James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (126 page)

Some of these Talmudic references to this peculiar fact of the Sanhedrin changing its residence to a place outside the Temple called ‘
Hanut
’ specifically emphasize that the Sanhedrin’s ‘
Exile
’ (
Galut
) during this period from its original home in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount was widely known. But the reference in Tractate
Rosh ha-Shanah
is to six such ‘
Exiles
’ or ‘
Banishments
’, and the actual word used is that ‘
Galut
’ being used in Column XI.4–6 of the Habakkuk
Pesher
to describe how the Wicked Priest ‘
swallowed the Righteous Teacher
’.
42
This kind of ‘
Exile
’ was ‘
the Exile
’ or ‘
Banishment of the Sanhedrin from the Temple
’ during the period in question, namely, from approximately 30–70
CE
. The point being made in the enumeration of these is that these kinds of ‘
Exiles
’ also presaged
the departure of the Divine Presence from the Temple
, echoing a similar causality
between the death of James and the fall of Jerusalem
in early Church sources.

The same language is repeated in Tractate
Sanhedrin
, where the subject under discussion is the number of witnesses r
e
quired for conviction in capital cases and procedures for acquittal in close votes. We have already had occasion to refer to this Tractate both as regards ‘
the Enemies of God
’ who would have no share in the ‘
world to come
’, and as it threw light on the stoning of James, particularly as recorded at Nag Hammadi.
Again the tradition of the Sanhedrin’s ‘
Exile
’ to its place-of-sitting in ‘
Hanut
’ in the years just prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE is repeated. But the focus of the discussion co
n
cerns the permission or non-permission to try capital cases in such a setting – the polemical conclusion being that
outside the Chamber of Hewn Stone such permission was withdrawn
and
sentences of this kind in such an exterior setting were illegal
.
43
This is a conclusion fraught with significance where the Sanhedrin proceedings ‘
pursued
’ against James (to say nothing of others) are concerned.

Therefore, we now have extremely telling testimony that in the Period in which we would place the documents before us, the middle of the First Century
CE
, the word ‘
Exile
’ is being
specifically applied to Sanhedrin proceedings having to do with the death penalty involving blasphemy
. In our view, it is not possible to find stronger proof relating to the exposition of this obscure expression, ‘
a-Beit-Galuto
’, than this; but, in addition, the actual formulation one finds in more of these testimonies, aside from ‘
Galut
’/‘
Exile
’, is ‘
galtah min ha-Bayit
’, meaning ‘
exiled from the House
’ – ‘
House
’, in this instance, being the manner in which ‘
the Temple
’ is often referred to in Hebrew. This is the phraseology used in these notices about ‘
the Exile
’ of the Sanhedrin from its former place-of-sitting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount to a location outside these precincts in the
Talmud
and the way this is formulated – only slightly reversed from the expression ‘
Beit-Galuto
’/‘
His House of Exile
’ in the Habakkuk
Pesher
– makes it look as if those writing the
Pesher
were familiar with the fact that the Sanhedrin was, in fact, ‘
exiled
’
from the Temple Mount to a place called
Hanut
in the period just prior to the War against Rome and Jerusalem’s fall. Furthermore, in our view – and connected to this –
they were aware of the judicial proceedings being
‘
pursued
’
against James
.

Once more our case is demonstrated, at least on this point, and we have come full circle. The phrase ‘
Sanhedrin Trial
’, as well as its reflection in
the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus
at ‘
the Palace
’ or ‘
House of the High Priest
’ in the Gospels, now fits this otherwise totally obscure usage, ‘
a-Beit-Galuto
’, in 1QpHab XI.6. In the latter, as now forcefully emphasized, this comes at a key juncture focusing on
the destruction of the Righteous Teacher by the Wicked Priest
– itself preceding
both his own destruction and the fall of the Temple
, also alluded to in Columns Nine, Eleven, and Twelve of the
Pesher
.
44

It is reference to the few known facts of James’ life and his death, such as they are, that allow us to approach these sha
d
owy allusions. This meets two criteria: 1) it expounds material we would not otherwise be able to understand; and 2) it leads to new, hitherto unsuspected, insights not explainable by any other theory. Once again, the point is that by consulting the bio
g
raphy of James we are able to elicit additional meaning out of otherwise obscure usages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that have been a continual puzzle to scholars. For what most have made out of these without benefit of the James hypothesis, one has only to consult their works – that of any of my colleagues will do. This is powerful verification of the applicability of the positions we are adopting indeed.

