James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (45 page)

It is interesting that in the context of this same cycle of traditions which started with those about the Talmudic
Rich Men
– in particular, the ones about ‘
the Poor
’ who ‘
came
to Ben Kalba Sabu
‘
a
’
s
door hungry as a dog
and went away
filled
’ and the promise both he and Nakdimon ben Gurion made to supply everyone in Jerusalem with
grain
for
twenty-one
or
twenty-two years
–
ARN
provides the following tradition that: ‘
When Vespasian came to destroy Jerusalem
… (and) looked at their e
x
crement (‘
dung
’) and saw there was
no sign of corn
(that is, ‘
barleycorns
’
)
in it
(
meaning
‘
only straw
’
)
, he said to his troops, ‘
If these who eat nothing but straw kill so many of you in this fashion, how many of you they would kill if they ate everything you
eat and drink
.’
37

Clearly, not only are these several episodes about
Nakdimon
’
s
and
Boethus
’
daughter
s not two separate traditions – ‘
the feet of horses in Acco
’ in the
ARN
having now been interchanged with ‘
the dung of Arab cattle
’ in
Kethuboth
, but they also incorporate the resultant ‘
famine
’, ‘
grain
’, and ‘
dung
’ motifs. This is to say nothing about the various ‘
grain
’ and ‘
loaves
’ trad
i
tions both in these sources and, in particular, those related to
Jesus
’ miracles we shall presently encounter in all four Gospels below.

However these things may be, the tradition about
Nakdimon’s daughter
Miriam, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zacchai, now contrasts
the condition he finds her in after the fall of the Temple
with the prodigiousness of her dowry, ‘
a mi
l
lion
dinar
s besides what was added from her father-in-law
’
s house
’ (again the confusions over ‘
in-law
’s – once again, in our view, intending
Nakdimon
). This is followed up in
Kethuboth
, as well, by another description of Nakdimon’s incredible wealth, the one depicting ‘
the
Poor
’
‘
gathering up the
woollen clothes
that had been
laid
for his
feet
’, in turn, followed by the Rabbinic di
s
cussion of the issue of the sincerity of his proverbial charity, the apparent meaning of which was that this was
not real charity to treat
‘
the Poor
’
in this way, even though they probably
‘
gathered up
’ and
kept
‘
the woollen clothes
’.
38

It is at this point in
Kethuboth
that the important aphorism is added evoking the pivotal motif of  ‘
the camel
’ relating to ‘
his Riches
’ and
his
‘
charity
’, that is, ‘
in accordance with the camel is the burden
’ – meaning that
extraordinary charity was only to be expected on the part of one so Rich
. However, the same aphorism is quoted later in this same Tractate with perhaps even more justice in relation to
recovering the dowry of
‘
Martha the daughter of Boethus
’, already characterized above as awaiting permission of ‘
the
levir
’ to marry Josephus’ friend, Jesus ben Gamala.
39
He was High Priest from 63 CE directly following James’ death until 65 CE, when he was brutally dispatched along with the individual actually responsible for James’ judicial murder, Ananus ben Ananus, by ‘
the Zealots
’ and their ‘
Idumaean
’ allies as the Uprising against Rome moved into what can best perhaps be termed its ‘
Jacobite
’ phase in 68 CE.
40

The reason one says ‘
with more justice
’ here is because the allusion to ‘
gamal
’ or ‘
camel
’ would more appropriately play on the name of this ‘
Boethusian
’ High Priest, of which it actually constitutes a part, meaning, it would seem, the town of Gamala from where he – and, interesting enough,
Judas the Galilean
– seems to have come (curiously enough, the same place for which Josephus was supposed to have prepared defences).
41
This ‘
Gamala
’ was so named because of its situation on an inland mesa overlooking the Sea of Galilee that had the shape of the hump of a camel. Nor is this to say anything about the curious ‘
eye of the camel
’ aphorisms connected to these
Poor Man
/
Rich Man
allusions in famous discourses attributed to Jesus we shall discuss further below.

Notwithstanding, the Boethus then, to whom this
Jesus b. Gamala
became connected through his
Rich
daughter
Martha
, was one of the more accommodating High-Priestly clans, willing to live both with Roman power in Palestine and its Herodian representatives – a fact that may have explained this
Jesus
’ rather violent death, as it did that of his even perhaps more a
c
commodating colleague, Ananus ben Ananus,
responsible for the death of James
.

Judas’ Concern for ‘
the Poor
’ Revisited and James’ Charge to Paul
to ‘Remember the Poor
’

To go back to John and to make the connection with these stories about Nakdimon’s or Boethus’
daughter
even more plain, the narrator in John 12:6 in an aside reflecting the Talmudic debates on Nakdimon’s real or alleged charity, adds, ‘
he said this not because he cared about the Poor, but because he was a thief
’ – but now, of course, the reference is not to Nakdimon’s false
charity
but Judas
Iscariot
’s. Clearly this statement, made by the narrator, makes no sense without presupposing knowledge of the previous Rabbinical debates about the legitimacy of Nakdimon’s charity – one can probably assume, ther
e
fore, that the author of John knew this tradition.

