4Q246 section, the Son of God text, which corresponds to Daniel 7:13-14, and Luke 1:32-33, and 35. Scholars disagree on whether the author of Luke’s infancy narrative was drawing on the same tradition as 4Q246 or not. Some, like Brooke, argue for Luke’s use of the “Aramaic tradition” found in 4Q246, others are more skeptical, like Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra. Compare the former to the latter:
The correspondences between 4Q246 and the Lukan infancy narrative are striking. […] in Luke’s infancy narrative we have an example of the messianic reading of the text, […] depending upon how close one considers Luke to be to the tradition, if it [4Q246] is thought of as originally describing a negative figure, he either misunderstood or deliberately subverted the earlier tradition (Brooke)

I would be hesitant, however, to argue that Luke 1 used 4Q246 as a source or that both relied on the same source. The differences in the immediate context are too important. (DSBE)
So, some scholars propose that Luke’s infancy narrative (whether or not from the same author as the rest of the Gospel) and some of the “special Lucan material” is drawing from Aramaic oral and/or written sources.

Brooke’s article Aramaic Traditions from the Qumran Caves and the Palestinian Sources for Part of Luke’s Special Material, in open access here: https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004413733/BP000016.xml?language=en
My own preference has been to see that at least one reader of this tradition, if not this actual composition, namely the author of Luke’s Gospel, took the nomenclature and several other features of the tradition in a positive and messianic manner, even if they had been inappropriately adopted by a pretender. The correspondences between 4Q246 and the Lukan infancy narrative are striking.27 In Luke 1:32–35 the same pair of titles occurs together with the phrase “he will be great” (the beginning of verse 32 reads οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται; the end of verse 35 reads διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ). Collins comments that these correspondences are “astonishing” and that “it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke is dependent in some way, whether directly or indirectly, on this long-lost text from Qumran.”28 Here, then, in Luke’s infancy narrative we have an example of the messianic reading of the text, and a reading that took the figure as an individual. In such a case, depending upon how close one considers Luke to be to the tradition, if it is thought of as originally describing a negative figure, he either misunderstood or deliberately subverted the earlier tradition to make the use of the titles entirely positive.[…]

1. Concludes: In other words, the proposal of this study is no more than that Luke seems to have had access, directly or indirectly, to a set or sets of Aramaic traditions, either oral or more likely written or possibly both, which he could use as a resource as he sought to tell and retell his version of the Gospel. If Luke’s acquaintance with such material was indirect, then those early Jewish literary traditions could have already been translated in written form from Aramaic to Greek, as is now clearly visible in Judea itself for some of the Enoch materials which are known in both Aramaic from Cave 4 and Greek from Cave 7. […] This essay has taken a brief look at three traditions that involve special Lukan material. All three have been shown to have resonances of textual material that seems to have been originally cast in Aramaic, as if Luke had access to a set of such traditions and reflected upon them. How did his reflection work? […] Luke developed an explicit and enhanced interest in Jesus as Son of God, Son of the Most High. […] Some of the Aramaic sources from the Qumran caves can now be seen as providing a set of interrelated motifs and topics to which Luke could make direct or indirect appeal. Beyond what might be reconstructed as sayings of Jesus, further study might reveal yet more of Aramaic origin in Luke’s special material.

A.Y. Collins and J.J. Collins’ King and Messiah as the Son of God, in the section on 4Q246 notes:

Whether Luke is dependent on the Qumran text or the parallel is due to “coincidental use by Luke of Palestinian Jewish titles known to him”103 makes little difference for the significance of the parallel.

https://www.academia.edu/408080/Messianic_Figures_in_the_Qumran_Aramaic_Texts Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra in “Messianic Figures in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran” (in https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/15843) notes:
The messianic terminology in the Aramaic texts differs greatly from the “sectarian” parlance. Hebrew equivalents to the Aramaic appellations do not appear in sectarian messianic speculations and vice versa.66 Non-Qumranic sources have closer parallels. In 4 Ezra 13:32.37.52, 14:9 and perhaps 7:28f the messiah is called “my son.”67 The closest parallel to “son of God” and “son of the Most High” with a verb of appellation in the passive and the reference to the eternal reign appear in Luke 1:32–35.68 Already before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, scholars assumed that Luke was using older sources here. I would be hesitant, however, to argue that Luke 1 used 4Q246 as a source or that both relied on the same source. The differences in the immediate context are too important. In Luke 1, Jesus is not told to raise a people, to be the future judge or to cause peace. And there is nothing explicitly Davidic in 4Q246 apart from the fact that the protagonist is potentially a king.69 […]

Early Christian messianic conceptions are often very close to the Aramaic Qumran texts. 4Q246 and Luke 1 point to some conceptual if not literary relationship. In the case of 4Q541 we note the use of Isaiah 53 and, independently of that, the use of scapegoat imagery related to Leviticus 16 for the description of a messianic figure who is suffering and also atoning. Both, Christians and the authors of 4Q541 could have arrived independently at these connections. The expectation of Elijah (4Q558) seems to point to shared traditions.

Had the texts been discovered in another place than Qumran, would anyone have suggested sectarian authorship? This is rather unlikely. I would argue that the messianic conceptions present in the Aramaic texts and their varying relationship to Qumran, Pseudepigrapha and early Christian texts suggests that they belonged to the larger world of Second Temple Judaism of which Qumran (and nascent Christianity) were parts.
Martinez in chapter 6 of Qumran and Apocalyptic provides a more thorough discussion of those diverse stances: https://brill.com/display/book/9789004350106/BP000008.xml