James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (29 page)

To give an additional example from the
Talmud
, Rabbinic literature ascribes the catalogue of what are usually referred to as ‘
the Zealot woes
’, to one ‘
Abba Joseph bar Hanin
’ – identity otherwise unknown – that is, ‘
the Son of Hanin the Father of Joseph
’, a very curious designation indeed. This catalogue of ‘
woes
’ attacks the various High-Priestly families in the Herodian Period in the most extreme manner conceivable and is expressed as follows: ‘
Woe unto me
for
the Boethusians
. W
oe unto me for their curses
. W
oe unto me from the Sons of Ananus
(the family pictured in both Scripture and Josephus as being involved in the execution of Jesus and the judicial murder of James). W
oe unto me for their slanders
….
For they are the High Priests
,
their sons are Treasurers
,
their sons-in-law are Captains of the Temple
,
and their servants smite the People with clubs
.’
62
Not only is this a completely surprising passage utterly atypical of the
Talmud
– therefore the reference to it as ‘
the Zealot woes
’ – but one should note the references to both ‘
Boethusians
’ and ‘
Sons of Ananus
’, the condemnatory attitude towards both, and the references to
Treasurers
,
Captains of the Temple
, and how ‘
their servants beat the People with sticks
’, all subjects conspicuous in Josephus’ picture of the progression of events leading up to the War against Rome in the Sixties CE.

The note in these ‘
Zealot woes
’ about the High Priests
sending
‘
their servants to beat the People with sticks
’ actually ec
h
oes two notices in Josephus’
Antiquities
, one just preceding the stoning of James and the other right after it. In both notices, the High Priests are described as ‘
sending their servants to the threshing floors
’,
beating the People
‘
with sticks
’, and
stealing the tithes of the
‘
Priests of the Poorer sort
’.
63

Not only does the repetition of this notice indicate some confusion on Josephus’ part about events surrounding the death of James (or at the very least some overlap), but in the Pseudoclementine
Recognitions
and in events surrounding ‘
the stoning of Stephen
’ – the reflection of the stoning of James in Acts – Paul is implicated in similar kinds of attacks. Once again, there is the problem here of a chronological disconnect.
Of course, whatever else might be meant by the allusion to ‘
Priests of the Poorer sort
’, it certainly reflects the manner in which all accounts refer to the followers of James.

For his part, though ‘
Abba Hilkiah
’ is never heard from again in any Talmudic legend, the name ‘
Hilkiah
’ is certainly Priestly and surfaces at various critical junctures in pre- and post-Exilic history. He plainly appears to have been a member of the original High Priest line,
meaning he was a
‘
Zadokite
’ and, as such,
a direct lineal descendant of the Zadok
who functioned as High Priest in David
’
s time
(1 Chronicles 6:13 and 6:45). Not only was one of his forebears seemingly involved with the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 36:3–22), but Ezra himself is pictured – in what is probably an artificial genealogy anyhow, borrowed from Jesus Ben Yehozedek, the son of the last High Priest of the First Temple and, therefore, a ‘
Zadokite
’ as well
64
– as one of his descendants (Ezra 7:1–5). The latter takes Ezra back through ‘
Hilkiah
’ to ‘
Zadok
’ and thence to Phineas – that is, Ezra
himself
, according to the overt implications of this genealogy,
is at the same time both a
‘
Zadokite
’
and a
‘
Zealot High Priest
’. The only problem is that the genealogy is, as just underscored,
basically the same one accorded Jesus ben Yehozedek
– the first High Priest of the Return.
65

The circumstances surrounding
Abba Hilkiah
’s
rainmaking
, described in Rabbinic tradition as at ‘
a time of drought
’, ce
r
tainly are striking and parallel the traditions about James in Hegesippus, the Pseudoclementines, and the notice in Epiphanius about James’
rainmaking
.
66
In the Babylonian
Talmud
, for example, so frightened are the Rabbis of
Abba
Hilkiah that they will not approach him. Rather, they send little children to him, while he is ‘
working in the fields
’,
to ask him to make rain
.
67
The same motifs reappear in a tradition preserved by Jerome relative to James’ pre-eminent ‘
Holiness
’, that James was held in such reverence among the people of Jerusalem and considered ‘
so Holy
’ that
the little children used to try
‘
to touch the fringes of his garments as he passed by
’.
68
Not only are both James and ‘
Abba Hilkiah
’, therefore, more or less contemporary,
making rain in a time of drought
, but both individuals are treated by all who approach them – friend and enemy alike – with a kind of
revere
n
tial awe bordering on fear
.
69

A similar, albeit less convincing, portrait of ‘Jesus’ in the Synoptic Gospels has come down to us as orthodox tradition – another probable instance of real traditions relating to James’ person being retrospectively absorbed into the portraits of Jesus. The individuals involved in the ‘
touching
’ activity relative to Jesus’ person or garment run the gamut from women with an u
n
stoppable discharge of menstrual blood (
sic
!
) to these same ‘
little children
’, as well as the blind, paralytics and, as a prelude to one curing or raising incident,
even a Roman centurion
!
70
The comedy of these episodes, sacred or profane, should not be ignored and
all must be strenuously doubted or taken to a certain extent as a parody
– often malevolent parody – of cherished Jewish beliefs, customs, and taboos.

