How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Certainly by the time Julian the Apostate wrote Against the Galileans, we have Christians being referred to by this name. But does the designation hail from even earlier times? I ask for two reasons.

First:

Epictetus, Discourses 4.7.1-6 [περὶ ἀφοβίας, concerning fearlessnesses]: 1 τί ποιεῖ φοβερὸν τὸν τύραννον; — οἱ δορυφόροι, φησίν, καὶ αἱ μάχαιραι αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος καὶ οἱ ἀποκλείοντες τοὺς εἰσιόντας. 2 — διὰ τί οὖν, ἂν παιδίον αὐτῷ προσαγάγῃς μετὰ τῶν δορυφόρων ὄντι, οὐ φοβεῖται; ἢ ὅτι οὐκ αἰσθάνεται τούτων τὸ παιδίον; 3 ἂν οὖν τῶν δορυφόρων τις αἰσθάνηται καὶ ὅτι μαχαίρας ἔχουσιν, ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο προσέρχηται αὐτῷ θέλων ἀποθανεῖν διά τινα περίστασιν καὶ ζητῶν ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου παθεῖν αὐτὸ εὐκόλως, μή τι φοβεῖται τοὺς δορυφόρους; — θέλει γὰρ τοῦτο, δι᾽ ὃ φοβεροί εἰσιν. — 4 ἂν οὖν τις μήτ᾽ ἀποθανεῖν μήτε ζῆν θέλων ἐξ ἅπαντος ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἂν διδῶται, προσέρχηται αὐτῷ, τί κωλύει μὴ δεδοικότα προσέρχεσθαι αὐτόν; 5 — οὐδέν. — ἄν τις οὖν καὶ πρὸς τὴν κτῆσιν ὡσαύτως ἔχῃ καθάπερ οὗτος πρὸς τὸ σῶμα καὶ πρὸς τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἁπλῶς ὑπό τινος μανίας καὶ ἀπονοίας οὕτως ᾖν διακείμενος, ὥστ᾽ ἐν μηδενὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὸ ἔχειν ταῦτα ἢ μὴ ἔχειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ὀστρακίοις τὰ παιδία παίζοντα περὶ μὲν τῆς παιδιᾶς διαφέρεται, τῶν ὀστρακίων δ᾽ οὐ πεφρόντικεν, οὕτως δὲ καὶ οὗτος τὰς μὲν ὕλας παρ᾽ οὐδὲν ᾖν πεποιημένος, τὴν παιδιὰν δὲ τὴν περὶ αὐτὰς καὶ ἀναστροφὴν ἀσπάζηται: ποῖος ἔτι τούτῳ τύραννος φοβερὸς ἢ ποῖοι δορυφόροι ἢ ποῖαι μάχαιραι αὐτῶν; 6 εἶτα ὑπὸ μανίας μὲν δύναταί τις οὕτως διατεθῆναι πρὸς ταῦτα καὶ ὑπὸ ἔθους οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι: ὑπὸ λόγου δὲ καὶ ἀποδείξεως οὐδεὶς δύναται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πάντα πεποίηκεν τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν κόσμον ὅλον μὲν ἀκώλυτον καὶ αὐτοτελῆ, τὰ ἐν μέρει δ᾽ αὐτοῦ πρὸς χρείαν τῶν ὅλων; / 1 What makes the tyrant formidable? The guards, you say, and their swords, and the men of the bedchamber and those who exclude them who would enter. 2 Why then if you bring a child to the tyrant when he is with his guards, is he not afraid, or is it because the child does not understand these things? 3 If then any man does understand what guards are and that they have swords, and comes to the tyrant for this very purpose because he wishes to die on account of some circumstance and seeks to die easily by the hand of another, is he afraid of the guards? No, for he wishes for the thing which makes the guards formidable. 4 If then any man neither wishing to die nor to live by all means, but only as it may be permitted, approaches the tyrant, what hinders him from approaching the tyrant without fear? 5 Nothing. If then a man has the same opinion about his property as the man whom I have instanced has about his body; and also about his children and his wife: and in a word is so affected by some madness or despair that he cares not whether he possesses them or not, but like children who are playing with shells care (quarrel) about the play, but do not trouble themselves about the shells, so he too has set no value on the materials (things), but values the pleasure that he has with them and the occupation, what tyrant is then formidable to him or what guards or what swords? 6 Then through madness is it possible for a man to be so disposed towards these things, and the Galileans through habit, and is it possible that no man can learn from reason and from demonstration that God has made all the things in the universe and the universe itself completely free from hindrance and perfect, and the parts of it for the use of the whole?

