James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (137 page)

Where Paul’s Herodian affiliations and, therefore, part and parcel of the ‘
Belial
’/‘
balla
‘
’ terminology are concerned, in Acts 23:35 he stays in Agrippa II’s Palace in Caesarea and converses with him and his sisters in a kind of quasi-protective custody – not to mention the Roman Procurator Felix – with easygoing congeniality for, apparently,
more than two years while they pr
o
tect him from Temple
‘
Zealots
’ and ‘
Nazirite oath
’-
taking would-be Assassins
(‘
Sicarii
’?). Finally they pack him off to Rome where he again appears to flourish under another kind of loose house arrest (Acts 28:30–31). In addition, there is the reference he makes in Romans 16:11 to his ‘
kinsman Herodion
’/‘
his kinsman
,
the Littlest Herod
’. We take this to be the son of that Aristobulus, the son of Herod of Chalcis Agrippa I’s brother, who was married to the Salome involved in John the Baptist’s death – probably mentioned under the heading ‘
all those of the household of Aristobulus
’ in Romans 16:10 as well.

This nicely explains Paul’s easy access to Temple Authorities (according to Acts) as a comparatively young man, since the aunt of the ‘
Saulos
’ he so much resembles was married to the Temple Treasurer Helcias,
49
as well as why the High Priest would give him letters to arrest so-called ‘
Christians
’ (by Acts 11:26’s own testimony, the name wasn’t even in use at this time until a decade or so later in Northern Syria!),
i
.
e
., extreme ‘
Zealots
’ or ‘
Sicarii
’, and what he was doing in Damascus around 36–37 CE. There he was probably in the service of Herod Antipas, the individual responsible, along with Agrippa I’s and Herod of Chalcis’ sister Herodias, for the death of John the Baptist and, by his own testimony, in 2 Corinthians 11:33, he was ‘
let down its walls in a basket
’ and had to flee the soldiers of the Arab King
Aretas
with whom
Antipas
was at war.

All of this would, of course, be most understandable if Paul (‘
Saulos
’?) gave the Authorities the information they needed to identify James as the center of agitation against them, Gentile gifts and sacrifices in the Temple generally, and related issues and to remove him at the first opportunity. Therefore the ‘
balla
‘
’/‘
swallowing
’ imagery one comes upon at this point in the Habakkuk
Pesher
– in our view, relating to
Herodians
– which would be even more comprehensible if James were seen as the center of agitation against them in the Temple, in particular,
wishing to bar said Herodians
from the Temple as foreigners
.

Therefore too, the penance put upon Paul by James in Acts 21:23–24, Paul’s mobbing in the Temple on precisely such grounds and his unceremonious ejection from the Temple that follows can simply be seen as part and parcel of these struggles against
the admission of foreigners and their gifts and sacrifices
– seen as ‘
polluted
’ or ‘
polluting
’–
into the Temple
. Therefore, too, the dire warnings of a conspiracy against Paul in Jerusalem presented through the mouthpiece of the non-existent ‘
Prop
h
et called Agabus
’ in Caesarea in Acts 21:10–11. Looked at in this way, Paul can simply be seen as
a
‘
stalking horse
’
for Herodian family interests in the Temple
, as he so often seems to be in areas further afield.

Even if these things are only partly true, it would not be surprising at all if Paul held his rough treatment in the Temple in Jerusalem against
James during his more than two years of what have the appearance of debriefing sessions in Caesarea, first with Felix and his wife Drusilla and then with Agrippa II and his sister Bernice. ‘
Saulos
’ in Josephus is, in fact, involved in just such debriefing sessions with Nero in Corinth six years later in 66 CE after the Roman Governor Cestius’ defeat in the first heady days of the Uprising.
50
Nor would it be surprising if Nero sent this ‘
Saul
’ or ‘
Paul
’ back to Palestine in his service follo
w
ing this first appeal.

The ‘
Saulos
’ in Josephus – ‘
a kinsman of Agrippa
’ – at this point in the two converging narratives becomes the intermed
i
ary between the ‘
Peace Party
’ in Jerusalem (consisting High Priests, principal Pharisees, and Herodians) and Roman and Herodian troops outside the City.
51
Before finally going to see Nero in Corinth, this ‘
Saulos
’ goes to Agrippa II’s camp also, presumably, to give him a first-hand report on the situation in Jerusalem, where he had been in the latter’s palace before it su
r
rendered along with several other Herodian ‘
Men-of-War
’, including Philip, Costobarus, and Antipas the Temple Treasurer, his cousin.

