James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (7 page)

The charge is actually anticipated in Paul, who makes the same accusation in a probably uninterpolated section of 1 The
s
salonians 2:14–16: ‘
For brothers, you become the imitators of the Assemblies of God in Judea
…
because you also suffered the same thing from your own Countrymen as they did from the Jews
,
who both killed Jesus and their own Prophets and e
x
pelled you
,
displeasing God and being the Enemies of the whole Human Race
(here is the final diabolical piece in this terrif
y
ing polemic).’
It should be clear to even new readers that what one has here is an extremely telling reversal of ‘
the Enemy
’ a
c
cusations in both the Pseudoclementine
Recognitions
and James 4:4, to say nothing of Matthew 13:13–44’s
Parable of the Tares
and not to mention Paul’s awareness of these accusations in Galatians 1:20, 4:16, and elsewhere.
76
Historically, despite its p
a
tent untruth, this accusation has proved to be of the utmost durability and probably formed, as just suggested, the basis of most of the invective so far excerpted – not to mention the intractability of the ‘
Devil People
’ accusation worldwide.

Of course, Stephen then goes on to have the vision reported of
James
when he is stoned in all early Church sources, pun
c
tuated as in these by the actual vocabulary of ‘
crying out
’, ‘
crying out with a loud voice
’,
etc.
– expressions forming the bac
k
bone of Hegesippus’ tradition. There is also the allusion to ‘
falling asleep
’ so conspicuous in the parallel scenario in the
Recogn
i
tions
and in Paul.
77
This vision actually uses the language of ‘s
eeing Heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God
’ (Acts 7:56) of Peter’s last speech and the final last-breath words of both James in Early Church accounts and Jesus in the Synoptics.
78

One last speech is recorded of Peter before his arrest, escape, and final unlikely return and appearance before the so-called ‘
Jerusalem Council’
. It follows his vision of the Heavenly tablecloth, in which he learns ‘
not to call any man profane or u
n
clean
’ (Acts 10:11, 15, and 28 above). We have already stressed the ‘
Paulinization
’ going on here. Contrary to the clear portrait of Peter and/or ‘
Cephas
’ by Paul in Galatians, not to mention Peter as the thoroughgoing ‘
Jamesian
’ in the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
and
Recognitions
79
; this apocryphal episode turns Peter into a rank-and-file ‘
Paulinist’
. Yet, even here,
the real Peter
shines through. For instance, in his first response to the Heavenly Voice instructing him to ‘
kill and eat
’, to which Peter a
n
swers, as already signaled, ‘
No Lord
,
for I have never eaten anything profane or unclean
’ (10:14). This is so unequivocal that it contradicts even the portrait later on in Galatians where Peter is presented as following a more middle-of-the-road approach and Paul has the temerity to accuse both him and Barnabas of ‘
hypocrisy
’ (2:13).

But this passage in Acts is clearly written by a Gentile as well – probably in either Alexandria or Rome. This is because it has Peter stating in his first conversation with the Roman Centurion Cornelius – raising him up after the latter ‘
fell at his feet
’ – having already just learned on a rooftop in Jaffa that ‘
table fellowship
’
with
and
visiting Gentile homes
was permitted:
‘You know that it is not lawful for a Jewish man to join himself with
(in the language of the Damascus Document, become ‘
Joiners
’ or
Nilvim
80
)
or come near one of another Race
(Acts 10:28).’
Not only is this patently inaccurate, but no Jew could have ever written or said it – even a Backslider or turncoat like Josephus – as the issue was far more complex than this. It had to do with purity regulations and/or contracting impurity or defilement and would even have applied to contact with – to use the vocab
u
lary of the Habakkuk
Pesher
– non-‘
Torah
-
Doers in the House of Judah
’, meaning ‘
Jews
’
81
). Rather, this is how Jews would have been perceived by uncomprehending outsiders – since it is not that Jews could not go near foreigners; it is only that one would find it difficult to keep ‘
table fellowship
’ (as the issue is referred to in contemporary scholarship) with them or be in touch with people
not keeping the Law
, whether Backsliding Jews or Gentiles.

To repeat, this could not have been written by someone who was Jewish. Rather it is how Jewish behaviour might have appeared to non-Jewish and certainly jaundiced and even hostile eyes. In particular, this is how an anti-Semitic individual (po
s
sibly even one of the ubiquitous ‘
Hellenists
’ mentioned above) would have framed such an observation – not patently the hi
s
torical Peter, at least not as he is depicted in documents like the Pseudoclementines unless, of course, one views Peter as a man hobbled by anti-Semitic stereotypes, which the present writer does not.

