James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (162 page)

Curiously, the first clue one comes upon relating to the
circumcision
aspect of the terminology is the denotation by Or
i
gen of
Sicarii
as those who have either circumcised themselves or forcibly circumcised others in violation of the Roman
Lex Cornelia de Sicarius et Veneficis
– the Roman Law banning such
circumcision
(except, it would appear, where Jews
per se
were concerned – meaning it obviously applied to converts who were Gentiles).
85

In
Contra Celsus
, Origen specifically describes
the
Sicarii
as being called this ‘
on account of the practice of circumcision’
, which in their case he defines as ‘
mutilating themselves contrary to the established laws and customs
’ and as being inevitably, therefore, ‘
put to death
’ on this account.
86
Of course, this is in Origen’s time in the Third Century
CE
. It does not necessarily mean that such a total ban would have been in effect prior to the First Jewish Revolt against Rome when the problem would probably not yet have been deemed sufficiently serious to merit it – not probably until the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt, when it is clear things became more and more repressive in this regard. Nor, as he continues, does one ever hear – that is, in his own time – of a ‘
Sicarius
’ reprieved from such a
punishment
(
even
)
if he recants
,
the evidence of circumcision being sufficient to ensure the death of him who has undergone it
.
Not only should one not ignore the harshness of this, but the text is doubly ironic for we know that Origen himself was just such a person, that is, ‘
a
Sicarius
’, and reportedly had castrated hi
m
self – not, presumably, because of his ‘
zeal for the Law
’ or
circumcision
but rather for celibacy.
87
Nevertheless, where non-Jews, anyhow, were concerned – and this, no doubt, included Pauline-style
converts
–
castration
of this kind was clearly being seen as the equivalent of
circumcision
– or, rather,
vice versa
, the Romans viewed
circumcision
as just such a bodily mutilation of the flesh and a variety of
castration
.

Jerome confirms this in claiming that Origen ‘
castrated himself with a knife
’ (thereby clarifying the ‘
sica
’ part of the ‘
Sicarius
’ vocabulary) and ridiculing him by quoting, significantly, Paul’s own critique of ‘
zealotry
’ and ‘
Zealots
’ from Romans 10:2, saying he did this out of ‘
zeal for God but not according to Knowledge’
.
88
In this regard, not only should one bear in mind Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:12 about ‘
those making themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven
’
s sake’
, which is obviously what Origen had done; but also that Jerome is using here the very language Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 8:1–2, in his usual
strophe
/
antistrophe
/
epode
lyric-poetical/rhetorical style having to do with ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’ and ‘
Knowledge puffing up
’, not ‘
building up
’ (as it should): ‘
but if anyone thinks he has known anything
,
he has not known anything as he ought to know it’
.

In this manner, both he and the passage from Paul he is quoting from Romans 10:2 show their awareness of ‘
Zealots
’ (as Paul does elsewhere
89
) and that the whole matter had something to do with such ‘
zeal
’ (Paul displays the same
Knowledge
in G
a
latians 4:16–5:13 where he is speaking about ‘
becoming your Enemy’
,
zeal
, and, of course, such ‘
cutting off
’) – in particular, that such an act would have been typical of just such ‘
Sicarii
Essenes
’ or ‘
Zealot Essenes’
, as the case may have been – to say nothing of ‘
the Circumcision Party
’ of James.

In fact, Paul goes on in Romans 10:3–4 to ridicule the reputed
Righteousness
of such persons, a concept he even evokes in Galatians 5:14 after expressing his desire (in speaking about ‘
the flesh
’) that he ‘
wished
’ such persons who were ‘
troubling
’ his communities would ‘
themselves cut off’
and, facetiously parodying James, ‘
for all the Law is fulfilled in one word,
“
you shall love your neighbor as yourself
”’. He also does so as follows: ‘
For being ignorant of God
’
s Righteousness
and seeking to establish their own Righteousness
,
they do not submit to God
’
s Righteousness
,
for Christ is the End of the Law for Righ
t
eousness.’
One could not have a better example of the sophistic manner in which Paul is transforming the
Righteousness
-oriented interpretation of ‘
the Zadokite Covenant
’ and those like ‘
the
Doresh ha-Torah
’ who ‘
sought
(
God
)
with a whole heart
’ and, presumably for that reason, ‘
went out from the Land of Judah to dwell in the Land of Damascus
’ and erect ‘
the New Covenant
’ there. Nor is this to say anything further about Acts 21:20’s final designation of the greater part of James’
Jerusalem Church
followers in Paul’s seeming final encounter with James as ‘
all Zealots
for the Law
’!

