James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (189 page)

36. See ‘
Addai
’ in 1 Apoc. Jas. V.3:35.15 and cf. ‘
Theuda the brother
’ or ‘
father of the Just One, since he was a relative of his
’ (
sic
) in1 Apoc. Jas. V.4:44:15–20

37. Cf. Eusebius in
E.H.
1.13.1–20 with
The Doctrine of Addai
, Moses of Chorene, 2.32–3,
The Acts of Thaddaeus
,
The Teaching of the Apostles
, etc.

38. The Prophet ‘Ad or ‘Adi, obviously connected to ‘
Addai
’, ‘
Edessa
’, and even ‘
Adiabene
’, has always been represented in this region and the origins of this connection are clouded in obscurity. This is also true for the ‘
Yazidis
’, themselves follo
w
ing in the same region their saintly progenitor, the Sufi ‘
Shaykh
‘
Adi
’.

39.
E.H.
2.1.2–5 and
JBJ
, pp. 166–209.

40. Cf. 4QMMT III.24–33 and see my discussion in
DSSU
, pp. 180–88 and in
JBJ
, pp. 900–902 and 949–59. Also see my ‘
A Response to Schiffman on MMT
’ in
The Qumran Chronicle
, 1990/91, 2/3, Cracow, pp. 95–104. The point is that it is addressed to a ‘
King and His People
’ whom it wishes to compare or who wishes to compare himself to David. Since there was no King in Jerusalem at this time, we are in almost all likelihood speaking about a foreign convert who knows little about Judaism. Ce
r
tainly no ‘
Herodian
’ would either require or wish such tuition, including Agrippa I. In fact, it is a ‘
letter to the Great King of the Peoples beyond the Euphrates
’ as I argue in ‘
MMT as a Jamesian Letter to the Great King of the Peoples or Izates
’,
Journal of Higher Criticism
, Spring, 2005, 11/1, pp. 55–68, a paper I first gave at a National Session of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1991.

41. Cf. CD VII.14–21 on ‘
re-erecting the fallen Tent of David
’ and XVI.4–9 on ‘t
aking upon oneself the Covenant
’ and Abraham’s ‘
circumcising all the members of his household
’ in Genesis.

42. Cf. Moses of Chorene 2.35,who specifically asserts this, but also see Josephus’ note in
Ant
. 20.17–22 on Helen’s hu
s
band, though going under the Persian title ‘Bazeus’ or ‘Monobazus’, being as in the Biblical story of Abraham and Sarah her brother.

43. Cf.
Ant
. 20.34–48 with Gen.
R.
46.10, but also see
E.H.
1.13.6–8 and Acts 9:12–7.

44. See Josephus,
War
4.567 concerning the palaces of ‘
a kinsman of King Izas of Adiaben
e’ in Jerusalem, 5.147 where he seems to think Helen is ‘
the daughter of King Izas
’, and J.B. Segal,
Edessa ‘The Blessed City’
, pp. 12 and 67–71.

45. Note how in
Surah
s 7.65–72, 9.7, 14.9, 11.50–60, 22.42, 25.37–40, 26.123–40, etc., these ‘
warnings
’ and imprecations always follow the story of Noah and the flood. In fact, 11.52 actually alludes to rainmaking as part of the Hud/‘Ad tradition; the same for 25.40.

46. Cf. how Noah is described as ‘Just and Righteous in his generation’ in 6:9 and how the whole episode of ‘
the Flood
’ is preceded by the allusion ‘the Sons of God’ having intercourse with ‘
the daughters of men
’ in 6:1–4, to say nothing of CD II.16– III.1’s actual reference to ‘
fornication
’ in its paradigmatic retelling of this occurrence, and in the Koran cf. 7.80 11.45–49, 26,83, 27.53, etc.,where both are mentioned in one way or another.

47. Cf. these kinds of allusions in Ko 11.61, 26.42, 46.21, etc.

48. See his note at the beginning of the
War
1.4–6 that in the context of the death of Nero and the subsequent disorder, he felt it prudent to accurately inform‘
those of our People beyond the Euphrates with the Adiabeni
’ (and here is the precise language of the Syriac tradition of ‘
the Letter to the Great King of the Peoples beyond the Euphrates
’ to say nothing of the specific allusion to ‘
those in Adiabene
’) ‘
concerning how the war began, the miseries it brought, and it what manner it ended
’.

49. Cf.Hippolytus 9.21 with
War
2.150 and
Ant
. 18.11–25. In the latter, he speaks of ‘
four philosophies
’, seemingly evaluating them all equally on this basis, though in
War
2.119 he rather seems to speak of one ‘
Jewish Philosophy
’with ‘
three forms
’, specifica
l
ly calling the Movement founded by the ‘
sophist
’ Judas in the previous line (2.118)’,
an heresios
’ or ‘
heresy
’, I. e.’,sect’. it is in 2.150 that he speaks of ‘
the four grades
’ of Essenes,which mainly seem to break down according to descending order of ‘
Holiness
’ or ‘
purity
’.

50. Hippolytus 9.22.

51. Hippolytus 9.23 and cf. this with
War
2.160–1, both of which then seem to go on to talk of ‘
the Pharisees
’, it not being completely clear just how these ‘
Pharisees
’ would differ from this last ‘
order
’ or ‘
grade
’ of so-called ‘
Essenes
’.

