James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (99 page)

For Josephus it is ‘the
Sicarii
’ who retreat from Jerusalem to the fortress Masada after one of their leaders, a son or grandson of Judas ‘
the Galilean
’ named Menachem – who ‘put on the royal purple’ – is stoned by collaborating High Priests in the early chaotic events of the Uprising – the only other stoning apart from James’ that Josephus records in this period.

Under the leadership of another descendant of this ‘Judas the
Galilean
’, Eleazar ben Jair, they participate in the famous final suicide at Masada in 73 CE, parodied in the Gospel presentations of its ‘Judas the
Iscariot
’. One should note that not only has Eleazar’s name been found on an actual shard surviving on Masada, but both his names are paralleled in Scripture in the names ‘Lazarus’ and ‘Jairus’. With this connecting of Judas now with Simon and the use of the term ‘the
Iscariot
’ as a cognomen not a proper name, it now becomes an open question whether the two characters, Luke’s ‘Simon
the Zealot
’ – also connected to ‘Judas the brother of James’ – and John’s ‘Simon
Iscariot
’, are not to be equated. Both clearly show the revolutionary aspect of early ‘Christians’.

In addition, one will now have seriously to consider whether the term ‘Judas Zelotes’, found in the
Epistula Apostolorum
, which may date to the early Second Century, should not be taken more seriously.
37
This Gospel, generally following terminology found in John, lists the Apostles as: John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew,
Nathanael
,
Judas Z–el–ot–es
,
and Cephas
.

The last three, as usual, are particularly interesting. ‘Nathanael’, who appeared in the early part of John with Philip in Galilee, was quoted there as saying, ‘can anything good come out of Nazareth’ – meaning undecipherable – and with ‘
Didymus
Thomas’ and the others in the episode of Jesus’ appearance at ‘the Sea of Tiberias’ at the end, is distinctly designated there as from ‘
Cana of Galilee
’ (Jn 1:45–49 and 21:2). This last is not so different from the term ‘Cananite’ in Gospel Apostle lists, nor the mysterious ‘Kfar Sechania’ in Rabbinic sources associated with James’ curious stand-in ‘Jacob’. In Synoptic reckonings, he is clearly taking the place of ‘James the son of Alphaeus’ (our James), which should surprise no one.

Even more to the point, Cephas in this reckoning is now obviously distinct from Simon Peter, yet reckoned among the Apostles not the Disciples as in some other later Church listings. In this reckoning, he occupies the same position as and is clearly equivalent to the individual being called ‘Simon Z–el–ot–es’ or ‘Simon the Zealot’ in Luke and Acts – ‘Simon the Cananite’ in Matthew and Mark (note the play on ‘Cana’ and ‘Cananaean’ again) – or, as we shall finally conclude below, Simeon bar Cleophas, the second
brother
– not ‘cousin’ – of Jesus. This individual called ‘Cephas’, and coming last in the list in the
Epistula Apostolorum
, also plainly occupies the same position as the ‘Simon
Iscariot
’ in John, called ‘the father’ – or ‘brother’ – ‘of Judas
Iscariot
’.

‘Judas Zelotes’ in the
Epistula Apostolorum
is clearly to be identified with that Apostle called ‘Thaddaeus’ in Mark or ‘Lebbaeus surnamed Thaddaeus’ in Matthew, the same individual that Luke calls, doubtlessly most accurately of all, ‘Judas (the brother) of James’! Notice the same appellative in the first line of the Letter of Jude, now baldly calling himself ‘Judas the brother of James’ in clear expostulatory prose. It is important that Luke in Acts 21:20, when talking about the greater part of James’ followers in the Jerusalem Church, gives the actual basis for the derivation of this name, ‘
Zealots
’ or ‘
Zealots for the Law
’ – also expressed as ‘
Zelotai
’ – about which we shall have more to say presently.

We shall have more to say presently as well about this ‘Jude’ or ‘Judas’, who also appears to have had quite a few other names and whose grandchildren, according to Hegesippus, are so cruelly executed under Trajan. It is, however, also edifying to note that in Old Latin manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew, the name of ‘Lebbaeus surnamed Thaddaeus’ is replaced by ‘Judas the Zealot’ as well. Where such perspicuity came from is impossible to say (possibly Syriac sources) – but these old medieval manuscript redactors certainly seemed to understand the gist of the traditions before them even better than many moderns do.

