Shalom everyone,
Most of what I am about to discuss is admittedly based on my own hypotheses, my own musings. Having an amateur detective-like suspicion of plots, storylines and motives, I have looked at certain elements that are written in the NT, and which have been accepted as unquestionable truth, but which I find suspect – there is something ’off’, something that does not quite sit right. In this article, I would like to present to you the concept that, even in the earliest Community of the Way, during the time of James’s leadership, there were three distinct sects, which I have named the Galilaeists, the Emissarians, and the Hellenicists.
In the Book of Acts, the author seems most determined to present the early ‘Christian’ community as a united front, even going so far as to paint a picture of James and the Jerusalem Elders approving Paul’s ministry, and that there were never any lasting disagreements, controversies or differences. However, there is more in what is not said than what is said, which gives me ample reason to think that even within the earliest Jewish communities of Followers of the Way (that is, between the years 30-62 CE, the period I’m focusing on), there were early theological and cultural differences evolving.
However, these differences do not seem to have caused any severe problems within the community; under James’s leadership, fraternal harmony was maintained between the sects or ‘schools’ (in the sense of, ‘a school of thought, tradition, or teaching’).
The Galilaeists
As for the first sect or school, I have named it, ‘the Galilaeist school’ (pronounced, gal-lee-LAY-ist), from the Latin name for the Galilee, Galilæa.
Yeshua spent a lot of time teaching and preaching in the Galilee. In spite of what Mark says, he had most of his successes there, while in Judea, most people refused to listen to him. You would therefore think that most of his followers were in the Galilee, but the Book of Acts never mentions any followers there, or even refers to their communities. Suspiciously, Acts concentrates solely on the communities in Judea. Does anyone else find this lack of mention in Acts odd? What could have caused the author of Acts to ignore them so completely?
Luke mentions everywhere but the Galilee; in the Holy Land, Judea and Samaria are mentioned (Acts 1:8), and various towns and cities are mentioned around the eastern Mediterranean, but nothing of the place where it all started – the Galilee.
We can only surmise and guess why Luke did this, but one hypothesis I have, is that the community of Followers in the Galilee were closer to the original teachings of Yeshua than those elsewhere, and Luke may have been uncomfortably aware of this. Were they less messianic – was that the reason why they were so ignored in Acts? I also suspect that Galilean Followers were led by the seventy apostles (or 72 in some manuscripts) that Yeshua appointed after the Twelve, mentioned in Luke chapter 10 (Lk 10:1, 17).
Like the Twelve more famous named apostles, Yeshua would have chosen disciples who had been with him from the earliest days of his ministry. An apostle (shlīchā in Aramaic) is someone who is sent out by a Jewish religious teacher to disseminate his message verbatim, without adding or deleting anything. Just like the Twelve, these Seventy would also have been familiar with the spirit and meaning of Yeshua’s teaching and message, and so the Galilaeist school would have been as equally apostolic as the Emissarian communities founded in Judea by the Twelve.
The Follower community of Rome is worth commenting on here. There were Follower communities there before Paul, Peter or any apostle ever reached there. If it wasn’t the teaching of the Emissaries that converted them, it must have been elders from the only other substantial Follower community – the Galileans. In Acts 2:10, Luke mentions people from Rome, “both Jews and proselytes (converts)”. Gentile Converts were a significant feature of mainstream synagogues in Rome, otherwise Luke would not have mentioned them. We have no reason not to assume that such a feature was also true of Follower synagogues.
Did Yeshua really condemn Galilean towns?
I also find it suspicious that in Luke chapter 10, three Galilean towns – Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum – are all condemned by Jesus as refusing to listen to his message and repent; they are condemned to oblivion in ‘Hades’. However, history shows that these towns thrived, and were centres of the Community of the Way after the Temple was destroyed. Capernaum was even the centre of the Follower community in the Galilee, where Yeshua spent much of his ministry.
