James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (136 page)

Even without the reference to it in CD III.21–IV.2, we could have connected James to the ‘
Zadokite
’ ideology by the co
n
stant reiteration of the ‘
Righteousness
’ ideology regarding his person and the title in Latin tied to his name, ‘
Justus
’, which is ‘
Zadok
’ in Hebrew – this, to say nothing of the constant reiteration of the word ‘
keeping
’ in all sources (including ‘
Rechabite
’ ones) connected to his being, which (aside from the wordplay centering around the ‘
Z-D-K
’ ideology) is the actual definition of the
true
‘
Sons of Zadok
’ in the Community Rule at Qumran.
38
But early Church texts are indeed applying many of the param
e
ters listed in Ezekiel’s ‘
Zadokite
’ materials in consequence of this, including, ‘
wearing only linen
’, ‘
a razor never touching his head
’, ‘
abstaining from wine
’, ‘
barring carrion
’,
etc.
, so it is possible to discern the traces of a conscious effort to present him as a true ‘
Son of Zadok
’ even in these texts and according to the parameters recognized at Qumran, not to mention those of the ‘
Nazirite
’/‘
Rechabite
’ ideology in general.
39

But early Church texts are also at pains to portray his death in terms of the verb in Greek that basically contains the same root letters as that of ‘
swallowing
’ in Hebrew – namely, ‘
casting down
’: ‘
ballo
’/‘
kataballo
’/‘
ekballo
’ or the like. We have seen how the equivalent of this verb ‘
casting
’ or ‘
throwing down
’ – also ‘
causing to stumble
’ in Hebrew – was linked, together with ‘
swallowing
’ in the Habakkuk
Pesher
, to how the Wicked Priest destroyed the Righteous Teacher and some colleagues, and this related to
Yom Kippur
,
even though the word nowhere appeared in the underlying Biblical passage
from Habakkuk 2:15 on which the ex
e
gesis supposedly was based. Interestingly enough, it
does appear
in
Ezekiel 44:12 regarding ‘
causing the House of Israel to stu
m
ble into sinning
’, not to mention a variation of it in the Letter of James, also following quotation of ‘
the Royal Law according to the Scripture
’ and in conjunction with allusion to ‘
keeping
’ (2:10). On the other hand, together with this imagery of ‘
swa
l
lowing
’ and additional allusion to ‘
the Poor
’, it seems purposefully to have been introduced into the vocabulary of the Haba
k
kuk
Pesher
at this point.

We have also shown above how this imagery related to that of
Belial
(in Revelation,
Balaam
) ‘
casting down his net
’ generally to ‘
deceive Israel
’ or ‘
lead Israel astray
’, imagery picked up in the picture of the Apostles ‘
casting down
’ their nets in the Gospels (Matthew 4:18–19 and
pars
.) who, in a kind of parody of this imagery, are then said to have become ‘
Fishers of Men
’ (Ma
t
thew 4:20–21 and
pars
.). Interestingly enough, as we have called attention to as well, this same imagery is present in the Ha
b
akkuk
Pesher
in exposition of Habakkuk 1:15–16 on ‘
fishing
’, ‘
nets
’, and ‘
plenteous eating
’, but there the ‘
nets
’ and ‘
fishing
’ were those
cast by
‘
the
Kittim
’ or, as it were,
the Romans
, ‘
parceling out their yoke and their taxes
’ and the ‘
eating
’,
destroying
‘
all Peoples
,
year by year
’, ‘
with the sword
’.
40

In the Gospels this imagery even went further afield to encompass the authority received by the Apostles ‘
to cast out d
e
mons
’ or ‘
Evil spirits
’ (
ekballo
– Mark 3:15 and
pars
.) – a parody of
the expulsion by groups like the Essenes
or
those at Qu
m
ran of Backsliders and Law-Breakers
.
It was also edifying to note the further use of this language in the ‘
casting out
’ from Jer
u
salem of Ananus’ body without burial as food for jackals or that of the ‘
Rich
’ collaborator ‘
Zachariah
’ and of ‘
Stephen
’ in Acts 7:51–53 by allegedly blood-thirsty Jews, who ‘
gnashed their teeth at him
’ after being accused by him themselves of ‘
not kee
p
ing
’
the Law and being
‘
uncircumcised in heart and ears
’!
41

It was interesting, too, how this idea of being ‘
cast down
from the Pinnacle of the Temple
’ in the manner of James occurs in the famous stories about Jesus’ ‘
Temptation in the Wilderness
’ in Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13. Both use the language of the ‘
Diabolos
’ and ‘
kataballo
’ to signify being ‘
cast down
’ (4:5 and 4:9). Also, in the typical style of Qumran, Revelation, and Paul in 2 Corinthians, both insert the usage, ‘
Satan
’, into the fabric of their narrative, even though they seem initially to be referring to the ‘
Diabolos
’ or ‘
Belial
’ (4:10 and 4:8). Both episodes are given a Pauline or pro-Roman cast in that Jesus is offered Authority over ‘
all the Kingdoms of the World and their Glory
’ (4:8–9 and 4:6). He declines with the now proverbial words, ‘
Get thee behind me Satan
’, quoting Deuteronomy 6:13, to the effect that, it is God alone whom he serves (4:10 and 4:8). The only di
f
ference is that in Luke this offer follows the Devil’s suggestion ‘
to cast himself down from the Pinnacle of the Temple
’ while in Matthew it precedes it.

