James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (166 page)

In both Acts and at Qumran, the exposition is esoteric. In the latter ‘
the Tabernacle of the King
’ (thereafter, seemingly, to be refined in terms of Amos 9:11’s ‘
the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’) is identified with ‘
the Books of the
Torah
’ – this, of course, the very opposite of how ‘
the Gentile Mission
’ would see these things. Notwithstanding, ‘
the King
’ – as in 1 Cori
n
thians 12:12-27 – ‘
is the Community and the Bases of the Statues are the Books of the Prophets whose words Israel despised’
. By contrast, in Acts 15:16–21 the esoteric exegesis of this passage from Amos is rather presented, it should be recalled, as ha
v
ing something to do with James’ support of Paul’s ‘
Gentile Mission
’ or, as this is put, ‘
all the Gentiles (
Ethne
) upon whom My Name has been called’
, which then triggers the various versions of James’ directives to overseas communities.

That the whole complex, as it is presented in the Damascus Document, is to be taken in a ‘
Messianic
’ way is clear from the evocation of ‘
the Star Prophecy
’ which follows in Ms. A and ‘
the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel
’ in Ms. B. Brin
g
ing the whole series of usages full circle: as this prophecy is expounded it is now connected in some manner both with ‘
the Diggers
’ materials (that is, ‘
those who dug the Well in the Land of Damascus
’) and ‘
the New Covenant in the Land of Dama
s
cus
’ preceding it from Columns VI.3–VII.6. In turn, both are connected to Numbers 21:18’s ‘
Well
’ which ‘
the Princes
’
and
‘
Nobles of the People dug’
, ‘
the Penitents who went out to the Land of Damascus
’ materials, and Isaiah 54–56’s
Staff
/
Mehokkek
, described as ‘
an instrument for His works’
. The last link between all of these is then, of course, ‘
the
Doresh
’ or ‘
the Seeker after the
Torah
’ (the ‘
seeking
’ theme being fundamental here), that is, ‘
the Interpreter of the
Torah
’ who is both ‘
the Staff who decrees the Laws
’ (
Hukkim
, a play on ‘
the
Mehokkek
’ as well as ‘
His staves
’ as we just saw), who is then identified in the next exegesis as ‘
the Star who came to Damascus’
.

This is quite a complex structure. Nevertheless, we are now in the realm of Acts’ presentation of early Christian history on two counts: 1) in the matter of ‘
the Seeker after the
Torah
’ (‘
the Star
’) ‘
who came to Damascus
’; and 2) in the use of these Amos materials, particularly those relating to ‘
re-erecting the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’ constituting the jumping-off point, as it were, to Acts’ presentation of James’ directives to these same
Nilvim
or ‘
Joiners
’ to the Community in its picture of the outcome of ‘
the Jerusalem Council’
. The ‘
rebuilding
’ or ‘
re-erecting
’ of this ‘
fallen Tabernacle
’ is then used in Acts to pr
e
sent James as definitively supporting Paul’s ‘
Gentile Mission
’ (a presentation I dispute – he might have supported the ‘
Mission
’ but, clearly, not its ‘
Pauline
’ parameters), as well as to introduce the specific ban in these instructions on ‘
Blood’
.

The two, of course, are incompatible – that is, one cannot support both the
Mission
as Paul (followed by Acts) frames it and the ban on
Blood
– my reason for denying the historicity of this genre of application of Amos 9:11’s Prophecy about ‘
rai
s
ing the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’ in the picture of James’ discourse in Acts 15:16–17 to Paul’s ‘
Gentile Mission’
. A prohibition of this kind on James’ part, concerning which Paul feigns ignorance throughout 1 Corinthians – if taken seriously – would preclude what Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 11:24 he ‘
received
’ directly ‘
from the Lord’
. A claim of the latter kind, if entertained, can only mean via direct visionary experience or ‘
apocalypsis
’, the kind of experience he also claims as both the basis of his ‘
Apostleship
’ – ‘
not from men nor through man
’ – in Galatians 1:1, as well as his view of the entire ‘
Gentile Mission
’ in Galatians 2:2. Furthermore, even if one were to insist that the claim should only be taken allegorically or symbolically, this would inevitably make Jesus a quasi-
Disciple
of Philo of Alexandria just as Paul.

