Layman

It was probably not addressed to a particular city because it was addressed to churches in different areas. Galatians is the only undisputed Pauline explicitly addressed to multiple churches: " To the churches in Galatia." Romans is addressed to 'all in Rome'. 1 Corinthians to the "church of God in Corinth." 2 Corinthians to the "church of God in Corinth." Phillipians to "all the saints in Christ Jesus in Philipp." 1 Thess. to the "church of the Thessalonians in God."

Actually, the onus is on you to explain, as I asked, even if true why does this require a late dating of Galatians?

Layman

You are distorting what I said. Although Paul is not described as having been responsible for initiating or organizing the relief effort, Paul was chosen to send the relief to Jerusalem. He was there as a representative of the Antioch church. Thus it is natural for Paul to ask Paul--the repr. of the church who had just helped out--to keep it coming.

Layman

If Acts wanted to stress Paul's attention to the Nazarenes he could have stressed Paul's collection, but he doesn't. He only reference once and then mostly in hindsight.

Actually, I think the relief was sent a few years after the prophecy.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
It was probably not addressed to a particular city because it was addressed to churches in different areas. Galatians is the only undisputed Pauline explicitly addressed to multiple churches: " To the churches in Galatia." Romans is addressed to 'all in Rome'. 1 Corinthians to the "church of God in Corinth." 2 Corinthians to the "church of God in Corinth." Phillipians to "all the saints in Christ Jesus in Philipp." 1 Thess. to the "church of the Thessalonians in God."

In all cases, a city or the inhabitants of a city is mentioned. None of that in 'Galatians'.

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bernard Muller
OK, I have one for you:
How do you fit Gal2:1 (more so the 14 years) into your scheme?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul went up to Jerusalem 14 years after he was saved. Pursuant to my chronology Paul was saved in or about 34 CE and went up to Jerusalem a second time in or about 48 CE. The 14 year reference in Gal. 2:1 fits my chronology exactly. Even scholars who reject equating Gal. 2 with Acts 11 accept this reading as plausible, and in the case of Paul J. Actemeier, likely.

Gal 2:1 NASB "Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also"

Next question is when Paul was in Jerusalem before:

Gal 1:18-20 NASB "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)"

The problem is that according to you, you put that later visit not 14 years earlier, but only 12 or 11 years:

34/35 - Paul's conversion
36/37 - Paul's First Visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-20 & Acts 9:26-29)
37-46 - Paul in his home region (Gal. 1:21-22 & Acts 9:30)
46/47 - Paul to Antioch with Barnabas (Acts 11:25-26)
48 - Paul's Second Visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2 & Acts 11:29-30)

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I already explained "Luke" wanted to have Paul being more attentive to the "Nazarenes" than he really was. So more visits to Jerusalem in 'Acts' that shows in Galatians (two to be exact).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Acts wanted to stress Paul's attention to the Nazarenes he could have stressed Paul's collection, but he doesn't. He only reference once and then mostly in hindsight.

Yes Ac24:17 looks hindsight, but maybe "Luke" wanted Paul to declare that to Felix, to explain why Felix keeps Paul without trial, as specified in Ac24:26, with Felix expecting a bribe from Paul (with money raised from Christians). Please note I stressed more visits to Jerusalem for Paul showing in Acts.

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now we have one prophet making a prophecy, and then the Christians of Antioch really believing the man and happily providing money 2-3 years before the famine happened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I think the relief was sent a few years after the prophecy.

Whatever, but the delivery happens before the death of Agrippa II as for 'Acts', that is 2 or more years before the famine.

Some more remarks:

If you think the first missionary journey was the one when Paul converted those Galatians, then why there is no mention of Barnabas in Galatians, when Paul related his preaching to them?

Does the next sentence sound illogical, even if the "so quickly" relates to many years:
It is amazing how Japan went so quickly from a medieval nation to a modern industrial power.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

The point is that because Paul was writing to churches in more than one location, or city, that he used the designation of the region, not of any one particular city.