Much of the misinformation, circumlocution, and dissimulation turn on this ‘Judas the brother of James’ and on Simeon bar Cleophas/Cephas/Simon the Zealot – including Mark and Matthew’s garbled ‘Simon the Cananaean’ – as should be becoming clear. We shall also now find these same tell-tale allusions to ‘Judas the Zealot’ and ‘Simon the Zealot’ in the Syriac sources we shall treat further below.

Chapter 23

Simeon Bar Cleophas and Simon the Zealot

Simon the Cananite, Nathanael, and James

Actually the Simeon bar Cleophas/Simon
the Zealot
/Simon
Iscariot
complex is relatively easily untangled – or shall we say deciphered. ‘Cananaean’ is an attempt in Greek, as many scholars now realize, to transliterate a Hebrew word, which then ends up either purposefully or out of ignorance as ‘the Cananite’. But the word is based on the Hebrew word for ‘zeal’, that is,
kin’at-Elohim
–
zeal for God
or
kin’at ha-Hoq
–
zeal for the Law
, so that, even as Matthew and Mark understand this cognomen as applied to Simon – or rather misunderstand it – it is based on the Hebrew phrase ‘zeal for the Law’.

This is based on the episode in the Book of Numbers from the Old Testament, in which the High Priest Phineas, the grandson of Aaron, receives ‘the Covenant of an Everlasting Priesthood …
to make atonement
over the Sons of Israel, because of his
zeal for God
’ (Num. 25:12–13). This, in Numbers, is considered equivalent to the ‘Covenant of Peace’, simultaneously conferred upon Phineas for his ‘exceedingly great zeal’. Phineas receives these two Covenants, really the same, on behalf of all his descendants ‘forever’, because of the ‘exceeding great zeal’ or ‘burning zeal for God’ he displayed in
killing backsliders
who were
marrying foreigners
(note the relation of this to Herodian family practice),
introducing pollution into the camp of Israel in the wilderness
(Num. 25:6–11).

All of these themes, as should by now be apparent, are basic to the period before us and James’ place in it. This theme of ‘
zeal
’ is also referred to in the Maccabean books, where Phineas’ ‘
zeal for the Law
’ and ‘
keeping the Covenant
’ are now pictured as the rallying cry of Judas Maccabee’s father Mattathias who – on the altar at Modein (
thus
) – kills the Seleucid Royal Commissioner and the collaborating Jew willing to follow instructions forbidding the practice of Judaism.

For 1 Maccabees 2:19–28, the latter’s offence is described in terms of forsaking ‘the Law’ and ‘customs of the Forefathers’ and no longer ‘keeping the Covenant of the First’ – language pervasive at Qumran and echoed, sometimes polemically, in the New Testament. For 1 Maccabees 2:50, the implication is that Mattathias wins the High Priesthood in perpetuity for his descendants on account of his ‘burning zeal for the Law’ and willingness to sacrifice his life ‘for the Covenant of the Forefathers’. This is stated explicitly in 1 Maccabees 2:54, where ‘the Covenant of the Everlasting Priesthood’ accorded Phineas, ‘because he was exceedingly zealous for the Law’, is once again evoked and obviously meant to be equivalent to the aforementioned ‘Covenant of Peace’.

This is certainly the atmosphere in the time of Aristobulus II (
c.
63 BCE), who is unwilling to debase himself before Pompey and whose supporters go about the sacrifices, while the Romans – outpaced in this by their Pharisee confederates – slaughter these exceedingly Pious Priests in the Temple as they continue the sacrifices. It is also the atmosphere among the assembled crowd, who weep when they see Jonathan, the younger brother of Herod’s
Maccabean
wife Mariamme, don the High Priestly vestments upon coming of age at thirteen (36 BCE). Herod, thereupon, had him brutally murdered and, not long after that, his sister Mariamme too (29 BCE).