52. Cf. Hippolytus 9.21.

53. This issue was particularly strong in the early days of Qumran research, I having particularly focused upon it in
MZCQ
, pp. 17–34, 55–59, and 66–78, but also see Cecil Roth,
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Historical Approach
, Oxford, 1959 and G.R. Driver,
The Hebrew Scrolls
, Oxford, 1959 and
The Judaean Scrolls
, Oxford, 1965.

54. Cf. Hippolytus 9.21 with Matthew 17:24–27 and
pars
.

55. The implied picture here of itinerant ‘
preachers
’, ‘
messengers
’, or ‘
disease-carriers
’, as the case may be, is very much in keeping with that of 4QpNah III.1, as well as Paul in Acts 16:20–21, 17:6–7 and 24:5, reflected too in the letter of caution Claudius sent to the Jews of Alexandria, obviously around 50 CE, cautioning against the carriers of just such an ‘
infection
’, conserved in H. Idris Bell,
Jews and Christians in Egypt
, London, 1934, pp. 25–28.

56. I have traced this development in all my previous work. Note how Josephus first introduces ‘
the
Sicarii
’ around 55 CE in
War
2.254–57 and
Ant
. 20.186–204; but he doesn’t actually start using the term ‘
Zealot
’ until even after that and the latter stages of the War after 68 CE (though he once does apply the terms ‘zealous for the Law’ to the revolutionaries in the Temple around the time of Herod’s last illness just before his death in 4 BCE (
War
1.655).

57. Hippolytus 9.22.

58. See C. Roth,
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Historical Approach
, Oxford, 1959; G.R. Driver,
The Hebrew Scrolls
, Oxford, 1959 and
The Judaean Scrolls
, Oxford, 1965; my
MZCQ
, pp. 17–34, 55–59, and 66–78; as well as F.M. Cross,
The Ancient Library of Qumran
, NewYork, 1958, pp. 73–77.

59. See, in particular, the actual use of this term in 1QS II.15 (‘
zeal for His
/
God’s Ordinances
’), IV.4 (‘
zeal for the Ord
i
nances of Righteousness
’), and IX.23 (‘
being like a man zealous for the Law
’) and their opposite in IV.10 (‘
the Way of Dar
k
ness of the Evil soul
’; ‘
zeal for lustfulness
’), IV.17–18 (‘
zeal for division
’), X.19–20 (‘
not zealous in a spirit of Evil
’), etc.

60. See, for instance, Eusebius’ version of these names and my comments in
JBJ
, pp. 866–882; for ‘
Augurus
’, see
ANCL
:
Codex Baroccian
. 206 (and compare the spelling here with Dio Cassius 68:18–21). For ‘
Acbarus
’ and ‘
Albarus
’ also seeTacitus 6.44 and 8.12, Strabo,
Geography
16.1.28, and various Latin versions of some of the documents mentioned above and in the
ANCL
Fragments. In my view, this error was already occurring in Acts transference of ‘
Agbarus
’ to the patently nonsense name of ‘
Agabus
’.

61. Editor note on variant mss. in
ANCL
:
Apost.Const.
8.25. One should compare this to another work attributed to Hi
p
polytus in
ANC
L’s
Appendix on Hippolytus
:
Hippolytus on the Twelve Apostles
: ‘
Judas, also called Lebbaeus, preached to the people of Edessa and to all Mesopotamia and fell asleep at Berytus and was buried ther
e
’ and cf. too
Epist. Apost.
12 and
JBJ
, pp. 807–16, 860–64, and 930–38.

62. See Josephus,
War
7.253–444, particularly 7.410–19 and 437–44.

63.
War
7.437, 439, 444 and
Vita
424 and his narrative about Jonathan of Cyrene who accused him of sending both wea
p
ons and money to support the Uprising there, but who, on Josephus’ testimony that he was ‘
a Liar
’, was put to death byVespasian.

64. Cf. Galatians 2:3–4, 2:7–9, 2:12, 5:6–7, but most of all 5:12, where he makes a ribald joke about it, all the time using the language of both ‘
the Essenes’
and the Qumran sectaries about ‘
cutting off
’ – for them,meaning to excommunicate, but for him a double entendre playing off their ‘
zealousness to exclude
’ (4:17).

65. Cf. Hippolytus 9.21 with
War
2.152. Note the difference here. One has the ‘
Jamesian
’ and Koranic refusal – and this on pain of death – ‘
to eat things sacrificed to idols
’; the other, merely the more general refusal ‘
to eat forbidden foods
’. Which is more precise or more accurate? The reader must judge.

66. Cf. Hippolytus 9.21 with
Ant
. 18.23 and
War
2.118, both of which emphasis the refusal ‘
to call any man Lord
’ – i
n
cluding the Roman Emperor. No wonder there was so much trouble.

67. One can see this by comparing
War
2.151–153 with
Ant
. 18.23–24. For this, perhaps, Hippolytus’ version is perhaps better – combining the two into ‘
Zealot
’ or ‘
Sicarii
Essenes
’.

68.
War
4.310–25.

69. Cf.
War
4.241–3, 352–58, etc.

70. Hippolytus, 9.21.

71.
Ibid
. and cf. Peter in Acts 10:28.

72.
War
7.253–406.

73. Cf.
War
2.151.

74. In these episodes, of course, something miraculous is usually achieved; cf. Matthew 9:20–29 and 14:35–36 and
pars
. concerning ‘
touching the hem of his garment
’ (echoing to some extent what Jerome in
Vir. ill
. 2 and
Commentary on Galatians
1:19 tells us about James in the tradition he recounts that, so Holy was he that the People sought to touch the hem of James’ garments as he walked by), 8:3–15, 14:36, 17:17, 20:34, etc. and
pars
.