James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (99 page)

James also
complained
against Gifts and Sacrifices on Behalf of Herodians and Other Foreigners in the Temple

Where the issue of ‘
Temple pollution
’ is concerned, as we have now several times remarked, it was a central fixture of the ‘
Three Nets of
Belial
’ charges in the Damascus Document and was always hovering in the background of the prescriptions in
MMT
.
40
No doubt, too, it was part and parcel of what was being signified in James’ directives to overseas communities under the rubric of ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’ and ‘
the pollutions of the idols
’. Josephus repeats the charge over and over again – a
l
beit sometimes with inverted signification – in his description of the run-up to the War against Rome.
41
It was also the bac
k
bone of the issue behind
the Temple Wall
Affair
in which, from our perspective, James was involved and which not only ce
n
tered on
barring foreigners
like the Herodians from the Temple
, but even blocking
their view
and
that of their dining guests of the sacrifices in the Temple
.
42

But it is the particular variation of it, which Josephus describes in these same descriptions in the
Jewish War
, which pr
o
vides the key to unlocking the meaning of this second allusion from the
Anabathmoi Jacobou
that James ‘
complained against the sacrifice
’. What is particularly exercising Josephus in his description of the run-up to the War against Rome is the
rejecting gifts and sacrifices on behalf of Romans and other foreigners
and
the stopping of sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor in the Temple by the Lower Priesthood
, among whom James’ influence seems to have been strong.
43
This event is the direct cause of the outbreak of the War against Rome which, in turn, led inexorably to the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem – events so telescoped by early Christian sources relating to the death of James.
44

Like so many other things he disapproves of and blames on those he refers to derogatorily as ‘
Zealots
’ or
Sicarii
, Josephus claims this cessation of sacrifice on behalf of foreigners in the Temple was ‘
an Innovation which our Forefathers were before unacquainted with
’.
45
This is certainly
not the case
in the passage leading up to Ezekiel’s all-important definition of ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ (44:15) where significantly, as we saw, Ezekiel absolutely
bars any foreigner
‘
uncircumcised in heart or body
’ from the Temple (44:7–9). In fact, Ezekiel even calls this ‘
pollution of the Temple
’, but of course – aside from Isaiah – Ezekiel is pe
r
haps the most highly-regarded prophet at Qumran.

We have seen that this passage forms the centerpiece of the definition in the Damascus Document of the ‘
Sons of Zadok
’ which can, therefore, also be seen as inclusive of
the opposition to just such
‘
gifts and sacrifices
’
on the part of foreigners in the Temple
. This theme is further reinforced in the Temple Scroll and the Habakkuk
Pesher
– more homogeneity and ther
e
fore, in our view, simultaneity – as it is in
MMT
above.
46
‘
The pollutions of the idols
’ or ‘
things sacrificed to idols
’ in James’ directives, as redacted in Acts and so refracted too by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8–11 and in
MMT
, also links up with the ‘
polluted food on the table in the Temple
’ in Malachi 1:7 – itself relating to the two accusations against
the way
‘
Temple service
’
was being conducted
and
the sacrifices that were being accepted there
in both the Damascus Document and the
Anabathmoi Jacobou
.

It is not a very great step, therefore, to attribute these injunctions to James’
teaching
‘
in the Temple
’ and part of what was implied as well in his directives to ‘
abstain from
(in the Damascus Document, ‘
to keep away from
’/‘
lehinnazer
’)
blood
,
things sacrificed to idols
,
fornication
,
and strangled things
’ or ‘
carrion
’ in Acts 15:29 and 21:25, at least before things of this kind were retrospectively transformed and moved in these sources slightly sideways or laterally after the fall of the Temple.

We can conclude, therefore, that James
did not
‘
complain against the Temple and the sacrifices
’
per se
, as Epiphanius via the
Anabathmoi Jacobou
would have it. This has to do with somewhat later more ‘
Christian
’ distortion or misinterpretation. What he did complain about, particularly if he had any involvement in ‘
the Temple Wall
’
Affair
leading up to his demise and anything in common with the Righteous Teacher – which the writer thinks he did – were ‘
gifts and sacrifices on behalf of fo
r
eigners
’ and ‘
pollution of the Temple
’, both to some extent relating to the same issue. In other words, a few extra words clar
i
fying these complaints
have been deleted. Deletions such as these change the whole texture of the charges. What James did ‘
complain against
’ was ‘
sacrifices on behalf of foreigners
’ and
the way Temple service was being conducted
by the collabora
t
ing,
Rich
and corrupt
Herodian Priesthood
, a
Priesthood
that owed its appointment to equally
Rich
and corrupt Herodian Kings and foreign Governors.

