James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I (19 page)

These ‘
Ebionites
’ derive their name from the Hebrew ‘
Ebion
’ meaning ‘
Poor
’ (plural
Ebionim
). The term is also used repeatedly at the beginning of the second chapter of the Letter of James, leading up to the citation of ‘the Royal Law according to the Scripture’ – the Righteousness Commandment, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (2:8). Here James terms ‘the Poor’ chosen by God as ‘the heirs to the Kingdom’, to whom the Piety Commandment of ‘loving God’ is applied (2:2–6).

It is these Ebionites that held the name of James in such reverence, claiming descent from his Movement, whether direct or indirect, in first-century Palestine. For Eusebius in the 300s, this Movement is
too Jewish
, for it insists on circumcision for all converts or participants and, therefore, adherence to Jewish Law.
2
Circumcision is the outward sign of adherence to the Covenant in Judaism, and carries with it, as Paul understands (Gal. 5:3), the implied corollary of observance of the Law.

Eusebius, coming from Palestine, understands the term ‘
Ebionite
’ better than most. For him, these Ebionites have a more primitive understanding of Paul’s ‘Christ’, conceiving of him as ‘a plain and ordinary man only’, generated by natural means and advanced above other men only in his ‘practice of virtue’ – that is, his ‘Righteousness’. In other words, their Christology is ‘poverty-stricken’ and Eusebius shows that this is his opinion by making a pun on their name, that is, that
they harboured ‘poor and mean’ notions about Christ
, primarily, that
he was only a man
.

Peter and Paul Subordinate to James in Antioch

After having made it clear from his perspective what the rulings of the Jerusalem Conference were, Paul now gives his version of events that followed in Antioch. In his confrontation with Peter over
table fellowship with Gentiles
that ensues after ‘some from James’ come down to ‘Antioch’, Paul makes it clear that whoever we may think ‘Peter’ was, he was not
the Head of Christianity in the days of Paul
. Peter emerges as someone in competition to some extent with Paul himself, but not with James. Peter is clearly
under James
and subservient to his rulings, because he must defer to him and follow his instructions when his representatives arrive from Jerusalem (Gal. 2:12).

For Paul, Peter is a figure of respect and authority, but not
too much respect
nor
too much authority
. He is subject to the instructions of James, which makes James’ position as the Leader or Bishop of the Jerusalem Church the over-arching one. Peter seems to be functioning – if we can read between the lines – as something of an inspector of overseas communities, a traveling representative of Jerusalem. For these purposes, the Letters from Peter to James and Clement to James, which introduce the Pseudoclementine
Homilies
and are framed in the nature of first-person reports, are edifying.

It is perhaps because of this position that Peter looms so large overseas and that, particularly in Rome, notions of the transmission of the central role or successorship become focused on him (‘on this Rock I shall build my Church’) and by extension Rome itself. But certainly the overall center at this point is Jerusalem. It is only with the disappearance of the Jerusalem center, an event certainly connected with the 66–70 CE War against Rome (as all our traditions in any case aver),
3
that there was scope for Rome to rise to ascendancy.

Paul writes, ‘But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be condemned, for before
some came from James
, he used to
eat with the Gentiles’
(2:11–12). This is the ‘table fellowship’ controversy, that is,
table fellowship with Gentiles
. There is no doubt this James must be the ‘James the brother of the Lord’ just mentioned by Paul. The problem is simple and has to do with Jewish dietary regulations and the Law, which in turn have to do with circumcision, the outward sign of the Covenant, and therefore, as Paul puts it in Galatians 5:3, being ‘a debtor’ or one ‘obliged
to do the whole Law
’.
4

Jewish Law encompassed a full set of dietary regulations which made it impossible for Jews observing these regulations to keep normal commerce with non-Jews, who were seen as being in a state of uncleanness, not least because of the foods they ate and the manner in which they prepared them
– n
ot just Gentiles, but Jews not keeping these dietary regulations as well, fractiousness that still looms large among modern Jews today.

