneias) can be juxtaposed with the “spirit of plague” (rwḥ mkdš) of the Genesis Apocryphon. Second, Abram’s words of healing in the Apocryphon are described as prayer, and that is another strong indicator that it is not necessary to suppose that words of prayer in such narratives in the Gospels are later editorial additions. Third, the order of spoken command, laying on of hands, and healing is common to both the Apocryphon and Luke. All three factors assist in encouraging the view that Luke’s narrative concerning the healing of the bent woman reflects not just early tradition but traditions as conveyed in Aramaic. Perhaps of particular pertinence is the way such Aramaic traditions are based on or associated with the role of Raphael who in 1 En. 10:4–9 is charged with healing the earth from the effects of the watchers. That section of 1 Enoch seems to be significant for Luke’s genealogy, as mentioned in the previous section of this study.
Brooke ends the piece with the suggestion that the Road to Emmaus story also borrows its ignorance-revelation motif from Tobit 12:15-16 where the same thing happens but with the angel Raphael. Tobit was originally written in Aramaic.
This discussion raises a few questions for me. First, these connections to Aramaic literature seem to occur across the boundaries that some text critics have proposed. Reevaluating Brooke's argument given the various reconstructions of proto-Luke could be interesting. The use of these particular Aramaic traditions in this way seems somewhat idiosyncratic and should count against source theories that can't explain why separate redactions of Luke demonstrate the same amount of interest in, say, 1 Enoch 6-16. Second, it reminds me of the posts Neil has been making about Nathaniel Vette's Writing with Scripture. To what extent does Luke make "expositional use" of these Aramaic texts, versus to what extent is Luke making "compositional" use of them? It seems possible to me that rather than Luke knowing the true historical Jesus and applying these Aramaic texts and motifs to him, Luke instead knows these texts and they spur his imagination, which he applies to the figure of Jesus. Last, it is interesting that the L material would make use of this early (e.g. the earliest documents at Qumran) material but Matthew and Mark do not (AFAIK). I think of L material as the last piece of the puzzle, but if that last redactor was, suppose, located near Galilee or some other particular locale where this literature was more popular, then we have old literature being added as the newest addition.