James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (119 page)

Theuda and Addai in the Two Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi

The two Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi are to some degree attributed to James. This James is clearly intended to be James ‘the brother of the Lord’, because Jesus is presented as addressing him as ‘James my brother’ (24.15), but that is as far as both documents are willing to go in admitting any
actual
‘brother’ relationship. In fact, both try to deny it, the First adding, though ‘not my brother materially’; the Second turns it around and has James greet Jesus as ‘my brother’. Then, somewhat in the manner of the Protevangelium, Mary avers that he is rather a
step-brother
(50.19–2.0). Jesus then ultimately concludes, ‘Your father is not My Father, but My Father has become a Father to you’ (51.20). It then goes on to evoke the word ‘virgin’ three times, but it is not clear which ‘virgin’ it means, James or ‘Mary mother of God’ (51.27–52.1).

This is evidently playing off some very old materials and obviously in the thick of some of the disputes on these issues as they were developing. Continuing in the context in which these greetings are exchanged, the First Apocalypse then goes on not only to announce that he (Jesus) will be ‘seized the day after tomorrow’, but also that James will be ‘seized’ (25.10–15), making it clear that the James who, in the words of Matthew 20:22 and Mark 10:38, will ‘drink the Cup’ that Jesus has drunk will be
James the brother of the Lord
not some other James. Interestingly, it then goes on to speak of Jerusalem giving ‘the Cup of Bitterness to
the Sons of Light
’ (25.17). This is clear Qumran phraseology, as it is the phraseology of Revelation, and carries with it the sense of martyrdom or Vengeance as we have seen (14:10, 16:19, and 18:6).

What is important for our purposes is that in the First Apocalypse the only other person of any substance who is mentioned, apart from Jesus the Rabbi and James his brother, is ‘Addai’. This is the individual who is always presented as the Apostle or Evangelist sent out by ‘Judas
Thomas
’ to the Edessenes/Osrhoeans. Addai is called ‘Thaddaeus’, as we have seen, in the ‘Abgarus’ materials presented by Eusebius, and a lively apocrypha has developed about him in Syriac tradition. It is to him that James is instructed to reveal what he has learned from his master and putative brother Jesus (36.15–20). Here, therefore, not only do we have James evidently being appointed successor by Jesus himself, but we have James (not Thomas) clearly involved with Addai/Thaddaeus.

James’ death is just as clearly alluded to in the traditional manner of Origen, Eusebius and others (following either Hegesippus or Clement of Alexandria, or both), ‘When you depart (or ‘are killed’), immediately War will be made upon this land. (Weep) then for him who dwells in Jerusalem’ (36.20). These words seem to embody something of the mysterious oracle to leave Jerusalem that the early Christian Community supposedly received following James’ death, just prior to the appearance of Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. It is also almost word-for-word from the prophecy of doom uttered by the mysterious Jesus ben Ananias following James’ death in 62 CE and which he did not cease from proclaiming until his own death shortly before the fall of the Temple in 70 CE.

The text continues, making it plain what it intended to say about Addai anyhow, though it is fragmentary: ‘But let Addai take these things to heart. In the Tenth Year, let Addai sit and write them down, and when he writes them down …’ (36.21–25). There is also an echo here of ‘the epistle’ James supposedly dictates or gives to ‘Judas surnamed Barsabas’ – Addai’s or Thaddaeus’ double – to take to Antioch at the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council in Acts, not to mention the one supposedly taken by Thaddaeus on the part of Judas
Thomas
to Abgarus in other variations of this story. This we have already seen echoed in
MMT
or the two Letters on Works Righteousness, mysteriously found in so many copies at Qumran, the only letters of this kind extant there.

At the end of the First Apocalypse, James’ death is clearly referred to, including something of the gist of the
Zaddik
citation from Isaiah 3:10 associated with it in Eusebius via Hegesippus – not to mention Jesus’ death in Scripture: ‘They arose, saying, “We have no part in this blood, for a Righteous Man will perish through Unrighteousness”. James departed …’ (46.17–22). The text breaks off here. If nothing else, what is apparent in this text is that Addai is being presented as James’ Apostle or messenger in much the same way that Thaddaeus is presented, in more orthodox treatments, as the Apostle or messenger of Judas
Thomas
– whom we have already presented as that brother of James known as Jude, not to mention, being identical with ‘Theudas’.