This is what the question of
table fellowship with Gentiles
is all about – ‘keeping’ or ‘not keeping the Law’. As Paul sees it, the emissaries or representatives of James arrived in Antioch, and when they came, Peter stopped eating with Gentiles ‘and
separated himself
being afraid of those of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in this hypocritical behaviour’ (Gal. 2:12–13).

The issues here are much greater than Paul is willing to admit. Clearly all the
Jews
are shunning Paul. James’ directives would appear to be all-embracing and everyone must obey him. The only parallel that one can think of is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Community Rule and the Damascus Document, where someone who ‘overtly or covertly breaks
one word of the Torah of Moses on any point whatsoever
shall be expelled from the the Council of the Community’, and no one ‘shall cooperate with him in work or purse in any way whatsoever’, nor shall he ‘approach the pure food of the Assembly’.
5

The parameters of this aforesaid ostracization resemble the rebuke in the Letter of James about the person ‘keeping the whole Law, but stumbling over one small point being guilty of breaking it all’, which follows the stress on ‘
doing
the Royal Law according to the Scripture’ – the all-Righteousness Commandment (2:8–10).

By ‘the rest of the Jews’ or ‘
those of the circumcision
’, Paul clearly means
the Jewish Apostles
and others caring about such things and following James’ leadership. So, therefore,
all
the Jewish members ‘
behaved hypocritically’
and appear to have followed James’ leadership in the matter of ‘eating with the Gentiles’ (Gal. 2:13).

Paul puts the issue in terms of ‘circumcision’ and, throughout much of the rest of the letter, goes on to rail against both the practice of circumcision and Jews generally, so incensed was he at the events he recounts – and so frightened, as he explains at the beginning of the letter, that the Community he planted in Galatia will be likewise turned aside by similar parameters (Gal. 1:6–12). From his presentation it is, not only clear that James is the overarching leader to whom all must defer, but also that Paul’s report of ‘the Jerusalem Council’ and what those in Jerusalem thought they had agreed to is not precisely what Paul says it was or what the author of Acts presents it as being.

It is also clear that in some sense ‘circumcision’ and ‘observing the Law’ were considered a
sine qua non
for all full-fledged or bona-fide members of the early Movement or Community – whatever name one chooses to give it. This absolutely accords with the literature we have from Qumran, which in so many ways parallels these materials, that is, first one had to
convert to Judaism
, then one could make some claim to being
heir
to its traditions. Put in another way, before one could claim to be an ‘heir to’ the promises of the Law (Gal. 3:29) – including the Prophets – one had to take the Law upon oneself. One could not, for instance, participate in the Messianism of the Messianic Movement without first taking upon oneself the traditions of the religion that brought this Messianism into being.

Whether one agrees with this proposition or not, it was, doubtlessly, how the majority of ‘those’ in Jerusalem saw the situation. Certainly all Jews in ‘Antioch’ saw the situation like this, at least when they were directed so to behave by those ‘from James’, who had arrived from Jerusalem and obviously represented his position. So bitter was Paul at this unsettling state of affairs, that he accuses both Peter and Barnabas of hypocrisy, saying, ‘and even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy’, that is, ‘separated and drew back for fear of the party insisting on circumcision’ (Gal. 2:12–13).

Being
Separate unto God
or a Nazirite

The use of the word ‘separate’ or ‘separation’ with regard to Peter’s actions, after he is called to account by the representatives of James, is used in crucial contexts in the two organizational documents from Qumran known as the Community Rule and the Damascus Document. The first uses the term when interpreting the ‘Way in the wilderness’ Prophecy associated in Christian tradition with the mission of John the Baptist in the wilderness; the second, in interpretation of Ezekiel 44:15, the scriptural basis of the promises about ‘
the Sons of Zadok
’ or ‘
the Zadokite Priesthood
’, and the evocation of what are called ‘the Three Nets of Belial’.
6

