James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (81 page)

Paul goes on in this vein. Not only has he referred to this ‘vanity’ in connection with ‘the Gospel he announces’ above, but he repeats it a few lines later, saying, ‘If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching
is
worthless
(or ‘void’) and your Faith, too,
also worthless
’ (1 Cor. 15:14). Note, too, the use of the word ‘preaching’ here, the very word Peter is pictured as using in his Letter to James, prefacing the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
, to describe ‘
the
preaching of the Man who is my Enemy’.
12

First, one can say outright that the reference to ‘
Cephas and the Twelve
’ is just a superficial statement of what was perceived as orthodoxy by the time the interpolation was made, that is, if ‘
Cephas
’ and ‘Peter’ are taken to be identical – which we should grant for the sake of the argument – then it is more likely that a statement of this sort is an interpolation than something that is patently schismatic and against the current of this orthodoxy.

The reference, too, to ‘
the Twelve
’ is the only reference of this kind in the Letters section of the New Testament but, as we have been noting, there were supposedly only ‘Eleven’ Apostles at the time. Mark 16:14, though itself considered interpolated, nevertheless draws the correct inference from the data, and specifically states this: ‘
he appeared to
the Eleven
’ – so for that matter, do Acts 1:26, Matthew 28:16, and Luke 24:9 and 33.

For Luke, it is ‘Cleopas’ (
thus
) and another of these mysterious unnamed others, to whom Jesus first appears outside Jerusalem ‘
along the way
’ to Emmaus, even ‘
breaking bread
’ with them. These then return and report this –
also to ‘the Eleven assembled’ in Jerusalem
(Luke 24:1–35). Where the ending of Mark is concerned – in any event probably based on this material in Luke – after ‘Jesus’
appeared ‘to two of them as they walked on their way in the country
’, he simply ‘
appeared to the Eleven as they ate meat
’ (Mark 16:12–14). In Luke, too, Jesus also then ‘
stood
among them’, that is, ‘
the Eleven
’ gathered together in Jerusalem (
n.b
, our ‘
Standing
’ imagery again), and ‘
ate before them
’ (24:36–46).

Though Luke confines himself to appearances in and around Jerusalem only and does not move on to the Sea of Galilee, he more or less repeats Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 15:1 above, too, about the Gospel he ‘
received
’ and on which his Disciples ‘
also should stand
’. As Luke puts this, ‘Jesus’, like ‘the Righteous Teacher’ in his scriptural exegesis sessions in the Habakkuk
Pesher
,
‘opened their understanding to understand the Scriptures
, saying to them, “
Thus, it has been written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from among the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in his Name to all the Nations, beginning at Jerusalem
”’ (Luke 24:45–47).

For Matthew 28:16, as in his presentation of Jesus’ earlier Transfiguration on ‘a high mountain’ before the Three, ‘the Eleven Disciples’ go up ‘to the mountain’ in Galilee, where Jesus was supposed either to have first ‘appointed them’ or which he ‘appointed for them’ – the text is unclear here. The only problem is that there is no such ‘mountain’ where Jesus first ‘appointed them’ in Matthew, though there is in Mark and Luke (3:13 and 6:12). In Matthew, this ‘
mountain
’ is rather associated with things like ‘the Sermon on the Mount’, other miracles (5:1), or ‘the Transfiguration’. Notwithstanding, Jesus basically announces to them there what amount to the parameters of the Pauline Mission, i.e., ‘
making Disciples of all the Nations
’ (
Ethne
) and something resembling
the ‘Authority’ to remit sins
(28:18–19).

However all of this may be, it should be appreciated that there is no individual appearance to ‘Peter’ on record in
any
of the Gospels. Therefore, there never could have been a
first
appearance to ‘Peter’ or ‘
Cephas
’, no matter how he is referred to, that is, unless we were to identify ‘
Cephas
’ with the ‘
Cleopas
’ – to whom Jesus first appears in Luke 24:18. Strictly speaking, too, though Peter is pictured as
charging into Jesus’ tomb
in Luke and John, even in these, he never actually
sees
the risen Christ only ‘the linen clothes’ lying there (Luke 24:12 and John 20:6).

John mentions these ‘linen clothes’ three times in three lines, though for him it is ‘the Disciple whom Jesus loved’ (one begins to suspect this really may be a linguistic evasion for
James, not John
) who outruns Peter into the tomb – a tomb, except for these
clothes
,
which is empty
(24:4–7). John also goes on to mention ‘tw
o Angels in white
’ who are then seen by ‘Mary’, but this is supposed to be ‘Mary Magdalene’ (20:12).

For the other Gospels, this matter of the Angel(s) and the various Mary’s occurs
before
either Peter and the other Apostle – whoever he was –
charge into the empty tomb
. In fact, the language they use to describe the ‘
clothing
’ of these Angels basically recapitulates that already encountered above in Jesus’ Transfiguration, though without the comparison to the ‘
whiteness
’ of the laundryman’s washing.

Matthew says that the face of this ‘
Angel of the Lord
’ was
as lightning
and his
clothing white as snow
’ (28:3); in Mark, he is clothed, like our ‘Essene’ Daily Bathers ‘
in a white robe
’; for Luke, the clothes of these Angels – there are two in Luke – were ‘
shining
’ (24:4). In fact, in the Synoptics, ‘Mary Magdalene’ and ‘Mary
the mother of James
’ – this is how Luke refers to her – never actually
see
Jesus but, rather, only these Angel(s).