The character ‘
Cornelius
’ is also an impossibility, for it would not have been possible to find at this time a ‘
Righteous and Godfearing Centurion
’ of the Caesarean contingent of Roman Soldiers, ‘
highly spoken of by the whole Nation of the Jews
’ (Acts 10:22 – ‘
Pious
’ and ‘
doing many good works on behalf of the People and praying to God continually
’ as Acts 10:2 puts it preceding this). Not only is it hard to refrain from outright guffawing here, this is an obvious inversion and clear overwrite because, as even Josephus has attested, the Caesarean regiment of Roman Soldiery was among the
most brutal in Palestine
. It was they more than any other Roman troops that goaded the Jews into revolt, so much so that when Titus – not someone partic
u
larly known for his liberality or largesse and certainly not his concern for the Jews – had finally pacified the country in 70 CE, the Caesarean regiment was the first to be banished from it because of its previous record of unmitigated cruelty.
82

In fact, like so many of these epithets, the descriptions ‘
the Righteous One
’, ‘
Pious
’, ‘
highly spoken of by the whole N
a
tion of the Jews
’, and ‘
supplicating God continually
’, apply more appropriately to someone like James than anyone else one can specify in this Period. Notwithstanding, even here I have already expressed the opinion that what one really has to do with is a refurbishment of the visit of ‘
a certain Simon’ who called the people into an Assembly in Jerusalem
, as described by Jos
e
phus, to Agrippa I (37–44 CE) in Caesarea ‘
to see what was done there contrary to Law
’ – the reason of course being, that Agrippa I was perhaps the only
Herodian
highly spoken of by a goodly portion of the Jews not only because of the Maccabean blood on his father’s side (
via
Herod’s original Maccabean wife Mariamme), but also, contrary to the behaviour of other Herodians, his self-evident attempts at conciliating his fellow Countrymen.
83
Even the
Talmud
portrays this Agrippa’s concern to ingratiate himself over such matters.
84

In other words, the ‘
Simon
’ at this time in Josephus was a ‘
Zealot
’
who wanted to bar mixed-blood persons or foreigners from the Temple
,
not admit them
, as Acts portrays its ‘
Simon
’, his contemporary. But, as we shall see in the end, even the name ‘
Cornelius
’ will have particular relevance towards some of the issues circulating in this Period and beyond – especially
the
Lex Cornelia de Sicarius et Veneficis
, attributed to the legendary Roman General, Publius Cornelia Scipio, but probably not put into real effect until after the First Jewish Revolt by Nerva (96–98 CE) and repressively applied by Hadrian (117–38 CE) to discourage both Revolution and ‘
circumcision
’ across the board.
85

Again Peter repeats in the speech he now makes to this
Cornelius
on going into his house – for perhaps the seventh or eighth time (depending on whether one includes the one attributed to Stephen) – the usual ‘
Blood libel’
. If we had not got the point by now, we would perhaps have gotten it after this. After describing how ‘
God anointed Jesus
,
who was from Nazareth
,
with the Holy Spirit and with Power
’ (the ‘
Great Power
’ ideology again) and how Jesus then went around ‘
doing good
(as in 10:2 earlier, note the ‘
Jamesian
’ language of ‘
doing
’ here,
now attached to Hellenistic curings and other miracles
) and ‘
healing all who were being oppressed
’ – significantly
not by Rome
,
but ‘by the Devil
’ (
Diabolou
)! – Peter now adds, ‘
which he did both in the Country of the Jews and in Jerusalem
’ (this clearly an exposition aimed and directed at non-Jews), but ‘
whom they
(
the Jews
)
put to death by hanging on a tree
’ (Acts 10:39 – the typical description of crucifixion Acts has already had Peter use in 5:30 and used by Paul in Galatians 3:13).

By way of introduction to these matters, Peter alludes to two points important in many descriptions of James: 1) ‘
God is not a respecter of persons
’ (10:34), which is a fundamental set piece of all early Church descriptions of James – already hig
h
lighted above and parodied by Paul at the beginning of Galatians, ‘
do I persuade men or God or do I seek to please men
’ (1:10).
86
2) ‘
In every Nation
,
he who fears Him (God) and works Righteousness is acceptable to Him
’ (10:35), which is basica
l
ly the approach of the Damascus Document with its emphasis on ‘
works Righteousness
’ and, in particular, at the end of the exhortative section of the Cairo recension, where ‘
fearing God
’ and ‘
God-Fearers
’ are several times evoked – to whom its ‘
New Covenant in the Land of Damascus
’ is also clearly addressed –
but
‘
God-Fearers
’
who obey the Law not those who di
s
obey it
.
87

Like Stephen’s speech above, the very introduction to these points – supposedly spoken by ‘
an Angel of God
’ (‘
a man in bright clothing at the ninth hour of the day
’) to another of these ubiquitous ‘
certain ones
’ Acts is always referring to (this time the Roman Centurion Cornelius – 10:1–4 and 30–33) – is reminiscent of the opening appeals of the Damascus Document, which we shall further elucidate as we proceed. As Acts puts this, ‘
Now therefore
…
hear all the things which God has co
m
manded you
,
and … opening his mouth
,
etc
.’ – here again, the telltale plays on ‘
uncircumcising
’ one’s ears, eyes, and ultimately one’s heart, we have already encountered in the speech attributed to Stephen above.