James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (10 page)

A similar conundrum bedevils Josephus’ presentation of responsibility for the fall of the Temple. There can be little doubt that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by an express Roman political decision, yet Josephus portrays the Jews as burning their own Temple down around themselves. The Romans, no doubt, perceived the Temple as being the seat of the pestilent Messianic Movement, which, Christian refurbishments notwithstanding, it was. The description of these events would have come in the famous, lost Fifth Book of Tacitus’
Histories
, or possibly the missing portions of the
Annals
, but Sulpicius Severus in the fifth century provides an account that was probably based on it.
8
He portrays the Roman war council on the eve of the final assault on the Temple, where the definitive decision was taken by Titus’ staff to destroy it, no doubt with the enthusiastic support of individuals such as Bernice, Philo’s nephew Tiberius Alexander, and Josephus himself. Another Roman historian, Dio Cassius, notes the Roman amazement at the Jews who in despair threw themselves into the flames (65.6.3).

For his part, Josephus is anxious to portray the Jews as burning down their own Temple and Titus as doing everything he can to quench the flames. In this manner he rescues Titus from the charge of impiety or Temple desecration, so important to a people as superstitious as the Romans. It is easy to recognize in Josephus’ presentation of Titus the similar presentation of the behaviour of Pontius Pilate and Herod towards Jesus and John the Baptist in the Gospels – not surprisingly, since all these documents were produced by similar mindsets under similar constraints. Though on the basis of the extant corpus, since he testifies that Jesus ‘was the Christ’, Josephus must be considered a Christian; elsewhere, as we have seen, Josephus informs us in no uncertain terms that he considers Vespasian to have been the one called from Palestine at this time to rule the world. Josephus’ perversion of the ‘World Ruler Prophecy’ is comparable in its cynicism to the Hellenistic reformulation of it in the Gospels.

Rabbinic literature is equally cynical in its presentation of R.Yohanan ben Zacchai, the founder of Rabbinic Judaism, as making the same opportunistic interpretation of this Prophecy and applying it to Vespasian, presumably to save his skin. This is the kind of chicanery and sleight-of-hand typical of this period. Josephus might have been a secret Christian, depending on one’s definition of ‘Christian’ in Palestine – if one wants him, one is welcome to him – but not on the basis of his description of Jesus. On this basis, so was Pontius Pilate and, indeed, apocryphal Gospels asserting this duly appeared in early Christian centuries. These absurdities have gone so far that there were even Josephinist cults in the Middle Ages and, as noted, the Josephus corpus accompanied the Greek Orthodox canon.

In England his first translators, like William Whiston in Isaac Newton’s time, were convinced they were dealing with a Christian. History can attest to few more cynical people who have portrayed themselves so frankly. Indeed, besides the wealth of historical data he presents us, if he has a virtue, this is it. He is honest to a fault concerning his own shortcomings and flaws. In fact, he does not even seem to recognize them as flaws at all.

Chapter 5

Early Church Sources and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Extra-biblical Sources Relating to James

The existence of James the brother of Jesus is not only confirmed in the Pauline Corpus, the Book of Acts, and by Josephus, it is also echoed in the Gospels, though downplayed. It is further enlarged upon in the literature of the early Church. The principal sources are Eusebius of Caesarea at the beginning of the fourth century (
c.
260–340) and Epiphanius of Salamis at the end of it (367–404), both from Palestine. Their testimonies about James overlap, but with interesting differences and emendations.
There is a much shorter notice in Jerome’s
In Praise
of Illustrious Men
. Jerome (347–420), whose principal work was also conducted in Palestine, most notably Bethlehem, was famous for his biblical scholarship, the basis of the Latin Vulgate Bible of today. His testimony overlaps with both Eusebius and Epiphanius, the latter his contemporary and, it seems, a Jewish convert to Christianity. While Eusebius and Epiphanius are more extensive, Jerome focuses on several aspects of the tradition that are extremely important for our understanding of James.

The greater part of these sources and testimonies is based on two earlier writers from the second century, both now lost. The first, Hegesippus (
c.
90–180) was a second-century churchman, also from Palestine; the second, Clement of Alexandria (
c.
150–215) was Origen’s predecessor and teacher in Egypt. Their testimony, while not always in agreement, overlaps substantially, though Hegesippus’ is more extensive. Eusebius is straightforward about his dependence on both and presents large sections from them, particularly Hegesippus. Without his verbatim quotations, we would be without these two all-important testimonies.

Hegesippus flourished within a century of James and seems to have been a ‘Jewish Christian’, whatever may be meant by this term in this time. As a young man he would have known persons whose memory spanned the time frame involved or who would have known people with personal knowledge of the events and individuals in question. His testimony, therefore, is to be highly prized, but it is regrettable that none of his works has survived, except these precious excerpts in Eusebius.

Though some works of Clement of Alexandria have survived, the materials about James used by Eusebius and Epiphanius did not. Nor have any materials about James from Clement, additional to those quoted in Eusebius, survived. The reader should keep in mind that there are two
Clements. The first one in Rome, in whose name
the ‘Pseudoclementines’ have been redacted, was one of the earliest Popes at the end of the first century (
c.
30–97). Not only is he designated as the first or second ‘Pope’ in Rome after Peter, a lively travel literature developed in his name, associated with the process of his conversion, known latterly as the Pseudoclementines. The ‘Jewish Christian’ or Ebionite tendencies of the Pseudoclementines – comprising both the
Recognitions of Clement
and the
Homilies
– have often been remarked. The only real difference between the two works is that the attack on James by Paul in the First Book of the
Recognitions
and the surrounding material there seem to have been deleted from the
Homilies
, presenting a more sanitized version. Therefore, the
Recognitions
, in particular, provides important information for our consideration of James, not so much doctrinally, but historically.

