James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (75 page)

However this may be, what these ‘
Evil Ones of Ephraim and Manasseh
’ (for R. Eliezer, ‘
Amraphel and his companions
’ – and
n.b
.
, too, how for some reason John 11:54 mysteriously refers at this point to ‘
a city called Ephraim
’ in ‘
the country near the desert
’ where ‘
he stayed with his Disciples
’!) do in the Psalm 37
Pesher
, in ‘
casting down the Meek and the Poor
’, is
lay hands on the Righteous Teacher and the Men of his Council
, ‘
for which they will be delivered into the hands of the Violent Ones of the Peoples for Judgement
’.
In the Habakkuk
Pesher
, ‘
the Wicked Priest
’ not only will have ‘
to drink the Cup
’
he forced
‘
the Righteous Teacher
’
to
‘
drink
’ (‘
the Cup
’ which, when it ‘
comes round to him
’, will be called ‘
the Cup of the right hand of the Wrath of God
’), but he would also be ‘
paid the reward he paid the Poor
’.
66

In the meantime ‘
the Penitents of the Desert
’ here in the Psalm 37
Pesher
shall be ‘
saved and live for a thousand gener
a
tions
’ and ‘
all the
Glory of Adam
shall be theirs
’ (and this too is paralleled in the Damascus Document
67
) and ‘
they shall possess the whole Earth as an inheritance
’.
68

In the exposition by Eliezer ben Hyrcanus just referred to in Genesis
Rabbah
above, ‘
the Poor and the Meek
’ are rather designated as ‘
Lot
’, saved in this archaic episode in Genesis 14:14–15 by Abraham and his servants who ‘
fell upon them
(‘
Amraphel and his companions
’)
at night
’ and ‘
pursued them as far as Hobab north of Damascus
’. ‘
The Upright of the Way
’ are, of course, Abraham and his household; the ‘
sword
’ of whose enemies described as ‘
entering their own heart
’;
69
and this is the important correspondence between the two
Pesher
s, that is, ‘
the sword
’ of their Enemies ‘
will come around to
’ them
. Having said this, it is not difficult to work out the correspondences – but the whole is, of course, basically Talmudic disinformation with nothing like the clarity and precision we just pointed out and will point out further in documents like the Psalm 37
Pesher
, the Habakkuk
Pesher
, and the Damascus Document below.

MMT

Perhaps the key to many of these puzzles and interrelationships comes in the curious document scholars refer to as
MMT
but which I called, following allusions in its opening and closing lines, ‘T
wo Letters on Works Righteousness’
.
1
As it turns out, in a passage in it about ‘
dogs
’ (in this case, ‘
being barred from the Holy Camp
’ – identified with
the Temple
) most of what we are speaking about here is paralleled and, perhaps, even more clearly explained.
2

In the events leading up to the ultimate publication of the document, in which I participated, I took it to be
two Letters
– the only
Letters
, it would appear, in the entire corpus at Qumran – therefore the name I accorded it which I saw as not only a more accurate way of referring to it, but also as pointing towards critical subject matter in the proverbial debate between Paul and James.

Gratifyingly, much of this way of looking at it has since been recognized – in particular, the use of the charged expression, ‘
works’
, as a translation of the term ‘
ma
‘
asim
’ (based on the Hebrew root
‘
-
S
-
H
), which carries with it the sense of ‘
doing
’ as in ‘
doing
the
Torah
’ (and not ‘
acts
’ or ‘
deeds
’ as some translators would have it). By extension and derivatively, this would extend to the whole way the usage ‘
justify
’ or ‘
Justification
’ – based on the celebrated ‘
proof-text
’ from Isaiah 53:11, ‘
My Servant, the Righteous One
(
Zaddik
)
will justify
(
yazdik
)
Many
’ or, more literally, ‘
make Many Righteous’
– is employed at Qumran, not only in
MMT
but also the Damascus Document and the parallel ‘
New Testament
’ (this latter, clearly, not ‘i
n the Land of D
a
mascus
’ but in the milieu of manifestly ‘
Paulinized
’ Communities in Asia Minor and further west).
3

This allusion, occurring in the first line, speaks about ‘
some works of the
Torah
’ (complimenting an allusion in the last one to ‘
doing
’), from which the scholarly designation
MMT
/‘
Some Works of the
Torah
’ – originally for some reason, mystifyingly translated as ‘
Some
Words
of the
Torah
’, though ‘
Words
’ never appeared in this line – was derived. Presumably the ‘
Letter
’ or ‘
Letters
’ then intended to go on to air certain subjects that would be of interest to its recipient. These included, in the first i
n
stance,
purity
issues and
sacrifices
that could end up in ‘
pollution of the Temple
’, in particular, the effect
Gentile gifts
or
sacr
i
fices
and matters relating to aspects of relations with
Gentiles
generally could have on the ‘
Holiness
’ of the Temple (subjects of intense interest too in the New Testament).

The usual view of this document, because of certain allusions in the ‘
Second Letter
’ evoking and seemingly comparing its recipient to ‘
David
’,
was that this was directed towards a
Jewish
or
Herodian King
, though which
King
this might be in this period – other than Agrippa I (37-44 CE), who presumably would not have needed such tuition – is hard to imagine. It is for these reasons, too, that I have considered this document to be addressed to a newer and, therefore, even perhaps
more
‘
zea
l
ous
’
convert to Judaism
who, while nevertheless a
King
, would not only need and be interested in such instruction but would, in fact, be desirous of having it.