The same language circle – in Greek having to do with ‘
casting down
’ and connected to ‘
the
Diabolos
’ or ‘
the Devil
’ (rather than the ‘
swallowing
’, connected in the Hebrew to ‘
Belial
’) – is being applied to the death of James in early Church texts even though James probably did not die in precisely this way, that is to say, on this point anyhow the texts are somewhat far-fetched. This proves, as little else can, that the application of such language to James’ death
was purposeful
, just as it was in its application to the destruction (or death) of ‘
the Righteous Teacher
’ at Qumran. Though James was probably not ‘
cast down
’
from the Pinnacle of the Temple
, as these texts imagine, he probably was ‘
cast down
’ from the top (‘
headlong
’) of the Temple steps where he had been positioned to speak to the crowds – whether twenty years before, as reported in the
Recognitions
, or as a prelude to his final stoning. Whatever the case, instead of calming them, he proclaimed the imminent coming (or return) of the Messiah ‘
standing on the right hand of Power
’ and ‘
about to come on the clouds of Heaven
’, as per the parameters of the War Scroll and as refurbished in the Gospels and Acts. This doubtlessly happened in some manner.

‘
The Wicked Encompasses the Righteous
’ and ‘
Swallows One more Righteous than He
’

The application of these two parallel homophonic imageries,
ba-la-
‘
a
and
ballo
in both the Hebrew and the Greek, the fo
r
mer to the destruction of the Righteous Teacher at Qumran and the latter to the death of James in early Church texts, from our perspective proves as little else can the final identity of these two individuals. Texts such as ‘
the Wicked swallows one more Righteous than he
’ (Habakkuk 1.13) are almost always exploited to produce expositions like those encountered above. This is particularly the case if they are accompanied by words like ‘
Traitors
’, ‘
Violence
’, ‘
Riches
’, ‘
Lebanon
’, and the like.

This is also true of the First Column of the Habakkuk
Pesher
where, though poorly preserved because of the way the Scroll was rolled, one can still make out a
Pesher
. This seemingly has to do with ‘
the Last Generation
’, tied in the underlying text to references from Habakkuk 1:2 to ‘
Violence
’, ‘
destruction
’, and ‘
You save
’ – the word ‘
Salvation
’ or ‘
Yeshu
‘
a
’/‘Jesus’ is based upon in Hebrew. Though the text is fragmentary, there would also appear to be a reference to ‘
rebelling against God
’ tied to a reference to ‘
‘
amal
’ or ‘
suffering works
’ in the underlying text from Habakkuk 1:3. This usage, ‘
‘
amal
’, will be important later in the
Pesher
when it comes to discussing the ‘
suffering toil
’
of
‘
the Righteous Teacher
’ – that is, how ‘
the Righteous shall live by his Faith
’ – in Column VIII.2 as opposed to the ‘
Lying service
’ of ‘
the Spouter of Lying
’ that follows in Column X.11–12.

As later in the
Pesher
, this reference to ‘
‘
amal
’ from Habakkuk 1:3 is followed by another allusion to ‘
robbing Riches
’. There is also a reference to ‘
division
’ or ‘
quarrelsomeness
’ in the underlying text from 1:3 which follows this as well, a usage that a
p
pears in the First Column of CD I.21 describing the attack by ‘
the Liar
’ and other ‘
Covenant-Breakers
’ on the ‘
Soul of the Righteous One
’ and the other ‘
Walkers in Perfection
’.
52
In 1QpHab I.8–9, this is followed by an underlying citation from Ha
b
akkuk 1:4 having to do with ‘
the
Torah
being weakened and Judgement never going forth
’, interpreted in terms of ‘
those who rejected the
Torah
of God
’ (plural). This usage ‘
ma
’
as
’ for ‘
reject
’ or ‘
deny
’ is an important one and, when singular, is repeatedly used at Qumran to characterize the actions of ‘
the Spouter of Lying
’ – so much so that this, ‘
rejecting the
Torah
’, would appear to be his defining activity.

This introduces the key reference in the underlying text, ‘
the Wicked encompasses
(based in Hebrew on the same root as, for instance, ‘
Crown
’ or ‘
Diadem
’
53
)
the Righteous
.
Therefore perverted Judgement goes forth
’ (Habakkuk 1:4). This is very similar to the text and exposition of Psalm 37:32, ‘
the Wicked looks out for the Righteous and seeks to kill him
’ we looked at earlier, and, once again, the possible parallel here to the illegal trial of James should not be ignored. In any event here in 1QpHab I.10 it sets the tone for the whole
Pesher
that follows.

Though the exposition of the second half of this is missing, it should be immediately recognizable that the first part para
l
lels and is simply a
variation on Habakkuk 1:13 later in Column V.8-9, ‘
the Wicked swallows one more Righteous than he
’ – the imagery of ‘
surrounding
’ or ‘
encompassing
’ having the same negative signification as ‘
swallowing
’. Though the exegesis is fragmentary at this point too, it is nonetheless made clear that ‘
the Wicked
’ in the text applies to
the Wicked Priest
in the
Pesher
, as it does everywhere else at Qumran, and ‘
the Righteous
’ (
Zaddik
) is likewise explicitly tied – as always – to ‘
the Righ
t
eous Teacher
’. In fact, it is this allusion to ‘
the Righteous One
’ or ‘
Zaddik
’ that introduces ‘
the Righteous Teacher
’, concreti
z
ing the basic consistency of these textual correspondences.
54