James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II by Robert Eisenman Read Free Book Online Page A

in which he learns ‘ not to call any man profane or u n clean ’ (Acts 10:11, 15, and 28 above). We have already stressed the ‘ Paulinization ’ going on here. Contrary to the clear portrait of Peter and/or ‘ Cephas ’ by Paul in Galatians, not to mention Peter as the thoroughgoing ‘ Jamesian ’ in the Pseudoclementine Homilies and Recognitions 79 ; this apocryphal episode turns Peter into a rank-and-file ‘ Paulinist’ . Yet, even here, the real Peter shines through. For instance, in his first response to the Heavenly Voice instructing him to ‘ kill and eat ’, to which Peter a n swers, as already signaled, ‘ No Lord , for I have never eaten anything profane or unclean ’ (10:14). This is so unequivocal that it contradicts even the portrait later on in Galatians where Peter is presented as following a more middle-of-the-road approach and Paul has the temerity to accuse both him and Barnabas of ‘ hypocrisy ’ (2:13).
    But this passage in Acts is clearly written by a Gentile as well – probably in either Alexandria or Rome. This is because it has Peter stating in his first conversation with the Roman Centurion Cornelius – raising him up after the latter ‘ fell at his feet ’ – having already just learned on a rooftop in Jaffa that ‘ table fellowship ’ with and visiting Gentile homes was permitted: ‘You know that it is not lawful for a Jewish man to join himself with (in the language of the Damascus Document, become ‘ Joiners ’ or Nilvim 80 ) or come near one of another Race (Acts 10:28).’ Not only is this patently inaccurate, but no Jew could have ever written or said it – even a Backslider or turncoat like Josephus – as the issue was far more complex than this. It had to do with purity regulations and/or contracting impurity or defilement and would even have applied to contact with – to use the vocab u lary of the Habakkuk Pesher – non-‘ Torah - Doers in the House of Judah ’, meaning ‘ Jews ’ 81 ). Rather, this is how Jews would have been perceived by uncomprehending outsiders – since it is not that Jews could not go near foreigners; it is only that one would find it difficult to keep ‘ table fellowship ’ (as the issue is referred to in contemporary scholarship) with them or be in touch with people not keeping the Law , whether Backsliding Jews or Gentiles.
    To repeat, this could not have been written by someone who was Jewish. Rather it is how Jewish behaviour might have appeared to non-Jewish and certainly jaundiced and even hostile eyes. In particular, this is how an anti-Semitic individual (po s sibly even one of the ubiquitous ‘ Hellenists ’ mentioned above) would have framed such an observation – not patently the hi s torical Peter, at least not as he is depicted in documents like the Pseudoclementines unless, of course, one views Peter as a man hobbled by anti-Semitic stereotypes, which the present writer does not.
    The character ‘ Cornelius ’ is also an impossibility, for it would not have been possible to find at this time a ‘ Righteous and Godfearing Centurion ’ of the Caesarean contingent of Roman Soldiers, ‘ highly spoken of by the whole Nation of the Jews ’ (Acts 10:22 – ‘ Pious ’ and ‘ doing many good works on behalf of the People and praying to God continually ’ as Acts 10:2 puts it preceding this). Not only is it hard to refrain from outright guffawing here, this is an obvious inversion and clear overwrite because, as even Josephus has attested, the Caesarean regiment of Roman Soldiery was among the most brutal in Palestine . It was they more than any other Roman troops that goaded the Jews into revolt, so much so that when Titus – not someone partic u larly known for his liberality or largesse and certainly not his concern for the Jews – had finally pacified the country in 70 CE, the Caesarean regiment was the first to be banished from it because of its previous record of unmitigated cruelty. 82
    In fact, like so