James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (166 page)

BOOK: James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II
9.65Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

In both Acts and at Qumran, the exposition is esoteric. In the latter ‘
the Tabernacle of the King
’ (thereafter, seemingly, to be refined in terms of Amos 9:11’s ‘
the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’) is identified with ‘
the Books of the
Torah
’ – this, of course, the very opposite of how ‘
the Gentile Mission
’ would see these things. Notwithstanding, ‘
the King
’ – as in 1 Cori
n
thians 12:12-27 – ‘
is the Community and the Bases of the Statues are the Books of the Prophets whose words Israel despised’
. By contrast, in Acts 15:16–21 the esoteric exegesis of this passage from Amos is rather presented, it should be recalled, as ha
v
ing something to do with James’ support of Paul’s ‘
Gentile Mission
’ or, as this is put, ‘
all the Gentiles (
Ethne
) upon whom My Name has been called’
, which then triggers the various versions of James’ directives to overseas communities.

That the whole complex, as it is presented in the Damascus Document, is to be taken in a ‘
Messianic
’ way is clear from the evocation of ‘
the Star Prophecy
’ which follows in Ms. A and ‘
the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel
’ in Ms. B. Brin
g
ing the whole series of usages full circle: as this prophecy is expounded it is now connected in some manner both with ‘
the Diggers
’ materials (that is, ‘
those who dug the Well in the Land of Damascus
’) and ‘
the New Covenant in the Land of Dama
s
cus
’ preceding it from Columns VI.3–VII.6. In turn, both are connected to Numbers 21:18’s ‘
Well
’ which ‘
the Princes

and

Nobles of the People dug’
, ‘
the Penitents who went out to the Land of Damascus
’ materials, and Isaiah 54–56’s
Staff
/
Mehokkek
, described as ‘
an instrument for His works’
. The last link between all of these is then, of course, ‘
the
Doresh
’ or ‘
the Seeker after the
Torah
’ (the ‘
seeking
’ theme being fundamental here), that is, ‘
the Interpreter of the
Torah
’ who is both ‘
the Staff who decrees the Laws
’ (
Hukkim
, a play on ‘
the
Mehokkek
’ as well as ‘
His staves
’ as we just saw), who is then identified in the next exegesis as ‘
the Star who came to Damascus’
.

This is quite a complex structure. Nevertheless, we are now in the realm of Acts’ presentation of early Christian history on two counts: 1) in the matter of ‘
the Seeker after the
Torah
’ (‘
the Star
’) ‘
who came to Damascus
’; and 2) in the use of these Amos materials, particularly those relating to ‘
re-erecting the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’ constituting the jumping-off point, as it were, to Acts’ presentation of James’ directives to these same
Nilvim
or ‘
Joiners
’ to the Community in its picture of the outcome of ‘
the Jerusalem Council’
. The ‘
rebuilding
’ or ‘
re-erecting
’ of this ‘
fallen Tabernacle
’ is then used in Acts to pr
e
sent James as definitively supporting Paul’s ‘
Gentile Mission
’ (a presentation I dispute – he might have supported the ‘
Mission
’ but, clearly, not its ‘
Pauline
’ parameters), as well as to introduce the specific ban in these instructions on ‘
Blood’
.

The two, of course, are incompatible – that is, one cannot support both the
Mission
as Paul (followed by Acts) frames it and the ban on
Blood
– my reason for denying the historicity of this genre of application of Amos 9:11’s Prophecy about ‘
rai
s
ing the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’ in the picture of James’ discourse in Acts 15:16–17 to Paul’s ‘
Gentile Mission’
. A prohibition of this kind on James’ part, concerning which Paul feigns ignorance throughout 1 Corinthians – if taken seriously – would preclude what Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 11:24 he ‘
received
’ directly ‘
from the Lord’
. A claim of the latter kind, if entertained, can only mean via direct visionary experience or ‘
apocalypsis
’, the kind of experience he also claims as both the basis of his ‘
Apostleship
’ – ‘
not from men nor through man
’ – in Galatians 1:1, as well as his view of the entire ‘
Gentile Mission
’ in Galatians 2:2. Furthermore, even if one were to insist that the claim should only be taken allegorically or symbolically, this would inevitably make Jesus a quasi-
Disciple
of Philo of Alexandria just as Paul.

As Paul now pictures ‘
the Lord Jesus
’ describing this ‘
New Covenant in
(
his
)
Blood
’ in 1 Corinthians 11:25–27 (possibly adding the ‘
Cup
’ from an esoteric understanding of ‘
Damascus
’):
‘This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood
’…. A
s often as you drink

this Cup you drink the death of the Lord

whoever shall

drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of

the Blood of the Lord
.’
A more esoteric or allegorical understanding of
the New Covenant
is hard to envision. In Matthew 26:27–28, this becomes: ‘
Taking the Cup

he gave it to them
,
saying
, “
This is my Blood
,
that of the New Covenant which is poured out for the Many for remission of Sins.”