For Mark, elaborating upon Matthew’s laconic ‘
the other Mary
’, this Mary is ‘
Mary the mother of James and Salome
’ (16:1). Luke, to add to the confusion – and, seemingly, the obfuscation – even adds
a third woman
to these scenes – someone he now calls ‘
Joanna
’ (24:10). In Luke 8:3, where she is also a companion of ‘Mary Magdalene’, this ‘Joanna’ – if it is the same individual – is aactually
the wife of an Herodian Official
! Whatever one wishes to make of this, she is, in all events, never heard from again.

John, whose focus is strictly on ‘Mary Magdalene’, allows this ‘Mary’ alone and no other the
first
vision of the
resurrected Christ
(20:14–18). Still, this appearance, which is not part of the initial empty-tomb scenarios, is not paralleled in any of the other Gospels. For John, ‘
turning backwards
’, she ‘
saw Jesus standing
’ (the ‘
Standing
’ allusion again)! Once again there is no ‘
first
’ individual appearance to ‘Peter’ in Johannine tradition either.

As for the third point in Paul’s testimony to the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus here in 1 Corinthians – for us, the interpolated part, the appearance ‘
to five hundred brothers at once
’ – there is no reference to an early appearance of such magnitude in any extant Gospel. Some might wish to see this as simply an extension of Jesus’ appearance before ‘
the Eleven and those that were with them
’ after the Emmaus road episode in Luke 24:34 – in Mark 16:14, simply ‘
the Eleven as they reclined
’.

For John 19:20, this appearance is simply to ‘
the Disciples
’ (plural). Here again ‘Jesus’,
in the place they ‘were assembled
’ – ‘the doors having been shut
for fear of the Jews
(oh no, not again – ‘the Disciples’, therefore,
were not
‘
Jews
’?)
came
and
stood in their midst
’. For perhaps the fourth time, we have the ‘
Standing
’ allusion attached to Jesus’ name – there will be more.

The First Post-Resurrection Appearance to James and the Last to Paul

If we now look at the second part of this famous testimony by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7–8, which basically recapitulates and parallels the first part about ‘
Cephas, then the Twelve’
(15:5–6), ‘and after that (his death and resurrection ‘according to the Scripture’),
he appeared to James, then to all the Apostles, and last of all, as (if) to an abortion, he appeared also to me
’ and set aside the first part as not only inaccurate, but tendentious; one might at first glance assume that also here one has more dissembling or interpolation. But this is deceptive, as unlike the first part there is nothing inherently impossible or contradictory in the second part, except our preconceptions regarding it. If we discard these – which are rarely very well-founded or thought out anyhow – we find ourselves on
very
firm ground indeed.

For example, we do not have ‘Twelve Apostles’, when there are supposed to be only ‘Eleven’ – nor do we have an undocumented,
first appearance
to someone called ‘
Cephas
’ or the obviously-inflated detail that ‘then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at the same time’. Rather, the notice ‘
then to all the Apostles
’, which follows the note about
this first
appearance to James
, is indeterminate and in line with all Paul’s other references to ‘
the Apostles
’, which are always – except in this single instance of the interpolated first part –
general and unqualified
.

This would include the references in Galatians to ‘
the other Apostles
’ – James and Peter presumably among them – and in Philippians to Epaphroditus, whom Paul also calls an ‘Apostle’ (2:25), as well as the structure of ‘Apostles and Prophets’ in general he outlines in 1 Corinthians 12:28–29 reiterated, as well, in Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11. This is not to mention Paul’s repeated allusions to himself as ‘
an Apostle of Jesus Christ
’ – in Romans 11:13: ‘
the Apostle to the Gentiles’
– and here in 1 Corinthians 15:9, ‘
the Least of the Apostles
’ and ‘
the Last
’ to whom ‘Jesus’ appeared.

Of course there is no actual, physical appearance by Jesus to Paul on record, only the vision recorded in Acts of ‘
a light appearing out of Heaven
’ and a voice crying out to him as ‘
he drew near Damascus
’ identifying itself as ‘Jesus’ (9:3–5). That being said, given Paul’s constant communication with the Supernatural-style Figure in Heaven he identifies either as ‘
Christ Jesus
’ or ‘
Jesus Christ
’, one can assume that he took either one or all of these appearances as real.

In fact, as we have already suggested, his characterization of himself as being, not only the ‘
Last
’, but ‘
the Least of the Apostles
’ is very revealing, particularly as we saw, when one ranges it alongside favourite sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, including ‘
the First shall be Last and the Last shall be First
’ (Lk 13:30 and pars.), ‘
suffer these Little Ones to come unto me
’ (Lk 18:16 and pars.), ‘
everyone that exalts himself shall be humbled and he who humbles himself shall be exalted
’ (Lk 9:48 and 14:11), and the like.

Also this ‘
Last
’ phraseology, Paul is using, has a clear parallel at Qumran which knows the language of ‘
the First
’
versus
‘
the Last
’, but with a completely different signification. In texts, such as the Damascus Document, ‘
the First
’ are ‘
the Ancestors’ to whom God first
revealed the Law
and who
set down ‘the boundary markers’ which ‘the Lying Spouter’ is described as ‘removing’
. ‘
The Last
’ are those in the present age or ‘
the Last Days
’ or ‘
Last Generation
’ who, in ‘
the Faith
’ or ‘
Compact of the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus
’ rededicate themselves to the Old Covenant, namely, that of ‘the First’. Of course, Paul has changed this into a completely new signification having to do with his own appointment as Apostle (belittled by some), Jesus’ revelations to him personally, and his new converts.