James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (60 page)

The reason why it has been suggested that ‘
the Egyptian
’, for whom Paul is mistaken at the time of his arrest by the Roman Chief Captain (Acts 21:33-40), is a representation of ‘Simon
Magus
’ is that the latter was reputed to have
learned his magical arts in Egypt
. That ‘Simon’ was also responsible, together with ‘
Dositheus
’ (‘
Doetus
’ above?) –
according to the Pseudoclementines, both allegedly Disciples of John the Baptist
– for many of the disturbances in Samaria, just increases these points of contact. One can still dimly perceive through all the dissimulation the real nature of the conflict, refracted in the Book of Acts, between Simon and the Simon
Magus
in Josephus. These confrontations
in Caesarea on the Palestine coast
, not in Samaria as in Acts, also form a main focus of the Pseudoclementine literature.

The real course of events in Caesarea up to the time of Felix’s marriage to Drusilla, despite all this fantasy and romance, shines through pretty clearly in Josephus and can be fairly reliably reconstructed. Acts’ version of the protests against Paul in Caesarea by the High Priests to the Roman Governors, Felix and Festus are more like the protests these various groups – including these same ‘High Priests’ – were making in Rome over how
Roman Governors
were behaving in Palestine, most notably relating to problems in Lydda, Samaria, Caesarea, and ‘
the Temple Wall Affair
’.

There is no historical basis to Acts’ ‘
visit by Peter to the household of the Roman Centurion Cornelius
in Caesarea’. What there is, is this visit of the
Zealot
‘Simon’,
who wanted to bar Agrippa I from the Temple
, to the latter’s household in Caesarea in the early 40’s ‘
to see what was done there contrary to Law
’. We never hear of this ‘Simon’ in Josephus again – nor really, for that matter, ‘Peter’ in Acts.

The confrontation between Simon Peter and Simon
Magus
in Acts has to do with ‘
the laying on of hands
’, ‘
the Holy Spirit’
, and
Simon offering to buy this ‘Power’ with money
. These encounters take place in ‘
Samaria
’, following which everyone seems to make up and
together ‘they preached the Gospel to many villages of the Samaritans
’ (8:25). For the Pseudoclementines, they occur more accurately in Caesarea and have to do with debates over various subjects like ‘
the Primal Adam
’, ‘
the True Prophet
’, and
the nature of ‘the Christ’
.

But having regard for the anti-‘
fornication
’ theme in both the Letter of James and the materials at Qumran – not to mention the confrontations between John the Baptist and these same Herodians over the same issue in the previous decade – I think we can safely assert that the confrontations in Caesarea between
the two Simons
had principally to do with Simon
Magus
conniving at the divorce by Drusilla, whom Acts identifies only as ‘
a Jewess
’ and not as an ‘
Herodian Princess
’, of King Azizus of Emesa (something also expressly forbidden at Qumran and falling under the definition of ‘f
ornication
’)
who had expressly had himself circumcised for this purpose
, and
convincing her to marry Felix instead
.

So this ‘Simon
Magus
’ was a henchman – perhaps not unlike Paul – of Felix whereas Peter, in the manner of Qumran and like John the Baptist in the previous decade, who lost his head in the same kind of confrontation,
opposed
this kind of ‘fornication’ among Herodians. Even Josephus is forced to remark that ‘
divorce on the part of the woman was against the Laws of her country
’ and that, by doing so, Drusilla had both ‘
transgressed the Laws of her Forefathers
’ and
left the Jewish Religion
(i.e., she was no longer ‘
a Jewess
’).

I think it is safe to say that the ‘
Simon
,
the Head of an Assembly of his own in Jerusalem
,’ who agitated against allowing Agrippa I into the Temple – despite the fact that his ancestors built it – and went so far as to ‘
inspect his household in Caesarea
’, would ultimately have been arrested, notwithstanding Josephus’ silence on this point – if not by Agrippa I, then certainly by Herod of Chalcis (44–49 CE), his less tolerant brother (who may also have ‘
beheaded James the brother of John with the sword
’ – s
ic
!) who succeeded him.

Acts’ Paulinization of Peter in Jaffa and Caesarea

Acts’ portrayal of Peter’s visit to Cornelius’ household is just the opposite of the account in Josephus upon which it is based –
the visit by Simon to Agrippa’s household in Caesarea
. Acts describes Cornelius, it will be recalled, as
‘a Righteous One’, ‘Pious and God-Fearing’, ‘doing many Righteous works to the people and praying to God continually’, and finally ‘borne witness to by the whole Nation of the Jews’
(10:2 and 10:22). Not only do we have here
almost all the elements from early Church portraits of James
, but the cynicism of applying these characteristics to a
Roman Legionnaire from Caesarea
, the brutality of and incessant goading of the Jews by whom to revolt against Rome is described by Josephus, is extreme. Were it not that these matters were so serious and have been repeated as pious truisms for almost two millennia, it would be difficult to suppress a fulsome guffaw.

In this episode, Peter learns ‘
not to make profane what God has made clean’
, nor ‘
to call any man profane or unclean
’ as we saw (Acts 10:15 and 28), that is,
not to make problems over dietary regulations and make distinctions between men on the basis of race
– noble sentiments, but just the opposite of what the ‘Simon’ in Josephus is envisioning  regarding Agrippa I – to say nothing of the portrayal of Peter’s teachings in the Peudoclementine
Homilies
.

