James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (44 page)

This notice in the
ARN
that she was awaiting a levirate marriage (that is,
the permission of her brother-in-law for her to remarry
) fleshes out many of the allusions we have already been encountering. Such bizarre and fanciful detail as ‘
her swee
t
meats
’ or ‘
spice puddings
’ aside, so many coincidences in detail with the
Judas Iscariot
,
Mary
,
Martha
,
precious Spikenard
,
d
i
nars
complex of materials can hardly be considered purely accidental. The ‘
dinars
’ theme – both as
actual dinars
and as ‘
pieces of silver
’
29
– will reappear in another famous variation, whether related or not, the portrayal of
Judas Iscariot
/
the Iscariot
’
s
‘
betrayal
’/‘
delivering up
’ of Jesus or his objection to
Mary
/
Miriam
’
s extravagant waste of
‘
precious perfume
’ (her ‘
perfume box
’?). Of course Judas’ cognomen in this regard, in the light of the many
Sicarii
connections to these episodes, is not insignif
i
cant; while the ‘
every single Sabbath eve
’ and ‘
spice puddings
’ motifs patently represent more Rabbinic hyperbole.

In fact, as
Kethuboth
– in the context of ‘
awaiting the decision of the
levir
’ – had already put the matter earlier, it is rather ‘
the daughter-in-law of Nakdimon ben Gurion
’ to whom the Rabbis grant such an allowance and now this is expressed in terms of ‘
two
se
c
ah
s of wine for her sweetmeats
’ or ‘
spice puddings every week
’.
30
Again we have the repetition of the motif of chronological regularity expressed in ‘
weekly
’ terms not ‘
daily
’ ones.

This being said, in Lamentations
Rabbah
– typical of this kind of tradition confusion or migration – the Rabbis go back to the ‘
daily
’ not the ‘
weekly
’ framework for these activities and grant this allowance of ‘
two
se
c
ah
s of wine
’ with respect only to the widowhood and not the remarriage of ‘
Miriam the daughter of Boethus
’ (
sic
) after the death of her husband Jesus ben Gamala. This ‘
Jesus
’ was murdered, it will be recalled, along with Ananus ben Ananus and other collaborating High Priests ‘
appointed by Herodians
’ by those Josephus calls ‘
Idumaeans
’ and their confederates, whom he is at this point finally willing to identify as ‘
Zealots
’ – in our view, probably
taking vengeance
,
if not for
‘
the Righteous Teacher
’
at Qumran
,
then certainly for the death of James
.

Never mind that it is ‘
Martha the daughter of Boethus
’ that is really meant here – this is the third interlocking tradition about such ‘
daily
’ or ‘
weekly
’ allowances granted by the Rabbis to these improvident
daughter
s. Showing that we are not dea
l
ing with separate traditions – for her part in
Kethuboth
, Nakdimon
’
s
‘
daughter-in-law
’ (name not provided) is pictured as being contemptuous even of this, standing up and declaring once more, ‘
make such a grant for your own daughters
’! To be sure, this is precisely what ‘
Nakdimon
’
s daughter Miriam
’ (the
real
‘
Mary’
or ‘
Miriam
’ in these traditions) was pictured as saying in r
e
spect of
her daily allowance of
‘
four
’ to ‘
five hundred dinars
’ thereafter in both
Kethuboth
and Lamentations
Rabbah
.
31
That we have here, too, but a slight variation of the tradition about Nakdimon’s
daughter
is made clear when one Rabbi, probably sa
r
castically, defers even to this – noting by way of explanation in his response that ‘
she was a woman awaiting the decision of the
levir
’.

Here of course, we have what appears to be a further confusion, this time between ‘
Nakdimon
’
s daughter-in-law
’ and ‘
Martha the daughter of Boethus
’ – herself
awaiting a second marriage to Josephus
’
friend, the highly-regarded, though unfo
r
tunate, High Priest Jesus ben Gamala.
In fact, this is made clear in Lamentations
Rabbah
as well, which, in talking about this ‘
Miriam the daughter of Boethus
’ (what is meant here is, of course, ‘
Martha
the daughter of Boethus
’) provides the description of how, in order for her to see her husband Joshua (
Jesus
) ben Gamala ‘
read in the Temple on
Yom Kippur
, carpets (
or ‘
cus
h
ions
’
) were laid from the doorway of her house to the entrance of the Temple so that her feet would not be exposed. Neve
r
theless they were exposed
.’
It is at this point Lamentations
Rabbah
makes the addition that when her husband Joshua (ben Gamala) died, the Rabbis allowed her
two
se
c
ah
s of wine daily
.
32

