James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (84 page)

Meanwhile in John, the other Disciples, too, were dragging their ‘
net of fishes
’ to land (21:8–11 – the ‘
dragnet
’ in Hab. 1:15 above?). ‘Jesus then said to them, “Come and eat” … and took the bread and gave it to them’ (21:12–13). Here, of course, is the
pro forma
‘dining’ and ‘eating’ scenario always part of these accounts and an integral element of Jesus’
first appearance to James
in Jerome’s ‘
Gospel according to the Hebrews
’ as we saw. Nor should the subtle play in ‘Jesus’’ constant command to ‘
eat
’ and allusions in the Gospels, such as ‘
the Son of Man came eating and drinking’
(Mt 11:19 and Lk 7:34) on Paul’s more over-arching and permissive understanding of the term ‘
eating
’ be missed; nor, of course, the use of ‘
eating’
to mean
‘Vengeance
’ in these pesharim at Qumran.

More importantly, as we have also seen, all of these things relate to the allied usage in the Habakkuk
Pesher
– in exposition of Habakkuk 1:14–16 on ‘
taking up with a fishhook, catching them in a net, and gathering them in a dragnet … and burning incense to his dragnet
’ too – where ‘
eating
’ is interpreted to mean ‘
tax collecting
’. In this manner, ‘
the Kittim
’ (‘
the Romans
’) ‘
gather their Riches together with all their booty like fish of the sea’, ‘parcelling out their yoke and their taxes, eating all the Peoples
(that is, ‘
the
Ethne
’ as in Paul)
year by year’
.

Not only is this delineated in terms of their ‘
portion being fat
’ and their ‘
eating plenteous
’; but this is the same passage in which
their burning incense to their ‘dragnet
’ is interpreted in terms of their ‘
sacrificing to their standards and worshipping their weapons of war
’ – perhaps the key dating parameter where the Habakkuk
Pesher
is concerned.
16
Its bearing, of course, on the related ‘play’ on this in Matthew 17:27, of ‘Peter’ – at ‘Jesus’’ request – ‘
casting a fishhook’ into the Sea of Galilee to retrieve a ‘silver coin from the mouth of the first fish he should see to pay the tax’
, should be patent
.

As far as this episode in the Gospel of John is concerned, the words attributed to Jesus here are basically what the mysterious voice cries out to Peter in ‘the Heavenly tablecloth’ episode in Acts, legitimatizing ‘table fellowship’ with Gentiles and more – thus demonstrating that all these episodes are playing their small, but integrated part and being subjoined to Pauline theological arguments insisting on ‘freedom from the Law’.

As John draws to a close, Jesus is not only presented as taking the bread and giving it to the Disciples, but – in light of its previous subject matter
about fishes
– he gives them ‘
some of the fish too
’ (21:13). One is tempted to remark, yes and some big ones too – perhaps the biggest of all ‘
big fish
’ stories! For his part, John remarks, again prosaically one might add in view of the far-reaching implications of the subject matter: ‘This was now
the third time
that Jesus was manifested to his Disciples, after having been
raised from among the dead
’ (John 21:14).

The Gospel of John closes with the mini-episode about how Jesus asks Simon Peter whether he ‘loves’ him – again
three times
! Aside from being the number here of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, ‘three’ is always associated with the subject of Peter’s lack of Faith and poor stewardship in the other Gospels in which, for instance, Peter
denies the Messiah three times on the eve of his crucifixion
. In Acts too, ‘the Voice from Heaven’ (‘
Bat-Kol
’) has to call out
three times
to Peter before he gets the message.

The theme of ‘
loving
’ is, not only important
vis-à-vis
‘the Disciple Jesus loved’ – purportedly the author of this Gospel, it is important across a whole spectrum of ideas and related to the central ideology of these ‘Opposition’ groups of Abraham being ‘
the Friend of God
’ – in Hebrew, this is ‘
the Beloved of God
’ – found in the Letter of James, the Damascus Document, and later moving directly into the basic ideology of Islam. As we shall see, this theme will be of particular import to the propagation of these ideas into the Northern Syrian framework of Antioch, Edessa, or Haran – Abraham’s place of origin – and, of course, the reason for their ultimate transmission into Islam.

It is also related to the theme of ‘
loving God
’, a motif to be encountered in all these documents – as, for instance, James 2:5 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:3 – and the basic definition of ‘Piety’. This is the second part of the Righteousness/Piety dichotomy of ‘loving your fellow man’ and ‘loving God’ – also put into ‘Jesus’’ mouth in the Gospels (Mt 22:37–39 and pars.) and found in Paul’s exposition of why
it is necessary to pay taxes to Rome
(Rom. 13:8–10).

Carrying on this ‘
love
’ motif, John concludes with Peter seeing ‘
the Disciple Jesus loved
’ and asking Jesus about him (21:20). In an aside, John identifies him as the Disciple ‘who had reclined on his breast at the (Last) Supper, asking “Lord, who is it who will deliver you up?”’ and ‘the Disciple who bears witness to these things and writing these things’ (21:20–24).

This brings us back to the pretence that James was the author of the Second-Century Infancy Gospel known as the Protevangelium of James, in which the doctrine of Mary’s ‘
perpetual virginity
’ was first announced and, in a kind of sardonic irony,
ascribed to James
. Presumably, James
should have known best about these things
, even though it was
he
and patently
not Mary
who was ‘
the perpetual virgin
’ – another reversal of astonishing proportions. These matters just serve to increase the overlaps between ‘the Disciple Jesus loved’ and James. For John, Jesus responds to Peter’s query by, once again, lightly rebuking him: ‘
If I desire him to tarry until I come, what (is this) to you?
’ (John 21:22–23) – again
repeated twice
for emphasis.

