James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (124 page)

‘
His House of Exile
’

The above
Pesher
is a most incredible one. In the first place, it contains a defective usage in Hebrew, ‘
a-Beit-Galuto
’ – som
e
thing about ‘
in
’ or ‘
at
’ ‘
the House of his Exile
’ or ‘
his Exiled House
’, the meaning of which is obscure but which we shall ult
i
mately be able to decipher. In addition, the
Pesher
introduces an additional word ‘
Cha
‘
as
’ not found in the underlying text from Habakkuk 2:15.

The reason for this will also become clearer as we proceed. For a start, this word ‘
Cha
‘
as
’ will play on another usage which appears in
the
Pesher
, ‘
Chos
’/‘
Cup
’, which will further refine the ‘
giving drink
’, ‘
drunkenness
’, or ‘
drinking to the dregs
’ met
a
phor, which appears in the underlying text. Though these usages are admittedly obscure, it will not take much Hebrew to begin to grasp the wordplay that is going on. Even without Hebrew, the reader can attempt to grasp this.

This interpretation of Habakkuk 2:15 does contain the usage ‘
Hamato
’, which when linked with ‘
Cha
‘
as
’ produces the meaning ‘
his Hot Anger
’ or ‘
Furious Wrath
’. ‘
The Venom of Vipers
’ from Deuteronomy 32:33 in the Damascus Document was interpreted to relate to ‘
the Kings of the Peoples and their ways
’ or, as we have explained, Herodians. The usage also o
c
curs in the ‘
Hymns of the Poor
’, where the meaning parallels the sense we are seeing here, but reversed. There, ‘
the Poor
’ are said to be ‘
saved
’ from ‘
the Fiery Wrath of God
’
s Hot Anger
’ because they ‘
circumcised the foreskin of their hearts
’. This is surrounded by allusions to ‘
walking in the Way
’, ‘
judging the Wicked
’, ‘
kindling His Wrath
’, and ‘
being saved
’, all paralleling usages we have been considering above. In the Damascus Document and here, of course, they relate to an illicit Establishment and its High Priests.

But what has further confused scholars in the passage from 1QpHab XI.4–6 before us is the multiplication of ‘
him
’s or ‘
his
’es. These occur in three successive variations: ‘
to swallow him
’, ‘
the House of his Exile
’, and ‘
his Hot Anger
’ or ‘
Veno
m
ous Fury
’. In Hebrew, pronouns of this kind are always expressed by the same pronominal suffix ‘
o
’/‘
him
’ or ‘
his
’. But the problem is, when one has a series of these, it is often impossible to know to whom they refer – the subject of the action or its object. The same is true in Semitic languages like Arabic and the problem often occurs even in English writing where it is co
n
sidered poor style not to specify this.

In the interpretation of this passage one sees everywhere, the sense of the ‘
swallow him
’ and ‘
in his Hot Anger
’ are quite clear. They refer to ‘
the Righteous Teacher
’ and ‘
the Wicked Priest
’ respectively, that is, ‘
the Righteous Teacher is being swa
l
lowed by the Wicked Priest in his Hot Anger
’ or ‘
Venomous Fury
’ – the ‘
Cha
‘
as
’ in ‘
Cha
‘
as Hamato
’ meaning ‘
Anger
’ or ‘
Wrath
’. This will give way to another usage in Hebrew also having to do with the imagery of ‘
Anger
’ and ‘
Wrath
’, particularly in apoc
a
lyptic literature, ‘
Chos
’ or ‘
Cup
’.

This is the kind of language interplay and imagery that so appealed to the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is certainly to be found in passage(s) before us from the Habakkuk
Pesher
. It is also to be found, as we have shown, in the Book of Revel
a
tion in the New Testament almost word-for-word as we have it here (Revelation 14:10) – another good dating tool for the Habakkuk
Pesher
. We will also find it in the ‘
Cup
’ which Jesus ‘
must drink
’ and that the two brothers, John and James, the so-called ‘
Sons of Zebedee
’, ‘
will drink
’ after him in order to follow him (Matthew 20:22–23/Mark 10:38–39).

It is, however, the third ‘
him
’ or ‘
his
’ that produces all the problems in this text, not only the ‘
his
’ but the expression it is attached to, the defective
a-Beit-Galuto
/‘
to
’ or ‘
in
’/‘
with his House of Exile
’ – ‘
Galut
’ meaning ‘
Exile
’ in Hebrew. In the usual interpretation of this phrase, the ‘
him
’ or ‘
his
’ here is also taken as referring to the Righteous Teacher, that is,
the Wicked Priest pursued the Righteous Teacher
‘
to swallow him in his Hot Anger
’
at
the Righteous Teacher
’
s
‘
House of Exile
’. In their mind of most scholars, this last meant Qumran or what they theorize to have been the ‘
Essene
’ Settlement situated there.