The note in the Babylonian
Talmud
’s version of the Rabbis sending ‘
little children
’ to ask
Abba
Hilkiah to make rain of his
being
‘
in the fields
’ not only dominates the story, but to some extent parallels the allusion in the Letter of James to
the workers
‘
in the fields
’
being cheated of their wages
. In James 5, this acts as a prelude to apocalyptic evocation
of the imminent
‘
coming of the Lord of Hosts
’
and final eschatological Judgement
ultimately expressed in terms of ‘
waiting patiently
’
for
‘
the coming of spring rain
’. Again, we have come full circle and have the note of ‘
the coming of rain
’ – to say nothing of that of ‘
waiting p
a
tiently
’ which links up with similar expressions in both the Habakkuk
Pesher
and the Gospel of John.
71

Jacob of Kfar Sechania’s Curious Tradition about ‘
Jesus the Nazoraean
’ and Judas
Iscariot
’s ‘
Bloody
’ Suicide

We have already touched upon how, in regard to a previous
Zaddik
Honi, the Pharisee opponents who ultimately stone him cheat the resistance-minded Priests in the Temple, who are intent on carrying out the Passover sacrifices according to their precise specifications. Moreover these hold-outs are the same individuals whom Honi refuses to condemn. To further extend the reverse parallel with the Letter of James, in the Rabbinic legend,
Abba Hilkiah doesn
’
t wish to
cheat
his employees
. As in the case of another character in the
Talmud
paralleling James, ‘
Jacob of Kfar Sechaniah
’ or ‘
Jacob of Sihnin
’, the locale is probably Galilee.
72

In the quasi-parallel pictures of both Hegesippus via Eusebius and the Pseudoclementine
Recognitions
, the requests become those made to James (either by ‘
the High Priests
’ or ‘
the Scribes and the Pharisees
’) to come to the Temple either to debate or to quiet the crowds ‘
hungering after the Messiah
’ at Passover and, in both, the motif of hesitant reverence is strong.
73
In Hegesippus and early Church accounts dependent on him, James then rather proclaims the imminent coming of
the Messiah
‘
on the clouds of Heaven
’. In all sets of traditions however, Hegesippus, the Pseudoclementine
Recognitions
, and the Talmudic Tractate
Ta
‘
anith
, James or
Abba
Hilkiah, or both, are almost always presented as
hostile
to the Herodian Pharisaic/Sadducean Establishment and treat its emissaries with contempt.

‘
Jacob of Kfar Sechaniah
’ or ‘
Sihnin
’ is another individual with the same name as James in Rabbinic tradition. In the
Ta
l
mud
, he is the bearer of a curious tradition about ‘
Jesus the Nazoraean
’, the only one Talmudic
literature conserves
or was allowed to conserve in this name!
74
The tradition is attributed to the allegedly ‘
heretical
’ and obstreperous ‘
Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus
’ – ‘
obstreperous
’ because of run-ins (interestingly enough, along with another colleague, ‘
Rabbi Joshua
’)
75
with Rabban Gamaliel, the grandson of Paul’s professed teacher by that name.
76
In this tradition, as he reports it, Eliezer meets this ‘
Jacob
’ or James in Kfar Sechaniah or Sihnin, presumably in Galilee. In response to a question Eliezer poses him about ‘
a prostitute
’
s hire
’ or ‘
wages
’ given or dedicated to the Temple – an odd question to begin with – Jacob replies with one of his own about what ‘
Jesus the Nazoraean
’ said on the subject.

Not only do we have the ‘
wages
’ motif here that we just saw in the material from James about ‘
the Rich
’
cheating the workers in the field of
‘
their wages
’
and its inverse parallel in
Talmud
Ta
‘
anith
’
s
portrait of
Abba Hilkiah
not cheating the workers in his fields
, but this is clearly a special case of ‘
gifts to the Temple
’ in general, whether on the part of foreigners or other types of persons deemed impure for one reason or another (as, for example, the well-known ‘
harlots
’ or ‘
prostitutes
’
who share Jesus
’
table
a
c
cording to Gospel portraiture – again, surely relevant here) – the rejection of which
was so important for this period partic
u
larly in the run-up to the War against Rome
as Josephus presents it.
77