James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (114 page)

The words used here are that ‘
he
(
the Wicked Priest
)
plotted to destroy the Poor
’. This basically reprises the language of Psalm 37:12–14, though neither ‘
conspiring
’ nor ‘
the Poor
’ appear at this point in the underlying Biblical text of Habakkuk 2:17 exploited to produce the
Pesher
. Nevertheless, ‘
destruction
’ does, since ‘
the dumb beasts
’ – interpreted to mean ‘
the Si
m
ple of Judah doing
Torah
’ – are the ones ‘
he is conspiring to destroy
’.

This exposition precedes the last several allusions to ‘
the Day of Judgement
’ being called down upon ‘
idol-worshipping
’ ‘
Gentiles
,
serving stone and wood
’, and what would appear to be the same Jewish backsliders – in the Psalm 37
Pesher
e
x
pressed as ‘
the Evil Ones among His own People
’.
59
Again, this is what we meant by saying the documents are homogeneous and the same terms move from document to document,
Pesher
to
Pesher
– the same allusions – in fact, overlapping and co
m
plementing one another.

In this
Pesher
on Habakkuk 2:16–17,
Jerusalem
is denoted as ‘
the City
’, ‘
where the Wicked Priest committed works of Abominations
,
polluting the Temple of God
’, more excellent examples of our constantly recurring vocabulary and immediately recognizable as the same accusation in the Damascus Document aimed at the Jerusalem Establishment and the third of the ‘
Three Nets of
Belial
’. Nor is this to say anything about the allusion to ‘
Abominations
’ in Ezekiel 4:6–7, the basis of these, about ‘
breaking
(
the
)
Covenant
’ by ‘
bringing foreigners
,
uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh into
(
the
)
Temple to pollute it
’. In these accusations, it was not observing proper ‘
separation but sleeping with women in their periods
’ or, as we have explained, approaching or associating with people who did – namely,
Herodians and other
foreigners
. One good example of this association was accepting appointment to the High Priesthood from them, to say nothing of the ever-recurring theme of accepting their polluted gifts and sacrifices in the Temple.

In this exposition of the Habakkuk
Pesher
too, ‘
the Cities of Judah
’ are identified as the locale ‘
where
(
the Wicked Priest
)
robbed the Riches (
or ‘
the sustenance
’)
of the Poor
’. We have already shown the connection of this notice and its compl
e
ments in the Damascus Document to the two notices in Josephus’
Antiquities
, one just preceding and the other just following the death of James – and reflected in the
Talmud
too – about how the High Priests sent their violent associates to the thres
h
ing floors to rob the ‘
Poorer
’ priests of their sustenance so they died of want.
60

The word used here to describe what the Wicked Priest did, harking back to ‘
the destruction of the dumb beasts
’ (that is, ‘
the Simple of Judah doing
Torah
’) and, ‘
the violence done to Lebanon
’ (‘
Lebanon
’ interpreted in the commentary, because of the root-meaning of the underlying syllable ‘
lavan
’ or ‘
whiteness
’, to mean ‘
the Council of the Community
’ – this harking back to the ‘
white linen
’ its members presumably wore and also possibly the symbolism in 1QS VIII.5–11 and IX.3–6 of ‘
the Community Council
’ as ‘
Temple
’) is not simply ‘
swallowed
’ or ‘
consumed
’, but it
actually is
‘
destroyed
’. It is for this God would ‘
pay him the reward he paid the Poor
’ of the Psalm 37
Pesher
and Isaiah 3:10–11 and ‘
the Cup of the Wrath of God would swallow him
’, meaning ‘
God would condemn him to destruction
’ as well.

This, in fact, parallels the usage of how the Wicked Priest, ‘
who did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart
’, ‘
swallowed
’ the Righteous Teacher ‘
with
’ or ‘
at his House of Exile
’, which we will interpret in terms of the Sanhedrin Trial of James.
61
Here ‘
swallowing
’ really does mean ‘
destroy
’. We referred to this ‘
swallowing
’, too, in our discussion of the constant reiteration of James ‘
falling
’ or ‘
being cast down
’ in all early Church accounts in Greek of James’ destruction. Moreover, we also showed how the Hebrew of this usage was connected with ‘
Devilishness
’/‘
Belial
’/or ‘
Balaam
’, and the same regarding its homophone in Greek, ‘
ballo
’ or ‘
cast down
’ with ‘
Diabolos
’.