Seen in this light, James’ complaints and those of other Scroll documents along with him really do lead directly to the d
e
struction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, as Christian tradition and others rightly understood in their attempts to po
r
tray this sequence of events.
847
The only problem is that Eusebius, Clement, and their sources misunderstood the sense of what they had before them or purposefully reversed it, either out of ignorance or just plain malice – just as the citation from the
Anabathmoi Jacobou
, quoted by Epiphanius, that pictures James as speaking against ‘
kindling the fire on the altar
’ has done.

The fact of James’ person and his discourse or protests in the Temple
did lead directly to the war against Rome
as early Christian tradition, following Hegesippus and Origen, suggests. This broke out
almost exactly
‘
three and a half years
’
after his death
– the curious timeframe first spoken of in Daniel 7:25 having to do with cessation of sacrifice and itself an element in the Letter ascribed to James’ name in the New Testament as the period between the two ‘
fervent prayer
(
s
)
of a Just One which much prevailed
’ (James 5:16–17). This War was, of course, precipitated by
the stopping of sacrifices on behalf of the Roman Emperor and other foreigners
(
including Herodians
) and
the rejection of their gifts in the Temple
, an act even Josephus bitte
r
ly labels ‘
an Innovation
’. This was done by the ‘
zealous
’, every-day, working priests of ‘
the Lower Priesthood
’
in the Temple
– James’ probable constituency – many of whom
had just won the right to wear linen
, as Josephus somewhat enigmatically points out – just as James all the time himself had done according to early Church testimony.
48

The spirit, therefore, of this martyred ‘
Opposition
’ High Priest/
Zaddik
James suffused the whole process, as it did the s
e
quence of events (including
the Temple Wall
Affair
) leading inexorably to the War against Rome. This, as both Origen and Eusebius attest  can be seen as directly relating to his death. The same can be said for the spirit of the martyred ‘
Teacher of Righteousness
’ as he is, in particular, portrayed in both the Habakkuk and Psalm 37
Pesher
s of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
49
As we shall see, this will be precisely what is implied by events surrounding another constellation of notices, those of ‘
a flight to Pella
’ by the followers of James after his death and the mysterious oracle upon which such a flight was supposed to have been based, which we shall treat in the next chapter.

Paul as Herodian in
the
Anabathmoi Jacobou

Before elucidating what is implied by these materials about the flight across Jordan of ‘
the Jerusalem Community
’ of James after his death, one should look at one more notice from the lost work,
The
Anabathmoi Jacobou
or ‘
The Ascents of James’
, which Epiphanius shares with us, the only other notice from this book he seems to know or can confirm with any certainty.
He claims it is ‘
fabricated by the villainy and error of their false Apostles
’, this in spite of knowing beforehand that ‘
the Ebionites
’ he is talking about opposed Paul and considered him ‘
the Antichrist
’ or ‘
Enemy
’ and ‘
a Liar
’.
50
In fact, after provi
d
ing their charges from this work against Paul, he goes on to attack them in much the same manner as Eusebius, claiming that they got their name (he thinks ‘
Ebion
’ is a person – though he is nevertheless correct in imagining ‘
he got his name out of Prophecy
’) because of their ‘
Poverty of understanding
,
expectation
,
and works
’, not to mention ‘
the Poverty of their Faith
’, since they ‘
take Christ as a mere man
’.
Epiphanius continues:

“
Nor do they blush to accuse Paul there (in the
Anabathmoi
) with certain inventions fabricated by the villainy and error of their false Apostles,
saying that he was from Tarsus
,
as he admits himself and does not deny
.
But they suppose that his parents were Greek
,
taking as evidence for this the passage where he frankly states
, ‘
I am a man of Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city
.’
Then they say that he was a Greek
,
the son of a Greek mother and father
,
that he went up to Jerusalem
,
stayed there awhile
,
and desired to marry
the
(
High
)
Priest
’
s daughter and therefore became a convert and was circumcised
.
But then, because he was still unable to obtain her on account of her high station, in his anger he wrote against the Sabbath
,
circumcision
,
and the Law
.
But this dreadful serpent
(he means ‘
Ebion
’)
is making a completely false accusation because of his Poverty-stricken understanding
.
”
51