This allusion to ‘
tarrying till I come
’ is normally interpreted to mean the ‘Second Coming’ or what is often called ‘the
Parousia
of Jesus’ or, if one prefers,
final eschatological Judgement
, meaning, something like the proclamation attributed to James in interpretation of Daniel 7:13’s ‘Son of Man’ of
coming eschatological Judgement
. One should note, too, that in the run-up to the exegesis in the Habakkuk
Pesher
of ‘
the Righteous shall live by his Faith
’ from Habakkuk 2:4, the previous verse, ‘
if it tarries, wait for it
’, is also subjected to exegesis. It is important to note that the exposition both passages in the Habakkuk
Pesher
is circumscribed by its application:
only to ‘Torah-Doers’
, the exegesis of 2:4 adding the additional qualification, ‘
Torah
-Doers
in the House of Judah’
, meaning, it would appear,
only ‘Torah-doing Jews
’! The implication would appear to be, it does not apply to
non
-
Torah
-Doers
who are not Jews
.

The first part of Habakkuk 2:3, ‘
for there will be another vision about the time appointed for the Completion of the Age and it shall not Lie
’ contains significantly both the allusion to the ‘
Completion of the Age
’, paralleling Matthew in 13:29 and 28:20, and ‘
Lying
’. The commentary in the Habakkuk
Pesher
reads as follows:

Its interpretation is that
the Last Age will be extended and shall exceed anything that the Prophets have foretold
, for
the Mysteries of God are astounding
. ‘
If it tarries, wait for it, because it will surely come and not be delayed’
(Hab. 2:3). Its interpretation concerns
the Men of Truth, the Doers of the Torah
, whose hand will not slacken from the Service of Truth, though the Last Age is extended around them, because all the Eras of God will come to their appointed End, as He determined them in the Mysteries of His Intelligence. ‘
Behold, his
(
soul
)
is puffed up and not Upright within him’
(Hab. 2:4). Its interpretation is that
their sins will be doubled upon them and they will not be pleased with their Judgement
.
17

‘
The Men of Truth
’ may be contrasted to its opposite, ‘
the Men of Lying
’; the same for ‘
the Service of Truth
’ and ‘
the Service of Lying
’ – cf. Paul’s similar contrasts in 2 Corinthians 9–11. There is also an inverse parallel in the stress on being ‘
puffed up
’ to Paul’s attack on those ‘
measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves with themselves
’ – ‘
the Highest Apostles
’ who, according to 2 Corinthians 10:12,
write their own letters of recommendation
(cf. too ‘
those reputed to be important
’ in Galatians 2:6).

In fact, Paul actually uses the very same allusion, ‘
puffed up
’, to criticize the same sort of persons, i.e., obviously his enemies from James’ ‘Jerusalem Church’, five times in 1 Corinthians 4:6–19 and 1 Corinthians 8:1. In the latter, he compares it, not insignificantly, to ‘
love
’ which, he says, by comparison with the ‘Knowledge’ they pretend to have about ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’, does not ‘puff one up’ but rather ‘builds one up’ and ‘
is patient
’ – ‘
not vainglorious
’ (1 Cor. 13:4)!

In this passage from the Habakkuk
Pesher
, there is absolutely no hint of any authority to ‘remit sins’; nor can there be any doubt that it is speaking about a Final Judgement of some kind. The context, too, is clearly eschatological concerning ‘
the Last Times
’/‘
Last Things’
and we are certainly in a framework of these New Testament allusions to ‘
the Completion of the Age
’ as in Mt 13:49 above. This is how this important allusion to ‘
waiting for
’ or ‘
tarrying
’ is in this preamble to the exegesis of Habakkuk 2:4, ‘
the Righteous shall live by his Faith
’ – the exegetical foundation piece of Christianity, as Paul understands it – this ‘waiting’ or ‘tarrying’ basically going by the name of ‘
the Delay of the Parousia
’ in modern Christian parlance.

This allusion to ‘tarrying’ or ‘remaining’ also occurs in the pivotal Emmaus road post-resurrection appearance in Luke and is transformed into something different again – this time that the Apostles should ‘
tarry
’ or ‘
wait in the city of Jerusalem
’ (24:47). Not paralleled in the other Gospels: after Cleopas and an unnamed other Disciple encounter Jesus ‘
along the Way
’, ‘Jesus’, as we saw, once again ‘
reclines
’ and ‘
breaks bread
’ with them (Lk 24:30). The ethos of this episode, despite its context, is basically clearly ‘Ebionite’ or ‘Jewish Christian’.

In it, ‘Jesus’ is
only ‘a Man, a Prophet … mighty before God in work and Word
’ and is ‘
delivered up’
– now, not specifically by Judas
Iscariot
,
but by ‘the Chief Priests’ and ‘Rulers’ ‘to Judgement of death’ (Luke 24:19–20 – the words, one finds here, ‘
a Prophet
’ and ‘
mighty before the Lord of the Throne’
, are also exactly those the Koran uses to describe its Messenger, Muhammad, in
Surah
81:19–21). Like the Teacher of Righteousness, ‘
to whom God made known all the Mysteries of His Servants the Prophets
’ (also described as ‘the Priest, in whose heart God placed insight
to interpret all the words of His Servants the Prophets, through whom God foretold all that would happen to His people
’), Jesus in this episode in Luke is essentially portrayed as an Interpreter of Scripture too (24:25–27 and 44–49).
18