James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (41 page)

Also note the perhaps not completely unconnected usage in both cases again of the verb ‘
to come
’ and the ‘
Salvation
’ m
o
tif of the Damascus Document connected with the theme of
circumcision
. In Rabbinic tradition, it is important to observe that the description of Nakdimon’s wealth comes amid debate over
the sincerity or lack thereof of his charity
and notices questioning
the reality of his concern for
‘
the Poor
’ which, in the writers’ view, are laterally transferred and only slightly refu
r
bished in these striking polemics of John’s ‘
Judas the son
’ or ‘
brother of Simon Iscariot
’ or Mark’s telltale ‘
some
’ and Ma
t
thew’s ‘
his Disciples
’ with
Jesus
over the wastefulness of these various women either
anointing
‘
his head
’ or ‘
his feet
’
with
‘
precious ointment
’ or ‘
pure spikenard
’, to say nothing of ‘
wiping them with (their) hair
’!

The notice in Tractate
Ketuboth
which triggers this debate, Rabbinic hyperbole aside, literally reads: ‘
When he
(Nakdimon)
walked from his house to the house of study, woollen clothes were laid out beneath his feet and the Poor followed behind him gathering them up
.’
3
Here we have the typical motifs of ‘
being laid out
’, ‘
the Poor
’, and ‘
his feet
’, with which we began our discussion. In addition, there is also the one of ‘
woollen clothes
’, an allusion which will recur in other sources. Not only does it echo Ezekiel 44:17’s requirement for
Zadokite
Levites or
Priests
serving at the altar of the Temple above; but, in particular, also Epiphanius’ description of James in the context of his depiction of the atonement he made in the
Inner Sanctum
of the Temple on behalf of the whole People, that is, that
he
‘
wore no woollen clothes
’.
4
In this description, Epiphanius also includes the note about James’ footwear or lack thereof, again probably echoing the strictures of Ezekiel’s ‘
Zadokite Covenant
’ as we saw. Furthermore, we also shall encounter some of the same motifs in descriptions of ‘
Ben Zizzit Ha-keset
’ below.

In addition to these, however, Jerome preserves a tradition (as we saw above) about how James was held in such awe among the People and considered ‘
so Holy
’ that the little children used to try ‘
to touch the fringes of his garments
’
as he passed by
– here, a variation of the ‘
clothing
’ motif we shall encounter so insistently as we proceed.
5
A similar portrait – albeit perhaps somewhat less convincing – of the crowd’s response to Jesus has come down to us in the Synoptic Gospels, another probable instance of a real tradition relating to James being retrospectively absorbed and attached to
Jesus
instead.
The ind
i
viduals involved in this ‘
touching
’ activity of Jesus’ person or ‘
garments
’ in these accounts run the gamut from women with
an overflow of menstrual blood
to these same ‘l
ittle children
’, ‘
the blind
’, paralytics, and, in the prelude to one curing or raising, even a Roman Centurion!
6
The humor of these sketches should not be overlooked and, no matter how amusing many of them may be, all should be looked upon as parody – in some cases,
malevolent parody
– of
cherished Jewish beliefs
or
taboos.

However, what should be appreciated is that not only do we have in these legendary portraits of ‘
Nakdimon
’ the theme of ‘
the Poor
’ – the name of the Community James is said to have headed in Jerusalem – but also the
inversion
of the ‘
touching his clothes
’ theme, in that now it was
Nakdimon
who was held in such reverence by ‘
the Poor
’ that they even followed after him making it possible for
his
feet
not to have to touch the dirt of the ground
; or, vice versa perhaps, his wealth was so great that he could afford to abandon such ‘
clothes
’ in a
display of false charity on behalf of these same
‘
Poor
’. In either case, the point is the same and, as we shall see further below, integrally connected to
Judas Iscariot
’s complaints.

In a further adumbration of this Nakdimon’s ‘
feet
’ and ‘
clothes
’ story, we shall also see that it will be ‘
Miriam the daughter of Boethus
’ (actually, the tradition, as will become ever clearer as we proceed, should have read ‘
Martha the daughter of Boethus
’), for whom on
Yom Kippur
not ‘
woollen clothes
’ or ‘
garments
’ but rather ‘
cushions
’ or ‘
carpets
’
were laid from the door of her house to the Temple
(the ‘
laid out
’ and ‘
doorstep
’ motifs from both the ‘
Nakdimon
’ and Luke’s ‘
Poor man Laz
a
rus licked by dogs
’ stories), so that ‘
her feet might not be exposed
’.
7
Here, once again too, the telltale motif of ‘
feet
’ – now ‘
her feet
’! We shall encounter such details again not only in the details about
Boethus
’
daughter
’
s
‘
feet
’ but the ‘
feet
’ of many of these other legendary characters so intrinsic to our discussion and how they, too, were ‘
exposed
’.
8

