James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (87 page)

Basically what we have in Paul’s reformulations in 1 Corinthians – ending in allusion to ‘the Cup of the Lord’, ‘breaking bread’, and ‘Communion with the body’ and ‘blood of Christ’ – is none other than a variation of the scenario portrayed in ‘the Gospel of the Hebrews’ where James ‘swore
not to eat bread
from the hour in which he
drank the Cup of the Lord
until he should see him risen again from among those that sleep’. To this, Jesus, ‘
breaking the bread
’ and ‘
giving it to James
’, reportedly responds, ‘
My brother, eat your bread for the Son of Man is risen from among those that sleep
.’

This is especially true since Paul has quoted his ‘
Lord Jesus
’ to the effect that, ‘
This Cup is the New Covenant in my blood ... For as often as you eat this bread and drink this Cup, you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes
.’ The only real difference is that now ‘Jesus’’ speech from ‘the Gospel of the Hebrews’ is expanded
to incorporate Paul’s
new scenario
of ‘
Communion with the body and blood of Jesus Christ
’.

The Negation of Paul’s Mindset at Qumran

One can well imagine how, in particular, this would have infuriated those of a Qumran perspective, whose approach would appear to be at the heart of what Paul is responding to. Paul’s direct allusion to the fact that he is not ‘
throwing down a net before them
’ makes this about as clear as anything can. Paul knows full well what he is doing. Again, as we have pointed out
often, on almost all these issues Paul is systematically allegorizing and turning the Qumran positions back against them. He is doing the same to James.

That Paul groups his positions regarding ‘dining in an idol-temple’ and ‘Communion with the blood of Christ’ under the heading of ‘loving God’ or ‘Piety’ would have only infuriated groups like those at Qumran all the more. One should note that in Josephus’ descriptions of the Opposition or ‘Zealot’ positions from the disturbances of 4 BCE up to the events culminating in the Uprising against Rome, the constant demand on the part of all ‘Opposition’ forces is for
a High Priest of ‘greater purity’ and ‘higher Piety
’. One also gets this demand reflected in Hebrews 4:15 and 7:26 even as it has survived.

As we have also noted, James 1:12 and 2:5 refers both to ‘
loving God
’ or ‘
Piety
’ – the first in Chapter One with reference to ‘
the Crown (Stephanon) of Life promised’ those loving God
; the second in Chapter Two, to
the ‘Beloved’ or ‘Poor’ as ‘Rich in Faith and heirs to the Kingdom promised to those that love Him
’. In the background to both, ‘
the Religion’ of ‘the one who cannot control his Tongue, but has Lying in his heart’ is said to be ‘Worthless
’ (Jas. 1:26).

One should note as well that, in Josephus’ picture of ‘the Essenes’, the Commandment of ‘
Piety towards God
’ is mentioned twice – once in connection with their daily bathing in cold water, eating habits, and wearing white linen garments; and a second time, in connection with the oaths that such individuals take ‘
not to tell Lies’
and
‘not to reveal any of their doctrines to others’,
nor communicate their doctrines
‘which they have received from their Forefathers
’ (‘
the First
’ at Qumran) in any manner different from how they ‘
have received them
’ themselves. Not only is this almost word-for-word the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
’ picture of the fearsome impression – when responding to Peter’s Letter – made by James’ imprecations on the Elders; but it is also precisely the words Paul repeatedly uses when describing
the doctrines he ‘has received’
.
4

It is important to realize that in the Scrolls
the ban on the consumption of ‘blood’ is fundamental
. The same is true of James’ directives to overseas communities and one should see this as pertaining to
symbolic consumptions of ‘blood’
as in Paul’s 1 Corinthians
as well. In the Damascus Document,
the horror of ‘blood’
ranges from the attack on those who
‘lie with women during
the
blood of their menstrual flow
’ to the charge of
‘each man marrying the daughter of his brother or sister’
– which focuses both of these as
an attack on the Herodian family and those ‘polluted’ by their contacts with them
– to the connection of
the ‘cutting off’ of the Children of Israel in the wilderness
to the assertion: ‘
because they ate the blood’
. This last, occurring at the beginning of Column iii of the Damascus Document, precedes these sections on the definition of ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ and the exposition of ‘
the Three Nets of Belial
’ charges in Columns iv-vi.

Just as we have had the allusion to ‘
keeping God’s Commandments
’ in Paul’s discussion of ‘
fornication
’ in 1 Corinthians 7:19; in Column iii of CD, leading up to the evocation of the ban on ‘
blood
’, we have the references to Abraham being accounted ‘
Beloved
’ or ‘
Friend of God
’ because he ‘
kept the Commandments of God and did not choose the will of his own spirit
’ nor ‘
do
what seemed right in his own eyes and walk in stubbornness of heart’ (one should compare this to James 2:21–23 on ‘
Abraham
’). As in James as well, one should note the emphasis on being both a ‘
Keeper
’ and a ‘
Doer
’.
5

Over and over in these passages about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob being ‘
the Beloved
’ or ‘
Friends of God
’ in CD, the text repeats the phrase ‘
keeping the Commandments of God
’ –
n.b.,
the parallel to Jeremiah’s ‘
sons of Rechab
’ (i.e., ‘
the Rechabites
’) repeatedly being described as ‘
keeping the Commandments of their father
’. Nor is this to mention the description of these same Patriarchs in Surah 2 of the Koran and, therefore, in Islam as ‘Friends’ because they ‘
surrendered to God
’ – meaning, they were the first ‘
Muslims
’ too!.