This then gave rise to certain other interpretations having to do with what they considered to be the Wicked Priest’s su
p
posed ‘
drunkenness
’ (how silly can one be?) and confrontations at this so-called ‘
Essene Monastery at Qumran
’ between the Righteous Teacher and the Wicked Priest over a different calendrical reckoning for
Yom Kippur
.
Therefore the ‘
House of his Exile
’ was Qumran –
the Righteous Teacher
’s purported ‘
House of Exile
’ even though this was only some twenty miles from Jerusalem.

But comparison with the life of James – as in the case of the desecration of the Wicked Priest’s ‘
corpse
’ and, as will b
e
come plain, this same ‘
Wicked Priest
’’s purported ‘
drunkenness
’ as well – produces an even more rational and plausible expl
a
nation. When data relating to James’ life and death are introduced into references of this kind in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they help clarify and extract more meaning – meaning one could not otherwise have expected – whereas previously there was only obscurity.

First of all, reference to the biography of James makes one think that this third ‘
his
’, as in ‘
his
House of Exile
’, does not apply to the object being ‘
pursued
’ – namely ‘
the Righteous Teacher
’ – but rather the subject doing the ‘
pursuing
’ and/or ‘
swallowing
’, meaning ‘
the Wicked Priest
’. This makes the sequence of the three ‘
him
’s/‘
his
’es more plausible: that is, the first ‘
to
consume him
’ applies to the Righteous Teacher; the second, ‘
in his Venomous Anger
’, applies to the Wicked Priest; and the third, ‘
in his House of Exile
’ applies to the Wicked Priest too.

Then what would the sense of this ‘
his House of Exile
’, seen in this manner, be? The introductory preposition here is an ‘
a
’ or ‘
alef
’ which is meaningless in Hebrew’.
Be
’– or ‘
Bet
’ in Hebrew here – would give the meaning ‘
with
’ or ‘
in
’. Anything else would probably not be a single Hebrew letter nor readily be confused with ‘
alef
’, nor make any sense. Furthermore in Hebrew, terms like ‘
Beit-Din
’ or ‘
Beit ha- Mishpat
’ normally have to do with judicial proceedings of some kind. In fact, the latter was even used in the
Pesher
in the previous Column X.3-5, when it came to describing ‘
the Judgement that God would make in the midst of many Peoples
’, where
He would
‘
judge
’
the Wicked Priest
‘
with fire and brimstone
’.
32

Moreover this imagery of this ‘
Judgement
’ permeates the last Columns of the Habakkuk
Pesher
, giving them a completely eschatological cast,
i
.
e
., ‘
the Judgement
’ that in common parlance is normally referred to as ‘
the Last Judgement
’. This is r
e
ferred to in Columns XII.12–XIII.4 of the
Pesher
, following the passages we are analyzing here, as the ‘
Yom ha-Mishpat
’/‘
the Day of Judgement
’. This would make Column X.3’s ‘
House of Judgement
’ an idiomatic expression of some kind having to do with
the actual decision of
‘
Judgement
’
God
‘
delivers
’
on
‘
th
e
Day of Judgement
’.

In fact, this ‘
Judgement
’ is already being referred to in the
Pesher
as early as Column V.1–5, where ‘
His Elect
’, meaning, ‘
the Righteous Teacher and the Men of His Council
’ are those who will ‘
execute God
’
s Judgement on the Nations
’. We have also already seen this expression ‘
His Elect
’ to be equivalent to ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ in CD IV.3–4 which would make ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ almost supernatural, participating along with God
in the process of final eschatological Judgement
.

This scenario fits in very well with that of the War Scroll too, in which the Heavenly Host, together with His Messiah (the ‘
no mere Adam
’ and presumably the ‘
Returning
’ One, though this is not clear), will come ‘
on the clouds of Heaven
’ – as per Gospel presentations – and participate along with ‘
the Penitents in the Wilderness
’ Camps ‘
in the Land of Damascus
’
in the process of final eschatological Judgement
, once again tying the circle of all these allusions in our texts very closely together. This, in any event, is the proclamation James is pictured as making in the Temple prior to his death in early Church texts. This proclamation of ‘
the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God
’ or ‘
coming with Power on the clouds of Heaven
’, is also repeatedly ascribed to Jesus (to say nothing of John the Baptist) in a variety of contexts throughout the New Testament as well.
33

For Column V.3 of the Habakkuk
Pesher
, ‘
God would not destroy His People by the hand of the Gentiles
’.
This last is the same term the Psalm 37
Pesher
attaches to ‘
the Violent Ones
’ who visit God’s ‘
Judgement on Evil
’ upon the Wicked Priest. The term ‘
destroy
’ being used here is also the same one ultimately applied to the condemnation of the Wicked Priest by God towards the end of the
Pesher
in Column XII.5-6.
Rather, in the most hopeful expression of nationalism, this Column Five
Pesher
on Habakkuk 1:12–13 concludes: ‘
By the hand of His Elect
,
God will execute Judgement on all the Nations and with their Punishment
,
all the Evil Ones of His
(
own
)
People
,
who
kept His Commandments
only when convenient
(the meaning here clearly being ‘
Jewish Backsliders
’).’