James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (97 page)

Contrary-wise, regarding Epiphanius’ contention that James ‘
spoke against the Temple and the sacrifices
’, there
is
som
e
thing to say. Though it is impossible to reconcile it with the material about James from earlier sources like Hegesippus and Josephus, who taken together place him in the Temple
on a daily basis
for the better part of twenty years, or the very solid testimony in the ‘
We Document
’ section of Acts where James sends Paul into the Temple to take upon himself
a Nazirite oath of some kind
, nevertheless, with the slightest shift in phraseology and signification, it is possible to fit the attitude reported by Epiphanius, himself originally an Ebionite, fairly easily into the situation in Jerusalem in this period and what we know about James generally, to say nothing of the so-called ‘
Teacher of Righteousness
’ at Qumran.

For example, we just saw that in Acts that James imposes this
temporary Nazirite
-style penance on Paul – a penance some commentators view as ‘
a set-up
’
9
– to show that ‘
there is nothing to all
’ the rumors people ‘
have been informed concerning you
,
but you yourself still walk undeviatingly
,
keeping the Law’ (Acts 21:24)
.
The relevant point in all these matters, as we have been emphasizing, is the
hostility to foreigners
, vividly evinced even in Acts’ description of the riot that follows by the Jewish crowd. As Acts 21:24–28 portrays this – in contrast to earlier portrayals, in our view, now fairly accurately – ‘
Jews coming from Asia
’, ‘
saw him
(Paul)
in the Temple and stirred up all the crowd
’, a picture retrospectively incorporated into the Gospels about events circulating around Jesus’ death but with, as usual, more historical plausibility where Paul is concerned.

Acts 21:29 even even feels obliged to add, by way of explanation to gainsay this:
‘
For they had earlier seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city and supposed Paul had brought him into the Temple
.’
So we also now have here in this picture
the ban on introducing foreigners
or
non-Jews
– according to many extremists including even
Herodians
–
into the Temple
that so much exercised this period.
‘
Laying hands on him
’, these now cry out: ‘
Men
,
Israelites
,
help
!
This is the man who teaches everyone
,
everywhere against the People
,
against the Law
,
and against this Place
,
and now he has brought Greeks into the Temple and polluted this Holy Place
!’
There can be little doubt that here we have, anyway, the ‘
pollution of the Temple
’ from ‘
the Three Nets of
Belial
’ charges and in this context, at least, we know the reasons why. One could go even further and observe that what Paul is doing here is acting as ‘
a stalking horse
’ for the Herodian family, testing the ban mentioned in Jos
e
phus on some of its principal members, such as Agrippa II and Bernice, in the Temple.

However this may be, thereupon he is unceremoniously ejected and ‘
the doors closed
’ or ‘
barred
’
behind him
. The words Acts 21:30 uses at this point to describe what happened, ‘
they dragged Paul outside the Temple
and
immediately shut the doors
’, have an odd resonance with and parallel the phraseology used in the Damascus Document concerning those ‘
who have been brought
’
into
‘
the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus
’, ‘
who dug the well with staves
’ – the ‘
staves
’ here (‘
hukkim
’ in Hebrew) being a double entendre based on Numbers 21:18 meaning ‘
the Laws
’ (also ‘
hukkim
’), which ‘
the Staff
’/‘
Mehokkek
’ or ‘
Legislator
’
decreed
(
hakak
), complexities to which we shall return in due course.
10
Initiants such as these are, then, advised ‘
not to enter the Temple to kindle its altar in vain
’ – rather ‘
they are to be
(as in Acts 21:30 just quoted above)
Barrers of the Door
’, that is, to persons like Paul and his companions. At this point, the Damascus Document goes on to quote Malachi 1:10: ‘
Who among you will not shut its door
(meaning ‘
of the Temple
’)
and not kindle useless fires on My altar
?’ – the implication being, ‘
fires
’ like the ‘
useless fires
’ of the corrupt Herodian Priesthood. To put this in another way, if you are going to light the fires of sacrifice in the Temple, then you must abjure the consonant ‘
pollution of the Temple
’ referred to in ‘
the Three Nets
of
Belial
’ charges just preceding this citation. But this is precisely the teaching ascribed to James in the testimony Epiphanius e
x
cerpted from the
Anabathmoi
delineating how James
complained against lighting the useless
‘
fires on My altar
’ – yet again, further co
n
solidating the ‘
Jamesian
’ character of the Damascus Document as it has been unfolding to us so far.
11