And although we've argued about whether it was addressed to "city folk" or "country folk" you have yet to explain what this has to do with dating Galatians. So again, even if these are "country folk", what does that tell us about the dating of Luke?

I will try and be more clear. Paul does not measure the "fourteen years" from his last visit to Jerusalem, but from his conversion. With that in mind, my chronology works:

34-conversion
37-first visit to Jerusalem (three years from conversion)
48-second visit to Jerusalem (fourteen years from conversion)

Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, at 262 and n. 37.

Please walk me through this. How does Acts state that the delivery happened before the famine?

No mention of Barnabas in Galatians?

Gal. 2:1: "Then after an intervel of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas taking Titus along also."

Gal. 2:9: "and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me Barnabas the right hand of fellowship...."

Gal. 2:13: "The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, whith the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy."

Paul gives no explanation as to who Barnabas is. He seems to think his audience will be already familiar with him. Some have seen here another argument for an early dating of Galatians:


H. Wayne House, Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament, at 138.

I'm probably not qualified to remark on how it would sound in the Greek. But talking about industrialism instead of specific individuals seriously undercuts the point you are attempting to make here. Besides, we've seen how Paul uses the term. None of those usages allows for a multi-year gap as your theory requires.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
I will try and be more clear. Paul does not measure the "fourteen years" from his last visit to Jerusalem, but from his conversion. With that in mind, my chronology works:

34-conversion
37-first visit to Jerusalem (three years from conversion)
48-second visit to Jerusalem (fourteen years from conversion)

But, if we look at Gal2:1
"Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also."

How can you say that the "again" does not relate to the next previous visit in Jerusalem, that Paul mentioned a few verses earlier, at Gal1:18-20.

It's like me saying:
I got converted at that time in Rome.
Then I went to work oversee.
After one year there, I went to Paris.
Later I worked on a contract back home.
Four years later, I went up again to Paris.

Would that means I went to Paris four years before my second trip, or four years after I got converted?

I'll quote now the whole passage from Gal1&2, from the conversion to the second trip:

15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased
16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)
21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ;
23 but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."
24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also."

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever, but the delivery happens before the death of Agrippa II as for 'Acts', that is 2 or more years before the famine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please walk me through this. How does Acts state that the delivery happened before the famine?

The famine occured in 46AD. Agrippa II died in the spring of 44AD. The delivery happened before, or at the death of Agrippa II (Ac11:30-12:25)

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think the first missionary journey was the one when Paul converted those Galatians, then why there is no mention of Barnabas in Galatians, when Paul related his preaching to them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No mention of Barnabas in Galatians?

I meant when Paul is relating his preaching to the Galatians, that is when he was preaching to them. No Barnabas mentioned then. No mention of colleague. Paul is alone.

Layman wrote:
I'm probably not qualified to remark on how it would sound in the Greek. But talking about industrialism instead of specific individuals seriously undercuts the point you are attempting to make here. Besides, we've seen how Paul uses the term. None of those usages allows for a multi-year gap as your theory requires.

"so quickly" which is only used once by Paul, essentially conveys the impression an action happened faster than expected and with an element of surprise. It has nothing to do about indicating weeks, months or years. And this action can be the reconversion of former Pauline Christians from the time they were exposed to Judeaizers.

Gal 1:6-7 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ"

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the villager/city slicker question affects the dating of Galatians.

Because Paul is not clear what "interval" he is talking about. It could either be the interval of time between the trip and his conversion or the trip and the last trip.

