James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (40 page)

Far from being anti-Maccabean, the view propagated by the scholarly cartel controlling them for decades, the Scrolls – being opposed to any hint of compromise or accommodation – have everything in common with the ethos of the Maccabeans and nothing whatsoever with those opposing them. What the Scrolls are is
anti-Herodian
, Herod being perceived both as a ‘
foreigner
’,
whom the Romans appointed King
, and a ‘
Covenant-Breaker
’. By extension, the Scrolls are also opposed to that Priesthood owing its appointment to him and therefore perceived of as ‘
polluted
’, his heirs, and the Roman Governors
in collusion with all of them
, i.e., basically the whole Pharisaic/Sadducean Establishment as pictured in the Gospels and by Josephus.

The Zadokite Covenant and the
Zaddik-
Idea

This brings us back directly to Honi’s death, his rain-making, and the reason for the ‘
Zaddik
’ appellation applied to him. Honi, who would not tolerate
accommodation with foreigners
or
collaboration of any kind,
drew circles to bring rain – whether eschatological or material ‘rain’ is beside the point – during one particularly severe drought, according to Talmudic sources. This is the context as well of James’ rain-making in Epiphanius’ testimony. Here one has good insight into the newly emerging terminology of ‘the
Zaddik
’ or ‘
Righteous One
’ in this period; because Honi was ‘
a Righteous One
’, he presumably – like Elijah – had influence in both the earthly and Heavenly spheres.

This concept seems to have first emerged in Ezekiel. Not only is Ezekiel responsible for ‘the Zadokite Covenant’ found in an addendum to his other ecstatic and apocalyptic prophecies – an addendum about the ideal or the new reconstructed Temple (Ezek. 40–48) – this is the material seized upon in the Scrolls to develop an ideology of a ‘Priesthood’, referred to, as we have seen, in terms of ‘the Sons of Zadok’.

Some might consider ‘the Sons of Zadok’ to be simply genealogical descendants of the first Zadok in David’s and Solomon’s time, the first High Priest of the First Temple. This would appear to be the normative definition of those called ‘Sadducees’ in the Herodian Period.
In Ezekiel, however, the Sons of Zadok are represented as
opposed to
a previously reigning Establishment in the Temple which, on a strictly genealogical basis, might also be construed as being descendants of the original Zadok of David’s time and therefore legitimate (44:6–15).

However, the new ‘Sons of Zadok’ in Ezekiel have a qualitative component as well. They are ‘
the Holy
’ or ‘
consecrated ones
’ – note the variation of the ‘
Nazirite
’ terminology – who ‘
kept
what they were
charged to keep
’. In other words, they were ‘Keepers of the Covenant’ (Ezek. 44:15 and 48:11). But in addition – and perhaps more importantly – they
object to Gentiles in the Temple
. Despite Josephus’ rather disingenuous protestations to the contrary, Ezekiel is quite specific about this, repeating it twice:

Say to those that have
rebelled against God
of the House of Israel …: ‘May your hearts be full with
all your Abominations
, in that you have
admitted foreigners, uncircumcised in heart
and
uncircumcised in body into My Temple to pollute it
…
breaking My Covenant
and …
not keeping what you were charged to keep regarding My Holy Things
…
No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart
and
uncircumcised in body shall enter My Temple
, nor any foreigner among the Children of Israel (that is, ‘resident alien’). (44:6–9)

Not only should one remark the note about ‘rebelling against God’ with regard to the praise of Phineas in
Ben Sira
, also a staple in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ezekiel goes on to remark the idolatry of the previous Establishment (44:12) and how the new ‘Keepers’ or ‘Sons of Zadok …
are not to wear wool’, but only ‘linen diadems … linen girdles about their loins, so as not to be moist (meaning ‘to perspire’) nor shave their heads … nor drink wine … but to teach My people (the difference) between Holy and profane, polluted and clean
…’ (44:15–23). Ezekiel even includes in these instructions the ban on carrion found in James’ directives to overseas communities (as well as in the Koran): ‘
The priests should not eat of any thing that is dead of itself, nor torn, whether it be fowl or beast
’ (44:31).
40

This ban on ‘admitting foreigners into the Temple to pollute it’ is exactly the objection that Josephus ascribes to Simon, the Head of his own ‘Assembly’ (
Ecclesia
) in Jerusalem. He is against
admitting Herodians
into the Temple. Two principal characteristics of Ezekiel’s description are picked up in Qumran representations of its
new
‘Sons of Zadok’: firstly, they are defined as ‘
the Keepers of the Covenant’
par excellence
; and, secondly, it is quite clear that they disapprove of Gentile gifts and Gentile sacrifices in the Temple.

This last is, of course, the behaviour of so-called ‘Zealots’ or ‘
Sicarii
’ among the lower priesthood in 66 CE, who stop sacrifice on behalf of Romans and other foreigners in the Temple, thereby triggering the War against Rome. Remembering that the prototypical ancestor of Zadok, Aaron’s grandson Phineas, warded off pollution from the camp by killing backsliders – specifically designated as those marrying Gentiles; the Herodians, regardless of gender, would have been seen by persons of this persuasion as being involved in approximately the same behaviour.

The Damascus Document adds an additional, ‘eschatological’ dimension to the qualitative ones being expressed here. In its delineation of ‘the Zadokite Covenant’ of Ezekiel 44:15, it describes ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ as ‘those who would
stand
’ or ‘
stand up at the End of Days
’. These would both ‘
justify the Righteous
and
condemn the Wicked
’. Not only do we have here the essence of ‘
Justification
’ theology as Paul is developing it, the emphasis on ‘
Last Times
’/‘
Last Days
’ turns the whole exegesis eschatological. When linked to the notion of ‘
standing
’ or ‘
standing up
’ – so much a part of the ‘
Standing One
’ vocabulary – then one begins to have a statement close to what is being developed in New Testament Redeemer scenarios, such as Jesus participating in ‘
the Last Judgement
’.

