James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (174 page)

14.
Haeres
. 78.14.1–3.

15.
Ant
. 20.51 and 101–2.

16.
Haeres.
78.14.1.

17.
E.H.
2.23.13 and cf. Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30 and 26:64/Mark 13:26–7 and 14:62; at Qumran, see CD IV.3–9 and 1QpHab V.4.

18. 1QpHab V.4 above, 1QM XII.1–10 and XIX.1–2.

19. CD IV.4–7 and note here the expression ‘
called by Name
’, anticipated in CD II.11, paralleling such New Testament expressions as ‘
called by this Name
’ or ‘
called by the Name of
’ in Acts 2:21, 15:17, 22:16, etc., and ‘
name
’ and ‘
naming
’ sy
m
bolism generally in the New Testament and even Jewish
Kabbalah
.

20. 1QM XII.4–9 and XIX.1 and see my article ‘Eschatological “
Rain
” Imagery in the War Scroll from Qumran and in the Letter of James’,
JNES
, v. 49, no. 2, April, 1990, pp. 173–84, reprinted in
DSSFC
, pp. 272–87.

21. Matthew 24:30 and 26:64/Mark 13:26–7 and 14:62.

22. Not only is this ‘
Power
’ language is widespread in the Gospels – see, for instance, Matthew 9:6, 28:18, Luke 4:14, 5:24, 9:1, and
pars
.; but one also even sees it at Qumran – see 1QM I.4 and cf.
Haere
s. 19.4.1 on the
‘
Ossaeans
’ and 21.2.3 on the ‘
Simonian
’ followers of Simon
Magus
and similarly in the Pseudoclementines.

23. Cf. 1QH IX.26–35.

24. Cf. 1QM XII.9–10.

25.
ARN
4.4.

26.
War
2.6–7 and n.b., Hebrews 7:11–8:2 and 9:9–15.

27.
ARN
6.3 and
b. Ta
‘
an
. 19b–20a.

28. See 1 Kings 17:1, 18:2 and 45, and 19:11.

29. See the list of such persons in
ARN
2.5.

30. See Hebrew
Ben Sira
44:17.

31. Note the inversion of ‘
the Friend of God
’ language here applied to Abraham in James 2:23–4 and CD III.2–3, to say nothing of the Koran.

32. See James 2:12 and 5:7–9 and Jude 14–5.

33.
B. Ta
‘
an
. 6a.

34. Cf. too 1 Maccabees 2:58, but also 2:54 on Phineas; also
Ben Sira
48:1–2.

35. Luke 4:25–6 also has Jesus refer to this ‘
three and a half years
’ with regard to drought and by implication rainmaking and the timeframe will also have relevance to Daniel 12:7’s ‘
a time, two times and a half
’ as it will to the period between James’ death and the outbreak of the War against Rome.

36. For this ‘
whirlwind
’ and ‘
quaking mountains
’, reminiscent of the most vivid Koranic imagery, see 4QpNah I.1–11; for Ezekiel, see 13:12–4 following his allusions to
‘Lying prophets
’ with their ‘
empty visions
’ and ‘
the plasterers on the wall
’ in 13:9–11 (cf. CD IV.18–20 and VIII.12–3).

37. See Hippolytus 9.20–1 and cf. Josephus,
War
2.143 and 2.152–3.

38. Also see Romans 10:2–6 and 11:14 and note that the former is precisely the passage Jerome used against Origen in to rebuke him for having become a ‘
Sicarius
’ or for castrating himself – Letter 84 to Pammachius and Oceanus – i.e., he did this out of ‘
zeal for God but not according to Knowledge
’.

39.
E.H.
2.1.4 and 23.10–13,
Vir. ill.
2,
Haeres
. 78.14.5–7, etc.

40. Also see Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 and cf.
Ant
. 12.253, Matthew 24:15, and Mark 13:14. One of the first to make this su
g
gestion was Louis Ginzberg in an article in the
Jewish Encyclopedia
but Antiochus Epiphanes seems to have been particularly attached to this Deity; see Livy’s
History of Rome
41.20.1–4.

41. See
War
2.407–20. If one compares this with the coming of the mournful prophet, Jesus ben Ananias in
War
6.300–9 in Tabernacles, 62 CE, seemingly in the aftermath of or just following the death of James; then the
‘three and a half years
’ is complete.

42. If one connects the two, particularly the appearance of the mysterious ‘prophet’ Jesus ben Ananias in
Succot
, 62 CE and James’ death as reported in
Ant
. 20.200 and James’ known antagonism to ‘
pollution of the idols
’ (Acts 15:20); then this is something of the conclusion that can be reached. Note this is also something of the way Josephus presents things as well with his evocation of ‘
the World Ruler Prophecy
’ in
War
6.312–4 as the moving force behind the War against Rome.

43.
E.H.
2.23.17–25 and note the progression of events here in Eusebius – James’ death, followed by the appearance of Roman armies, followed by the fall of Jerusalem.

44.
Contra Celsus
1.47, 2.13, and
Comm. on Matt.
10.17. Since this testimony appears to have been in the
War
, the only place it probably could have been was in the discussion of the death of Ananus in
War
4.296–332.

45. For ‘
yizzil
’/‘
save
’, see 1QpHab VIII.1–3 and XII.14; for ‘
Yesha
‘’/‘
yeshu
‘
a
’, see CD XX.18–20 (following reference to ‘
the
Yoreh
’, ‘
the Penitents from Sin in Jacob
’, and ‘
a Book of Remembrance for God-Fearers
’, i.e., ‘
Gentiles
’) and 4Q416–18.