Accordingly, this allusion to ‘
works of the
Torah
’ is also picked up towards the end of the second part of this document.
This reads: ‘
Now as to what we have written you concerning some works of the
Torah
,
which we reckoned for your own well-being and that of your People
.
Because we see that you possess discernment and knowledge of the
Torah
…
that you may keep away from
Evil thoughts and the counsel of
Belial
,
so that at the End Time
,
you will rejoice when you find this collection of our words to have been True and it
will be reckoned to you as Righteousness
.’
4
But, of course, this is ‘
Justification
’ theology with a vengeance.
It is using the same phraseology of ‘
being reckoned to you as Righteousness
’, based on the Genesis 15:6 passage describing Abraham’s ‘
Faith
’. This is the same passage which Paul employs in both Romans 4:2–5:1 (here Paul actually uses the phrase, ‘
justified by works
’, found here in
MMT
, but to gainsay it where Abraham was concerned) and Galatians 3:6, to develop his understanding of ‘
Christian
’
Salvation
, that is, ‘
Salvation by Faith
’ – this last, in turn, polemically refracted (in the spirit of the ‘
works Righteousness
’ stance of
MMT
) in James 2:23–24 which rather delineates the ‘
testing
’ of Abraham
through the offering of Isaac
and, therefore, why ‘
he was called a Friend of God
’.

The allusion we are interested in concerning the subject we have
been setting out in this section dovetails very nicely with the words Matthew 7:6 attributes to Jesus in its formulation of the ‘
dog
’/‘
dogs
’ theme in its version of
the Sermon on the Mount
: ‘
Do not give that which is Holy to the dogs
’. The way this is expressed, to be polemically gainsaid in the encounter with the
Greek Syrophoenician
/
Canaanite woman
, as we have seen, also reflects the ethos of Qumran literature in general – again, most notably, that of the Damascus Document – of ‘
setting up the Holy Things according to their precise specific
a
tions
’ (directly amplified in the pivotal ‘
Jamesian
’ demand that immediately follows, ‘
to love each man his brother
’) and ‘
sep
a
rating Holy from profane
’,
5
an ethos which is the opposite of what
Peter
is pictured as ‘
learning
’ in Acts. As such, for all i
n
tents and purposes this last position embodies the original ‘
Palestinian
’ Jewish approach to such matters before it went overseas to be transmogrified into the thematic variants and reversals in the New Testament – some quite amusing – which we have been setting out above.

Like the
Letter
Judas Barsabas and his colleagues Paul, Barnabas, and Silas are pictured as ‘
taking down to Antioch from Jerusalem
’ in Acts 15:29–32 containing James’ directives to overseas communities,
MMT
is also a letter (or letters) of some kind.
Before proceeding, it should also be remarked that the actual words with which
MMT
closes (‘
Then you shall rejoice at the End of Time when you find this collection of our words to have been True and it will be reckoned as justifying you
,
your having done what is Upright and Good before Him for the sake of your own Good
and for the sake of Israel
’), are essentially reproduced in Acts 15:30–31’s version of the outcome or aftermath of this ‘
Council’
: ‘
They went to Antioch and
,
gathering the Multitude
(‘
the Many
’),
they delivered the letter and
,
having read it
,
they rejoiced at the consolation
’ (‘
good
’, ‘
comfort
’, or ‘
well-being
’, meaning, which
the letter provided
).
Again, the correspondences are nothing short of remarkable.

In
MMT
, the ban on gifts and sacrifices from and on behalf of foreigners in the Temple, which we have identified as the immediate issue triggering the War against Rome in 66
CE
, is basically the subject of the whole first section from approximat
e
ly 1.3–1.12. The way this is being formulated, this includes the implication of ‘
pollution of the Temple
’ (1.4–1.11), but even more importantly, the actual words that ‘
we consider the sacrifices which they sacrifice
’ to be ‘
sacrifices to an idol
’ (1.10–12). There cannot be too much debate about the presence of this all-important allusion in the ‘
First Letter
’ at this point. In fact, if it is present, then the connections between it and the ‘
Jamesian
’ position on this issue, to say nothing of those ‘
Zealot
’ or ‘
Sicarii
Essenes
’ Hippolytus claims are willing to undergo any sort of torture rather than consume such fare (in Josephus, this is only expressed in terms of the much less specific ‘
forbidden things
’), approach convergence.
6

Paul clearly appreciates that this was the understanding of the vocabulary involved when he strenuously, if somewhat di
s
ingenuously, wrestles with the subject in 1 Corinthians 8:1–13 and 10:18–24. Again, one should note that he ends in 10:24 with a question that plays off the very words with which we have just seen
MMT
close, ‘
Let no one pursue his own well-being
’ (‘
welfare
’, or ‘
good
’), but rather ‘
each one that of the other
’. Even these last are the very words in the Damascus Document following its characterization of ‘
the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus
’ as ‘
setting up the Holy Things according to their precise specifications
’ and of the way ‘
each man should treat his neighbor
’, as well as at several other junctures.
7
In Paul’s polemical repartee, these rather lead right into the repudiation of the essence of this ‘
New Covenant
’ – as originally probably set forth in the Damascus Document – in 1 Corinthians 10:25–26: ‘
Eat everything that is sold in the market
. T
here is no need to inquire because of conscience
,
for the Earth is the Lord
’
s and the fullness thereof
.’

This last paraphrase, once again, even reflects the above proclamation with which the Cairo Damascus Document begins about ‘
God visiting them and causing a Root of Planting to grow
…
to inherit
His land
and to prosper
on the good things of His Earth
’. This being said, it is difficult to get much more disingenuous than Paul in the above refinement of his 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 ‘
all things are for me lawful
’ insistences. Obviously such instructions, whether in Paul or at Qumran, relate to James’ rulings in ‘
the Letter
’ ascribed to him in Acts 15 and 21 banning in the most unequivocal manner conceivable ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’, to say nothing
of the ban on ‘
blood
’ immediately following this in all contexts.