Conflicts between Apostles

Galilee vs Jerusalem

There is a tension in the gospels which seems to be between the disciples who went back to Galilee after Jesus died and those who stayed in Jerusalem - or by their respective followers.

To understand this, you first have to accept that the empty tomb was made up later. What actually happened is the disciples fled Jerusalem when Jesus was arrested, and at some point weeks later Peter saw what he understood to be the risen Jesus in Galilee. I have other posts arguing for that, so I will take it as given here.

What this means is that the Jerusalem sighting were all made up later. Why? Part of that may have been internal politics.

This is evidenced in Luke, who dedicates 23 verses to the sighting of Jesus to two unnamed disciples near Jerusalem, on the Road to Emmaus. It is clear Luke does not think this was the first sighting; he acknowledges a previous sighting by Peter:

Luke 24:33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

But this first sighting to a named disciple, and indeed the disciple Jesus nominated as his successor, gets only an off-hand comment in passing, and it is implied that no one believed him. Why is that? Because Luke was written by followers of those who stayed in Jerusalem, and not followers of Peter and those who had returned to Galilee.

A bit later we read:

Luke 24:48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

This is Luke having a dig at the disciples who left Jerusalem and went to Galilee.

It is just possible the ending of Mark was truncated because it had the appearance of Jesus to Peter in Galilee, and that was not acceptable to the Jerusalem group, but that is just speculation. Was the Gospel of Peter also edited for that reason? Okay, more likely that was just a page lost; we do have just the one manuscript.

A little more likely is that after a while the tensions subsided, and at that point the appearance to Peter became acceptable to the community, and so got tacked on the end of John. Thus we have this extra chapter at the end which gives us our best indication of what was actually seen.

Note that this is different to the conflict between Paul and the disciples.

Paul vs the Disciples

Many say that Paul promoted modern Christianity, and the above debate was between Paul's correct view of the bodily resurrection and the trinity in opposition to the Jewish Christians who got it wrong.

The reality is that Paul, in common with the disciples, believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, a man appointed by God.

The debate between Paul and the disciples revolved around observation of Jewish law, and especially circumcision. Judaism held a big appeal to Romans; it was an ancient religion, and they loved that sort f thing. But circumcision was just a step to far. Christianity offer Judaism Lite. All that mystical history, but you keep your foreskin! Or at least, that was Paul's view.

The disciples, and especially James, took a more Jewish view. Jesus observed the law, so naturally his followers should too.

Of course, a struggle to be top-dog may have been no small part of it!