46. Cf.
b. Ta
‘
an
. 6a–7b with James 5:4–8, specifically mentioning ‘
early
’ and ‘
late rain
’ in the context of ‘
the coming of the Lord
’.

47. Cf. CD VI.8–11 and XX.13–8. In the former, ‘
the
Yoreh ha-Zedek
’ can mean ‘
the One who Pours down Righteousness at the End of Days
’; but in the latter, so-called ‘
Yoreh
’ has already ‘
been gathered in
’ – whatever this means.

48. 1QM XII.12 and XIX.3.

49. Matthew 24:35/Mark13:31/Luke 21:33.

50. On the seven Noahide Laws incumbent upon all mankind or ‘
Sons of Noah
’, which include ‘
fostering Righteousness and prohibiting idolatry, fornication, blasphemy, manslaughter, carrion or eating parts of living animals including its blood, and theft
’, see
San
. 56a–59b (
n.b
., here ‘
Adam
’, since he came before Noah’s sacrifice permitting him to eat the flesh of an
i
mals but not the blood, is portrayed like James as a vegetarian),
A.Z
. 2b, 5b–6b, 64b,
Yoma
28b,
B.K.
38a, 92a,etc.

51. See
E.H.
2.23.7 and 3.7.9 and
Haeres
. 78.7.7, the implication of all these testimonies being that once James’ presence was removed, the city could no longer survive.

52. It should be noted that this is a part of all James’ prohibitions as pictured in Acts 15:20, 15:29, and 21:25.

53. Ps.
Hom
. 8.15 and 11.35.

54. See
Zohar
i59b on ‘
Noah
’. It also explains both
Logion
12 of the Gospel of Thomas and ‘
why Heaven and Earth should have come into existence for his sake
’ as well as the ‘
Bulwark
’ allusion in
E.H.
3.7.9 above.

55. One can also probably say that this ‘
Covenant
’ is the same as both the ‘
Zadokite
’ and the ‘
Zealot
’ one; see my ‘Esch
a
tological
Rain
Imagery’;
MZCQ
, pp. 4–16/
DSSU
, pp. 23–80 and
JNES
, pp. 175–6 above.

56. See 1 Maccabees 2:1. For Phineas’, Zadok’s, and Yehozedek’s genealogy, see 1 Chronicles 5:30–41. For the course of Joiraib, see 1 Chronicles 24:1–7.

57. For Phineas as the paradigm, see Numbers 25:6–15 and its evocation in 1 Maccabees 2:26–7, 2:50, 2:54, and 2:58 (here, even for Elijah). Also see
Ben Sira
45:23–29, referring to Phineas as ‘
Third in Glory
’ and Hebrew
Ben Sira
51:12 coupling ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ with such a ‘
Zealot
’ appeal in the case of ‘
Simeon the
Zaddik’.
Note, that for Num
R
. 21.3–4 Phineas is also a ‘
Zaddik
’.

58. Cf. Ezekiel 44:15 with CD III.21–IV.4

59. 1QM XI.4–XII.9.

60. Cf.
Chronicles of Jerahmeel
59.17,
Pseudo Philo
48.1, and
Sifre
Numbers 131.

61.
Haeres.
30.16.7.

62. See Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15, and 48:11.

63. See Ezekiel 44:7–19 and 48:11.

64. See, e.g.,
War
2.402–10 and
Ant
. 19.332–4.

65. See
War
2.411–5 in continuation of this episode, but also raising the charge of ‘
Impiety
’ against such ‘
Innovators
’ and noting this even ‘
put Caesar outside the pale
’.

Chapter 4

1.
Ant
. 14.22–25.

2. Cf.
War
2.147–8 and Hippolytus 9.20.

3.
Ant
. 14.22. For Honi as a ‘
Rainmaker
’ in the
Talmud
, see
j. Ta
‘
an
. 66b and
b. Ta
‘
an
. 23a

4. For this ‘
Famine
’, which Josephus, echoed by Acts 5:36–7 (even with its anachronism) and 11:28–30, connects both the coming of ‘
Theudas
’ and Queen Helen’s grain-buying activities in Egypt and Cyprus, see
Ant.
20.48–53 and 97–102.

5.
B. Ta
‘
an
. 23a/
j. Ta
‘
an
. 66b and cf. James 5:17–19 and 1 Kings 18:1–45.

6. Cf. 1 Kings 17:1 and Matthew 11:14 and
pars
.

7. CD III.2–3 and cf. too James 2:10 and 2:21–24.

8. John 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20.

9.
E.H.
2.23.10.

10. Cf.
Rec
. 4.35 and
Hom
. 11.30.

11. CD IV.19–20 and VIII.18–9/XIX.1–2.

12.
Ant
. 14.24.

13. See
Ant
. 20.200 and cf.
E.H.
2.23.2–23.

14.
M. Ta
‘
an
3.8 and
b. Ta
‘
an
23a.

15.
Ant
. 14.19–22;
n.b
., how Josephus refers here to how Honi ‘
had hidden himself
’.

16. Though originally Josephus did not identify which party was which, later in
Ant.
14.24 he makes it clear that those su
p
porting Aristobulus II were ‘
Priests
’ and
War
1.131–51 that those supporting Pompey, Antipater, and Hyrcanus II were ‘
Phar
i
sees
’.