Aside from the notice in Acts about
the majority
of James’ followers in Jerusalem being ‘Zealots for the Law’ (21:20), one should also note the portrait in John’s Gospel of Jesus’ ‘zeal’ – in good Maccabean fashion – for his ‘Father’s House’ and the purification of the same ( John 2:17). Here John even paraphrases the words of Psalm 69:9, ‘zeal for Your House consumes me’, applying them to Jesus driving out the sellers and overturning the tables of the money-changers
in the Temple, at Passover time
.

John never does list all the Apostles, though he does refer to Andrew as ‘Simon Peter’s brother’, followed by Philip, who when Jesus ‘wants to go into Galilee’, finds Nathanael (1:40–45). At first the Gospel of John – paralleling the ‘two’ along the Way to Emmaus later in Luke – only identities this first pair (one of whom turns out to be ‘Nathanael’), as ‘two of his Disciples’, with whom John ‘was again
standing
’ (1:35). Nathanael then goes and gets ‘his
own
brother Simon’ – the sobriquet ‘Peter’ is now missing from the denotation. It is right after this that Jesus is pictured as renaming Simon, ‘
Cephas
, which interpreted means “Stone”’ (1:42). Clearly, there is some very peculiar textual rewriting going on here.

John does, however, refer to ‘the Twelve’, and whatever attempt there seems to be at a listing occurs in the post-resurrection sighting by the Sea of Galilee, containing the ubiquitous ‘net’ and ‘casting down’ motifs. Simon Peter is now listed with ‘Thomas called
Didymus
’, whoever he is, instead of ‘Andrew’ and, once again, the omnipresent ‘other two Disciples’ appear this time alongside ‘the sons of Zebedee’ – both again unnamed.

Here, too, the mysterious ‘Nathanael from Cana of Galilee’ appears. It is interesting that this ‘Cana of Galilee’ – mentioned four times in John, but in no
other
Gospel – is mentioned in only one other place in the literature of this period. This is by Josephus in his
Vita
who calls it ‘a village of Galilee’, at which he claims he made his headquarters (though usually he claims his headquarters was at ‘
Asochis
’).
1
In the one story John tells about Nathanael at the beginning of his Gospel, he is pictured as sitting ‘under a fig tree’ at or before the time Philip calls him. This, Jesus is supposed to have either ‘seen’ or ‘foreseen’ (Jn. 1:48–50).

This motif of ‘sitting under a carob tree’ or ‘fig tree’ is to be encountered as well in Rabbinic stories about Honi the Circle Drawer or Onias the Righteous, whom we identified earlier as the putative ancestor or, at least, forerunner of John the Baptist and James. In Talmudic tradition, Honi falls asleep under this omnipresent carob or fig tree, before awakening in the generation of his grandson – that is, either Hanan the Hidden, John, one Abba Hilkiah (who like James supposedly also made rain), or James himself – seventy years later when the fruit is ripened. Then, because no one recognizes him – a familiar motif – he prays for death and, in the abrupt manner of Judas
Iscariot
in Gospel tradition, dies.
2

In John’s story, Jesus sees Nathanael – whom he supposedly greets with the words: ‘Behold, in truth, an Israelite in whom there is no guile’ (clearly the product of a non-Jewish author) – sitting ‘under a fig tree’, implying that this was somehow of great moment or a visionary or prophetical recognition of some kind. Not only does Nathanael now call Jesus ‘Rabbi’ – as in Nag Hammadi sources above about James and Jesus – but he immediately designates Jesus as ‘the Son of God’ and ‘King of Israel’ (1:47–49) and is the first to do so.

Thereupon Jesus predicts, because
he
has ‘seen’ Nathanael, that
Nathanael
will, in turn, ‘
see
greater things than this’. He predicts Nathanael ‘will see the Heaven opened’ – the very words used in Acts to describe
Stephen
’s vision of ‘the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’ – ‘and the Angel of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man’ (1:50–51). Whatever else it is supposed to mean, this last, of course, is just another variation of James’ final apocalyptic vision of ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven’ with the Heavenly Host, in Hegesippus’ tradition recorded in Eusebius, and one more element linking ‘Nathanael’ to James and, therefore, ‘Cana’ to ‘Cananite’ or ‘Cananaean’, not to mention the whole Honi ‘Hidden’ tradition attaching itself to members of this family.