The Clement on whose work some of the statements about James found in Eusebius and Epiphanius are based, however, is not this Clement but a second-century Alexandrian theologian by the same name. Though he was a younger contemporary of Hegesippus, the testimony he provides is neither as extensive nor as useful as Hegesippus’ impressive legacy. From what has survived, it can be concluded that he had information about James’ role as successor to Jesus and the circumstances of his death. Nor does Clement evince any embarrassment over James’ ‘brother’ relationship with Jesus. But garbling of materials and mythologization have already begun to take place, even more than in Hegesippus’ case, though he is only a little more than a century away from the events in question. Still, Clement of Alexandria is a useful link in the process of transmission and another firm testimony to James’ importance in first-century Palestine and other areas in the East.

There are also important materials about James
in two other writers from the second century, Papias
(
c.
60–135) and Justin Martyr (
c.
100–165). Justin Martyr does not mention James specifically, but the data he records are extremely helpful as regards the substance of what early notions of Christianity might have been, particularly the Righteousness/Piety dichotomy, which he considers the essence of Christianity (
Dial
. 23, 47, & 93).
He also provides interesting materials about what might have constituted Scripture in those days. Where Paul is concerned, though both come from Asia Minor, Justin doesn’t mention him at all, but seems rather studiously to avoid him. If this is an indication of some second-century doctrinal rift, it is interesting information indeed.

Even more interesting for our purposes is Papias, whose works have survived only in fragments. Eusebius knows of Papias’ works and once again here and there gives excerpts from these. However, there are some fragments purporting to come from Papias which came to light in the last century.
1
If authentic, these are of the utmost importance for studying the family of Jesus, particularly the relationship of Jesus’ uncle Cleophas to Mary, and by extension, the relationship of Simeon, Cleophas’ son, to Jesus and James. Even if only a later epitome, the information they provide is very penetrating. As these relationships are clarified, so too can the existence of a fourth, rather ephemeral brother of Jesus, which tradition insists on calling Joseph or ‘Joses’.

Apocryphal Gospels,
Apocalypses,
Acts,
and Anti-Acts

In these kinds of documents, too, we have important sources for the life, teaching, and person of James. In the Gospels – primarily the Synoptics – we have the testimony to the brothers of Jesus, however downplayed these may be.
2
No embarrassment is evinced about the fact of these brothers. Nor is there any indication that they may be half-brothers, brothers by a different mother, or any other such designation aimed at reducing their importance and minimizing their relationship to Jesus.

In these reports Jesus’ mother and brothers come to him to talk to or question him. They are four in number, James, Simon, Jude, and Joses. One or more sisters are also mentioned – one specifically named Salome (Mk 15:40). Other than some sayings that imply a disparaging attitude towards those close to Jesus and his immediate family and additional material in Apostle lists, there is little else in the Gospels relating to them. This attitude of disparagement directed against what can only be called ‘the Jewish Apostles’ – in effect comprising the nucleus of what is called ‘the Jerusalem Church’ – is a retrospective one and part of the anti-family and anti-Jewish polemic of Pauline or Overseas Christianity, not a historical one.

The fact of these brothers – particularly James – also emerges in what are referred to as Apocryphal Gospels, those works in the gospel genre which for one reason or another did not get into the canon that emerged after Constantine. Principal among these are gospels that are known only through secondhand accounts from Church Fathers, notably Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. These include, in particular, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and the Gospel of the Ebionites. None of these gospels, which were all said to have been based on the Gospel of Matthew, has survived (except in quoted fragments), nor is it clear that they were ever really separate gospels at all and not simply variations of each other. In several of the surviving notices, James plays a significant role, particularly in post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

In addition, James plays a prominent role in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, recently discovered at Nag Hammadi. Unlike most other gospels, the Gospel of Thomas is simply a list of sayings ascribed to Jesus. Other materials from Nag Hammadi further reinforce the importance James was accorded in the early centuries of Christianity, particularly in the East. There can be no doubt that this is the James of this book and that he was viewed in the manner almost of a Supernatural Redeemer figure superseded in importance only by Jesus himself. This is very curious, and once again confirms that James’ role in the East was one of over-arching importance. It will be the view of this book that this status was only a little exaggerated beyond his true role in the Palestine of his day. Among these documents from Nag Hammadi presenting James as being of such commanding stature are the First and Second Apocalypses of James. There is also the largely fictional Protevangelium of James, which claims to be an account of the infancy of Jesus, told from the point of view of James, his closest living relative. Regardless of the credibility of this gospel, and in it we have the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the importance of James is again highlighted – this time in his role of unimpeachable witness.

Where Books of Acts are concerned, there are other lost materials like the documents referred to by scholars as the ‘
Kerygmata Petrou
’, the ‘Teaching of Peter’, or another lost work, the ‘Travels of Peter’. These are difficult to reconstruct with any certainty, but are thought to have been incorporated into the Pseudoclementines. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these documents for a consideration of the person of James. Apart from doctrinal considerations, important for second-third-century groups known as ‘Jewish Christians’ or Ebionites’, there are materials, particularly in the First Book of the
Recognitions
, that are important as a kind of anti-Acts. They present a picture of the early days of the Church in Jerusalem from the point of view not of a Luke or a Paul, but of a writer sympathetic to James – and with him, the whole of the ‘Jerusalem Church’ Establishment, including the Jewish Apostles.