‘
The Poor You have with You Always but You do not Always have Me
’

But to go back to Nakdimon – in relation to the ‘
woollen garments
’ which were ‘
laid out for his feet
’ which ‘
the Poor
’ then ‘
gathered up
’, the Rabbis debate whether
he really cared about the Poor
and
practiced real charity,
rather concluding,
he did this
‘
for his own glorification’.
9
This leads them into discussions of an aphorism, seemingly well known at the time, ‘
in a
c
cordance with the camel is the burden
’, which they interpret as meaning,
the Richer the man the more he should bear
. It will not escape the reader that the elements of this saying are very familiar and will lead, in turn, to interesting ramifications relative to comparable (or derivative) sayings attributed to Jesus in Scripture, also
comparing camels
to Rich
men
, to say nothing of other formulations we shall encounter, not only in the Gospels, but also in the Scrolls, about ‘
Glory
’
or
‘
glorying
’.

In fact, from a certain perspective, one might perhaps say the same thing the Rabbis are saying about Nakdimon about J
e
sus’ words above, to wit, ‘
the Poor you have with you always, but you do not always have me
’ (John 12:8 and pars.) – a kind of ‘
glorying
’ or, if one prefers, ‘
vainglory
’. We have seen other examples of this somewhat unseemly portrait of Jesus – which the writer does not consider at all historical but which, rather, resembles what Greco-Hellenistic ‘
gods
’ required in the service due them.
10
For example, in Jesus’ rebuke of Simon in Luke 7:44–46 – directed too at
the Pharisee
at whose
house
he was dining – in the matter of not welcoming him sufficiently, by which he means their ‘
not bathing
(
his
)
feet with her tears
’, nor ‘
wiping them with the hair of her head
’, nor ‘
anointing
(
them
)
with ointment’,
nor
lovingly
‘
kissing
(
them
)’; and of course, the response here is precisely the impact of the Talmudic aphorism cited with regard to Nakdimon above – to quote freely: ‘
whoso loved much, much is forgiven
’ (meaning the woman who
had
‘
many Sins
’).
Per contra
: ‘
whoso loved little, little is forgiven
’ – one couldn’t get much more ‘
Pauline
’ than this.

But in John, Judas’ statement about ‘
selling
(
the perfume
)
for three hundred dinars
’ and
giving the proceeds
‘
to the Poor
’ (12:5) is followed by the narrational aside: ‘
He
(
Judas
)
did not say this because he cared about the Poor, but because he was a thief and held the purse’
(12:6)!
Not only is ‘
being a thief and holding the purse
’ being substituted for the phrase, ‘
his own self-glorification
’ in Talmudic literature, which would not exactly have fit the context, but for the first time, we hear that Judas was ‘
the Purser
’ of  ‘
the Twelve
’, a position familiar in ‘
Essene
’ practice.
11
It is also the first time we have heard about this wretched knavery! In Matthew 26:9–15 and Mark 14:3–10, it also comes directly after Jesus is pictured as saying: ‘
The Poor you have with you always
,
but you do not always have me
’, that
Judas Iscariot
is depicted as ‘
going out to the High Priests
’
in order
‘
to betray him
’ (literally, ‘
deliver him up
’).

This being said, in Acts 5:1–13 we are confronted with an odd little episode as well about ‘
a certain
Ananias
’ (familiar phraseology) and ‘
his wife Sapphira
’.
In the manner of
Essenes
too, they are pictured as required to give the proceeds of the sale of ‘
a possession
’ of theirs
and
‘
lay it
at the
feet
of the Apostles
’ and, when they ‘
kept back part of the price
’, both die in a horrendous manner (at Peter’s direction!). This is followed by the laconic comment, ‘
And many signs and wonders among the People came to pass by the hands of the Apostles
’, and Acts’ narrational ‘
glue
’: ‘
more believers were added to the Lord, mult
i
tudes both of men and women
’ (5:12–14).

But, even more importantly, it is preceded by the words: ‘
A great fear came upon the whole Assembly (
Ecclesian
) and on all who heard these things’
(5:11).
These resemble nothing so much as the words with which the first prefatory letter to the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
– called ‘The Epistle of Peter to James’ – ends, where
the assembled Elders
, after hearing James speak, are described as ‘
being in an agony of terror’.
12
The whole scene transpires in the wake of James reading the attack in the letter on the ‘
lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my Enemy
’ (considered almost unanimously by all commentators as an attack upon Paul), because of which ‘
some from among the Gentiles have rejected my preaching about the Law
’.