James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (24 page)

Not only do assertions such as these further reinforce the connection of these kinds of eschatological allusions to ‘
the first
Zaddik
’ Noah’s paradigmatic ‘rainmaking’ and soteriological activity, but these seemingly tendentious references to ‘
eating and drinking
’ (to say nothing of
‘marrying and giving in marriage
’) also connect to the ‘
eating and drinking
’ theme we have called attention to above – particularly as reflected in Paul’s polemical discussions in 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:34 – as the bone of co
n
tention between Paul and James and, by extension, the several prohibitions relating to these in James’ directives to overseas communities. Not only do these relate – where one of these, ‘
fornication
’, was concerned – to the ‘
marrying and giving in ma
r
riage
’ theme above, but also of the kind of temporary
Nazirite
oath procedures so inimically opposed to Paul’s positions.

In turn, this last complex of issues has a direct link to what the Rabbis (and perhaps others) were subsuming under the phraseology ‘
the Noahic Covenant
’ – itself classically associated with similar prohibitions (in particular, ‘
manslaughter
’, ‘
idol
a
try
’, and ‘
fornication
’) – and to Noah’s paradigmatic salvationary personality.
50
This ‘Covenant’ has relevance not only to James functioning as the ‘
Bulwark
’ or ‘
Protector of the People
’ and his ‘
Oblias
’ status as reported in early Church testimony (itself possibly even relating to the puzzling ‘
Lebbaeus
’ denotation)
51
, but also the actual terms of his directives to overseas comm
u
nities as recorded in Acts and refracted in Paul’s polemics in 1 Corinthians and in the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
. Most not
e
worthy among these, of course, is the fundamental requirement to ‘
abstain from blood
’, a prohibition Noah also received in the context of the atoning sacrifice he is pictured as making in Genesis 9:5 at the end of the Flood episode.
52

These Noahic prohibitions, because of the theory behind them that they were imposed upon Noah in the aftermath of the Flood, were seen at least by the Rabbis (and probably by others as well)
as being
applicable to all mankind
and
not specifically to Israel alone
. They also included the categories of ‘
pollutions of the idols
’, as Acts 15:20 at one point puts it (elsewhere, this category is expressed as ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’ and ‘
fornication
’ – two of the other categories of James’ prohibitions r
e
flected in 1 Corinthians by Paul, the Pseudoclementines, and now in the curious ‘
Letter
’ or ‘
Letters
’ Qumran scholars refer to as
MMT.

One can well imagine that Noah was seen as a vegetarian too (as James was, John the Baptist appears to have been, and Peter is portrayed as being in the Pseudoclementines
53
), at least during the actual period of
the Flood
itself – this before his sacrifice at its end when the permission to eat meat was restored and connected, importantly, to
blood
vengeance (Genesis 9:5). This last, too, of course, inevitably entailed both the prohibition on
blood
as well as the one of ‘
manslaughter
’. As Gen
e
sis 9:4 puts this in its own inimitable way: because ‘
the life
(
of the living being
)
was in the blood
’, Noah learns not to consume flesh with blood in it.

Not only is this prohibition on
blood
also a cornerstone of James’ directives, if one looks closely at it, one can see how Paul has allegorically turned it around in his ‘
communion with the Blood of Christ
’ polemic arising out of his discussions of James’ directive on ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’, his own insistence on ‘
all things are lawful to
’
him
, and ‘
drinking the Cup of the Lord
’
but not
‘
the Cup of Demons
’ in 1 Corinthians 8:4–13 and 10:17–32.

Though ‘
strangled things
’, the last category in James’ prohibitions to overseas communities, are not specifically evoked in the picture of Noah’s sacrifice in Genesis, ‘
killing
’ – which may be seen as related – in the sense that
carrion
has been
killed by other beasts
– is, since the ‘
blood vengeance
’ that then follows is connected to
both
‘
man and beast
’.

The
Zaddik
-
the
-
Pillar
-
of
-
the
-
World
and the ‘
Zealot
’ Priesthood

We have already delineated the applicability of the
Zaddik
-notion to the persons of both James and Noah by calling atte
n
tion to the Medieval
Zohar
’s references to Noah. One of these passages also explains the ‘
Pillar
’-notation as applied by Paul to James, Cephas and John and connected to his understanding of ‘
the Central Three
’ in Galatians 2:9.
54
It reads in part: ‘
Noah was a Righteous One
…
after the Heavenly ideal
.
Scripture says
, ‘
the Righteous One is the Pillar of the world
’ (Proverbs 10:25)….
So Noah was called
‘
Righteous
’ (
Zaddik
)
below
…
a true copy of the Heavenly ideal
,
and … an incarnation of the world
’
s Covenant of Peace
(i.59b on ‘
Noah
’).
55
It is interesting that this foundational, allegedly Medieval, work of ‘
Kabbalah
’ tradition also seems to understand the ‘
Oblias
’ or ‘
Protection-of-the-People
’ notation as it was applied to James in early Church literature.