Once again we have the ‘
daily
’, ‘
allowance
’, and telltale ‘
feet
’/‘
foot exposure
’ themes we have already encountered regar
d
ing
Nakdimon
’
s daughter Miriam
above. Moreover, this is obviously just a variation of another tradition about
Nakdimon
, the one about ‘
when he walked from the door of his house to the house of study, the Poor gathered up the woollen clothes laid down under his feet
’. Of course, aside from the additional laconic remark, ‘
nevertheless they were exposed
’, which really is very striking, there is also the repetition of the ‘
doorway
’, ‘
cushions
’/‘
carpets
’,
something
‘
being laid down
’ (in Luke’s episode about ‘
the dogs
’ at the ‘
Rich Man
’
s door
’, ‘
someone
’ or ‘
a certain Poor One named Lazarus
’) and, as ever, ‘
her
(if not ‘
his
’)
feet
’ themes.
 

The
Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok
Traditions and ‘
In Accordance with Camel is the Burden
’

Another Rabbi – interestingly enough one ‘
Eleazar ben
Zadok
’ with whom many of these traditions are connected (‘
Zadok
’, possibly his father, was another Rabbi widely associated in Talmudic tradition with ‘
mourning for the Temple
’,
pra
y
ing and fasting
‘
for forty years
’
before the fall of Jerusalem
and, as we have signaled, a name paradigmatic in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well
33
) – on the subject of
Nakdimon
’
s daughter Miriam
’
s overweening pride
quotes a verse from Song of Songs 1:8, ‘
go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your offspring
’, adding seemingly by way of exposition, ‘
May I not live to behold the consolation
(
of Zion
)
if I do not see her gathering barley corns from beneath the feet of horses in Acco
’.
Here, of course, we have the ‘
feet
’/‘
footsteps
’ theme again, and a new one, ‘
barley corns
’ or ‘
grain
’.
34

This same
Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok
quotes the aphorism in Lamentations
Rabbah
and elsewhere, ‘
May I not live to behold the consolation
’ – meaning, ‘
of Zion
’ – concerning similar suffering and the ‘
feet
’ of another
Mary
, not
Nakdimon
’
s daughter Miriam
but, once again, ‘
Miriam the daughter of Boethus
’.
35
Again he obviously means
Martha
, but this is the same genre of confusion between ‘
Mary
’ and ‘
Martha
’ that found its way into the Gospels – particularly John. Even in this last,
Martha
, as we saw, is quoted as saying to Jesus, ‘
If you had been here
,
my brother (Lazarus) would not have died
’ (11:21). Eleven verses later in John 11:32,
Mary
– now also portrayed as ‘
falling down at his
feet
’ – is depicted as saying precisely the same thing: ‘
If you had been here, my brother would not have died
.’ This is the sort of tradition overlap we have been speaking about. It is eerie and probably not accidental.

The same basic tradition about Nakdimon’s daughter will again be told in
Kethuboth
, this time in the name not of
Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok
but of
Rabbi Yohanan ben Zacchai
, pictured – to some extent like ‘Jesus’ is in the Gospels (Matthew 21:7 and pars.) – as ‘
outside Jerusalem riding a donkey while his Disciples followed after him
’.
36
But what Rabbi Yohanan now sees, unlike
Eleazar ben Zadok
above, is
this
‘
girl picking barley corns
’ or ‘
grain from among the dung of Arab cattle
’ – here again the ‘
barley corns
’ or ‘
grain
’ theme, but now connected with the one about ‘
dung
’ we have already remarked previously and shall have cause to remark further. One should also not ignore how in the Gospel version of this tradition, in Luke 19:36 ‘
his Disciples
’,
after
‘
having thrown their garments on the ass of a colt
’ (in Mark 11:7, ‘
epebalon
’/‘
cast their clothing
’), ‘
laid out their garments in the way
’. Though in Matthew 21:8/Mark 11:8/John 12:18, this second part is specifically attributed rather to ‘
the Many
’ or ‘
the multitudes
’ (
sic
) but, whatever the sense here ‘
the garments
’
are being pictured as
‘
laid out
’ or ‘
spread
’ much as in the
Nakdimon ben Gurion
or
Mary the daughter of Boethus
tradition.