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 11.3: 3 Οἵα ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ ἕτοιμος, ἐὰν ἤδη ἀπολυθῆναι δέῃ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἤτοι σβεσθῆναι ἢ σκεδασθῆναι ἢ συμμεῖναι. τὸ δὲ ἕτοιμον τοῦτο ἵνα ἀπὸ ἰδικῆς κρίσεως ἔρχηται, μὴ κατὰ ψιλὴν παράταξιν ὡς οἱ Χριστιανοί, ἀλλὰ λελογισμένως καὶ σεμνῶς καὶ ὥστε καὶ ἄλλον πεῖσαι, ἀτραγῴδως. / 3 What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show.

Epictetus refers to the habitual and foolish fearlessness displayed by Galileans, Aurelius to the obstinacy of Christians faced with death. The two groups sound similar in this regard; are they the same? Were Christians already being called Galileans in century II?

Second:

John Malalas, Chronicle 10.24: 24 At the beginning of the reign of Claudius Caesar, ten years after the ascension of our Lord God Jesus Christ, Euodios became patriarch in the great city of the Antiochenes in Syria; he was the first after the apostle St Peter to be consecrated bishop there. Christians acquired this name during his time in office, for bishop Euodios gave this name to them in his preaching; formerly Christians had been called Nazarenes and Galileans [πρῴην γὰρ Ναζωραῖοι (ἐκαλοῦντο) καὶ Γαλιλαῖοι ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ Χριστιανοί].

John Malalas, Chronicle 11.5: 5 While the emperor Trajan was spending time in Antioch in Syria making plans in connection with the war, Tiberianus, the governor of the people of First Palestine sent him the following message, "To the victorious Imperator, Caesar, the most sacred Trajan. I have grown weary punishing and killing the Galileans who belong to the belief of those known as Christians, in accordance with your decrees [ἀπέκαμον τιμωρούμενος καὶ φονεύων τοὺς Γαλιλαίους τοὺς τοῦ δόγματος τῶν λεγομένων Χριστιανῶν κατὰ τὰ ὑμέτερα θεσπίσματα]. And they will not stop incriminating themselves in order to be put to death. So have worked very hard, advising them and threatening them not to be so bold in betraying themselves to me as adherents of the belief mentioned above. But they will not give up being persecuted. Be pleased therefore to issue as a decree to me whatever solution presents itself to Your Triumphant Majesty". Trajan ordered him to stop killing the Christians. Likewise he gave this order to governors everywhere, not in the future to kill those known as Christians. And there came about a small respite for the Christians.

John Malalas, Chronicle 12.35: 35 After the reign of Carus, Numerian Augustus reigned for two years. He was tall, slender, with straight hair, a long face, delicate features, a good beard, greying hair, a good nose, good eyes and dark skin. During his reign there was a great persecution of Christians. Among them St George the Cappadocian and St Babylas were martyred; the latter was the bishop of Antioch the Great. The emperor Numerian arrived there as he was setting out to fight the Persians. Wishing to observe the sacred mysteries of the Christians, he resolved to go into the holy church where the Christians used to gather to see what the mysteries were which they were performing, because he had heard that the Galileans performed their liturgies in secret [ἀκούσας ὅτι κρυπτόμενοι τελοῦσι τὰς λειτουργίας αὐτῶν οἱ αὐτοὶ Γαλιλαῖοι]. When he drew near he was suddenly met by Saint Babylas, who stopped him, saying to him, "You are still contaminated by the sacrifices you have made to idols and I will not allow you to see the mysteries of the living God". The emperor Numerian was angry with him and put him to death immediately. Then he left Antioch and began a campaign against the Persians. When he joined battle, the Persians attacked him and destroyed the larger part of his force, and he fled to the city of Carrhae. The Persians besieged him, took him prisoner and killed him immediately. Then they flayed his skin and made it into a bag, which they pickled with myrrh and kept for their own glory; the remainder of his troops they butchered. The emperor Numerian died at the age of 36.