But this is exactly the sense of the Second Apocalypse, told in the form of a discourse of James, in which Addai’s place is basically taken by ‘Theuda’ – namely
Theudas
. This document over and over again focuses on James being called ‘the Just One’ and even, it would appear, ‘the Beloved’ or ‘my Beloved’ (49.9 and 56.17). It also mentions ‘the fifth flight of steps’ (45.25), though it is not always clear whether it is James being spoken of or Jesus, and quotes the verse from Isaiah 3:10 in the Septuagint version we have mentioned (61.12–20), associated with James’ death via Hegesippus.

But most importantly, the individual there to whom James dictates his discourse and who clearly takes the place of Addai in the First, is called ‘Theuda (the ‘father’ or ‘brother’) of the Just One, since he was a relative of his’ (44.19) – this, and ‘the steps’, upon which either James or Jesus ‘stands’ or ‘sits’ in order to deliver his discourses (45.25). Here we are clearly in the milieu both of the Ascents of James – the
Anabathmoi Jacobou
evoked in Epiphanius – and the Pseudoclementine
Recognitions
’ presentation of the debates on the Temple steps, also refracted in various passages in the Book of Acts in connection with the other Apostles and
even at one point Paul
(Acts 21:40) – but not James!

I think that we can again state at this point that our case is proven. Here we have the corroboration necessary to show that this Theudas – also called Addai, also known as Thaddaeus – who ‘was a relative of his’, was a
kinsman
or
brother of
Jesus or James, in fact,
his third brother
– ‘the brother of the Just One’ – known variously as ‘Judas of James’, ‘Judas the brother of James’, and ‘Judas the Zealot’. It was the grandsons of this Judas who are interviewed by Domitian because of their
Messianic lineage
. Finally they were martyred (also according to Hegesippus) along with another relative of Jesus, Simeon bar Cleophas – also variously ‘Simon the Zealot’/‘Simon the Cananite’/‘
Cananaean
’– in the time of Trajan (in Simeon’s/Simon’s case, rather than Domitian’s). It only remains to straighten out one or two last confusions centering about ‘Judas
Iscariot
’.

Judas
Iscariot
and Simon
Iscariot

The traditions about Judas
Iscariot
are malevolent on several counts, and this is, no doubt, what the creative writers of these materials intended. These writers also play on traditions about Jewish heroes from this period, namely Judas Maccabeus and Judas the Galilean, the latter the founder of what Eusebius via Hegesippus – if not Josephus – calls the ‘
Galilean
’ Movement. This has to be what they are implying by this name, because Judas did not come from Galilee, but rather the area adjacent to it known as Gaulonitis (today’s Golan) – unless we are involved in confusions like those in the Gospels, where, for instance, a geographical name like ‘Nazareth’ (undocumented in Galilee in Second Temple Times except in Scripture) is substituted for the very real concept of a ‘Nazirite’ or ‘Nazoraean’.

A great deal of trouble is taken by these writers to get Jesus
to Galilee
, even though they rather have him
coming from Bethlehem
, the seat of the Davidic family of old. Nathanael again (a seeming stand-in for James in the Gospel of John), for instance, asks ‘Philip’ – when the latter announces that ‘Jesus
the son of Joseph
who is from
Nazareth
’ has been found, ‘Can any good thing
come out of Nazareth
’? (1:46). A few chapters later, this question is reprised after ‘Many’ in the crowd apply the Ebionite ‘True Prophet’ ideology to Jesus. Others in the crowd then say, ‘This is
the Christ’
, to which still others respond, ‘Does the Christ then come out of Galilee? Did not the Scriptures say that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from Bethlehem, the city where David lived?’ (7:40–42)

This means that Jesus does not come from Bethlehem, nor was he born there, and, ‘Galilean’, meaning ‘to come from Galilee’, is preferred to ‘Galilean’ as an ideological designation, meaning to follow the Movement started by Judas and
Saddok
around the time of ‘Jesus” alleged birth. This episode ends with our Nicodemus again, intervening and asking whether the Law ‘judges a man without first hearing from him and knowing what
he does
’. Whereupon the crowd responds, ‘Are you also of Galilee? Search and see that no Prophet has arisen out of Galilee’ (7:52).

