James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (73 page)

This allusion to ‘
sleeping with women in their periods’
, which is directly connected in the Damascus Document to the one about ‘
each one (of them) marrying his brother’s daughter’
(
obviously having to do with Herodians whose marital practice this was
) – in the former instance,
specifically has to do, therefore, with foreigners, and those perceived of as having commerce or intercourse with foreigners
. This would include Herodian Kings and Princesses, all reckoned by extremists of the stripe of
the ‘Simon’ in Josephus
above and those at Qumran, as ‘
foreigners
’. Additionally, such aspersion would
include Paul
and his so-called ‘Gentile Mission’ too. Peter, no doubt, confronted Simon
Magus
on issues such as these as well. Certainly the ‘Peter’ pictured in the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
would have. This is why Acts is at such pains to counter-indicate and reverse all such issues absolutely.

These are the parameters of ‘Palestinian Christian’ activity – these are the parameters of Qumran, not retrospective historical re-creation. These become transformed in what is perhaps one of the most cynical examples of overseas dissimulation or inversion into ‘Peter’
learning that he should not make distinctions beteen ‘foreigners’ or ‘uncircumcised men’ and their opposites
(Acts 10:28 and 11:3). In effect,
Peter is Paulinized
, the recipient of a Paul-style ‘Heavenly vision’ to confirm it, and
on a rooftop in Jaffa no less
– this, when Galatians 2:12
specifically testifies
that he ‘separated’ himself from Paul concerning it despite being, perhaps, a little less stringent regarding this issue than James. This too is emphatically confirmed in the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
.

To add insult to injury, Peter is then portrayed as greeting a Roman Centurion from Caesarea as we saw and
returning with him to visit his household there
– a Roman Legionnaire whom Acts describes
as caring intensely about Judaism and all things Jewish
(should one suppress another guffaw here?). This, in spite of the fact that over and over again Josephus makes it clear it was
these same legionnaires from Caesarea who exacerbated the problems in the country
– no Governor ever feeling confident enough over a twenty-year period to exercise control over them – and finally goaded the Jews to revolt!

That someone, overwriting this episode about the Jerusalem ‘Simon’’s visit to Agrippa I’s household in Caesarea and presenting it, rather, in terms of
Peter’s visit to the house of the Roman Centurion Cornelius in Caesarea
– from ‘
the Italica Contingent
’ no less – may or may not have intended to
gain the attention of either Trajan or Hadrian, to convince them of what a positive attitude their predecessors in ‘the Italica Regiment’
(Trajan’s father anyhow having served in the Palestinian War)
had had to Christian leaders
, has to be considered. In this regard, not only did both Trajan and Hadrian come from the Roman garrison town of ‘Italica’ in Spain, but both were very active in putting down Messianic uprisings in Palestine and around the Mediterranean at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Centuries.
13

In fact, Trajan’s correspondence with the younger Pliny, who unlike the descendants of Drusilla and Felix survived the eruption of Vesuvius, raised issues not unrelated to these. It will be recalled that Trajan had requested Pliny in his capacity as Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor to investigate ‘Christians’ there – obviously ‘Gentile’ ones. Eusebius, who preserves this from Tertullian (160–221 CE), has Pliny concluding: ‘
They did nothing evil or contrary to the Laws (Roman Law)
… beyond their
unwillingness to sacrifice to idols, he found nothing criminal in them
.’

One should remark here – contrary to Paul – the observance of James’ prohibition on ‘
eating things sacrificed to idols’
. In addition, this is the verdict that basically reappears in the Roman Governor’s mouth in Judea – if not Pliny’s certainly Pilate’s – who in Luke 23:4, anyhow, after examining Jesus, concludes, ‘
I find no fault in this man’
. John even more precisely echoes the words imputed to Pliny above, again quoting Pilate as saying, ‘
I find no crime in him’
(19:4). At this, Eusebius’ version of Tertullian’s testimony has Trajan
ruling that ‘Christians should not be inquired after further
’. This is not precisely the outcome of the actual correspondence which
has survived and records something of a less sanguine upshot
.

Eusebius also records a similar episode that happened not long before – at least according to his understanding. This one, under Domitian (81–96), ends up in the arrest of ‘
the offspring of one of those considered the brothers of the Lord, whose name was Judas
’. This is about the same time as the executions of Epaphroditus and Flavius Clemens and the exile of the latter’s wife or niece, Flavia Domitilla. It is interesting that
it is this Domitilla’s servant
– again curiously named ‘
Stephanos
’ –
who assassinates Domitian the same year
.
14

A third episode of this kind under Trajan (98–117), at the time seemingly of Messianic disturbances in Egypt and Cyrene (Libya), ends up in the torture and crucifixion of Simeon bar Cleophas – either Jesus’ ‘cousin’ or second brother – around 105–6 CE whom, Eusebius or his source Hegisippus avers, ‘
terminated his life with sufferings like those of our Lord
’.
15
To confuse the matter still further, Eusebius, again following Hegesippus, supplies us with yet another note about
a third such round-up under Vespasian even earlier
. He explains: ‘
Vespasian gave an order that a search be made for all descendants of David, and this resulted in the infliction of another widespread persecution on the Jews
.’
16
In all these notices, Eusebius basically uses the same words, ‘
A search was made for the Jews that were of the descendants of David
.’
17

One should note here again – if the notice is true – that the Roman administrative practice at the time treated so-called ‘Christians’, ‘Messianists’, and Jews virtually indistinguishably. ‘
Domitian had issued orders that the descendants of David should be slain’
, again showing, if true, that he knew the disturbances in Palestine in this period – which were apparently still going on – to be
Messianic
. Whereupon ‘
the descendants of Judas, as the brother of our Saviour according to the flesh, because they were of the family of David, and as such, also related to Christ … were brought to Domitian
’.
18
Following Hegesippus, now verbatim, Eusebius identifies these as ‘
the grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord according to the flesh
.’

