I've been stumped by the "he alone" thing in Hegesippus regarding James going into the "holy place" (which I'm at least comfortable thinking is not the Holy of Holies and means "he alone" among Christians or non-priests) and not knowing where else to look for any precedence or corroborating evidence for flexibility regarding non-priests ever being allowed into it.
But I've seen enough to say that there is clearly some kind of close relationship between Nazirites and priests (similar rituals that tie them closely to the Temple, both ultimately being "holy to God," wearing a "nezer," etc.) that goes back to the OT, where the rules for Nazirites are followed by the Priestly Blessings in Numbers 6.
And James appears to be a Nazirite in Hegesippus, which is supported by James' and others' affiliation with the Temple and arguably with Naziritism in Acts 21:23-26:
There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law ... The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
So there doesn't seem to be anything strange about Hegesippus' description of James as a Nazirite. One could have that impression from Acts as well (or at least his
concern with Naziritism and the Temple).
And Hegesippus' description of the "commotion" of the times and James' beating with a club is in keeping with how Josephus and the Talmud describe these times, with both naming the priestly family who killed James, and the latter saying that their servants beat people with clubs, as per Hegesippus of James.
And Hegesippus mentions three groups who "came together" to kill James, using the same word Mark 14:53 uses to describe the three groups who "came together" to kill Jesus (and is equivalent to the word Josephus uses to describe those who "assembled" to kill James); and while the three groups are compatible (priests, scribes, Pharisees), Hegesippus and Mark use different terms to describe them, which I think indicates that Hegesippus was not dependent on Mark but that each are independently describing the political/religious climate of the times.
And the way James' stoning is carried out in Hegesippus is more or less in line with the procedure for stoning in the Talmud (down to details like James' turning), which is consistent with Hegesippus being said to know Jewish oral traditions. And the protest of the Rechabite (who, like Nazirites, were quasi-priests) is in keeping with Josephus' reference to the protest of James' stoning by "the most equitable of the citizens."
So all this seems fairly normal
and consistent with other sources to me, so the "he alone" part has had me stumped for awhile since it seems like the only potentially "wacky" thing Hegesippus says about James.
Then I realized the key is to take something else Hegesippus says seriously, something I've previously overlooked, and factoring that in to the equation.
In the big picture, in a climate where prominent priestly families (including the one that killed James) were willing to bend the rules pertaining to beating and killing people (including other priests), is it a stretch to suppose some people may have been willing to bend them to allow a lifelong Nazirite like James into the "holy place" to pray for the forgiveness of people in these times? Who could have allowed James to do this? In EH 2.23.10 Hegesippus says that because of James, "many even of the rulers believed," which is the part I've always overlooked. But now that I think about it, it seems consistent with what Acts 26:25-32 says about Paul, King Agrippa and Bernice:
"I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”
Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”
The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. After they left the room, they began saying to one another, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment."
Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
And this dovetails nicely with a link Stephan gave to an interesting article that mentions how Josephus relates that Bernice had taken a Nazirite-like vow:
Josephus tells the following story about Berenice (Jud. War 2.15.1):
She was visiting Jerusalem to discharge a vow to God; for it is customary for those suffering from illness or other affliction to make a vow to abstain from wine and to shave their heads during the thirty days preceding that on which they must offer sacrifices.
https://thetorah.com/queen-helena-of-ad ... d-history/
If Paul had some sway with King Agrippa and Bernice, why couldn't James, given his authority over Paul in Acts, in particular in matters pertaining to Naziritism? It does not therefore seem unreasonable to suppose that James, via Paul or directly, could have had something to do with Bernice's (or other rulers') Naziritism and belief in Jesus, and that such backing is what allowed him to enter the holy place and pray during these chaotic times.
Acts 15:5-6 also presents Pharisees as being a part of Christianity, about whom Josephus and the NT say had sway over the people and more or less ran the show and were in cahoots with the Herodians; and Acts shows them to have been influential enough to cause Christian apostles and elders to assemble a council in Jerusalem to consider their question:
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion ...
And Paul had been a Pharisee too, and as Mk. 3:6 shows (in tandem with Josephus and rabbinic writings), Pharisees had considerable sway with the Herodians:
Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
So perhaps James had access to rulers via Pharisees like Paul and the Christian Pharisees in Acts 15:5 (if not directly), which would account for Hegesippus' statement that "many even of the rulers believed" in Jesus because of James, and that having these connections allowed the rules to be bent so he could enter the holy place during this time when priestly families were wantonly beating and killing other priests and poor people, which of course is also forbidden by the Torah but was nevertheless allowed to take place.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.