The simultaneity of the birth of Jesus and that of the Fourth Philosophy is perhaps not merely coincidental, as both are ‘Zealots’ in the
true
sense of the word. But the animosity involved in these sleights of hand regarding the name Judas is also related to the fact that
all Jews
– in fact, the very name ‘Jew’ itself – come from the ‘House of Judah’, as the Habakkuk
Pesher
at Qumran knows, that is, ‘Judas’ or ‘Jude’ in Greek.
22
Therefore, a slur on the name of the one ends up a slur on the
whole people
. In some sense it is also related to the traditions surrounding Jesus’ family members themselves. It is this we would like to focus on here, in order to part the cloud of unknowing and lift the fascination heightened by the allure of scandal hovering over the people as a whole.

In orthodox Apostle lists the individual known as Judas
Iscariot
either follows ‘Simon the Cananaean’ or ‘Judas (the brother) of James’. This title
Iscariot
is almost always further accompanied by the epithet, ‘who
delivered him up
’, most often translated as ‘who betrayed him’. For Luke, ‘Simon the
Cana
nite’ is ‘Simon the
Zealot
’, ‘
kana’
’ in Hebrew translating into the word ‘
zelos
’ in Greek, another bit of Gospel
sleight-of-hand
. Luke also puts the name ‘Judas of James’ in between this ‘Simon’ and ‘Judas
Iscariot
’.

That is, the name
Judas Iscariot
always follows three others, namely, ‘James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean’, those we have identified as Jesus’ brothers. This, Jerome had already come to realize, because he had intelligence, and used it – the only problem being the use he put it to. The names at the end then read (omitting ‘James the son of Alphaeus’): ‘Lebbaeus who was called Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananite, and Judas
Iscariot
(Mt 10:4), or simply, ‘Thaddaeus and Simon the Cananite and Judas
Iscariot’
(Mk 3:18), or ‘Simon who was called
Zelotes
and Judas of James and Judas
Iscariot
’ (Lk 6:15–16). Acts 1:13 differs only in calling Simon simply ‘Simon
Zelotes
’ or ‘Simon the Zealot’.

However, the Gospel of John, which contains no Apostle list, calls Judas, in four different places, ‘of Simon
Iscariot
’ or ‘Simon
Iscariot
’s son’ or ‘brother’ (6:71, 12:4, 13:3, and, most importantly of all, 13:26, where Jesus ‘breaks the bread’ and gives it to ‘Judas of Simon
Iscariot
’. This is paralleled in the Gospel of the Hebrews above by Jesus ‘breaking the bread and giving it to’
his brother James
.) At one point, John is at pains to distinguish this ‘Judas’ from
another
Judas, ‘not the
Iscariot
’, among the Apostles, whom he has not mentioned before in the Gospel (14:22).

It would appear to be plain that ‘Judas
Iscariot
’ is indistinguishable from Jesus’ brother ‘Judas of James’, also called Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus (that is, ‘Judas the son of
Alphaeus
’ or ‘
Cleophas
’), Judas the Zealot, itself moving into Thomas/Judas Thomas appellations. Nor is this so-called ‘Simon
Iscariot
’ in John to be distinguished from Simon the Zealot, Simon the Cananite, and probably also Simeon bar Cleophas, Jesus’ purported
first
cousin – the multiplication of these Judases being not very different from the multiplication of Marys, Simons, and Jameses, but to even more deleterious effect. This is because, historically speaking, the calumny involved in calling Judas ‘the Traitor’, with all its implications, has echoed down the ages and hardly ameliorates even today.