In Talmudic writings where Yavnean rabbis criticise heretics, the main hotbeds of ‘heresy’ against normative rabbinic Judaism were Capernaum and Sepphoris, the Galilee’s capital, even though the gospel of Mark portrays the Jewish people there as rejecting Jesus (yet Yeshua’s seventy apostles reported success, Lk 10:17-19). Mark’s gospel and what is recorded in the Talmud don’t agree; my tendency, going on the successes of the seventy, is to assume that Jews in the Galilee accepted Yeshua’s teachings far more than they did in Judea.
If Yeshua really did speak these words (Lk 10:13-15), then he would have been proven by history to be a false prophet. Therefore, I cannot believe that these were cities that he condemned, but rather Jericho and not Chorazin, Hebron and not Bethsaida, Jerusalem, and not Capernaum. These three cities in the south fell during the Jewish-Roman War and were laid waste, as described by Josephus, compared to the cities in the Galilee, which thrived. The Galilee survived the war, while Judea was devastated, so I personally consider Yeshua’s ministry in the Galilee to have been a resounding success.
Therefore, I personally think that something is definitely off here – am I the only one who thinks this? Luke, as the author of both the gospel that now bears his name and the Book of Acts, seems to want to either ignore the Community in the Galilee or to outright condemn them, for some purpose or reason which is never stated. He appears to have wanted Galilean Followers of the Way out of the picture. My personal suspicion is that it is because they were not messianic, being closer to the original message of Yeshua. It is likely that they understood Yeshua’s original message better than Paul’s later Christians, and this is the likely reason why they were condemned, and quietly written out of the picture.
Sadly, the Galilaeist school does not seem to have survived long past the Jewish-Roman War in the late 60’s to early 70’s CE. Thereafter, the Galilee seems to have become more and more influenced by messianists – refugees from Judea.
It is the Galilaeist school that I have gained much inspiration from. When I converted to Talmidaism, I chose the tribe of Naftali, whose territory was located within what is now the Galilee. I had affection for the regional personality of the Galileans, and I felt closer to their rural character than to the other two sects. I felt that the Galileans, as the original receivers of Yeshua’s message, would have been closest to his true spirit and intent (at this point, I know you’re probably thinking, ‘What about the 12 apostles?’ so I’ll come to them later)!
What might the Galilaeist School have been like
The regional character of the Galileans is described in various places in the Talmud, often quite harshly and unkindly. To Judeans in the south, Galileans were ignorant, uncultured countryfolk, who were lax in matters of Torah, and spoke Aramaic badly. This prejudice might have been one of the reasons why Judeans rarely listened to Yeshua, as a prophet from the north. Yeshua’s Galilean-ness may have been a handicap when it came to convincing Judeans of his message.
So what might the Galilaeist school have been like? If we are being logical, then we have to assume that Galilean teaching was a reflection of the Galilean regional identity and character. Galileans were ordinary country and farming folk. They practised a form of Common Judaism (non-denominational Judaism) which was simple and down to earth, yet replete with all the essential elements of Jewish piety and devotion. Their approach to Torah was practical and common sense.
It is well-known that Judeans regularly criticised Galileans for their lack of observance in the minutiae of Torah. An overriding feature of Galilean life was grinding poverty and the daily struggle, so it would only be natural to assume that Galileans should place especial emphasis and value on the books of the Prophets, with their powerful message of social justice and of God’s concern for the poor; this aspect of Yeshua’s own teaching would have resonated with them too. I have several books discussing cultural and religious life in the Galilee, and I have grown very fond of the ancient Galilean Jews. I have tried to build the Massorite Talmidi approach to our common faith with that Galilean flavour, which Yeshua and his earliest followers would have been familiar with.
The Emissarians – the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
The second sect or school of the Way that I have identified, I have called, ‘Emissarians’ (after an alternative English word for apostle, ‘emissary’ – that is, ‘one who is sent’. This school closely followed the teachings and personal practices of the Twelve in Judea.
There is evidence in the Book of Acts for this school of the Way in Judea; together with the Galilaeists, they would have been closest to Yeshua’s original ethical teachings and emphases. However, going by how the Jerusalem community is described in Acts, the character of this community seems to have been markedly different to that in the Galilee, particularly in their mode of living.