John Malalas, Chronicle 13.2: 2 In the time of his reign a great war broke out in the West. The most, sacred Constantine went out against the barbarians, but was defeated and encircled by them. In his distress, when he was on the point of sleep, he prayed that he might be rescued from them. Overcome by sleep he saw in a dream a cross in the sky on which was inscribed, "In this, conquer". After reading the inscription on the cross, he awoke. He got up and made a standard showing the cross, just as he had seen it in the sky, and had it carried before him. After urging on his army, saying, "Victory is ours", he set out and joined battle with the barbarians. He won the battle so completely that none of the barbarians survived but all perished. He returned to Rome victorious amidst great joy, with the standard of the cross carried before him. He explained to everyone the meaning of the vision and of the standard of the cross, saying, "This is the sign of the God of the Galileans who are known as Christians" [τοῦτο τὸ σημεῖόν ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν Γαλιλαίων τῶν λεγομένων Χριστιανῶν]. Immediately he destroyed the temples and all the shrines of the Hellenes and opened up the Christian churches, sending imperial edicts everywhere that the churches of the Christians should be opened. After fasting and having taken instruction, he was baptised by Silvester, bishop of Rome - he himself and his mother Helena and all his relatives and his friends and a whole host of other Romans. And so the emperor Constantine became a Christian.

Malalas is late, late, late. Surely there can be nothing to any of this, can there?

Also in century II, the Montanists were being called Phrygians and Pepuzians, based on their purported place of origin, so calling a sect by a geographical name at this time is not so odd if there is indeed a connection between Christianity and Galilee, which surely there must be, at least on some level:

Mark 14.28: 28 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."

Mark 16.7: 7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you.'"

Mercenaries and rebels who joined southern causes from Galilee were often identified by their place of origin. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange mention "one of bar Kokhba's letters" on page 96 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, a letter "written in Greek to one of his commanders, Yeshua ben Galgoula: 'I call the heavens over me as witness: Should harm co[me] to any one of the Galileans who are with you, I will put fetters to your feet as I di[d] to ben Aflul.'" So were deviant religious figures:

Mishnah, Yadayim 4.8: 8 A Galilean Sadducee [צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי] said, "I denounce you, Pharisees, for you inscribe [the name of] the sovereign alongside [the name of] Moshe on a bill of divorce!" The Pharisees say: "We denounce you, Galilean Sadducee, for you inscribe [the name of] the sovereign alongside the [Divine] Name on the [same] page!" ....

And one of the gospels has this:

Luke 13.1-3: 1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3 I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

What if a group of Christian cultists from Galilee were identified in other places, especially in Judea, as (potentially troublemaking) Galileans very early on, and this is why the gospels take care to explain that Christianity originated in Galilee geographically? The alternative was that people would think that Christians were Galileans because they were stubborn or deviant in some way.

Matthew 26.69 says that Peter was betrayed at the fire by his accent, but the parallel in Mark lacks the bit about the accent:

Mark 14.70: 70 But again he was denying it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too."

Maybe the identification grew in steps: at first the sect was, as a whole, identified with Galilee, and was not cast in a positive light thereby. The tendency thereafter was to specify that individual early Christians, including Peter, most of the disciples, and of course Jesus himself, hailed from Galilee, simply as a matter of geographical accident. This would be intended to explain the name "Galilean" while avoiding some of the pejorative connotations of that tag.