For the Damascus Document, it is as a result of ‘
not keeping’ God’s Commandment that the Heavenly Watchers fell
– the allusion is to Genesis 6:2 where ‘
the Sons of God have intercourse with the daughters of men
’. Following this, the text evokes the Noahic ‘Flood’ and, finally then, how
the Children of Israel ‘ate blood’ in the wilderness
and,
therefore, ‘were cut off’
(what would the Pauline ‘Gentile Mission’ make of this?) It is because of these things that, in CD’s world-view,
God’s ‘Wrath’ is ‘kindled against’ the Children of Israel
and they and ‘
their Congregation
’ (or ‘
Church
’) are continually ‘
being cut off
’ or ‘
delivered up
’.
6

From its very First Column, which describes how ‘
the Lying Scoffer
’ arose and ‘
poured over Israel
(the same root as ‘
Spouting
’ in Hebrew)
the waters of Lying … abolishing the Ways of Righteousness and removing the boundary which the First
(i.e., ‘
the Forefathers
’)
had set down for their inheritance
’; CD ‘
calls down on them the curses of His Covenant
’ and ‘
the avenging sword of the Covenant
’ – meaning,
God’s
‘Wrath’ and ‘avenging sword’, not Rome’s.
7
This is in line with ‘
curses
’ and ‘
cursing backsliders
’ and ‘
Enemies
’ generally at Qumran which is never accommodating, gentle, or forgiving.
8

For his part, Paul takes the opposite approach. A good example is in Romans 12:17, where he recommends ‘
not to return Evil for Evil
’ and follows this up with the quotation, once again addressed to the ‘
Beloved
’, ‘
Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord
’ and, following this, ‘
overcome Evil with Good
’. This includes the additional recommendation to
feed your Enemy
‘
when he is hungry and give him drink when thirsty’
(Rom. 12:19–21). It will be immediately apparent that what we have here is ideological and verbal sparring, back and forth – all being like the sayings attributed to ‘Jesus’ in the Gospels, the only question being which, historically speaking, came first. The reason Paul gives for such recommendations, however, is often a bit more cynical than in the Gospels, i.e., ‘
in so doing, you will heap coals on his (your enemy’s) head
’ (Romans 12:20).

This is almost exactly the kind of saying Josephus imputes to Paul’s putative ‘
kinsman
’ Herod Agrippa I who, Josephus says, ‘
was of a gentle and compassionate nature
’. Particularly, in relation to the episode about the ‘Simon’ above,
the Head of a ‘Church’ or ‘Assembly’ of his own in Jerusalem
, who wished to
bar this Agrippa from the Temple as a foreigner
; Josephus emphasizes that King Agrippa ‘
esteemed mildness a better quality in a King than intemperance, knowing that moderation is more becoming in great men than passion
’.
9
This is certainly very ‘Christ’-like but, not only does Josephus record a similar saying attributed to this ‘Agrippa’, he does not hesitate to apply the characteristic to him or ‘
chrestos
’ in Greek, meaning
‘
gracious’/‘gentle’!

One should note in Romans, too, that after Paul discusses his doctrine of a ‘
Grace no longer of works
’, God ‘
thrusting aside’ the Jews
and how ‘
they killed’ all the Prophets
– ‘
Salvation being granted to the Gentiles
’, and the Jews now being ‘
zealous of
’ or ‘
jealous over’ this
; he, once again, employs the ‘
net
’, ‘
snare
’, and ‘
stumbling block’/‘cause of offence’/‘stumbling
’-language (11:1–11). He also refers to ‘
Riches
’ here – the second of Belial’s ‘
nets
’ in the Damascus Document – e.g., it is now the Jews’ ‘
stumbling
’ that becomes both ‘
the Riches of the World
’ and ‘
the Riches of the Gentiles
’ (Rom. 11:11–12 – of course, the very opposite of how Qumran would see things). The final insult in all of this – at least as far as Qumran would see it – would be his characterization of his communities in the manner of the description of ‘the Community Council’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e., as ‘
living sacrifices, Holy and well pleasing to God
’ (Rom. 12:1) so that ‘
the offering up of the Gentiles might be pleasing, made Holy by the Holy Spirit
’ (Rom. 15:16 –
thus
!).

In describing himself as being ‘
the Apostle of the Gentiles
(
Ethnon
)’, Paul actually uses the words, the Habakkuk
Pesher
uses to describe the ‘
Worthlessness of the Liar’s Service
’ in ‘
erecting
’ or ‘
building an Assembly
’ or ‘
Church upon Lying … and blood … for the sake of his Glory
’, i.e., ‘
I glorify my Service
’ (Rom. 11:13). From here Paul moves immediately into evocation of the Messianic ‘
Root
’ and ‘
Branch
’ imagery, again so dear to Qumran, but now applied to his new Gentile Christians as ‘
grafts
’ or the new
‘branches’
upon the tree and the
‘members’ of Christ’s body
(Rom. 11:16–28); while at the same time (in the manner of 1 Thessalonians 2:16 accusing the Jews of ‘
killing the Lord Jesus and their own Prophets
’ – a refrain picked
ad nauseum
in the Koran), characterizing the Jews as ‘
Enemies for your sakes
’ (12:4–5) – itself parodying the terminology, theoretically, applied by many of the more-‘zelous’ to him).