According to Acts 15:14, James’ evocation of ‘
rebuilding the fallen Tabernacle of David
’ even includes the allusion to how God ‘
visited
the Gentiles to take out a People for His Name’
. We have also seen how
Visitation
language of this kind permeates the Damascus Document, beginning with the assertion in the First Column of CD that God ‘
visited them and caused a Root of Planting to grow from Israel and from Aaron
’ and continuing to this very juncture of the Document and the exegesis of ‘
the Star Prophecy
’ in CD VII.18–VIII.3. Though in Ms. B, ‘
the Star Prophecy
’ is replaced by Zechariah 13:7, Ezekiel 9:4, and evocation of ‘
the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel
’ (continuing this ‘
Israel and Aaron
’ allusion from Column I.7 ea
r
lier – singular), both versions conserve the ‘
Visitation
’ usages.

As already underscored as well, even the word ‘
First’
, as in the ‘
First Visitation’
, is included in both Ms. A and B versions of the text,
e
.
g
., ‘
these escaped in the Era of the First Visitation’
, and the language of ‘
Visitation
’ or ‘
God visiting them
’ is r
e
peated some three or four times. In James’ speech in Acts this becomes, ‘
Simeon has told you how God First visited the Ge
n
tiles to take out a People for His Name
’ (
n
.
b
. not only the ‘
Visitation
’ language but also the allusion to ‘
for His Name
’ repla
c
ing more familiar allusions ‘
called by this Name
’ earlier in Acts and ‘
called by Name
’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls
114
). Just as in Column VII.18’s ‘
the Prophets whose words Israel despised’
, Acts 15:15 also evokes ‘
the words of the Prophets
’, but adds Amos 9:11’s ‘
and I will build the ruins of it again and I will set it up
’ to CD VII.16’s more circumscribed version of Amos 9:11.

It will be recalled that in CD VI.8, quoting Isaiah 54:16,
the
Mehokkek
was defined as ‘
the Seeker after the
Torah
’ and cha
r
acterized as ‘
an instrument for His works’
. Stitching the whole together, CD VII.18–19 then defined
the Star
/
Stave
/
Mehokkek
, as we saw, as ‘
the Interpreter of’
or ‘
Seeker after the
Torah
who came to Damascus’
. But in James’ speech in Acts 15:18, not only is ‘
the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’ invoked (‘
its ruins to be rebuilt
’), but this becomes an explanation of why ‘
the Remnant of Men
’ or ‘
the Men who are left may seek out the Lord
’ – ‘
those who are left
’ or ‘
the Remnant
’ also being language familiar to these sections of CD VII/XIX.
115
Once again, the ‘
seeking
’ language is pivotal as it is in CD VII.18–19’s exposition of both Amos 9:11 and Numbers 24:17 in terms of ‘
the
Doresh ha-Torah

. It is also the explanation earlier for why God called ‘
the Diggers
’ of Numbers 21:18 (that is, ‘
the Penitents who went out from the Land of Judah to dwell in the Land of Dama
s
cus
’) ‘
Princes
,
because they sought Him and their honour was questioned by no man
’ (CD VI.4–7)!

At this point in Acts 15:18, as if by way of explanation, James is pictured as adding: ‘
all his works are known to God from Eternity’
. Here, of course, we have the ‘
works
’ language of Isaiah 54:16 and CD VI.8 and
the Staff
/
Seeker
being ‘
an instr
u
ment for His works
’ – not to mention the earlier material from CD I.10 (following on from how ‘
God visited them and caused a root of Planting to grow from Israel and from Aaron
’): ‘
And God considered their works because they sought him with a whole heart
’. Nor is this to say anything about the allusion to ‘
God visiting their works
’ later in CD V.17. Even more germane, almost the exact words are to be found in CD II.5–8, where ‘
the Penitents from Sin
’ among those ‘
who enter the Covenant
’ (
i
.
e
., ‘
the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus
’) are characterized in terms of being blessed, but: ‘
Power
,
Might
,
and ove
r
whelming Wrath with sheets of Fire

upon those who turn aside the Way and abominate the Law

because
,
before the World ever was
,
God chose them not and
,
before they were established
,
He knew their works’
.
Here CD II.8 adds, as if for emphasis and a
coup de grace
of sorts: ‘
and abominated their Generations
on account of Blood
’. Once again, one should compare this allusion to God ‘
knowing their works
’ with James quoted in in Acts 15:18 as concluding: ‘
All his works are known to God from Eternity’
.

BOOK: James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II
9.65Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

Tiger Trap by Eric Walters
Dodging Trains by Sunniva Dee
Find Angel! (A Frank Angel Western #1) by Frederick H. Christian
Simple Intent by Linda Sands
Succumbing To His Fear by River Mitchell
The Cats that Stalked a Ghost by Karen Anne Golden
Conspirata by Robert Harris


readsbookonline.com Copyright 2016 - 2024