One encounters an excellent approximation of this, most notably in the section entitled ‘
Phineas
’, the paradigmatic ‘
Zea
l
ot
’ High Priest and progenitor of the line of
Zadok
. One should add that, as such, he was also the ancestor of Elijah, Jesus ben Yehozedek, the High Priest of the return from Exile, and Joiarib, the first and principal Priestly course in the Temple from which the Maccabees claimed descent.
56
It reads as follows:
‘When God desires to give healing to the Earth
,
He smites one Righteous One
…
with suffering … to make atonement
…
and sometimes all his days are passed in suffering to Protect the People’
(iv.218a-b on
Phineas
).
The connection of this with Christian materials relating to the presentation of the scriptural ‘Jesus’ should be obvious and one could not have a better picture of ‘
the Suffering Righteous One
’ than this. But it is also hard to believe that its relevance to materials related to James and, by extension, his
Zaddik
-status among persons of the ‘
Zea
l
ot’
/
Sicarii
mindset – for whom ‘Phineas’ was such an important paradigmatic archetype – could be simply accidental or fanc
i
ful.
57

‘
The Covenant of Peace
’, referred to as being ‘
sealed with Noah
’ in this ‘
Zaddik
-
the
-
Pillar
-
of
-
the
-
world
’ passage, can be seen as just another adumbration of ‘
the Zadokite Covenant
’ detailed in Ezekiel’s vision of the reconstructed Temple – in turn forming the basis of the exposition of ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ in the Damascus Document from Qumran.
58
But it should also be observed that, aside from being evoked by Ezekiel (34:25 and 37:26) regarding
the eternal promises of the Davidic Kingship
, this ‘
Covenant
’ is evoked, too, at the end of Ecclesiasticus (called by academics after its putative author ‘
Ben Sira
’) in relation to Phineas –
again the prototypical archetype of the
‘
Zealot
’
orientation
.

In another, not incurious parallel, this same ‘
Covenant of Peace
’ is evoked in the climax of the War Scroll’s exposition of ‘
the Star Prophecy
’ in the context of which
the coming of the Heavenly Host upon the clouds
‘
to shed Judgement like rain
upon all that grows’ is evoked.
59
Ben Sira
or Ecclesiasticus calls ‘
Phineas son of Eleazar
,
third in Glory
’ after Moses and Aaron. It then affirms, that ‘
because of his
zeal
’ and ‘
because he stood firm
’,
‘(
he
)
atoned for Israel
.
Hence a Covenant of Peace was sealed with him
,
making him Ruler of both Temple and People and securing to him and his descendants the High Priestly di
g
nity for ever’
(45:23ff.).
The whole stems from the original use of these terms to picture Phineas in Numbers 25:6–15. There, because of his ‘
zeal
’ (‘
like that of the Lord
’
s
’) in turning away pollution from the wilderness camp of Israel and the Divine ‘
Wrath
’ that would have ensued over the twin issues of
mixing with foreigners
and
intermarriage,
he was vouchsafed this ete
r
nal ‘
Covenant of Peace
’ and ‘
the right to perform the atonement over the Sons of Israel
’
in perpetuity
. This puts things about as succinctly as one can put them and explains the basis of all these allusions. Phineas is therefore like Noah is therefore like Elijah is therefore like James – or, in orthodox Scripture, if one prefers, James’ reflection Jesus. Perhaps even more germane, in Rabbinic tradition, Phineas is also a
Rainmaker
, meaning that, like Elijah, he is one of these Heavenly incarnated foreru
n
ners.
60

For 1 Maccabees 2:23–27, this is the same Covenant that is extended to the progenitor of the Maccabean family and, by implication, his sons after him in perpetuity because he
killed backsliders who were cooperating with foreign power
or
foreign edicts abolishing both Covenant and Law
. In doing so, to use the words 1 Maccabees uses, ‘
he
acted as Phineas did
against Zimri son of Salu
’, crying out, ‘
Let everyone who has
zeal for the Law
and takes his stand on the Covenant
,
come out and follow me
.’ The ‘
Zealot
’ nature of this Covenant, therefore – in spite of the fact of its being characterized ‘
a Covenant of Peace
’ – should be clear.

Ben Sira
, echoing 1 Kings 19:10–14, also sees Elijah as having this same ‘
burning zeal for the Law
’, for which reason ‘
he was taken up to Heaven itself
’. Aside from the allusion to Enoch in Genesis 5:21–24 (which produced an inordinate interest in this character in the Second Temple Period) and the one it alludes to about Elijah in 2 Kings 2:1, this is one of the earliest ‘
Heavenly ascent
’ motifs. Again the subject is also reflected by Paul in 2 Corinthians – this time in the important description in 12:2–5: ‘
I knew a man fourteen years ago
who was caught up to the Third Heaven
where he heard unspeakable sayings that it is not permitted a man to speak
’. It is also perhaps reflected in the document associated by tradition with James, the
Ascents of James
.
61