Ananus ben Ananus

Josephus tells us that the High Priest, Ananus ben Ananus, was appointed by Agrippa II and convened the Sanhedrin that destroyed James. Ananus’ brother Jonathan had been assassinated in the mid-Fifties by those whom Josephus had just started to call ‘
Sicarii
’ – and this probably because of this assassination – one of the main incidents setting in motion the succession of occurrences that ended up in James’ death and the Uprising against Rome. Ananus seems to have been sent to Rome at the end of the previous decade in the Roman Governor Cumanus’ time (48–52 CE), along with Helcias the Temple Treasurer and possibly Jonathan his brother, after the beating of the Emperor’s Servant
Stephen
and the Messianic disturbances between Samaritans and Jews in 49 CE which resulted in the crucifixions outside Lydda.
62

In Rome, Ananus was kept as a hostage because Nero and his wife Poppea seemed to be looking for bribes, that is, until Agrippa II intervened to free him – an altogether more convincing story than the one Acts 24:27 presents regarding the rel
a
tions of Felix and Paul. Here, the close relationship developed between Ananus and Agrippa II that seems ultimately to have resulted in
the conspiracy
to remove James – this probably had its roots in ‘
the Temple Wall Affair
’ which was erected to block Agrippa II’s view of the sacrifices in the Temple.

Josephus gives further details that explain, in the words of the Habakkuk
Pesher
, how he could have been ‘
called by the name of Truth at the beginning of his Office
,
but when he ruled in Israel
,
his heart became puffed up and he forsook God and betrayed the Laws for the sake of Riches’
.
63
Not only is this fairly vivid, but it is directly followed by the description of how
he ‘stole Riches and collected the Riches of the Men of Violence
,
who rebelled against God
.
And he took the Riches of the Pe
o
ples
,
thereby further heaping upon himself guilty sinfulness
.’
64
‘
Riches
’, of course, was the second of the Damascus Doc
u
ment’s ‘
Three Nets of
Belial
’
and widely condemned both in the Letter of James and elsewhere at Qumran, so once again we have consistency here.

Consensus Qumran scholarship attempts to see in this description one or another of the Maccabean High Priests (mostly Alexander Jannaeus), and ‘
the Righteous Teacher
’, therefore, some unknown individual in the First Century
BCE
opposed to Alexander. But there is no indication
that any Maccabean ever took anyone else’s ‘
Riches
’ and ‘
polluted the Temple
’ with them, nor ‘
profiteered
’ in any manner from the predatory activities of ‘
Violent
’ persons such as the Herodians and their a
c
complices, nor were they ever pictured as being particularly ‘
Rich
’, though this accusation can be used against any Ruling Class at any time or place. On the other hand, in these passages having to do with Paul and James, we have a clear ambiance of one side opposing
Gentile
gifts in the Temple
(including those by
Herodians
) and the other side accepting them.

For his part, Ananus ‘
ruled Israel
’ on two separate occasions: the first when he destroyed James in 62
CE
, and the second during the early stages of the Uprising between 66–68
CE
before the final siege of Jerusalem began. Before he and his assoc
i
ates were exterminated by
the
‘
Violent
’
Idumaeans
, whom ‘
the Zealots
’ called in when the Revolt moved into what could be referred to as its more ‘
Jacobin
’ phase, he did ‘
rule
’ in Israel in virtually an absolute manner. Having said this,
all
High Priests can be said to have ‘
ruled Israel
’ and this is the actual thrust of Paul’s allusion, quoted in Acts 23:5, to
Ananus
’
alter ego
, ‘
An
a
nias
’.

As we have been attempting to point out, despite this ambiguous reference to ‘
ruling in Israel
’, almost all the internal all
u
sions in these very important
Pesharim
and related documents such as CD gainsay this identification on the part of ‘
Consensus
’ Scholars of
‘the Wicked Priest
’ with one or another of the Maccabeans. This is particularly true when one takes into consider
a
tion the militant and uncompromising character of his antagonist, ‘
the Righteous Teacher
’, which rather accords with the ethos of the Maccabeans, particularly Judas Maccabee – ‘
Judas the Hammerer
’ as he was surnamed – and Alexander Jannaeus, his grand nephew, not to mention his great grand nephew, Aristobulus II, who came into conflict with his brother Hyrcanus II.

The latter, it will be recalled, was supported by the newly-emerging Pharisee Party, the accommodators
par excellence
, whose willingness to bow to Roman hegemony finally brought the Romans into the country. Ananus’ own father had held the High Priesthood from 10–18
CE
, a murky period not covered to any extent in Josephus. This is the period in which, according to the allegedly ‘
spurious Acts
’ being circulated in Pontius Pilate’s name – therefore called the
Acti Pilati
– and mentioned by E
u
sebius, the
real
Jesus may have died, that is, if we can speak in any really historical way about this death and the events su
r
rounding it.
65
Ananus the Elder is pictured in John’s version of events as participating in the interim examination of Jesus, b
e
fore he was turned over to Pilate for more secular examination. This episode mainly focuses on how Peter denied he was J
e
sus’ ‘
Disciple
’ three times (John 18:13–24). This is paralleled in the Synoptics by an improbable midnight meeting, called on Passover evening by Caiaphas at ‘
the High Priest
’
s House
’ (Luke 22:54 and
pars
.) and
consisting of High Priests, Elders, and Sanhedrin
. Caiaphas was Ananus’ son-in-law and, therefore, the brother-in-law of James’ judicial executioner Ananus ben Ananus.