But of course none of this is viable if Christians were not called Galileans very early on.

What do you think?

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Jax »

If Christians were known as Galileans during the Bar Kokhba war then it would seem unlikely that Bar Kokhba was persecuting Christians at the same time as protecting Galileans. If the tradition of Bar Kokhba persecuting Christians has any basis at all (which I doubt).

Paul gives no hint that Jesus or a group of core followers were not from Judea but were in fact from another area like Galilee. You would think that he would make this distinction as the "pillars" were in Jerusalem. The Gospel writers themselves don't seem to be able to decide were the disciples need to go after the resurrection, Galilee or Jerusalem.

My money is on Christians (at least one group) adopting the name Galilean after the Gospels were written. Same with name Nazarean. When Luke in Acts says that in Antioch they were first called "Christian" why didn't he also note that they used to be known as Galileans or Nazareans?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Secret Alias »

I've been wondering about this for some time. There doesn't seem to be any direct evidence for Jewish identification of the community as 'Galileans' which is significant. It is hard to understand why the name would have caught on with outsiders. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to think that Romans would have thought 'Galilean' would be a pejorative phrase in and of itself. The only thought that crossed my mind was that - if Christianity was somehow associated with the rebellions in Galilee there would be a reason for this association. Yet the evidence is not that compelling (other than a desire to associate Christianity with revolutionary activity).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is worth noting that גלילא goes back to a Hebrew term that doesn't necessarily mean 'Galilee' per se.

Ezekiel 47:8 He said to me, "This water flows toward the eastern region (הגלילה) and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh.

Another possibility that it has something to do with calling the Christians 'contemptible' http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=249
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Possibly relevant:

http://peterkirby.com/zealots-aka-galileans.html

(Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with what I wrote then, am not endorsing it now, and am not looking for a conversation about it.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C Smith wrote:
John Malalas, Chronicle 10.24: 24 At the beginning of the reign of Claudius Caesar, ten years after the ascension of our Lord God Jesus Christ, Euodios became patriarch in the great city of the Antiochenes in Syria; he was the first after the apostle St Peter to be consecrated bishop there. Christians acquired this name during his time in office, for bishop Euodios gave this name to them in his preaching; formerly Christians had been called Nazarenes and Galileans [πρῴην γὰρ Ναζωραῖοι (ἐκαλοῦντο) καὶ Γαλιλαῖοι ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ Χριστιανοί].
Doesn't this sound a wee bit like Epiphanius?
29. Against Nazoraeans.
Number nine, but twenty-nine of the series
1,1 Next after these come the Nazoraeans, at the same time as they or
even before them—either together with them or after them, in any case
their contemporaries. I cannot say more precisely who succeeded whom.
For, as I said, these were contemporary with each other, and had ideas
similar to each other’s.
1,2 For these people did not give themselves the name of Christ or
Jesus’ own name, but that of “Nazoraeans.” (3) But at that time all Christians
alike were called Nazoraeans. They also came to be called “Jessaeans” for
a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.
Frank Williams' ET
1.321 ... Κατὰ Ναζωραίων ˉθ, τῆς δὲ ἀκολουθίας ˉκˉθ.
1. Ναζωραῖοι καθεξῆς τούτοις ἕπονται, ἅμα τε αὐτοῖς ὄντες ἢ καὶ πρὸ αὐτῶν ἢ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἢ μετ' αὐτούς, ὅμως σύγχρονοι· οὐ γὰρ ἀκριβέστερον δύναμαι ἐξειπεῖν τίνες τίνας διεδέξαντο. καθὰ γὰρ ἔφην, σύγχρονοι ἦσαν ἀλλήλοις καὶ ὅμοια ἀλλήλοις κέκτηνται τὰ φρονήματα. οὗτοι γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς ὄνομα ἐπέθεντο οὐχὶ Χριστοῦ οὔτε αὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ Ναζωραίων.