For Qumran, there are two streams of people entering ‘the Kingdom’ or, if one prefers, the Heavenly Domain of the Righteous: firstly, the Righteous
living
, and, secondly, the Righteous
dead
. Where the first category is concerned, since in theory they go into the Kingdom living, presumably
they would not have to
be resurrected
. Paul wrestles with this ‘
Mystery
’ in 1 Corinthians 15:51–57 after evoking both the ‘
First
’ and ‘
Second Adam
’ and the ‘
Primal Adam
’ and ‘
Last Man
’ ideologies. It is for such persons that the notion of ‘
standing
’, in the sense of ‘
going on’ functioning at ‘the End of Time
’ in the Damascus Document, might be appropriate. The Righteous dead would have to be resurrected first. Though nowhere explicitly stated in the materials before us, this ideology is implied.

The ‘
Sons of Zadok
’, therefore, according to the Damascus Document’s exegesis of Ezekiel 44:15, would appear to refer to a supernatural class of quasi-Redeemer figures. At Nag Hammadi, something of this role and theme is certainly being accorded James in the Apocalypses ascribed to his name, which are full of many of the motifs we are analysing here.
22
We say ‘supernatural’, because anyone who has gone through a dying and a resurrection process, must to a certain extent be, as Paul implies in 1 Corinthians 15:52–54, taken as being beyond the natural. For Christianity, ‘Jesus’ is obviously such a figure, though, for the authors of the New Testament, he not only enjoys a supernatural resurrection and ascension, but a supernatural birth as well. This is beyond the ideology of Qumran, as we have it, which runs more towards the ‘adoptionist sonship’ schemes one finds among more ‘Jewish Christian’ groups.
23

This brings us to the etymological links of the words ‘
Zadok
’ and ‘
Zaddik
’. Even the uninitiated in the complexities of Semitic languages will be able to see that these two words are based on the same three-letter root,
Z–D–K
. ‘Zadok’ is a proper name; while ‘
Zaddik
’ is a verbal noun based on a concept. The double ‘
D’
in the second does not appear in Hebrew orthography and is a matter of grammatical convention – and, to a certain extent, transliteration into Greek – only. Also, in Qumran Hebrew, the letters ‘
o
’ and ‘
i
’, again matters of convention, are indistinguishable. So, in very real terms, ‘
Zadok
’ and ‘
Zaddik
’ are, at least, in written Hebrew of the period
the very same word
. This fact was, surely, not lost on our biblical exegetes of the time, who enjoyed both wordplay and stretching the conventions of the language before them, wherever it could serve an exegetical end.

This point is reflected in the transliteration into Greek of the familiar word ‘Sadducees’. This term is based on the same Hebrew root
Z–D–K
, in this case, ‘
Zadok
’ or even ‘
Zadduk
’. Once again, we are clearly in the realm of conventions or confusions relating to transliterations into a second tongue. ‘Sadducee’ can just as easily be based on the Hebrew word ‘
Zaddik
’ as ‘
Zadok
’, the vowels
i
,
u
, and o being virtually indistinguishable where Qumran epigraphy is concerned.

In fact, in our interpretation of the ‘Sadducee’ problem – Qumran
Sadducees
following a Righteousness–oriented interpretation, as we have seen, of ‘
the Zadokite Covenant
’ of Ezekiel, and Establishment
Sadducees
of the Herodian Period and perhaps earlier, only insisting on a genealogical link with the ‘
Zadok
’ of ancient times – we come down very heavily on the point about one group following a more esoteric understanding of ‘the Zadokite Covenant’ and insisting on a qualitative dimension involving ‘
Righteousness
’, even going so far as to introduce an additional eschatological dimension to this. Even the Book of Acts, Josephus, and the Pseudoclementines insist that ‘
the Sadducees’ were ‘stricter in Judgement’ than other groups
, whatever might be meant by ‘
Judgement
’ in this context.
24
The ‘Priesthood forever after the order of Melchizedek’ as developed in the Letter to the Hebrews, again incorporating the
Z–D–K
root, is but a further eschatological adumbration of this ideology.

Josephus introduces the character he is calling ‘
Sadduk
’ or ‘
Saddok
’ at the beginning of the First Century. Along with Judas the Galilean, he leads the agitation against Roman taxation in Palestine. This accompanies the Census of Cyrenius/Quirinius in 6–7 CE, that Luke, anyhow, identifies with the circumstances surrounding the birth of
Jesus Christ
. Though Luke’s may or may not be a historical account, it does relate the circumstances of Jesus’ birth to the Tax Revolt in Palestine coincident with the birth of the Movement associated with Judas and
Saddok
. Is this an individual with the actual name of ‘
Zadok
’ or a teacher with the title of ‘
the
Zaddik
’ – much as the Righteous Teacher seems to be in Qumran tradition and, of course, James in early Church tradition? It is impossible to say, only that confusion over the derivation of the term ‘Sadducee’ is apparent in these materials as well.

This same confusion, also, exists in James’ title ‘the Just’ or ‘Just One’, which Epiphanius tells us was so identified with his person as to replace his very name itself. This is the implication of Hegesippus’ account as well. Are we dealing simply with the descriptive epithet ‘
the Just One
’ or does this imply the use of the Hebrew name ‘
Zadok
’ itself as applied to James, since the two are interchangeable? It is impossible to say, but, as explained, ‘
Justus
’ in Latin is equivalent to ‘
Zadok
’ in Hebrew. Once again, we have come full circle.