The Roman
Lex Cornelia de Sicarius,
which seems actually to have been attributed to Publius Cornelia Scipio (therefore the
Cornelia
part of the statute’s designation) and which, Origen attests, the judges in his time were so zealously enforcing; accor
d
ing to Dio Cassius, seems to have first come into real effect in Nerva’s time (96–98 CE),
90
that is, in the aftermath of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. But the sudden interest in it and its connection, in particular, to
circumcision
, in fact, appears to be linked both to the
Sicarii
and the whole issue of the First Revolt and, even finally, the Second.

Certainly by Hadrian’s time (117–138
CE
) and his actual prohibition of
circumcision
in the period of the Second Revolt, this linkage is reflected in a law,
the
Ius Sicaricon
, which related to the confiscation of enemy property – primarily, it would seem, in Palestine. It was also, it appears, connected to those defying his decree banning
circumcision
who at the same time appear to have
participated in the War against Rome
.
91
The repression of
circumcision
particularly in relation to those Jews being called ‘
Sicarii
’ – now, seemingly,
because of their insistence on circumcision
and not so much, as Josephus had previously (perhaps somewhat disingenuously) presented it,
their propensity for assassination
– by Hadrian’s time had become extraord
i
narily severe and this had to mean, once again,
where
non-Jews
were concerned
.

In Tanaitic literature the term
Sicaricon
actually describes the property, including land and slaves, which was expropriated from Jews by the Roman Authorities in the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt because of the perception of their partic
i
pation in this War.
92
Against this background, it seems clear that the term ‘
Sicarii
’, at this point, was not only being used both to characterize the most extreme partisans of Revolt against Rome, but also those ‘
insisting on circumcision
’ as a
sine qua non
for conversion
– in particular, ‘
the Party
’ or ‘
those of the Circumcision’
as we have been encountering them above – now, in the wake of all the unrest, being expressly prohibited in an official manner by Rome. In this regard one should pay particular attention to the designation of ‘
Judas Iscariot
’ in the Gospels as having some relationship to or, in some manner, parodying or holding practices of this kind up to contempt, ridicule, or loathing, that is – if one likes – he is ‘
Judas
the Circumciser
’, a matter rarely if ever addressed in New Testament or Scrolls research.

The Party of the Circumcision

There is no doubt that those represented by the Scrolls were extremely ‘
zealous for circumcision
’ too. This position is perhaps made most forcibly in CD XVI (according to the Cairo recension, renumbered as CD X) at the beginning of the more statutory part of the Damascus Document where ‘
the oath of the Covenant which Moses made with Israel
…
to return to the
Torah
of Moses with a whole heart and soul’
is the paramount proposition.
93
One should also compare this with Romans 10:5 where Paul, quoting Leviticus 18:5, speaks as well of how ‘
Moses writes of the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man who has done these things shall live by them
’ before going on to trump it in Romans 10:6 with what he calls ‘
the Righteou
s
ness of Faith’
.

Per contra
, however, CD XVI emphasizes
the binding nature of oaths taken
‘
to return to
’
and
‘
keep the Commandments of the
Torah
at the price even of death
’
94
– again a particularly important emphasis for those prepared, as
per
Hippolytus’ and J
o
sephus’ descriptions of both
Sicarii
Essenes
and
Zealot Essenes
, ‘
to undergo any torture rather than disavow the Law’
.
95
This is repeated with the admonition, evoking both Deuteronomy 23:24 and 27:26 and the ‘
curses
’ of the Covenant attached thereto, that: ‘
e
ven at the price of death
,
a man shall not fulfill any vow he might have sworn to turn aside from the
Torah
’
(
n.b
., once more this very important allusion to the phraseology of ‘
turning aside from the
Torah
’).
96

It is in this same Column, and in this context, that Abraham’s
circumcision
is evoked and, as already intimated,
the most fearsome oaths of retribution attached to the performance of it
. In other words, once again, we are not really in an enviro
n
ment of
Peaceful Essenes
,
however such are defined, and certainly not of Paulinism, but rather one of absolute and violent vengeance and a life-and-death attachment to ‘
the
Torah
of Moses
’ however it might have been acquired – whether undertaken at birth or by conversion. As this is put at this point in the Damascus Document:
‘And on the day upon which the man swears upon his soul
(or ‘
on pain of death
’)
to return to the
Torah
of Moses
,
the Angel of Divine Vengeance will turn aside
from pu
r
suing him
,
provided that he
(
the oath-taker
)
fulfills his word
.
It is for this reason Abraham circumcised himself on the very day of his being informed
(
of these things
).’
97
The reference is to Genesis 17:9–27, in particular, Abraham’s obligation to ‘
circu
m
cise the flesh of his foreskin
’ and
that of all those of his household
– the addition of this last being an important addendum – as ‘
a sign of the Covenant
’ which, the text observes, he accomplished (just as in CD XVI.6 above) ‘
on that very day
’ – though he was
ninety-nine years old
!