In Acts, Peter goes on to characterize God as ‘
not being a respecter of persons’
(10:34), basically a variation of the words Paul uses in Galatians 2:6, ‘
God does not accept the person of man
’, to attack the  ‘
Pillar
’ Apostles John, Peter, and James. We already saw, as well, how this also represented an inversion of the description of James as ‘
not respecting persons’
in Hegesippus’ account of his proclamation in the Temple on Passover – reversed, yet again, in Josephus’ fawning description of James’ murderer and arch-nemesis, the High Priest Ananus above, as ‘treating even the humblest as equals’.
15
Once again, it is difficult to repress a guffaw.

Paul’s attack in Galatians on the ‘Pillar’ Apostles then moves on to excoriate ‘Cephas’ and ‘
those of the circumcision party’
generally on just the points about
keeping dietary regulations and separating from Gentiles
,
we have in Acts’ account of Peter’s reaction to and understanding his vision of the descent of ‘a tablecloth’ on the rooftop in Jaffa. The only problem is that, according to Acts’ chronology, his ‘vision’ precedes this encounter in Antioch, so if Peter or
Cephas
had ever really experienced such a ‘vision’, why would Paul have to be attacking him – even going to the extent of calling him ‘
a hypocrite’
– on these issues here in the first place? Nor is this to mention the fact that they are totally gainsaid in the Pseudoclementines anyhow.

In any event, the upshot of this episode in Acts is that Peter is now represented in a speech to Cornelius’ ‘
kinsmen and closest friends’
(
thus
!) as extending the applicability of James’ ‘
Righteousness of works’
ideology to all Gentiles and, in the process of course once again, making a
‘blood accusation’ against ‘the Jews
’ – to wit:

In every Nation he, who
fears
(
God
, i.e., is ‘
a God-Fearer’
) and
works Righteousness
, is acceptable to Him …. Jesus, who was
from Nazareth
… went around
doing good
(
works
) and healing all those who were oppressed by the Devil (
Diabolou
) …
in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they put to death by hanging on a tree
(Acts 10:35–39 – this last patently echoing Paul in Galatians 3:13 as well)

The issue of ‘
circumcision
’ crops up at this point in Galatians too, as it does Acts’ picture of those supposedly accusing Peter when he went back ‘up to Jerusalem’ to report what had happened in Jaffa and Caesarea following this:
‘Those of the circumcision
(this, word-for-word from Galatians 2:12 describing James’ followers)
contended with him
, “You went in to men uncircumcised and ate with them”’ (11:2–3 – clearly a caricature). This portrait of what are obviously supposed to represent James’ ‘
Jerusalem Community’/‘Church’
supporters as ‘Peter’’s interlocutors verges on derogation. Still, in the real world, Acts’ alleged ‘
Jewess
’ Drusilla (and her sisters) did much worse.

Not only does this episode anticipate Peter’s behaviour as portrayed in Galatians, but the very words it uses more or less echo Paul’s rebuke of Peter there – itself turning on the matter of James’ leadership: ‘For before
some from James
came down, (Peter) used to eat with the Gentiles, but after they came, he
drew back and separated himself
being afraid of
those of the
circumcision
’ (Gal. 2:12, as Acts 11:2). Here again we have ‘
separation
’, so important to the charge sheet of ‘
the Three Nets of Belial
’ in the Damascus Document and the Qumran orientation generally.

The reference to ‘
circumcision
’ too, not only links it to the episode we are exploring in Acts above having to do with ‘Peter’ on a rooftop in Jaffa and visiting the Roman Centurion ‘
Cornelius
’ in Caesarea (the ‘
Lex Cornelia de Sicarius
’?) and its aftermath in Jerusalem, but further unequivocally identifies those in Jerusalem
‘insisting on circumcision
’ with James’ ‘Jerusalem Church’ Community (and possibly even, as already signaled, ‘
forced circumcision
’ and ‘
the
Sicarii
’).

Knowing the history of Caesarea in this period, which more or less paralleled that of another hotbed of Greek anti-Semitism Alexandria, the authors of Acts must have been in a really mischievous mood when composing these scenes about
‘Peter’ on a rooftop in Jaffa
and
visiting a Roman Centurion in Caesarea
! Something approaching one million Jews were wiped out (that is, just about the whole Egyptian Community – the numbers have never been accurately counted) during the course of apparently ‘Messianic’ disturbances in Alexandria and its environs during Trajan’s reign (98–117 CE).

There can be little doubt that Acts’ ‘Cornelius’ episode, just as the ‘Stephen’ episode preceding it to like effect,
never actually happened
. In fact, regardless of what ‘Peter’ is depicted as learning or unlearning here, the episode in its present form definitively proves that ‘Jesus’ (however we might speak of him) did not
definitively regulate the twin issues of
‘
forbidden foods
’ or ‘
table fellowship with Gentiles’
in his lifetime and
never taught anything
on these issues
remotely resembling what is attributed to him in the Gospels
.

The over-zealous artificers in the Book of Acts have, at least, established this, though it was not their goal. The reason is quite simple – had Jesus done so, Peter, his purportedly closest living associate,
would have known of it
and, therefore, not needed this Paulinizing ‘
tablecloth
’ vision to so conveniently regulate these issues
on the eve of his visit to the Roman Centurion’s household in Caesarea
. On the contrary, since ‘Peter’ is portrayed as
not knowing such things
, ‘Jesus’ did not teach them either; and this episode in Acts or the picture of ‘Jesus’ teaching things like ‘
nothing which enters the mouth defiles a man, but that which goes forth out of the mouth defiles a man
’ in Matthew 15:6’s ‘
toilet bowl
’ episode or eating with classes of unclean persons like ‘
tax collectors
’, ‘
Sinners
’ (a catchword for ‘Gentiles’ in Galatians 2:15), and ‘
being a glutton
’ (i.e.,
eating all foods
without distinction), preferring ‘prostitutes’, etc., is false.