Our oldest gospel anticipates a Galilean resurrection, Mark 16:1-8. I say anticipate, because an actual resurrection doesn't occur in our text. Verses 9-20 are considered a pious addendum.
Considerations for debate: Did Mark consider Galilee the epicenter of the Church via the resurrection?
Premise: Matthew and Mark have a Galilean resurrection, and by implication a Galilean epicenter for the Church . Luke has a Jerusalem resurrection, and by implication a Jerusalem epicenter for the Church.
A Jerusalem-till-Rome narrative is in Acts, where the baton is passed for the spiritual capital ( Historically so ).
Church of Antioch: Matthew has no reservations following Mark's Galilean resurrection, 28:7,16, and even casts shade on Jerusalem as the place where truth is despised, at the closure of his book, 28:11-15. Matthew seems to nod to the Church of Antioch at the beginning of Jesus's ministry, 4:24! Very telling, since Acts portays Antioch as being founded independently from Jerusalem's apostolic efforts, and the birthplace of the scornful word "Christian," 11:19-26. Its noteworthy that Antioch was where Judaism needed to be settled years later, Acts 15:1-34.
A Curious Jesus: Its plain to me that Matthew and Luke use Mark's gospel. (To each their own on the Synoptic Problem) Its equally plain that Romans to Revelation have no interest in the historical Jesus, only the heavenly Jesus. There's absolutely no interest in quoting Jesus to settle religious disputes, just theological proclamations and mystical interpretations of the Septuagint Old Testament. ( The exceptions are James, which no doubt uses the Sermon on the Mount for the layout of his book. 2 Peter 1:16, which reads like pious nostalgia of the transfiguration, and Jesus's " good confession before Pilate, " 1 Timothy 6:13. )
Conclusion: Was Mark actually preserving a Galilean epicenter and their particular Jesus? The Ebionites, ( Evyonim in Hebrew, the poor, destitute ) used Galilee as their epicenter, and the Hebrew Old Testament along with Matthew and James. They rejected the Septuagint, and the rest of the NT. Sources: Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius. The Evyonim may well be " the poor " Peter asked Paul to remember, Galatians 2:10. Notice Paul's supposedly large financial offering he collected from gentile churches, Romans 15:22-33, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, never actually got delivered, Acts 21:15-36. Also notice Paul was set up by James to be arrested! Factions are cut-throat. ( Go to the Temple brudda. Angry mob waiting
)Personal Note: The Evyonim were too poor to travel around spreading their message. They lived a life of poverty and austere asceticism, and seemed content to hunker down in Galilee waiting for the apocalypse. They seem to be as close to the historical Jesus as we can get, or at least the first sect that was a direct by-product of his.
Historical Jesus: I realize calling Jesus a historical person, is becoming increasingly contested among academics. Jesus may have been a mystic invention. Jewish rabbinical folklore often used mystic inventions, whereby fictitious people are used for teaching tools. The Talmud exhibits this out the ying yang! This would certainly explain gnosticism's obsession with him later on. I'm entirely open to this possibility.
