James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (108 page)

With all of the above individuals and activity centered in Corinth, where according to Acts 18:7 Paul stays ‘
for eighteen months
’ at the house adjourning the synagogue of someone called ‘
Justus
’, as well as the designation, too, of ‘
Stephen
’ – clea
r
ly another of Paul’s close collaborators – as ‘
Achaia
’
s firstfruit
’ (all of this, to say nothing of ‘
Epaphroditus
’ presence at various times in Corinth as well), there would appear to be more going on in Corinth at this time than initially meets the eye. It should be appreciated that Corinth was Nero’s summer residence and he apparently spent a good deal of time there directing one of his pet projects – the digging of the Corinth Canal, for which purpose many of the captives from the shores of the Sea of Gal
i
lee at the time of the first engagements of the Jewish War
were consigned and worked to death
.
11

For instance, if this ‘
Epaphroditus
’ was Nero’s confidant (here, too, it would be hard to conceive there would be two Epaphrodituses involved in some capacity in the household of Nero at one and the same time), then he was Josephus’ pu
b
lisher as well and the man to whom he dedicated all his works. Josephus even refers to him as someone of ‘
the widest worldly experience
’.
12
Acts 19:22 also refers to one ‘
Erastus
’, one of Paul’s fundraisers in Macedonia. 2 Timothy 4:20, regardless of its historical reliability, refers to
Erastus
as remaining in Corinth which, as should by now be clear, seems to have been a center of Paul’s activities ‘
in Achaia
’. Romans 16:23 for its part calls Erastus ‘
the steward of the city
’, probably meaning Corinth. It is not without the realm of possibility that this ‘
Erastus
’ is a compression of ‘
Epaphroditus
’, as consolidations of this kind are common – for instance, ‘
Prisca
’ preceding the reference to ‘
Erastus
’ in 2 Timothy 4:19 for ‘
Priscilla
’, ‘
Silas
’ for ‘
Silvanus
’, and even possibly ‘
Titus
’ for ‘
Timothy
’. However one looks at it, these are obviously not all separate individuals and the circle of Paul’s close collaborators grows ever more concentrated.

If the stoning of ‘
Stephen
’ in Acts is still one more refurbishment of the ‘
beating
’ by Revolutionaries or ‘
bandits
’ (
lestai
) of
the Emperor
’
s Servant Stephen
just outside the walls of Jerusalem in the wake of the stampede in the Temple at Passover in which ‘
hundreds
’ or ‘
thousands
’ died
13
then we are in very great and potentially very tragic difficulties regarding ‘
Christian
’ or
i
gins in Palestine.

As already stated, in the author’s view the ‘
Stephen
’ in Acts is precisely just such a refurbishment and, when combined with the picture of James’ later stoning ‘
for blasphemy
’ (now retrospectively inserted into the ‘
Stephen
’ story), then the flow of Acts’ narrative along with much else becomes comprehensible indeed. While fictional in almost all its aspects, the presentation in Acts 6:1–5 of this archetypical Pauline ‘
convert
’ as one of those ‘
seven men
’ to ‘
serve tables
’ (
diakonein
) nevertheless co
m
bines, on the one hand, the bitterness generated by these events from a pro-Roman perspective and, on the other, elements from both the unmentionable attack by Paul on James (deleted even from the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
) as well as the attack by riotous and revolutionary Jews bent on vengeance and carnage on the Emperor’s
Servant
Stephen who seems to have come bearing treasure and supplies from
precisely this same ‘Corinth
’ (and note, too, the use of this same designation, ‘
Servant
’
14
).

The sequencing in these matters is an important key to understanding their connections. In Josephus, the attack and ro
b
bing of Stephen was followed by outbreaks of mayhem between Samaritans and Galileans on their way through
Samaria
to pilgrimages in Jerusalem, paralleled in Acts 8:4–25 by confrontations between Peter and Simon
Magus
in
Samaria
(according to the Pseudoclementines, confrontations which actually
took place in Caesarea
).
15
In Josephus, too, much inter-communal strife and killing break out in Caesarea between Greeks (‘
Syrophoenician
’s in Matthew) and Jews, the counterpart of which in Acts is this picture – however far-fetched it might at first appear – in this ‘
Stephen
’ episode of
the squabbling between
‘
Hellenists
’
and
‘
Hebrews
’ (6:1.).
From then on, as Josephus portrays it, ‘
the whole of Judea was overrun with brigands or robbers
’ (
lestai
).
16

The Roman Procurator from 48–52 CE in Judea, Cumanus, responds by
taking bribes from and siding with the Samar
i
tans
.
17
Because of the protests he receives, Quadratus, the Governor in Syria responsible for this area – then at Beirut – settles the issue by beheading some eighteen Jews and
crucifying four others at Lydda
. Thus far the
War
but, in the
Antiquities
, Jos
e
phus claims
only five were executed
,
including the
‘
Doetus
’ or ‘
Dorcas
’ mentioned previously. Furthermore, whereas he i
n
cludes ‘
Samaritans
’ in this number, Tacitus says only
Jews
were crucified who had been
‘
daring enough to slay Roman so
l
diers
’!
18

