James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (95 page)

This is followed by the unlawful Sanhedrin trial Ananus ‘pursued’ against James at his new ‘House’ of sitting (his ‘
Beit-Galuto
’), succeeded by James’ stoning, which clearly indicate that James was identified as the centre of the agitation behind many of these things. That this ‘blasphemy’ trial was undoubtedly trumped up by the Herodian Authorities in conjunction with the Temple Establishment, and that both Agrippa II and Ananus joined forces in it, further connects James to the source of both the Temple Wall Affair directed against Agrippa II and the assassination of Ananus’ brother – Caiaphas’ brother-in-law – Jonathan. This, in turn, leads to the fire in Rome, which Nero blamed on so-called ‘Christians’. More sympathetic sources, however, perhaps prompted by some of these Christian ‘friends’ in high places we so often hear about, put the blame rather on Nero himself.
21

Whatever the mechanism, Nero clearly seems to have decided to rid himself of Jews and Jewish agitation generally. He sends a Governor, Florus (64–66 CE), to Judea who by Josephus’ own testimony seems
intentionally
to goad the population into revolt.
22
At the same time Nero kicks his wife Poppea – for Josephus, ‘a worshipper of God’, in other words, ‘a God-Fearer’ – to death, presumably agitated by concerns over her interest in causes of this kind and other things, not to mention her pregnancy.

In the midst of the war in Judea, Nero is assassinated. Among those accused of having a hand in this would appear to be Paul’s associate Epaphroditus, a man whom he called ‘his brother, co-worker, and fellow soldier’, an ‘Apostle’ (Phil. 2:25), and who, Josephus tells us, had ‘participated in many important events’. Though some, as signalled earlier, will object to this three-fold identification; not only do Suetonius and others affirm that he was Nero’s secretary – which would make Paul’s intimations about ‘Saints’ in ‘the household of Caesar’ even more meaningful (Phil. 4:18) – but this same Epaphroditus re-emerges some years later – survivor as he appears to have been – as
Domitian’s secretary
as well.

Not long before Domitian too was assassinated in 96 CE, Epaphroditus appears to have run afoul of him purportedly over his behaviour at the time of Nero’s assassination, which Domitian used as a pretext, complaining that Epaphroditus dared to raise his hand against an Emperor, and had him executed. This is
very
peculiar indeed, coming from Domitian, and there would appear to be more behind these events than appears on the surface. Not only was this about the time that Domitian was rounding up all those of the family of David and possibly even the real year Simeon bar Cleophas was executed, but 96 CE was also the year Flavia Domitilla, the wife or niece of Flavius Clemens, one of the consuls that year and Domitian’s co-ruler, was, according to Eusebius, exiled for ‘her testimony to Christ’.

In fact she was Domitian’s niece and Flavius Clemens was his cousin. Domitian, who was apparently childless, had designated their two sons his heirs – he had renamed them Vespasian and Flavia – that is, before he had Flavius Clemens executed
the same year
as Epaphroditus.
23
Domitian was himself assassinated by Domitilla’s
own steward
, ‘Stephanos’ or ‘Stephen’ – a familiar name. Suetonius, an individual who cannot be described as particularly philo-Semitic, describes Domitian’s hatred, or at least cruelty towards Jews, attesting that he ‘levied the tax against them’ with the utmost vigour, even ‘prosecuting those who, while not publicly acknowledging the Faith, yet lived as Jews, as well as
those who concealed their origins
and
did not pay the tribute levied against their people’
.
24
One such prosecution of a man ‘ninety years old’ – which may even have served as the model for the supposed prosecution of the
one hundred and twenty year-old
Simeon bar Cleophas – Suetonius himself acknowledges having witnessed as a boy, who ‘was examined before the procurator to see whether he was circumcised’ – not very different from more recent events in our purportedly modern world!

As we have already suggested, Epaphroditus would appear to be the same individual Josephus dedicates many of his works to, including the
Antiquities
and the
Vita
, and his words regarding him in the former – ‘a lover of all kinds of learning, but principally delighted by the study of history’ – are thoroughly modern, attesting to how little things have changed. Though the relationship to Domitian’s Epaphroditus is contested – to say nothing of Paul’s companion in touch with ‘the Saints’ in Nero’s household – for Josephus, Epaphroditus was a man who had experienced many important political events. Had Epaphroditus not encouraged him, Josephus would not have made the effort ‘to overcome his sloth’ and pour out the
Antiquities
.
25

Much depends, of course, on how Josephus himself died and when, which is unclear, since no Josephus remained to chronicle it, but he too seems to have disappeared about the same time Epaphroditus did and possibly for similar reasons – maybe even because of information contained in the newly published
Antiquities
or
Vita
(both of which encouraged by Epaphroditus) that some may have found offensive. Some even try to explain these inconsistencies by proposing there were two Epaphroditus’ working under both Domitian and Trajan, but the writer considers this highly unlikely, though there may have been a father and son. This is the same genre of problem surrounding the overlapping Messianic round-ups under Domitian and Trajan.

Whatever the conclusion, the Julio-Claudians, represented by the last Emperor of that line Nero, gave way to the Flavians who, abetted by a host of Jewish turncoats such as Josephus and Tiberius Alexander, seem to have marketed their own version of Jewish Messianism, which at the very least was presented as submissive and deferential to the power of Rome and its emperors – this not to mention marketing a healthy dose of Greco- Alexandrian, Hellenistic anti-Semitism.

Epaphroditus and his Intellectual Circle

This brings us to another difficult subject: who could have written the original accounts upon which so many of our Gospel episodes are based? Though puzzling scholars for generations, this question may not be as difficult to gain a measure of insight into as most may think. One must keep in mind the attitudes, the orientation, or, if one prefers, the
polemics
, which are in fact quite straightforward. With rare exceptions the point of view is almost always anti-Semitic, pro-Gentile, anti-national, and pro-Roman.