As Paul now pictures ‘
the Lord Jesus
’ describing this ‘
New Covenant in
(
his
)
Blood
’ in 1 Corinthians 11:25–27 (possibly adding the ‘
Cup
’ from an esoteric understanding of ‘
Damascus
’):
‘This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood
’…. A
s often as you drink
…
this Cup you drink the death of the Lord
…
whoever shall
…
drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of
…
the Blood of the Lord
.’
A more esoteric or allegorical understanding of
the New Covenant
is hard to envision. In Matthew 26:27–28, this becomes: ‘
Taking the Cup
…
he gave it to them
,
saying
, “
This is my Blood
,
that of the New Covenant which is poured out for the Many for remission of Sins.”
’

According to Acts 15:14, James’ evocation of ‘
rebuilding the fallen Tabernacle of David
’ even includes the allusion to how God ‘
visited
the Gentiles to take out a People for His Name’
. We have also seen how
Visitation
language of this kind permeates the Damascus Document, beginning with the assertion in the First Column of CD that God ‘
visited them and caused a Root of Planting to grow from Israel and from Aaron
’ and continuing to this very juncture of the Document and the exegesis of ‘
the Star Prophecy
’ in CD VII.18–VIII.3. Though in Ms. B, ‘
the Star Prophecy
’ is replaced by Zechariah 13:7, Ezekiel 9:4, and evocation of ‘
the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel
’ (continuing this ‘
Israel and Aaron
’ allusion from Column I.7 ea
r
lier – singular), both versions conserve the ‘
Visitation
’ usages.

As already underscored as well, even the word ‘
First’
, as in the ‘
First Visitation’
, is included in both Ms. A and B versions of the text,
e
.
g
., ‘
these escaped in the Era of the First Visitation’
, and the language of ‘
Visitation
’ or ‘
God visiting them
’ is r
e
peated some three or four times. In James’ speech in Acts this becomes, ‘
Simeon has told you how God First visited the Ge
n
tiles to take out a People for His Name
’ (
n
.
b
. not only the ‘
Visitation
’ language but also the allusion to ‘
for His Name
’ repla
c
ing more familiar allusions ‘
called by this Name
’ earlier in Acts and ‘
called by Name
’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls
114
). Just as in Column VII.18’s ‘
the Prophets whose words Israel despised’
, Acts 15:15 also evokes ‘
the words of the Prophets
’, but adds Amos 9:11’s ‘
and I will build the ruins of it again and I will set it up
’ to CD VII.16’s more circumscribed version of Amos 9:11.

It will be recalled that in CD VI.8, quoting Isaiah 54:16,
the
Mehokkek
was defined as ‘
the Seeker after the
Torah
’ and cha
r
acterized as ‘
an instrument for His works’
. Stitching the whole together, CD VII.18–19 then defined
the Star
/
Stave
/
Mehokkek
, as we saw, as ‘
the Interpreter of’
or ‘
Seeker after the
Torah
who came to Damascus’
. But in James’ speech in Acts 15:18, not only is ‘
the Tabernacle of David which is fallen
’ invoked (‘
its ruins to be rebuilt
’), but this becomes an explanation of why ‘
the Remnant of Men
’ or ‘
the Men who are left may seek out the Lord
’ – ‘
those who are left
’ or ‘
the Remnant
’ also being language familiar to these sections of CD VII/XIX.
115
Once again, the ‘
seeking
’ language is pivotal as it is in CD VII.18–19’s exposition of both Amos 9:11 and Numbers 24:17 in terms of ‘
the
Doresh ha-Torah
’
. It is also the explanation earlier for why God called ‘
the Diggers
’ of Numbers 21:18 (that is, ‘
the Penitents who went out from the Land of Judah to dwell in the Land of Dama
s
cus
’) ‘
Princes
,
because they sought Him and their honour was questioned by no man
’ (CD VI.4–7)!

At this point in Acts 15:18, as if by way of explanation, James is pictured as adding: ‘
all his works are known to God from Eternity’
. Here, of course, we have the ‘
works
’ language of Isaiah 54:16 and CD VI.8 and
the Staff
/
Seeker
being ‘
an instr
u
ment for His works
’ – not to mention the earlier material from CD I.10 (following on from how ‘
God visited them and caused a root of Planting to grow from Israel and from Aaron
’): ‘
And God considered their works because they sought him with a whole heart
’. Nor is this to say anything about the allusion to ‘
God visiting their works
’ later in CD V.17. Even more germane, almost the exact words are to be found in CD II.5–8, where ‘
the Penitents from Sin
’ among those ‘
who enter the Covenant
’ (
i
.
e
., ‘
the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus
’) are characterized in terms of being blessed, but: ‘
Power
,
Might
,
and ove
r
whelming Wrath with sheets of Fire
…
upon those who turn aside the Way and abominate the Law
…
because
,
before the World ever was
,
God chose them not and
,
before they were established
,
He knew their works’
.
Here CD II.8 adds, as if for emphasis and a
coup de grace
of sorts: ‘
and abominated their Generations
on account of Blood
’. Once again, one should compare this allusion to God ‘
knowing their works
’ with James quoted in in Acts 15:18 as concluding: ‘
All his works are known to God from Eternity’
.