James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (159 page)

There is also the theme of ‘
fornication
’ attached to both Noah’s and Salih’s teaching, as well as the one of
Righteousness
and
Justice
.
47
One of these traditions in the Koran even uses a familiar Qumranism – ‘
turning aside from the right Way
’ – to describe the warning Hud gives his ‘
People
’ (11:56–7,
etc.
). Then, there is the ‘
brother
’ theme that runs through all these K
o
ranic traditions – not only that
Hud
is the brother of ‘
Ad
(
Thaddaeus
/
Addai
), but that
Salih
is the brother of
Thamud
(
Tho
m
as
/
Judas Thomas
). At one point, the allusion to ‘
brother
’ occurs in regard to
Thamud
(just as with ‘
Ad
above) without even referring to
Salih
’s proper name
48
; but, however it is seen, the term ‘
brother
’ is an important element of all these stories as they are presented in the Koran. In our view,
Hud
is
the
brother
of
Salih
just as
Judas
is
the brother
of James
.

Finally, the countryside in question in these Koranic traditions, though admittedly rather obscure, sometimes ‘
sandhills’
, sometimes ‘
whirlwind’
, is at one point said to abound in ‘
hills
,
springs
,
plains
,
and date palms
’ (7:75 and 26:148–9), but always broad plains, richly fertile, with olive trees and the like, which is a very good description of the cattlegrazing country around Edessa and Haran and the area between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers towards Mosul or Adiabene generally. In our view the connections are clear: ‘
Ad
is to be equated with
Edessa, Adiabene
,
Addai
, and, by extension,
Thaddaeus
(even
Theudas
);
Hud
with
Judas of James
,
Judas the brother of James
,
Judas Barsabas
,
Judas the Zealot
,
Judas Thomas
– and even possibly
Judas Iscariot
. This is perhaps one of the first – if not
the
first – time that the relationship of the name ‘
Hud
’ with that of the H
e
brew
Yehudah
has ever been pointed out; but of course it makes absolute sense, even though those who conserved the trad
i
tion had – not surprisingly – long ago forgotten its linguistic basis. Still, the information concerning it is based on a certain reality.

Even the ‘
Barsabas
’ allusion, also mentioned at the beginning of Acts in relation to one
Joseph
who ‘
was
s
urnamed
Justus
’ (no doubt a stand-in for James or the family of ‘
Joseph
’ in general) – the defeated candidate in the
election
to succeed
Judas Iscariot
– may be another of these allusions to
bathing
or
Bathers
as we have seen,
i
.
e
.,
Sabaeans
. In fact, Syriac and Muslim sources make it clear that this term means
Daily Bather
– in Greco-Syriac, as already remarked,
Masbuthaean
(
Sampsaean
?), the remnants of which group are still known as ‘
the
Subba
‘
of the Marshes
’ today (in so far as they survived Saddam Hussein’s attempts to annihilate them) as they were to both al-Biruni and
The
Fihrist
in their day. ‘
Thamud’
is to be associated with
Thomas
in these various stories; and ‘
Salih
’ with
James the Just
or
the ‘Righteous One
’ –
the individual who set all these various tr
a
ditions in motion
.

Not only is the
Arab
ancestry of all these stories important – ancestry which the
Paulinizing
narrative of the Book of Acts is quick to relegate to ‘
Ethiopia
’, but so is the connecting theme of the ban on ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’ – the basis, as we have now several times accentuated, not only of Koranic dietary regulations but also that of
MMT
’s polemicizing directives aimed at a
Pious
King it seems to imply was wishing to emulate Abraham. It is also the focus of Acts’ picture of James’ dire
c
tives to overseas communities and Paul’s diminution of these in 1 Corinthians 8 – where because of which, he disingenuously concludes he ‘
will never eat meat again forever
’ and that, for him, ‘
all things are lawful
’ (repeated twice).

The conclusion is that somehow Muhammad came in touch with these Northern Syrian conversion stories and other qu
a
si-Syriac materials from the Pseudoclementines about James – either through caravan trips to Southern Iraq, where the ‘
Subba
‘
of the Marshes
’ still survive, or further North, to the remnants of these lost cultures in Northern Syria. These too are not completely lost but still survive in groups like the presentday ‘
‘
A
lawwi
s
’ or, as they also refer to themselves, ‘
the
Nusayri
s
’ (
i
.
e
.,
the Nazoraean
s once more – another group obviously recognizing multiple ‘
A
li
s or
Imam
s/
Standing One
s). In all these co
n
texts, the constant emphasis on
Abraham
, whose homeland this was, is decisive (of course, for Muhammad, ‘
Abraham
’
s House
’ turns into ‘
the
Ka
‘
bah
’ at Mecca instead!).

