James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (140 page)

For Hebrews 11:17 and 11:31, however, it was rather ‘
by Faith
’ that Abraham when he was tested, offered up his ‘
only b
e
gotten
’ Isaac in whom his ‘
seed would be called
’ and Rahab the Harlot ‘
did not die with the ones who did not believe
’. Not only have we seen the relevance of these two examples to historical events in Palestine in this period – in particular, the situ
a
tion of the Queen of Adiabene, both as regards her son Izates and possibly her own questionable past, but this emphasis will be shifted back to ‘
doing
’ and ‘
the
Doers
of
Torah
’ in the Column
VIII
Pesher
of 1QpHab on Habakkuk 2:4 we shall analyze further below.

One should again remark the emphasis on ‘
living
’ in these passages expounding Habakkuk 2:4 in Paul, which end by den
y
ing that
the Law
‘
can give life
’ and
a
‘
Righteousness
’
by
‘
the Law
’ (Galatians 3:21). Rather they affirm – in yet another canny if ‘
biting
’ metaphor for ‘
circumcision
’ and ‘
works
’ – that ‘
sowing
’
in
‘
the flesh
’
shall
‘
reap corruption
’, but ‘
sowing to the Spirit shall reap everlasting life from the Spirit
’ (Galatians 6:8). This is the same ‘
living
’ encountered in the ‘
cursing
’ of the ‘
Law – Breakers
’ in the Last Column of 4QD above relating to what ‘
a man must
do
and thereby
live
’ – precisely the words Paul has just used, but with the
entirely opposite
signification.

Paul moves from these two points about ‘
life
’ into his interpretation of the passage about ‘
cursing
’ from Deuteronomy 21:23. Though this Biblical injunction can be taken to mean that it is a ‘
curse
’ to
hang a man upon a tree at all
– this is what we saw to basically be the position of the Nahum
Pesher
2
– the sense is ambiguous even in Paul’s reading of the phrase. The oper
a
tive part – though Paul does not quote it – has to do, however, with
not leaving a
‘
body all night upon the tree
’ which neve
r
theless, then, made such a deep impression on New Testament chroniclers.

But Paul’s twist on this is quite different. He has already cited the passage from Deuteronomy 27:26 about, as he sees it, those ‘
of the works of the Law being under a curse
’ (Galatians 3:10). This is the second ‘
cursing
’ passage connected to ‘
Abr
a
ham
’
s Faith being reckoned to him as Righteousness
’ and
the Peoples
‘
being blessed with the believing Abraham
’ (the warrant for Paul’s ‘
Gentile Mission
’) in almost as many lines. Since, as Paul sees it, those ‘
doing the Law
’ are under what is, in fact, the threat of a ‘
curse
’, for him, ‘
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by having become a curse
– that is, by ‘
being hung upon a tree
’,
i
.
e
.,
crucified
, and, therefore, ‘
accursed
’ – ‘
for us
’ (Galatians 3:13).

It is from this ‘
that Abraham
’
s blessing might come to the Peoples in Christ Jesus that
(
they
)
might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith
’ (Galatians 3:14), and it is on this basis that he now goes on to develop his whole understanding of the redeeming death of Christ Jesus, not only for himself, but for all mankind as well. Though, obviously masterfully
dialectical, one can plainly see this to be based upon the same kind of ‘
cursing
’ language encountered in the Qumran documents, only
reversed
. Furthermore, Paul clearly realizes that individuals of the
genus
of ‘
the Man of Lying
’ like himself, who ‘
reject the Law
’, are for a whole series of Qumran documents ‘
accursed
’, as per the injunction from Deuteronomy 27:26 he has just quoted so perversely – a passage also plainly in wide use at Qumran. This is particularly clear in the Community Rule and Damascus Document, but also 4Q
Berachot
(which, reflecting its subject matter, I entitled ‘
The Chariots of Glory
’) in the section ‘
The Community Council Curses
Belial
’ – itself plainly a part of the Community Rule.
3

It is this denunciation that can be viewed as the moving force behind the ‘
plots
’ against Paul’s life signaled in Acts, partic
u
larly on the part of ‘
Nazirite
’-vowing extremists who take an oath in Acts 23:12 ‘
not to eat or drink until they have killed Paul
’. This is not the same for Jesus and James, though Scripture would have us think it is. In Paul’s case, it is plots on the part of ‘
Zealot
’-style sectarians; for Jesus and James, it is clearly the very
opposite
kind of
Establishment
‘
plots
’, because all reports co
n
firm that they were very
popular among the People
. So, however interpreted, it is clearly not ‘
Jewish
’
plots
. The same is true for John the Baptist.