Actually, it would not be like that at all. You are writing in English and Paul wrote in Greek. As Colin Hemer, who did read Greek, noted, it could very easily be put like this: "I was converted by God, and did not meet the apostles at that time. I did however visit them 3 years after and against 14 years after." Hemer notes that "Either interpretation is a legitimate use of the word." Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, at 262 and n. 37. Nor is he the only one. As Richard N. Longenecker states, "On this view, the temporal verb 'then' of Galatians 2:1 has the same antecedent as that of Galatians 1:18--both referring back to his conversion." The Ministry and Message of Paul, at 39. See also John McRay, Paul, His Life and Teaching, at 105; David Wenham, Acts and the Pauline Corpus, in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting, at 226; F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, at 277. Even some critics who reject Gal. 2 = Acts 11 recognize that this is likely a reference to Paul's conversion, not the first visit to Jerusalem. See Alan Segal, Paul, The Convert, at 187-88. See also Paul J. Achtemeier: "It is not clear whether the point of origin for the fourteen years was the conversion of the first visit to Jerusalem. Taking into account the inclusive reckoning current in Paul’s time, the visit was thirteen years after either his conversion or his earlier visit to Jerusalem. The three years and fourteen years are to be reckoned as coinciding, not successive-as both commence at Paul’s conversion rather than the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1 being calculated from Paul’s first visit.").


You did not walk me through it. As F.F. Bruce demonstrates, it is not clear when the relief was sent to Jerusalem.


Paul does not say he was alone. Even if it is suggested, Acts does not say that they were never separated on the First Missionary Journey. In any event, you are reading much more into the texts than is there. Moreover, as I have shown, Paul makes more prominent mention of Barnabas in this letter than in any of his others--by far. His audience, therefore, was likely to have been more acquainted with Paul than any of his others. Southern Galatian churches established on the First Missionary Journey fit this bill.

The term "quickly" is used by Paul elsewhere. And that usage supports a short time span. Adding emphasis to it (the "so" in English") only advances that argument. That Paul was "astonished" by the quickness advances it even further. This reference fits a letter to a recently established church much better than it does for one established five years prior. Furthermore, other parts of Galatians add to this sense of rush and urgency that Paul refers to in 1.6.

Paul Barnett, Jesus & The Rise of Christianity, at 293.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the villager/city slicker question affects the dating of Galatians.

Well, as far as I know, if it is villagers, it cannot be the 1st missionary journey.

Layman wrote:
Actually, it would not be like that at all. You are writing in English and Paul wrote in Greek. As Colin Hemer, who did read Greek, noted, it could very easily be put like this: "I was converted by God, and did not meet the apostles at that time. I did however visit them 3 years after and against 14 years after." Hemer notes that "Either interpretation is a legitimate use of the word ..."

Your scholars comments are rather forced (and they fudge the meaning of certain words in their favor). A straight reading of Galatians conveys strongly the impression the 14 years relate from one visit of Jerusalem to the next. If Paul wanted to show otherwise, that is 14 years from his conversion, he had ways to be clear about that.

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Agabus made his prediction a considerable time before the famine, the delegation may have gone to Jerusalem before the famine arose; on the other hand, the Antiochene Christians may have started the relief fund when the prophecy was uttered and continued contributing to it until the famine came. It is therefore difficult to fix the precise date of this visit to Jerusalem. It is not necessary to date it earlier than the events of ch. 12 (which belong to the period of Herod Agrippa's reign over Judaea, A.D. 41-44); Luke completes one phase of his narrative before going back in time to deal with another phase. But a date not later than A.D. 48, and possibly two or three years earlier, is probable.

I do not buy Agabus prophecizing so long in advance, that is before a flood at the wrong time of the year creating a crop failure in Egypt. That resulted in a shortage of food, driving the price higher than the poor could afford. According to Acts, Paul & Barnabas go to Jerusalem before the death of Agrippa II (Ac11:29-30), that is before the spring of 44. The famine was in 46. You set the date of the meeting of Gal2:1-10 at 48. You have a problem here.
I agree that Ac13:25 seems to indicate that Paul & Barnabas were still in Judea after Agrippa's death, suggesting they stay in Jerusalem for some time. Or is it just loose narration, more explanable if Luke was writing fiction? Or maybe "Luke" wanted to give the impression that Paul had something to do with Agrippa's death?
What strikes me is that Gal2:1-10 does not give the impression at all that Paul & Barnabas stayed in Jerusalem for long. Why would they? They got the understanding they wanted from the pillars, and had no reason to delay their mission to the Gentiles, more so that by now it was accepted by the "Nazarenes" leaders.
Furthermore, if the main purpose of the trip of Paul & Barnabas to Jerusalem was to provide relief for the "Nazarenes", why does it not show in Gal2:1:10?
The reason Paul gives for his trip is he answered a revelation; but later it becomes clear Paul was worry the "Nazarenes" would oppose his mission:
Galatians 2, YLT:
1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;
2 and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the good news that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run;
3 but not even Titus, who [is] with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised --
4 and [that] because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who did come in privily to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage,
5 to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you.