‘
Seeing their Privy Parts
’ and ‘
Seeing their Festivals
’

But it is possible to reach even further still and, using the James hypothesis, elicit more from the text.
This cannot be done with any other hypothesis
. As it turns out, there are
transmutations of words
in this text, not only in this interpretation but in the two that follow. There is a second part of the
Pesher
on Habakkuk 2:15 which turns on the allusion in the underlying text to ‘
looking upon their festivals
’.
45
Not only is this interpreted in terms of confrontations between the Righteous Teacher and the Wicked Priest but, once again the imagery of ‘
swallowing
’ is introduced into the
Pesher
and the exposition expressed in terms of this imagery.

The problem is that in the text of Habakkuk in both the
Masoretic
(Hebrew) and
Septuagint
(Greek) versions, the phrase ‘
looking upon their festivals
’ (
mo
‘
adeihem
) does not exist, but rather it reads ‘
looking on their privy parts
’ (
me
‘
oreihem
) and a ‘
dalet
’ has been substituted for a ‘
resh
’ in the Qumran text. Since the
Pesher
, when speaking about ‘
the Cup of the Wrath of God shall swallow
(
the Wicked Priest
)’ at the end of Column XI.15, in XI.13 will also speak about the Wicked Priest’s ‘
foreskin
’, as we have seen,
i
.
e
., ‘
he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart
’, we can only assume that the transmutation in the underlying text from Habakkuk 2:15 was purposeful and those at Qumran knew the original of this passage.

But this also triggers a transmutation in the underlying text of Habakkuk 2:16, where the received
Masoretic
and
Vulgate
read, ‘
Uncover your foreskin
’ (
he-
‘
arel
), but which here in 1QpHab XI.9 and in the Greek
Septuagint
read ‘
make tremble
’ (
h
e
ra
‘
el
). But the sense of the Masoretic original and of the preceding ‘
privy parts
’ from 2:15 is again, then, recovered in the
Pesher
which interprets this in terms of the Wicked Priest ‘
not circumcising the foreskin
(
‘
orlah
)
of his heart
’.
46
Besides the play on the word ‘
Ra
‘
al
’ (‘
Poison
’) in CD VIII/XIX, etc., one should remark the curious parallel that exists regarding this in Galatians 2:4, where Paul basically uses this ‘
looking on their privy parts
’ charge to accuse some in the Jerusalem Church Leadership of ‘
coming in by stealth to spy on
’
the freedom
he and his colleagues ‘
enjoy in Christ Jesus
’, meaning
their circumcision
or
lack of it
, and adding, ‘
so that they might enslave us
’. What an incredible turnabout. The point is, is it intentional?

In our view, the
Pesher
is also involved in at least two other transmutations or word-plays in this section: ‘
Chos
’ (‘Cup’) from ‘
Cha
‘
as
’ (‘
Wrath
’) in the underlying text – also related to Isaiah 51:21’s ‘
Chos ha-Tar
‘
elah
/‘
the Cup of Trembling
’, now e
x
pressed as ‘
Chos Hamato
’/‘
the Cup of the Wrath of God
’ and ‘
Hemah
’/‘
Hotness
’ or ‘
Anger
’ and ‘
Hanut
’, the putative venue in the early 60s of James’ illegal trial for blasphemy. The first three or four of these transmutations or plays are indisputable – the last, ‘
Hamat
’ for ‘
Hanut
’, will remain a matter of opinion. In view of the transmutations in the rest of the
Pesher
it is not far-fetched.

The
Pesher
’s transformed version of this all-important text from Habakkuk 2:15 then reads as follows: ‘
Woe unto the one who causes his neighbor to drink
,
pouring out his Fury
(‘
Hamato
’, which can also mean ‘
dregs
’)
to make them drunk
,
that he may look upon their Festivals
(‘
mo
‘
adeihem
’ in place of ‘
me
‘
oreihem
’).’
To some extent, the first part of the exposition of this pa
s
sage, which we have treated in the foregoing, plays and will play further on the allusions in the underlying text to ‘
giving one
’
s neighbor drink
’, ‘
pouring out the dregs
’ (this, the ‘
hamato
’ in the underlying text), and ‘
drunkenness
’.

The second part will now be interpreted in terms of additional confrontations connected to
Yom Kippur
, called in the
Pesher
‘
the Festival of Repose of the Day of Atonements
’, ‘
the Day of Fasting
’, and ‘
the Sabbath of their Repose
’.
47
This last would appear to be reflected in or to incorporate something of the thrust of John 19:31 about not leaving the condemned on crosses ‘
into the Sabbath
’, ‘
for that Sabbath was a Great Day
’ – here again, the double use of ‘
Sabbath
’, since ‘
the Festival of Repose
’ can be translated in Greek as ‘
the Sabbath
’. Moreover, ‘
Great Day
’ is clearly a reference to ‘
Festival
’ – only in John, the ‘
Festival
’ is the Passover whereas, in the Habakkuk
Pesher
, it is ‘
the Day of Atonements
’ (
thus
!).