πάντες δὲ Χριστιανοὶ 1.322 Ναζωραῖοι τότε ὡσαύτως ἐκαλοῦντο· γέγονε δὲ ἐπ' ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ καλεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ Ἰεσσαίους, πρὶν ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀντιοχείας ἀρχὴν λάβωσιν οἱ μαθηταὶ καλεῖσθαι Χριστιανοί.
Do you suppose Malalas was referring to what Epiphanius had to say, only swapping "Galileans" for "Jessaeans"? There is Hippolytus' conflation of the 4th philosophy (Judas the Galilean) with a fragmented Essenism, but this would not really help I guess because he is clearly drawing from Philo's story of the Therapeutae, not "Jessaeans" as he asserted, and besides, Jessaeans are not the same as "Essenes" as Philo refers to them in another book completely, never mentioning the two sects together in the same book. The Gospels do mention that Jesus & his disciples were known to Judean authorities as "Galileans" so the change might not cause one to get a twist in one's britches.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:01 pm
Ben C Smith wrote:
John Malalas, Chronicle 10.24: 24 At the beginning of the reign of Claudius Caesar, ten years after the ascension of our Lord God Jesus Christ, Euodios became patriarch in the great city of the Antiochenes in Syria; he was the first after the apostle St Peter to be consecrated bishop there. Christians acquired this name during his time in office, for bishop Euodios gave this name to them in his preaching; formerly Christians had been called Nazarenes and Galileans [πρῴην γὰρ Ναζωραῖοι (ἐκαλοῦντο) καὶ Γαλιλαῖοι ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ Χριστιανοί].
Doesn't this sound a wee bit like Epiphanius?
29. Against Nazoraeans.
Number nine, but twenty-nine of the series
1,1 Next after these come the Nazoraeans, at the same time as they or
even before them—either together with them or after them, in any case
their contemporaries. I cannot say more precisely who succeeded whom.
For, as I said, these were contemporary with each other, and had ideas
similar to each other’s.
1,2 For these people did not give themselves the name of Christ or
Jesus’ own name, but that of “Nazoraeans.” (3) But at that time all Christians
alike were called Nazoraeans. They also came to be called “Jessaeans” for
a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.
Frank Williams' ET
1.321 ... Κατὰ Ναζωραίων ˉθ, τῆς δὲ ἀκολουθίας ˉκˉθ.
1. Ναζωραῖοι καθεξῆς τούτοις ἕπονται, ἅμα τε αὐτοῖς ὄντες ἢ καὶ πρὸ αὐτῶν ἢ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἢ μετ' αὐτούς, ὅμως σύγχρονοι· οὐ γὰρ ἀκριβέστερον δύναμαι ἐξειπεῖν τίνες τίνας διεδέξαντο. καθὰ γὰρ ἔφην, σύγχρονοι ἦσαν ἀλλήλοις καὶ ὅμοια ἀλλήλοις κέκτηνται τὰ φρονήματα. οὗτοι γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς ὄνομα ἐπέθεντο οὐχὶ Χριστοῦ οὔτε αὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ Ναζωραίων.