While employing the warp and woof of Jewish Messianism, this is exploited basically to produce a pro-Roman, spiritualized, Hellenistic-style mystery religion. Here, one must understand that, while all the Gospels exhibit differences, the Synoptics are basically variations on a theme – with more or less material added. John, while differing markedly as to specific historical points and development, still comes from the same Hellenistic, anti-Semitic mindset – even more extreme.

What we are speaking about here is the original core of materials and the mindset they evince, not the endless variations, addenda, or accretions. The underlying mindset is on the whole consistent, while the variations are so complex and creative that even the modern techniques of form, redaction, or text criticism have not succeeded in elucidating these in any generally-acceptable manner – nor are they ever likely to do so to everyone’s satisfaction. However, the central question must be,
who might have had an interest in the general thrust of the presentation of ‘Messianic’ events in Palestine which all more or less have in common
– to be sure, acquiring accretions as the original core went through manifold transformations and additions –
whose interests did the ideological thrust of this central core of material serve
?

We have already given numerous examples of the orientation we have in mind, despite the variations, perhaps the most important aspect of which was to lighten and deflect the fundamental embarrassment over the Roman execution of Jesus as a subversive and anti-Roman agitator. This, anyhow, has to some extent come to be recognized by scholars. Out of it proceeds the positive portrayal, where possible (it almost always was), of Roman officials and Herodian puppets.

Two of the most obvious of these were: 1) the patent fraudulence of portraying Pontius Pilate’s
high regard
for Jesus and ‘
his
(Pilate’s, that is)
wife
’ – naturally unnamed and in a dream no less – as
recognizing ‘Jesus’ as
‘
a Righteous Man
’ (again, it is difficult to suppress a guffaw – this, as we have been seeing, the most revered concept in Judaism of the time and, in particular, among what we have been calling ‘
Opposition groups
’); and 2) the henpecked ‘
Herod the Tetrarch
’ (it was hard to whitewash him) hesitating to execute John the Baptist but, rather,
likewise recognizing him as a ‘Righteous Man’
(‘a
Zaddik
’! – again, the by-now
pro forma
guffaw)
while the majority of Jews could not – yet being forced to execute John because of a lascivious dance performed by his wife Herodias’ daughter
(as few realize, in the Gospels anyhow –
unnamed
)
at his (Herod the Tetrarch’s)
birthday party
(a celebration usually honoured by Romans and but hardly very many Jews – if any!). Almost
any fair-minded person would immediately recognize such portrayals as patent dissimulation
– even worse,
disinformation
.

We have also reviewed some of the other, more obvious
non sequitur
s
in the core materials as we have them – all directed towards the same end – for instance,
the impossibility of a Jewish Sanhedrin, composed of High Priests, Elders, and Scribes, meeting
in the middle of the night of Passover
at ‘the High Priest’s House’ to hold a trial of someone for ‘
blasphemy
’; or the presentation of ‘Peter’ as
constantly misunderstanding the Master’s teaching
– Paul, of course,
understands it
–
unable to walk on the waters of the Sea of Galilee because his ‘Faith’ was too weak
or
denying the Master
(this in all the Gospels) ‘
three times’ on his death night
; or the Messiah incarnate
eating congenially with Roman tax collectors, prostitutes, and other ‘Sinners’
while variously disparaging his own people and family.

How delicious all this must have been for those who created it and what good drama it made, but what poor history as the Dead Sea Scrolls now are able to play their part along with early Church history in amply demonstrating. Where the charge of ‘
blasphemy
’ is concerned, this
should have been punished by
stoning
, not
crucifixion
. However, what should be clear is that it
retrospectively assimilates the same charge as made
against James
– in Establishment eyes with more cause; and this does seem to have
resulted in a stoning
or, at least,
a very intentional shove
.

Who then would or could have produced the basic core of this kind of material before, like a snowball rolling down a hill, it grew into a massive accumulation of generally like-minded tradition? In the first place, the writers were extremely able craftsmen, who knew their material thoroughly. For instance, as we have been explaining, they had to know all the traditions associated with the death of James – even those represented by the later Pseudoclementine
Recognitions
and accounts in the early Church writers about James ‘being cast down’ from the Pinnacle of the Temple – and this at a very early time. They also probably knew the traditions about a first post-resurrection appearance to ‘James, then to all the Apostles, and last of all, as if to an abortion, he also appeared to me’, as Paul recounts it in 1 Corinthians 15:7–8. In fact, Paul says as much himself, implying there were already written documents or traditions relating to these things which he had ‘received’ (1 Cor. 15:3).

Paul did survive James, though by how many years must remain the subject of some debate. Still, after his final trip to see Nero – either the earlier one in Acts from 60-62 CE, preceding James’ judicial murder, or – depending on the point of view – the later connecting him to Josephus’ ‘
Saulus
’ around 66 CE; one would have to observe that Paul or one or another of his associates – such as Titus (‘Timothy’?), Silas (‘Silvanus’?), Luke (‘Lucius of Cyrene’?) or Epaphroditus himself – would have had time to produce a rough version of some of the key events, we have been calling attention to,
incorporating the principles of good Roman citizenship if not Palestinian Messianism
.

Epaphroditus, who must be seen as a prime candidate for the direction of this kind of activity, not only had a hand in the assassination of Nero, but was also Domitian’s
Secretary for Letters
, before he too was executed by him on unspecified charges – probably, like his contemporary Flavius Clemens, for being a secret ‘Christian’. One is not imagining these things. They
really
occurred, despite various attempts to obscure them.