Ultimately Scripture as it has come down to us and early Church theology have taken advantage of the general lack of hi
s
torical sophistication concerning this period to make these two, diametrically opposed types of ‘
plots
’ appear equivalent, but now the Dead Sea Scrolls have come to light to restore the balance and give us a unique contemporary witness into the inte
l
lectual heart of this period. Without them, previously one might have suspected this, but it could not be proved. Now it can. This is the point one must appreciate when considering historical matters in this period. James is able to function in Jerusalem for twenty years or more from the Forties to the Sixties with no discernible problems among the mass of the People – the o
p
posite – until he is removed by what has to be considered Establishment ‘
plotting
’, whereas Paul can hardly set foot in Jerus
a
lem without being mobbed by the People or protected by Roman troops and has to spend years abroad while the memory of his previous behaviour recedes. Even this is insufficient. However this may be, knowing that he ‘
is
’ or ‘
has been cursed
’ by those certainly of a ‘
Nazirite
’ or Qumran frame-of-mind, in the best Hellenistic rhetorical style, he reversed the language of ‘
cursing
’ his opponents are throwing against him, to hurl back upon them instead.

Not only does he use here the language of ‘
excommunication
’ or ‘
banning
’ encountered in 4QD, there can be little doubt – just as in the positions he adopts in Romans 13:1–10 – that his adversaries were not ‘
Jews
’ from the ‘
Herodianizing
’ Jewish Establishment. One can well imagine how the kind of verbal invective he is indulging in here would have infuriated his opp
o
nents who were themselves the partisans of just such a ‘
crucified Messiah
’. That someone was claiming that ‘
the crucified Me
s
siah’,
whom they loved, ‘
was cursed
’ because
foreigners
‘
had hung him on a tree
’ – ‘
cursed
’ in the exact manner they consi
d
ered persons such as ‘
Lying Spouter
’s like Paul to be – would have enraged them.

Just this kind of outrage is to be encountered in the Habakkuk
Pesher
when, after speaking about the Liar’s ‘
misleading Many
’ and ‘
erecting an Assembly
’ or ‘
Church upon Lying
’ or ‘
Self-Glorification
’ and ‘
upon Blood
’, it will call down upon him and those like him the same ‘
Judgements of Hellfire
’ with which they ‘
blasphemed and vilified the Elect of God
’.
4
Furthe
r
more, 1QpHab VII.17–VIII.3 also uses the very same formulation, ‘
Doer of
’ or ‘
doing of the
Torah
’, Paul uses in Galatians 3:10 (quoting Deuteronomy 27:26) and in Galatians 5:3, to restrict the effect of just this Habakkuk 2:4, ‘
the Righteous shall live by his Faith
’, Paul so tendentiously interprets in Galatians 3:11. This is about as powerful a demonstration of the conve
r
gence of these documents as one could devise – not to mention the use of this same expression, ‘
Doer of the Law
’, in James 4:11.

For Paul now in Galatians 3:13, ‘
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law
’ by having become a ‘
curse
’ according to the Law himself. As we have implied, this is one of the most astonishing ideological reversals in the whole complex of Wes
t
ern intellectual history and has had the most profound effects even until today, but it is the Qumran documents that allow us to see it in perspective. Without them, we probably would be able to do so, but with them, a completely new perspective is afforded.

Paul now uses this proposition to assert that Abraham’s blessing will now come to the ‘
Peoples
’ as well, again the co
m
plete ideological reversal of Qumran’s perspective on these same ‘
Peoples
’. Taking the opportunity to counter-indicate 4QD’s position on ‘
the Covenant
’ and ‘
the Law
’ or ‘
Torah
’ being able to give ‘
life
’, he states ‘
for if a Law had been given that was able to
give life
then, indeed, Righteousness would have been by the Law
’, but, of course, this was not the case. Therefore ‘
Righ
t
eousness
’ was ‘
the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ
’ (3:22). He can now go on to evoke the ‘
Sonship
’ ideal on behalf of Ge
n
tiles since, strictly speaking according to Jewish writ,
all the Righteous Ones were Sons of God
, all were now ‘
Sons of God through Faith in Christ Jesus
’ (3:26).
5

This leads into his concept of ‘
the Children of the Promise
’ being
the true Sons of Abraham
’
s seed
. In Galatians 3:29, he puts this as follows: ‘
But if you are Christ
’
s, then you are Abraham
’
s seed and Heirs to the Promise
’.
Moreover, it echoes R
o
mans 9:7 where he was rather interpreting Genesis 21:12, ‘
in Isaac shall your seed be called
’, and using the language of ‘
recko
n
ing
’ from Genesis 15:6 to assert that this meant ‘
the Children were to be reckoned as the seed
’. Paul uses it to move into a slightly more universalist program. As he had expressed this earlier in Romans 1:16–17, in interpretation of ‘
the Righteous shall live by Faith
’ as well: ‘
the Power of God saving
(or ‘
giving Salvation to
’)
everyone who believes, both the Jew first and the Greek
’. It is this language of ‘
saving
’ we shall presently encounter in the Habakkuk
Pesher
’s crucial interpretation of this same Habakkuk 2:4.