This implied rejection of this-worldly ‘
Messianism
’ makes no sense at all, since in the Palestinian version of ‘
Messianism
’ – for instance, in the War Scroll and other texts from Qumran not to mention Revelation –
the Messiah was to come and crush all the Nations with
‘
a rod of iron
’ and
make them his
‘
footstool
’.
42
In support of this, Revelation repeatedly cites the passage from Psalm 2:8–9 about being given ‘
the ends of the Earth for a possession
’ and ‘
breaking the Gentiles with a rod of iron
’, not to mention Isaiah 11:4’s ‘
smiting the earth with the rod of his mouth
’ – ‘
the sharp sword of his mouth
’ in Isaiah 49:2 – a pa
s
sage extant in Qumran
Pesharim
. As it turns out, the mentality typical of these ‘
footstool
’ passages in Revelation are completely typical of Qumran as well.
43

Nor should it be forgotten that the ambiance of Isaiah 11:4 is the citation about ‘
the Rod of the Shoot of Jesse and the Branch
(
Netzer
)
from his Roots
’, subjected to exegesis at Qumran in two separate contexts; and the context of Psalm 2:8–9 is the all-important reference to ‘
You are My son
.
On this day I have begotten you
’ (2:7). This last appears in one of the so-called ‘
Jewish Christian
’ Gospels, attributed by Epiphanius to ‘
the Ebionites
’, in place of the extant text in the Synoptics which, in depicting John’s baptism of Jesus rather inserts the phrase, ‘
This is my only begotten Son. In him I am well pleased
’ (Matthew 3:17 and
pars
.).
44
Per contra
, Epiphanius’ Ebionite Gospel conserves Psalm 2:7 and, consequently, the impression of an ‘
adoptionist baptism
’, similar to that at Qumran,
45
rather than a supernatural birth or ‘
Immaculate Conception
’ as it is now called. As this is the approach reiterated in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, a letter replete with the imagery of the Messiah ‘
sitting on the right hand of God and making his enemies his footstool
’ (Psalm 110:1, the Psalm which in 110:4 also contains the imagery of ‘
a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek
’). It seems very likely that this was the original tradition. However this may be, so much does Revelation expand on quotations of this kind that it appears like something of an extended, Qumran-style
Pesher
as well.

But in Matthew and Luke’s descriptions of
the Temptation
‘
in the Wilderness
’
by the Devil
, which not only almost directly follow this baptism scenario but, in the same breath, seem directly to be targeting these ‘
wilderness-dwelling
’ sectarian groups,
Jesus
is basically also being presented within the ‘
Jamesian
’ scenario of ‘
being cast down from the Pinnacle of the Temple
’
by the Devil
(‘
Diabolos
’/‘
Belial
’). The words are almost
exactly those of early Church accounts of James’ death except, instead of ‘
being cast down
’, Jesus is asked to ‘
cast
himself
down
’ (Matthew 4:6 and Luke 4:9). Declining, he says in words now proverbial and continuing to quote Deuteronomy 6:16, ‘
you shalt not tempt the Lord your God
’. The implication is that James willfully cast himself down from the Pinnacle of the Temple and, in so doing, somehow tested the Lord his God, but, as just intimated, none of this makes any sense whatsoever and it is simply a further example of a tradition related to James’ death and the ‘
ballo
’/‘
balla
‘
’/‘
Belial
’ terminology being retrospectively incorporated into the life of Jesus. There is also the derivative implic
a
tion, should one choose to regard it, that ‘
temptation in the wilderness
’ materials of this kind could not have assumed this form until after the traditions about James’ ‘
fall
’ or ‘
having been cast down
’ were concretized. These traditions have their fu
r
ther adumbrations in the materials about the Apostles ‘
casting down their nets
’ into the Sea of Galilee before recognizing and joining Jesus on the shore, folkloric inventions taking this imagery even further afield.

The traditions relating to the ‘
casting down
’ of James occur in early Church testimony, as will be recalled, in two separate variations – one having to do with the attack by ‘
the Enemy
’ Paul in the Forties
CE
which does not result in his death, but only a fall from the Temple stairs in which he ‘
breaks his leg
’.
46
This is the more likely scenario. The second attack, which o
c
curs in the Sixties
CE
, supposedly results in his ‘
being cast down
’ or a fall ‘
from the Temple Pinnacle
’. On top of this last,
there is the stoning
and
the
coup de grace
delivered to him by a laundryman
’
s club
.
47
As we showed in
James the Brother of Jesus
, the second is really a conflation of both the earlier one – apparently by Paul – in the Forties (which Acts is so anxious to disguise masking it with ‘
the Jews
’ allegedly stoning a
papier
mache
character like ‘
Stephen
’) and the later one, James’ stoning in 62 CE as described by Josephus.
48
This last is the one that most fits the Dead Sea Scrolls’ account of how ‘
the Wicked Priest pursued the Righteous Teacher with
’ or ‘
in his
Beit-Galuto
(‘
his House of Exile
’ or ‘
his Exiled House
’)
to swallow him
’, that is,
pursued judicial proceedings against him that resulted in his stoning
.