While the second ‘net’ or ‘snare’ described there has to do with ‘Riches’, a theme forming the bedrock of the Letter of James’ allusions to ‘the Poor’ and ‘the Rich’, the first and third ‘nets’ have to do with ‘fornication’ and ‘pollution of the Temple’. The truly Righteous in ‘God’s Community’ – the
true
‘
Sons of Zadok
’ – are instructed to ‘
separate
from the Sons of the Pit’ and ‘go out from the Land of Judah and live in the Land of Damascus’; in the Community Rule, ‘to
separate
from the settlement of Unrighteous men and go out in the wilderness and prepare the Way of God’.
7

In fact, in the Damascus Document it is improper ‘separation’ in the Temple that creates the ‘pollution’ problem – the improper ‘separation of clean and unclean’, in particular,
improper separation
from people who ‘lie with a woman in her period’ or, as a matter of course,
marry their nieces or close family cousins
. The Damascus Document adds, ‘anyone who approaches them shall not be free of their pollution’ (5.6–15).

I have related the ‘fornication’ and ‘pollution’ allusions to the practices of the Herodians (‘riches’ as well). This issue of ‘separation’ is also of fundamental importance to the ‘Two Letters on Works Reckoned as Righteousness’ or ‘
MMT
’, which also pay particular attention to the subject of gifts and sacrifices from Gentiles in the Temple and carry some of the points of James’ directives to overseas communities as enunciated in Acts.
8
The former, like the theme of ‘lying with women in their periods’ in the Damascus Document, violates the rules of proper ‘separation of clean from unclean. Holy from profane’, being raised here.
9

In Galatians, Peter and other Jews within the Movement are portrayed as being somewhat lax regarding matters such as these. They are being called to account by the evidently more ‘
zealous
’ or ‘
Zealot
’ Jerusalem Community – this is how James and his followers will be described in Acts 21:20 in any event, that is, as ‘
Zealots for the Law
’ – which insists on a more strict legal adherence to these matters. Therefore, James and his representatives are calling those to account in Antioch. Like anyone spending most of his time in
the Diaspora
– except the most rigid or zealous – Peter is presented here as being more easygoing, but still deferential when called to account to James’ Leadership. The same is true of Barnabas – whoever he was.

Paul now attacks Peter and
the other Jews
copying him in his behaviour in the following manner: ‘But when I saw that they did not
walk uprightly
according to the Truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before everyone: “
If you, being a Jew, live in the Gentile not a Jewish manner, why do you compel Gentiles to Judaize?”
’ (Gal. 2:14). Paul does not tell us Peter’s response. Rather, he launches into a long diatribe on ‘Justification, not by works of the Law, but rather through Faith in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 2:16 and 3:11). This goes on for several chapters and ends up in some of the most important and celebrated formulations of Christian theology, in particular, on circumcision (the issue with which the whole exercise began), the saving death of Christ, and how Christ took the curse of the Law upon himself. These passages will have particular relevance to the kind of curses in both the Community Rule and Damascus Document, most notably in the last column of the latter and the rededication to ‘the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus’ at Pentecost. Paul closes his attack on Peter in chapter 2 of Galatians with the complaint, ‘
if Righteousness is through the Law
, then Christ died for nothing’ (2:21).

Throughout he mixes symbolic language with rational theology in a way that would confuse even the most hard-headed observer. Paul admits this himself, where he refers to ‘allegorizing’ and evokes ‘the two Covenants’, the one of Hagar from ‘Mount Sinai in Arabia’ (
the Jewish one
) and the new one ‘of the Promise’ of Sarah, ‘the free woman … born according to the Spirit’ (4:24–29). Paul’s description here in Galatians, therefore – from which he launches into his discussion of Christianity, Christ’s death, the value of Grace over the Law – introduces the person of James and his representatives as his interlocutors. As Paul reveals himself – through these verses and by inference – James materializes as well, but in the opposite position. Peter and the other Jewish Apostles become swing figures in this archetypical confrontation between Paul and James; but James is not only identified, the main lines of his positions fleshed out, but also his position in the early Church straightforwardly acknowledged.