Eisenman stresses that James, whether he was
literally Jesus' brother or not, had known Jesus personally in a way
that Paul never did. In his teachings, he was certainly closer to
'the source' than Paul ever was. And his objectives and
preoccupations were often at variance with Paul's - were sometimes,
indeed, diametrically opposed. For Paul, then, James would have been
a constant irritant. With the triumph of Pauline Christianity,
therefore, James's significance, if it couldn't be obliterated
completely, had, at the very least, to be diminished.
Apart from those that impinge on Paul, however, one learns little of his activities, and even less about his personality and biography. Neither is the Letter of James in the New Testament of much value in this respect. The letter may indeed derive from a text by James, and Eisenman has drawn attention to its Qumranic style, language and imagery.2
It contains (James 5:6) an accusation whose significance will become apparent shortly - an accusation to the effect that 'you murdered the righteous [or just] man'.3
Again, however, no personal information is vouchsafed.
The 'enemy' taunts James's listeners and drowns out his words with noise, then proceeds to inflame the crowd,
The 'enemy' does not confine himself to a verbal assault. Seizing a brand of wood, he begins to flail about with it at the assembled worshippers, and his entourage follow suit.
A full-scale riot ensues:
James, however, is not dead. According to the 'Recognitions', his
supporters carry him back to his house in Jerusalem. The next
morning, before dawn, the injured man and his supporters flee the
city, making their way to Jericho, where they remain for some time -
presumably while James convalesces.6
What is more, he argues, the flight to Jericho has a ring of historical truth to it. It is the kind of incidental detail that is unlikely to have been fabricated and interpolated, because it serves no particular purpose. As for the 'enemy', there would seem to be little doubt about his identity.
The 'Recognitions of Clement' concludes:
The surviving editions of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews contain only one reference to James, which may or may not be later interpolation. The chronicle reports that the Sanhedrin, the religious high court, call before them James, 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ'.8
Accused (most improbably) of breaking the Law, James and certain of his companions are found guilty and accordingly stoned to death. Whether this account is accurate, doctored or wholly invented, the most important aspect of it is the date to which it refers. Josephus indicates that the events he has described occurred during an interval between Roman procurators in Judaea.
The incumbent procurator had just died. His successor, Lucceius Albinus, was still en route to Palestine from Rome. During the interregnum, effective power in Jerusalem was wielded by the high priest, an unpopular man named Ananas. This allows the account of James's death to be dated at around AD 62 - only four years before the outbreak of the revolt in AD 66.
Here, then, is at least
some chronological evidence that James's death may have had
something to do with the war that ravaged the Holy Land between AD
66 and 73. For further information, however, one must turn to later
Clement refers to
James, we are told, as 'the Righteous', or, as it is often
translated, 'the Just' - 'Zaddik' in Hebrew.9 This, of course, is
the by now familiar Qumranic usage, whence derives the 'Teacher of
Righteousness', the leader of the Qumran community. According to
Clement, Eusebius reports, James was thrown from a parapet of the
Temple, then beaten to death with a club.10
At this point, it is worth interrupting the text to note certain intriguing details. James is said to wear linen, or priestly robes. This was the prerogative of those who served in the Temple and belonged to one of the priestly families, traditionally the Sadducean 'aristocracy' who, during the 1st century, came to an accommodation with Rome and the Herodian dynasty of Roman puppets. Again, Eisenman points out, Epiphanius, another Church historian, speaks of James wearing the mitre of the high priest.13
Then, too, only the high priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum and most sacred spot in the Temple.
Certainly the established priesthood had no affection for James. According to Hegesippus, the 'Scribes and Pharisees' decide to do away with him, so that the people 'will be frightened and not believe him'.
They proclaim that 'even the Righteous one has gone astray',15 and invoke a quote from the Old Testament - in this case from the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 3:10) - to justify their actions. They note that Isaiah had prophesied the death of the 'Righteous One'. In murdering James, therefore, they will simply be bringing Isaiah's prophecy to fulfillment. But also, in using this quote from Isaiah, they are following a technique employed in both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.
Eisenman points out that, just as this quote is used in order to describe the death of James, so the Qumran community employs similar 'Righteousness' passages from the New Testament in order to describe the death of the 'Teacher of Righteousness'.16
Eusebius goes on to describe the death of James in the following manner:
Vespasian, who became emperor in AD 69, commanded the Roman army that invaded Judaea to put down the revolt of AD 66. Here again, then, is a chronological connection between James's death and the revolt. But Eusebius goes further. The connection for him is more than just chronological.
The entire 'siege of Jerusalem', he says,
meaning presumably the whole of the revolt in Judaea, was a direct
consequence of James's death - 'for no other reason than the wicked
crime of which he had been the victim'.18
Referring to the revolt of AD 66 and the Roman invasion that followed, Josephus states that,
From these fragments pertaining to James, a scenario begins to take form. James, the acknowledged leader of the 'early Church' in Jerusalem, represents a faction of Jews who, like the Qumran community, are 'zealous for the Law'. This faction is understandably hostile towards the Sadducee priesthood and the high priest Ananas (appointed by Herod20), who have betrayed their nation and their religion by concluding an accord with the Roman administration and its Herodian puppet-kings.