Lydda, it will be recalled, was the town on the coastal plain on the way from Jerusalem to both Jaffa and Gaza. Not only do some really fantastic occurrences take place there in the narrative of Acts 9:32–43 at this point, but we have also encou
n
tered this town in Rabbinic tradition as a focus for the activities, for instance, of teachers such as the heretic Rabbi, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus.
But the
Talmud
also mentions at this same
Lydda
the crucifixion of an important
Messianic
Leader called ‘
the Me
s
siah ben Joseph
’ not only, perhaps, another of these ‘
Joshua
redivivus
es’ (‘
Joshua
’ being in the Bible a ‘
son of Joseph
’), but b
e
cause of the ‘
Joseph
’ allusion too – as already explained, possibly the Samaritan ‘
Taheb
’ or ‘
Messiah
’ as well. Even more i
m
portantly, one of the individuals mentioned at this point in Josephus’ narrative in connection with problems between Jews and Samaritans at
Lydda
was the ‘
Doetus
’ or ‘
Dortus
’ just mentioned above.
19
Transmogrified into ‘
Dorcas
’, just as ‘
the
Taheb
’ is transmogrified into ‘
Tabitha
’ (‘
his
’/‘
her
’ equivalent
20
), this ‘
Dortus
’ or ‘
Dorcas
’ then becomes an important part of Acts’ story about the ‘
signs and wonders
’ or ‘
miracles
’ Peter performed at
Lydda
, leading up to his ‘
tablecloth
’ vision.

Concerning these crucifixions at
Lydda
, Josephus also refers to the involvement of another ‘
certain Samaritan
’, an infor
m
er to Quadratus, possibly
Simon Magus again
. He, it will be recalled, was probably also an intimate of Felix (52–60
CE
), the next Governor sent out after Cumanus was removed.
The ‘
Doetus
’ or ‘
Dortus
’ we have been talking about here is probably the ‘
Dositheus
’, who was important as a ‘
Disciple of John the Baptist
’ in all catalogues of the ‘
Heresies
’ in this period, with views
virtually indistinguishable from the Ebionites
. In turn Acts 8:32–38, for its part, mentions
Lydda
some three times in just six verses in this episode, so something of consequence seems to have been going on there, although what exactly is u
n
clear.

In Acts the assault on Stephen is followed by
confrontations in Samaria between Peter and Simon Magus
, the affinities with Josephus being palpable – however, as always, reversed. But, where ‘
Hellenist
’
complaints against
‘
the Hebrews
’ in Acts 6:1–6 and – following these –
against Paul
in Acts 9:29 are concerned, these are also obviously totally invented. As previously suggested, surely we have to do with more overwriting here and complaints of this kind against Paul and like-minded perso
n
ages must rather have been on the part of so-called ‘
Zealots
’ or ‘
Sicarii
’ not ‘
Hellenists
’.

For the Pseudoclementines, in conclusion then, the whole presentation of ‘
the stoning of Stephen
’ is replaced by
the a
s
sault on James in the Temple by Paul
,
who incites
‘
the High Priests
’
against James not ‘Stephen
’. In fact, the whole series of disturbances in the Temple from the Forties to the Sixties
CE
will probably have to be associated with the kind of activities James and his followers were involved in there, the majority of whom, even according to the description of Acts 21:20, have to be seen as ‘
Zealots for the Law
’.

Paul’s Missionary Adventures and the Run-up to ‘
the Jerusalem Council
’

The next meeting between Paul and James may have taken place during the time of ‘
the Great Famine
’ in the late Forties but, where this is concerned, Acts’ testimony cannot really be relied upon because in Chapters 10–16 we are presented with such a welter of contradictory notices, fantastic events, and overlaps that little, if anything, can be concluded with certainty.

To continue on the question of sequencing – Acts, having finished its account of Peter’s activities in Samaria in confron
t
ing Simon
Magus
, moves on to the journey Peter takes to Jaffa and Caesarea and his ‘
Heavenly tablecloth
’ vision (10:45). Then there are a series of repetitive notices about
‘
prophets and teachers
’
coming down
‘
from Jerusalem to Antioch
’. The first of these follows the so-called ‘
scattering
’ that took place, supposedly ‘
to Phoenicia
,
Cyprus
,
and Antioch
’, after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 11:19 – in the Pseudoclementines paralleled simply by the flight by James’ Community to the Jericho area.
21
Again we hear that ‘
certain ones of them
,
men from Cyprus and Cyrene
’,
came down
and ‘
preached the Gospel
’
to the
‘
He
l
lenists
’, now supposedly
residing in
Antioch (11:20) – here, too, one should probably rather read ‘
Zealots
’.