The Damascus Document then moves on to evoke the idea of ‘
keeping
’ or ‘
being Keepers
’ (
of the
Torah
or
the Law
– in Paul above, ‘
of the Mysteries
’) and to recommend the
Jamesian
‘
d
oing
according to the precise letter of the
Torah
in the Age of Wickedness and to
separate
from the Sons of the Pit and
keep away
from
polluted
Evil Riches acquired by vow or ban and
(
keep away
)
from the Riches of the Temple’
.
12
Here, not only are we speaking of exactly the same kind of contributions connected to the ‘
vows
’ or ‘
bans
’ that Acts 21:23 is speaking about in the matter of Paul’s sacrifice expenses and his unceremonious ejection from the Temple, but the actual phrase used to express this, ‘
keeping away from
’ (
lehinnazer
/‘
to be set aside
’, in Hebrew), is based on the same root, as we have seen, as the term ‘
Nazirite
’ and plays on the
real versions of such activity
as exemplified by the Community itself. Nor can there be very much doubt as to what is being said here.

This is immediately followed too by allusion to ‘
robbing the Poor of His
People
’, which echoes the notices found in Jos
e
phus about the High Priests ‘
robbing the tithes of the Poor Priests
’ in the picture he gives of the run-up in Book Twenty of the
Antiquities
to
the stoning of James
and
the War against Rome
.
13
The same accusation will form part of the accusations against the Priestly Establishment in the Habakkuk
Pesher
’s lengthy scenario of the destruction of the character it knows as ‘
the Righteous Teacher
’.
14
As also already alluded to, the verb based on this ‘
Nazirite
’ root actually appears twice more in as many columns of the Damascus Document. This first evocation is immediately followed by reference to ‘
the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus
’ and citation of the ‘
Jamesian
’ Royal Law according to the Scripture, ‘
to love
,
each man
,
his brother as hi
m
self
’.
15
This is accompanied by the admonition
to
‘
separate between polluted and pure
’, ‘
Holy and profane
’.

In the Damascus Document this is followed by a warning ‘
to
keep away
from fornication
’, expressed by the verb ‘
lehazzir
’, again from the same root as ‘
Nazirite
’.
16
It should be clear that these are the exact words of the prohibition, as it is expressed in James’ directives to overseas communities – once in the context of James’ final words to Paul in Jerusalem in Acts 21:20–25, ending with the penance James puts upon him involving ‘
Nazirite
’ oath expenses and procedures.

One final use of the expression in the Damascus Document occurs at the beginning of the next Column (CD VIII) amid allusion to ‘
wallowing in the Ways of fornication and Evil Riches
’ and ‘
each man bearing malice against
’ and ‘
hating his brot
h
er
’ – the opposite, to be sure, of ‘
each man loving his brother as himself
’ earlier and in the Letter of James.
17
Here the co
n
demnation of ‘
Riches
’ – as in the Letter of James 5:1–6 as well – is extreme; but, in addition, each man is said to have ‘
a
p
proached the flesh of his own flesh for fornication
’ (again, the ‘
niece marriage
’ and ‘
marriage with close cousins
’ charges of ‘
the Three Nets of
Belial
’ accusations, the latter even perhaps including the ‘
incest
’ one as well),
18
‘
using their power for the sake of Riches and profiteering
,
each doing what was right in his own eyes and each choosing the stubbornness of his own heart
,
for they did not
keep apart from
(
nazru
)
the People and sinned publicly’
.
19
A better description of the Herodian Establis
h
ment could not be imagined.

This now ends with direct evocation of ‘
the Kings of the Peoples
’, a term in Roman jurisprudence used to describe
petty kings in the Eastern part of the Empire
, mostly ‘
Greek-speaking
’ like the Herodians.
20
This is where ‘
the Head
(
rosh
)
of the Kings of Greece
’ or ‘
Greek-speaking Kings
’ that is also part of the exegesis that follows will – as we shall see – come into play.
21
In the Western part of the Empire, integration with the Roman polity generally was more widespread. Identified with Deuteronomy 33:32’s ‘
serpents
’ – another term with parallels that are almost proverbial in the Gospels
22
– and playing on the double entendre in Hebrew, ‘
their venom
’ (‘
rosh
’ as well –
yayin
/‘
wine
’ and
Yavan
/‘
Greece
’ forming another such couplet) is identified as ‘
the wine of their Ways
’ – the implication being, ‘
Hellenizing
’.
In addition, the Lying visions of ‘
the Lying Spouter
…
who walked in the Spirit
’ – a third double entendre based on Micah 2:11, ‘
wind
’ and ‘
Spirit
’ in Hebrew likewise being ho
m
onyms – is then also directly evoked.
23