So intense is this hostility that James arrogates to himself the priestly functions which Ananas has compromised.21 Ananas' supporters respond by contriving James's death. Almost immediately thereafter, the whole of Judaea rises in revolt, and Ananas is himself one of the first casualties, assassinated as a pro-Roman collaborator. As the rebellion gains momentum, Rome is forced to react, and does so by dispatching an expeditionary force under Vespasian.
The result is the war which
witnesses the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 68, and which does not end until the fall of Masada in AD 74.
On the contrary, it becomes one of the
manifestations of Judaic nationalism at the time - a body of
militant individuals intent on upholding the Law, deposing the
corrupt Sadducee priesthood of the Temple, toppling the dynasty of
illegitimate puppet-kings and driving the occupying Romans from the
Holy Land. In all these respects, it conforms to conventional images
of the Zealots.
He is the acknowledged leader of a 'sectarian' religious community whose members are 'zealous for the Law'. He must contend with two quite separate and distinct adversaries. One of these is Paul, an outsider who, having first persecuted the community, then converts and is admitted into it, only to turn renegade, prevaricate and quarrel with his superiors, hijack the image of Jesus and begin preaching his own doctrine -a doctrine which draws on that of the community, but distorts it.
James's second adversary is from outside the community - the high priest Ananas, head of the Sadducee priesthood. Ananas is a notoriously corrupt and widely hated man. He has also betrayed both the God and the people of Israel by collaborating with the Roman administration and their Herodian puppet-kings. James publicly challenges Ananas and eventually meets his death at the hands of Ananas' minions; but Ananas will shortly be assassinated in turn.
All of this takes place against a backdrop of increasing social and
political unrest and the impending invasion of a foreign army.
scrolls told their own story, at the centre of which was a single
protagonist, the 'Teacher of Righteousness' - an exemplar of the
same virtues associated with James. Like James, the 'Teacher' was
the acknowledged leader of a 'sectarian' religious community whose
members were 'zealous for the Law'. And like James, the 'Teacher'
had to contend with two quite separate and distinct adversaries.
The text states explicitly that,
He 'led many astray' and raised 'a congregation on deceit'.25 He himself is said to be 'pregnant with [works] of deceit'.26 These, of course, are precisely the transgressions of which Paul is accused in Acts - transgressions which lead, at the end of Acts, to the attempt on his life. And Eisenman stresses Paul's striking hypersensitivity to charges of prevarication and perjury.27
In 1 Timothy 2:7, for example, he asserts indignantly, as if defending himself, that 'I am telling the truth and no lie'.
In II Corinthians 11:31, he swears that:
These are but two
instances; Paul's letters reveal an almost obsessive desire to
exculpate himself from implied accusations of falsity.
He harried the 'Teacher of Righteousness' wherever the 'Teacher' sought refuge. At the hands of the 'Wicked Priest's' minions, the 'Teacher' suffered some serious injury and possibly - the text is vague on the matter - death. Subsequently, the 'Wicked Priest' was himself assassinated by followers of the 'Teacher', who, after killing him, 'took vengeance upon his body of flesh' - that is, defiled his corpse.29
parallels between the 'Wicked Priest' of the scrolls and the
historical figure of the high priest Ananas are unmistakable.
In our own pages, it
would be impossible to do adequate justice to the weight of evidence
he amasses. But the conclusions of this evidence are inescapable.
The 'Habakkuk Commentary' and certain other of the Dead Sea Scrolls
are referring to the same events as those recounted in Acts, in
Josephus and in the works of early Christian historians.
The 'Habakkuk Commentary' states explicitly that
the leadership of the community were in Jerusalem at the relevant
The same theme appears in the Letter to the Galatians (3:11):
These two statements constitute, in effect, 'the starting-point of
the theological concept of faith'. They are ultimately, as Eisenman
says, 'the foundation piece of Pauline theology'.31 They provide the
basis on which Paul is able to make his stand against James - is
able to extol the supremacy of faith, while James extols the
supremacy of the Law.
The 'Habakkuk Commentary' cites the same statement and then proceeds to elaborate upon it:
This extraordinary passage is tantamount, in effect, to a formulation of early 'Christian' doctrine. It states explicitly that suffering, and faith in the 'Teacher of Righteousness', constitute the path to deliverance and salvation. From this passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Paul must have derived the foundation for the whole of his own theology.
But the passage in question declares unequivocally that suffering and faith in the 'Teacher of Righteousness' will lead to deliverance only among 'those who observe the Law in the House of Judah'.33
It is just such emphasis on adherence to the Law that Paul contrives to ignore, thereby precipitating his doctrinal dispute with James and the other members of the 'early Church'.