Not only is
Abraham
a focus for the genesis of Koranic doctrine about Islam, but also for the antecedents to this – the debates between Paul and James regarding Abraham’s
Salvationary
State that permeate the history of Early Christianity and now, seemingly, Qumran as well. By focusing on
Abraham
, the Damascus Document (III.2–4 and XVI.6–8) throws light on these seemingly arcane Koranic references to
Arabian
Holy Men or ‘
Warners
’ as well. Moreover, by insisting that because he, Isaac, and Jacob ‘
kept the Commandments
’ and ‘
remained Faithful
’ (not ‘
straying from them in stubbornness of heart
’ as some others may have done), they were ‘t
o be reckoned Beloved of God
’ or ‘
Friends’
, an expression paralleled in
Surah
2:124–141 of the Koran by the new terminology – focusing like James 2:21–24 on Abraham’s obedience to God –
Muslim
or ‘
He that su
r
renders to God’
. This is the context, too, which in our view can throw light on these seemingly impenetrable and otherwise certainly very recondite Koranic references.

Sicarii
Essenes and
Zealot
Essenes

Another subject having to do with the relationship of early
Christian
origins in Palestine to the
Jerusalem Church
of James the Just and to Qumran that we should consider in more depth before closing is the related one of those Hippolytus and pe
r
haps Josephus, in turn, are calling ‘
Sicarii
Essenes
’ and/or ‘
Zealot Essenes
’ – those Paul and the Book of Acts seem to be a
l
luding to as ‘
the Circumcision
’ or ‘
those insisting on
’ or ‘
the Party of the Circumcision’
. In a much overlooked description of
the Essenes
– usually attributed to the Third-Century early-Church theologian/heresiologist in Rome
Hippolytus
(an attrib
u
tion that is by no means certain – the sole exemplar was found in the late Nineteenth Century at Mount Athos) – there exists the completely original and different presentation of just who and what
the Essenes
were, probably going back to a variant version of the received Josephus, perhaps even based on the earlier version of the
Jewish War
he claims he did in Aramaic for the benefit of his Eastern brethren (meaning those in Northern Syria, Adiabene, Mesopotamia, and Persia) most likely to i
m
press upon them the power and might of Rome and discourage them from any attempt to overturn the outcome of the Jewish War.
49

In this version of the two famous descriptions in the normative Josephus (the originality of which probably identifies it as being based on an earlier source and not a creative effort of Hippolytus himself – if, indeed, he can be definitively identified as the author in question),
Four
Groups of
Essenes
are identified and not ‘
four grades
’ as in the
Jewish War
or ‘
four philosophical schools
’ or ‘
sects
’ generally as in the
Antiquities
.
50

To be sure, the version in Hippolytus has all the main points of the received
Jewish War
, though at times it is clearer – for example, in its description of the progress of the novitiate relative to the tasting of ‘
the pure food
’ of the initiates, the resurre
c
tion of the body along with the immortality of the soul, and the clear evocation of a ‘
Last Judgement’
.
51
It also includes the additional point about there being marrying and non-marrying Essenes.
52
Regarding aspects such as these, both the
War
and Hippolytus are virtually the same. On the other hand, whereas Josephus speaks of ‘
four grades
’ in basically descending order of
Holiness
, Hippolytus rather speaks of a ‘
division into Four Parties
(perhaps also in some sense relating to stricter or less-strict
Holiness
or
Naziritism
) that, ‘
as time went on’
, ‘
did not preserve their system of training in exactly the same manner’
, that is, his version contains
an element of chronological development and perhaps even devolution or changes that occurred over time
.
53
This is a new point nowhere mentioned in the normative Josephus and, in this, he is much clearer than the r
e
ceived Josephus.

It is at this point, having raised the issue of ‘
the passage of time’
, that Hippolytus adds the new details connecting both
the
Sicarii
and
the ‘Zealots
’ to
the Essenes
, that, in the writer’s view, have particular relevance to problem many commentators have encountered during the course of Dead Sea Scrolls research in trying to sort the ‘
Essene
’ character of the Scrolls at Qu
m
ran from the ‘
Zealot
’ one,
54
a delineation which will have particular relevance to the picture of both
Early Christian
History and Palestinian
Messianism
as well.