Neil wrote:
This is where our views diverge. One can imagine any number of hypothetical explanations or background scenarios and find details that give them a "pass" (they are permissible, possible) . . . .
But 'scientific research' cannot (does not) function that way. Such an approach allows for any number of hypotheses to be argued without any means of testing or disproving any of them.
We need positive evidence that clearly establishes a point we are making; not simply an escape-door that allows us to argue a point.
I agree, but I don't think I'm imagining anything that isn't plausible (and I would venture to say even likely), since Josephus (in the same chapter as the James passage) and the Talmud say that the servants of the family of the priest who sentenced James to death beat people with impunity during this period, so it is no great stretch to suppose that it could have happened to James too. For me it is like imagining that Josephus' James could have been pushed off of a platform because it is part of the procedure for stoning in Rabbinic Judaism.
Given that we are in a position of not knowing exactly what happened to Josephus' James, I suppose we could leave it at that, but I think these are reasonable suppositions.
Stephan wrote:
There is nothing in the Torah like this. The actual context
IF ONE STEALS THE KISWAH,23 OR CURSES BY ENCHANTMENT, OR COHABITS WITH A HEATHEN [LIT. SYRIAN] WOMAN, HE IS PUNISHED BY ZEALOTS.24 IF A PRIEST PERFORMED THE TEMPLE SERVICE WHILST UNCLEAN, HIS BROTHER PRIESTS DO NOT CHARGE HIM THEREWITH AT BETH DIN, BUT THE YOUNG PRIESTS TAKE HIM OUT OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND SPLIT HIS SKULL WITH CLUBS. A LAYMAN WHO PERFORMED THE SERVICE IN THE TEMPLE, R. AKIBA SAID: HE IS STRANGLED; THE SAGES SAY: [HIS DEATH IS] AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN.
I didn't have time to check San. 81b last night, and it looks like you've since corrected your post regarding the date of it, but I see now that the above passage is from the Mishnah and not the Gemara, which would make this no later than c. 200 CE (for what it's worth).
And Sefaria gives the translation as "pieces of wood" instead of "clubs," which I assume means wood that was used on the altar, and if that is the case then this passage would not apply to James the Just because he is said to have been struck by a fuller's club ("with which he beat out clothes"), and that seems more in line with the servants of the High Priests who beat people with impunity in Ant. 20 and Pes. 57a.
In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood.
https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.81b.1 ... l&lang2=en
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.