Their rule of life was based on the minimalist way the Twelve Apostles (‘emissaries’) lived while they followed Yeshua around the Galilee and Judea, and can best be described as a form of religious ‘communism’. While they travelled, they were told to carry with them minimum possessions (Mk 6:8-9, Mt 10:8b-11, Lk 9:3-4, 10:4-7). My personal opinion is that this stark way of life was meant to be applicable only to the apostles, not to all Yeshua’s followers.
Nevertheless, in Acts 2:44, Luke writes that Followers in Judea were devout in following the teaching of the Emissaries. By common consent, they were regular in attendance at prayers in the Temple (Acts 1:14, Acts 2:46). These particular Followers held everything in common (Acts 2:45). They would sell their goods and possessions and distribute the proceeds to all, according to individual need. They did not hold any of their possessions as their own, but held everything as common property (Acts 4:32). None were in want, since all those who owned lands or houses sold them, and brought the price they realised and laid it at the feet of the Emissaries (Acts 4:34).
It seems that money poured in, as they managed to gain some influential, wealthy women as converts (Acts 13:5, Acts 17:4). It appears that they also carried out a healing ministry. The sick were often brought into the street for the Emissaries to minister to them (Acts 5:15). Simon Peter and John son of Zebedee would go up to the Temple to pray at the afternoon service at 3 o’clock each day (Acts 3:1), and Philip became the leader of the Emissarian communities in Samaria (suggested by Acts 8:4-8, but this sounds strange to me; I wasn’t aware of any Jewish communities living amongst Samaritans).
The main thing that can be said about the Emissarian school, is that they often came into conflict with the ruling Sadducean hierarchy in the Temple for their corrupt practices. However, unlike the Hellenicists (see below), their wisdom and experience persuaded them to keep a low key on certain issues, and they managed to avoid the initial persecution that engulfed the Hellenicists. Their stronghold remained Jerusalem and the rest of Judea.
Emissarianism is an extreme way of life, and would not be practical for Followers of the Way in modern times. For those attracted to asceticism, it might be an apt example to follow, but to ordinary people just trying to get by in the modern world, it is not feasible.
Our limited Options if we don’t accept the Existence of different Schools of the Way
If we don’t accept that the two lifestyles of Galilaeists and Emissarians were different, or that they were two distinct early schools of the Way, we would have to consider that religious communism was the only way of life for all those early Followers of the Way, without exception. By not considering that Galilaeists were a distinct group that existed alongside Emissarians, then if we wish to emulate the life of the earliest Followers, we would have to embark upon a lifestyle which is just not practical or doable in the modern age.
It would also mean that we would have to impose a political system on people, which ultimately leads to the type of religious control and totalitarianism that most of us are trying to escape from, and I could never agree to that control. That is why I have to conclude that the Followers in the Galilee had a different way of living – one which was freer and more practical – than that of the Emissarians. The modern Massorite Talmidi sect, which I serve, is therefore based on the hypothetical Galilaeist school, rather than on the rigid Emissarian model.
The Hellenicist School
This third school of early Followers I have named, ‘Hellenicist’, after the adjective Hellenist, which describes someone in ancient times who was not Greek, but still followed Greek culture and philosophy.
In the late 30s of the 1st century, there arose a dispute with the Greek-speaking Followers of the Way. In Acts 6:1-5, Luke writes that Greek-speaking Followers felt that their widows were being discriminated against in the daily distribution of alms. A full council of the community’s elders was convened, and it was decided to select seven lay members of the Greek-speaking community to oversee the distribution of alms to their own members. The seven members mentioned in Acts 6:7 (Stephen, Philip, Prochoros, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolaos) all have Greek names. I hypothesise that what happened in effect, was that Greek-speaking Followers (or as I have named them, ‘Hellenicists’) were given permission to form their own group or ‘school’.
Jews who were native to the rural Galilee mostly wore middle-eastern clothes, for the most part had Jewish names, spoke Aramaic, and generally maintained a middle-eastern lifestyle. However, there was a large proportion of Jewish people whose families had dispersed around the Mediterranean, adopted western clothing, had Greek names, spoke Greek as their first language, and maintained a western-influenced lifestyle – quite a few of them lived in Jerusalem and around Judea. These Jews were known as Hellenist Jews.