Since this issue of ‘
being a thief
’ is a new theme we haven’t heard before – at least not in the Gospels – the narrator, fairly running away with himself, proceeds then to impart the interesting new fact that
since Judas had charge of the common purse,
‘
he used to help himself to what was put therein
’ (12:6). Given the symbolic nature of the character represented by
Judas
, as we have been delineating it, this is perhaps more of the covert anti-Semitism one finds, for instance, in Acts’ portrayal of its basically non-existent
Stephen
.

In the parallel Synoptic material in Matthew and Mark ‘
at Simon the Leper
’
s house
’ where it is ‘
the Disciples
’ or ‘
some
’, not
Judas
, who are indignant and are the ones who do the complaining about
the wastefulness of the woman with
‘
the alabaster flask
’
who poured the
‘
precious ointment of pure spikenard
’
on Jesus
’
head rather than
‘
his feet
’. Nevertheless it is, as always, ‘
the Poor
’ who form the crux of the complaints, as they do in the
Nakdimon
,
Lazarus
, and now these
Judas Iscariot
materials. We shall see below how these allusions play off Rabbi Akiba’s response to those who would contend
they
‘
were too Poor to study
Torah
’, namely, ‘
Was not Rabbi Akiba very Poor and in straitened circumstances?
’
42

In both sets of tradition, John and the Synoptics, Jesus is pictured as saying something clever about his own coming death, specifically: ‘
The Poor you have with you always
,
but you will not always have me
.’ Of course, none of this can be taken as the least bit historical but rather as we have been showing, simply more rhetorical repartee playing off the matter of ‘
the precious ointments
’ and/or ‘
perfumes
’ and Jesus’ coming burial scenario, either meant for the anointment of his body or simply the antidote to noxious odours – to say nothing of the picture of the ‘
perfume box
’ of Nakdimon’s pampered daughter
Miriam
in the
Talmud
.

As John 12:7 sees these things, the exchange sets the stage for Jesus’ death, not only because of the comment he is po
r
trayed as making (echoed as well in Matthew 26:12/Mark 14:8): ‘
to leave her alone because she has kept it for the day of my burial
’; but also in John 12:10 because ‘
the Chief Priests
’ then ‘
plot together so they might also put Lazarus to death
’ because
many of the common Jews
– when ‘
seeing Lazarus
’ ‘
raised from the dead
’ – would ‘
believe on Jesus on account of him
’ (
thus
–12:9–11).

Not only do we have here the usual Pauline theological note, but this side comment appears so totally confused that, at first, it is impossible to decipher it. Not only does it draw on the
Judas Iscariot
materials in the Synoptics (note, for instance too, how in Matthew 26:4, introducing these materials – like John 12:10 above on its ‘
Lazarus
’ – it is ‘
the Chief Priests
’ and ‘
Elders of the People
’, who ‘
plot together in order that they might seize Jesus
’ and ‘
kill him
’!), but in normative theology it is because of Jesus’ resurrection not Lazarus’ that one is supposed to believe.

For Matthew 26:10–13 and Mark 14:7–10, anyhow, the whole presentation is framed – unlike in John, where the fram
e
work is rather that of
Judas Iscariot
’
s complaints about
‘
the Poor
’ –
within the context of the worldwide Gentile Mission
or, as both express this through the picture of their Jesus’ rejoinder to
his Disciples
on the ‘
good work
’ of the woman who
anointed his head
with ‘
the very precious ointment
’ while ‘
he reclined
’: ‘
Wherever this Gospel is preached throughout the whole world that which this woman did will also be spoken of as a memorial for her
.’
One should note here the Jamesian/Dead Sea Scroll emphasis on what ‘
this woman
did
’ or ‘
doing
’ – even the expressed allusion in Matthew 26:10/Mark 14:6 that ‘
she has done a good
work
towards me
’
– in three lines out of four in both these passages. This is to say nothing of the allusion to ‘
memorial
’ or ‘
remembrance
’ in Matthew 26:13/Mark 14:9, which we have already called attention to in the Damascus Document above. Nor is this to say anything about James’ words as reported by Paul in Galatians 2:10 to ‘
remember the Poor
’ which he says he ‘
was indeed most anxious to do
’ and which we shall have cause to elaborate more fully below – but now with quite another signification.
Moreover the ‘
good work
’, referred to now in both Matthew and Mark, is ‘
breaking the alabaster flask
’ and ‘
pou
r
ing
’ the ‘
very precious pure spikenard ointment’,
it contained, ‘
on his
(‘
Jesus
’’)
head
’ – not a ‘
work
’ of
the Law
.