Domitian examines them and Eusebius proceeds with the notice that ‘
the hardness of their bodies was evidence of their labour and the calluses of their hands from their incessant work was evidence of their own labour
’ which, ever so slightly, evokes how hard
the calluses were on James’ knees from all the ‘incessant praying’ he did in the Holy of Holies
(
n.b.,
too, the repeat of the word ‘
incessant
’ here as well).Also like James, they are portrayed as answering the charges against them in terms of Jesus’ ‘
coming in Glory
to judge … every man
according to his works
’. This is almost word-for-word a combination of the Letter of James and the account of James’ proclamation in the Temple before the assembled Jewish crowds on Passover. Whereupon ‘
Domitian despising them … as simpletons, (supposedly) commanded them to be dismissed and by Imperial order commanded that the persecution cease
’.

Domitian clearly treats them as simpletons because politically-speaking they are no threat,
their Kingdom being only other-worldly
. Still, all of these descendants would appear to have been, once again, rounded up and executed under Trajan a decade later at the time Hegesippus describes the martyrdom of Simeon bar Cleophas because, as he writes (paralleling Eusebius’ earlier description of ‘Stephen’), these were the persons ‘
who took the lead of the whole Church as martyrs – in particular, the family of our Lord
’.
19

PART V

The Brothers of Jesus as Apostles

Chapter 19

The Apostleship of James,
Cephas
, and John

The Letters of Introduction from James

We should now look at the way the Gospels, Paul’s Letters, and other materials present Jesus’ brothers and family members generally. In early Church accounts, it is traditionally understood that the James, called ‘
the brother of the Lord
’ is a ‘Bishop’ rather than an ‘Apostle’ – as if ‘Apostle’ were, in some sense, greater than ‘Bishop’. It is ‘
the first James
’ – ‘
James the brother of John’
– who, following the Gospels, is presented as an ‘Apostle’ and there is rarely any perception about who ‘the second James’ was (except by Paul, who realizes he is both an ‘Apostle’ and a ‘Pillar’), nor is he ever spoken about to any extent.

In the first sixteen chapters of Acts before the ‘We Document’ is introduced, we have seen how the traces of real events lie just beneath the surface, glittering like bright pebbles beneath the surface of a stream. Often these involve those who are called ‘the Central Three’ or ‘the Twelve’ – meaning ‘the Twelve Apostles’ – even ‘the Seventy’, meaning ‘the Seventy Disciples’. Problems where these are concerned often have to do with the different enumerations of the Apostles both in and outside of Scripture which, in turn, are connected with problems regarding Jesus’ brothers and family generally – and attempts either to diminish or to obliterate them. These, in their turn, are connected to the order of post-resurrection appearances by Jesus, which have been recognized as confirming one’s status or place in the hierarchy of the early Church.

In the Pseudoclementines, it becomes very clear that proper Apostles had to carry appointment letters of some kind from the ‘Bishop of Bishops’ James. At one point, this is expressed in words attributed to Peter (instructing Clement) as follows:

Observe the greatest caution, that you
believe no teacher unless he brings the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother from Jerusalem
, or whomever comes after him.
Under no circumstances
receive anyone or consider him a worthy and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ unless he has gone up there,
been approved, and, as I say, brings a testimonial from there.
(Ps.
Rec
. 4.25)

The negation of this proposition is to be found in the Letters of Paul, who often shows his sensitivity to the issue of appointment letters or proper credentials, thereby indirectly verifying their existence.

This illustrates a point we have been emphasizing about reading between the lines in our sources in order to discern what the accusations were that were circulating around different individuals or what the procedures were such individuals were reacting against or attempting to countermand. For instance, at the beginning of Galatians, Paul insists he is ‘
an Apostle
,
not from men nor through man
,
but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
’ (Gal. 1:1). Paul is claiming here that he has
a direct appointment from
‘Jesus’ himself
– better still ‘
the Christ
’ – an individual whom in bodily form on earth he never seems to have encountered and the followers of whom he admits to ‘persecuting’ –
some even ‘unto death
’ (Gal. 1:23).

This seemingly innocuous formulation of his Apostolic qualifications is, of course,
a direct riposte to those who claim to have their appointment either directly from Jesus himself in his human form
or
who carry ‘written’ credentials from James
– or both. These are the same genre of persons who, as Paul expresses it again in the context of alluding to now to ‘
the brothers of the Lord
’ (plural) in 1 Corinthians, would presume ‘
to examine
’ him (9:3). This should not be surprising since, what Paul is calling his work or mission depends on a direct ‘revelation’, as it were, via the mechanism of the Holy Spirit from the Supernatural Being, now residing in Heaven, he denotes as ‘Christ Jesus’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 2:2).