It was from this Hellenist Jewish community, resident in Judea, that Stephen and the others originated. At the start they were elected to be civil administrators among Greek-speaking Followers, but I have a suspicion that other issues would have inevitably arisen, due to possible differences in outlook between Hellenist and native Jews, and eventually they would have developed a distinct identity. In my humble opinion, this would, in time, have led to the formation of a separate school.
Whereas the Emissarians were devout and attended Temple daily, it seems that the Hellenicists held to a strong rejection of the Temple and all it stood for, as evidenced in Stephen’s speech before he was stoned to death (Acts 7). The difference in the pious practice of the Apostles in attending the Temple, and the anti-Temple oratory projected by Stephen, is a major factor in hypothesising a difference between the two schools.
As a result, I believe that it was only the Hellenicist Followers who were initially sought out by the High Priest’s police under a limited persecution (i.e. other sects of Followers were not sought out at this time; there was no pogrom which caused all Followers to flee Judea). Hellenicist Followers first dispersed around Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1), and then further afield (Acts 11:19) to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch in Syria. Note that the apostles (emissaries) did not disperse in this way at this time, which is the reason why I think it began only as a limited persecution.
The community of Followers in Antioch (to whom Peter fled after he escaped from prison), may have been Hellenicist in their theology and outlook, and therefore messianic. Paul would have found ready converts to his christological belief-system among them. Indeed, Antioch is where the term, ‘Christian’ was first coined (Acts 11:26), to describe the Gentile followers of Paul of Tarsus.
The persecution of Followers of the Way that Saul of Tarsus claimed to have taken part in, notably did not seem to target the apostles at first, only Followers with Greek names. It was only in the reign of Herod Agrippa I that the persecution became more widespread (Acts 12:1-2). This suggests to me that there was some kind of initial distinction in terms of what they believed that marked them out. This may have been regarding their opposition of the Temple hierarchy, or in believing that Yeshua was the promised messiah (a belief that I feel was what differentiated Hellenicists from other Followers of the Way).
And what became of the Hellenicists in history? I surmise that after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, their members were probably dispersed further among the Gentile Christian and Paullist Nazarene Jewish communities. Their fervent, radical messianism would have eased their entry into those two communities.
The Elders of the Schools – the Pillars of the Community
In Paul’s letters, he refers to three men as ‘the pillars of the community’ (James, Peter and John, Gal 2:9). James obviously refers to James the brother (cousin) of Yeshua, and overall leader of the Congregation of the Way. I suspect that Peter and John were the leaders of two of these schools – the Emissarian and the Galilaeist schools. John son of Zebedee may have been the leader of the Galilaeists, Peter son of Jonah was the leader of the Emissarians, and Stephen was possibly leader of the Hellenicists. The headquarters of the Galilaeists was likely to have been Capernaum (Kfar Nachum), and Peter – whom Catholics claim was the first pope – was only the leader of the Emissarians, based in Jerusalem.
What this diversity of early ministries can teach us
Under the brotherly leadership of James, these sects and ministries were kept united, with common purpose. I also think that, once you see these different communities as they were, they have important lessons for us today on how different Talmidi ministries and communities can get along – and indeed must get along – in spite of our differences.
What this diversity of Galilaeists, Emissarians and Hellenicists can show us, is that diversity is important within a community – the modern Talmidi community is equally diverse. After all, we are human, and diversity is a hallmark of human cultures. Different people have different spiritual needs in worship, and enjoy different forms of cultural expression in their daily lives. It would therefore be unhelpful to impose spiritual communism on everyone, as was the hallmark of the Emissarians, or for everyone to have either a relaxed form of worship, or a highly ritualised one.
The modern Community of the Way can be a model of cooperation for religious communities in today’s dangerously polarised and tribalised world. If there is just one saying from John’s gospel that has truth in it, it would be: “This is how everyone will know that you are my followers: if you have love for one another.” (Jn 13:35).