As I mentioned, there is only one more issue I have with Hegesippus, regarding his account of the death of James and the one in Josephus (which I think is authentic, including the reference to James being "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ").
I've always heard that these two accounts are incompatible and I've always accepted this without giving it much thought. Take Painter, for example.
At this point Hegesippus has obscured the real opponent of James (the high priest Ananus) by portraying the scribes and Pharisees as responsible for his death. It may be that he simply transposed the traditional opponents of Jesus to the conflict with James.
https://books.google.com/books?id=HQGsx ... us&f=false
First of all, while Ananus was a Sadducee, it is worth pointing out that Josephus says in Ant. 18.1.4 that the Sadducees "are able to do almost nothing of themselves;
for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them."
So in the big picture the Pharisees were running the show.
Second, Hegesippus doesn't say that
only the scribes and the Pharisees were responsible for James' death. Here is what he says in EH 2.23:
Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ.
Surely Ananus would qualify as a Jew. And notice that he says there was "a commotion" among these Jews, which fits with what Josephus says about Ananus in Ant. 20.9.1.
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity.
Hegesippus then goes on to say:
Coming therefore in a body to James they said, ‘We entreat thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ.
And this fits with what Josephus says regarding Ananus:
... so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...
And as I noted in another thread, Hegesuppus appears to be more interested in the details of James' stoning and less so about what happened before it, is all. After all, Josephus doesn't really give any details about James' stoning beyond saying that "when he [Ananus] had formed an accusation against them [James "and some others"] as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." Hegesippus gives details about (and is apparently more interested in) what happened to James
after this, which Josephus does not describe.
Nor does Josephus say
why James was killed, only that Ananus accused him of breaking the law (which could mean anything) and that he was then delivered to be stoned. And Josephus doesn't say
who did the actual stoning or give any details at all about it, beyond saying that "as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done," which is in keeping with Hegesippus' statement that, "while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, ‘Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you.’"
And as I noted in another thread, the manner of James' death is in keeping with stoning in the Talmud.
The place of stoning from which the condemned man is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. He is made to stand at the edge of the platform, and then one of the witnesses who testified against him pushes him down by the hips, so that he falls face up onto the ground.
If he turned over onto his chest, with his face downward, the witness turns him over onto his hips. And if he dies through this fall to the ground, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled.
And if the condemned man does not die from his fall, the second witness takes the stone that has been prepared for this task and places, i.e., casts, it on his chest. And if he dies with the casting of this first stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled.
And if he does not die with the casting of this stone, then his stoning is completed by all of the Jewish people, i.e., by all the people who assembled for the execution, as it is stated: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people” (Deuteronomy 17:7).
http://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.45a?lang=bi
And here is Hegesippus on James in EH 2.23:
And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, ‘Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’ So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, ‘I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’
To me Hegesippus simply appears to be more interested in what happened
after James was delivered over to be stoned, which is something Josephus does not describe, but they are both ultimately talking about the same thing, the death of James by stoning and that "the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.