πάντες δὲ Χριστιανοὶ 1.322 Ναζωραῖοι τότε ὡσαύτως ἐκαλοῦντο· γέγονε δὲ ἐπ' ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ καλεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ Ἰεσσαίους, πρὶν ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀντιοχείας ἀρχὴν λάβωσιν οἱ μαθηταὶ καλεῖσθαι Χριστιανοί.
Do you suppose Malalas was referring to what Epiphanius had to say, only swapping "Galileans" for "Jessaeans"? There is Hippolytus' conflation of the 4th philosophy (Judas the Galilean) with a fragmented Essenism, but this would not really help I guess because he is clearly drawing from Philo's story of the Therapeutae, not "Jessaeans" as he asserted, and besides, Jessaeans are not the same as "Essenes" as Philo refers to them in another book completely, never mentioning the two sects together in the same book. The Gospels do mention that Jesus & his disciples were known to Judean authorities as "Galileans" so the change might not cause one to get a twist in one's britches.
Oh, good catch. If you are right, that would effectively remove Malalas from consideration. He was super late anyway, so no huge surprise. But still, it is always nice to have clear reasons for the dismissal.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:36 pm If Christians were known as Galileans during the Bar Kokhba war then it would seem unlikely that Bar Kokhba was persecuting Christians at the same time as protecting Galileans. If the tradition of Bar Kokhba persecuting Christians has any basis at all (which I doubt).
I am doubtful, too, but I have still not fully digested the evidence about Simon bar Kokhba.
Paul gives no hint that Jesus or a group of core followers were not from Judea but were in fact from another area like Galilee. You would think that he would make this distinction as the "pillars" were in Jerusalem. The Gospel writers themselves don't seem to be able to decide were the disciples need to go after the resurrection, Galilee or Jerusalem.
The last sentence there is part of the point. Perhaps there were two originally separate traditions: one Galilean and the other Judean. The pillars were Judean, and I have reasons to suspect that Cephas was not the same person as Simon Peter, so the former would be Judean, the latter Galilean, the two of them forcibly merged only later in gospel and legend. The Judeans naturally located the appearances in Jerusalem, the Galileans in Galilee. Paul's contacts would have been entirely (or very nearly) with the Judeans, especially the Pillars; his contacts with the Galileans may have been few or even nonexistent.

In a case of two similar sects, or of two subsects within a larger sect, a name transfer by outsiders is hardly unheard of. People call Mennonites "the Amish" all the time, simply because they do not know the difference.
My money is on Christians (at least one group) adopting the name Galilean after the Gospels were written.
What inspired the evangelists to locate so much of their material in Galilee? Is it simply that Jesus was Galilean? Entirely possible. But I am wondering whether there might be something else going on here. I am probably wrong, but that is what this thread is for: to set me straight. :)

I am not holding some trump card, waiting for the right moment to reveal it and explain the entire mess. I admit I am baffled by the complex soup that is the Jessaeans, the Nazarenes/Nazoraeans, the Christians, the Way, the Galileans, the Essenes, the Qumran community, and even the Zealots.
When Luke in Acts says that in Antioch they were first called "Christian" why didn't he also note that they used to be known as Galileans or Nazareans?
Luke seems to be fusing Galilean traditions with Judean traditions (hence the resurrection appearances in and near Jerusalem). He did note that Christians were called Nazoraeans, though, several times in the Acts. He never explains the origin of the name. So the Nazoraeans (or Nazarenes, if they are the same people) are another mystery to solve. Were they really so named only after Jesus was associated with the Branch prophecy? Or was there a group already known as Nazoraeans, and Jesus was later associated with them? Or is the whole thing a misunderstanding the the Nazarite vow? I am open to ideas here, for sure.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

To put it another way, we have Julian the Apostate and others calling Christians "Galileans" at some point, and "Galileans" is hardly the most expected epithet to put upon them. At the same time, we have three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Peter) locating resurrection appearances solely in Galilee (and John locating one of them in Galilee after a few in Jerusalem), and Galilee is hardly the most expected venue to host such an appearance, since everybody (the disciples, the women, and the Lord himself) is already in Judea at the time. Two not quite expected things having to do with Galilee... are they connected? Or is it just a coincidence?

ETA: To see what I mean by "hardly expected," just think of what happened when three of the gospels located the appearances in Galilee: it turns out that Luke, John, Acts, and the bulk of later tradition seemingly could not wait to locate them in Jerusalem. But what happened once they were located in Jerusalem? Did some other venue sweep in to steal them away? Not that I know of. They stayed in Jerusalem, a most fitting spot from which retroactively launch a movement ("behold, I lay a stone in Zion").
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: How early were Christians known as Galileans?

Post by lsayre »

Judas the Galilean was the author of the fourth branch of Jewish philosophy. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. (Antiquities 18.23)

60 And Jesus said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:60)
Post Reply