No delivery to show here, certainly a good thing to say, more so when Paul wrote later, about the same meeting:
Gal2:10 "only, of the poor that we should be mindful, which also I was diligent -- this very thing -- to do."

I just noticed "Titus", as present at the meeting. Another problem is that Titus appears later in Paul's letters, that is in 2Corinthians. Titus is not mentioned as a companion of Paul in his first journey (only Barnabas), or even the beginning of second journey (only Silas & Timothy).
In 2Cor Titus appears as a new-found efficient helper of Paul in Macedonia/Achaia:

2 Corinthians 8:23
As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you;

I also note that Titus does not even appear in 1Corinthians, certainly written earlier than 2Corinthians, even if 'Timothy' is in it, and other helper like Apollos.

According to your dating, Paul goes to Macedonia/Achaia for the first time after the Gal2:1 meeting. So, that looks to be an anachronism. There is a strong possibility for that.

Layman wrote:
Paul makes more prominent mention of Barnabas in this letter than in any of his others--by far.

Yes, but Galatians goes over many years in the past. My point is, when Paul relates of his stay & preaching to these Galatians, Barnabas is not here. However, in Acts, for the first missionary journey, Paul & Barnabas are always together, including in each Galatian cities mentioned to have been missionized by them, that is Pisidian Antioch (Ac13:46), Iconium (Ac14:1), Lystra (Ac14:12) and Derbe (Ac14:20), Lystra, Iconium & Antioch (Ac14:21).
I just noted that according to Ac14:23 "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust."
But you noticed no church leaders are mentioned in Galatians!

Layman wrote:
The term "quickly" is used by Paul elsewhere. And that usage supports a short time span. Adding emphasis to it (the "so" in English") only advances that argument. That Paul was "astonished" by the quickness advances it even further. This reference fits a letter to a recently established church much better than it does for one established five years prior. Furthermore, other parts of Galatians add to this sense of rush and urgency that Paul refers to in 1.6.

You refuse to take my statement that "so quickly" may relate to the quickness of the desertion following the appearance of the Judaizers. Furthermore, Paul might have wanted his addressees to consider 5 years as a short time. That was advantageous for him, making them feel like flipfloppers in a jiffy. And "so quickly" cannot evoke a particular range of time.

You challenged me about "so quickly" not meaning years in a human context. I'll try again:

It is amazing how the Japanese went so quickly from medieval peasants to modern industrial workers.
Another one:
I am amazed how my little girl grew up so quickly into a young woman.
Another one, about animals, but invoking millions of years:
It is rather surprising how so quickly large mammals evolved from mouse sized ancestors after the dinosaurs extinction.

Layman wrote:
"The other hypothesis, however, requires the lapse of five or six years between the supposed evangalization of the northern Galatia (c. 49/50) and the writing of letters in the theological style of reproachful words, 'so quickly.' Indeed, the whole tenor of the letter is one of passionate urgency (see, e.g., Gal. 4:19-20; 6:17)

I agree "passionate urgency" but then what? Certainly the letter is passionate, but what does that have to do with "so quickly" meaning months. The action related by Paul (the one with "so quickly") has already occured in the past, urgency or not, and is beyond Paul's control anyway, not like the two other "quickly" he used in Philippians (just conditional wishful thinking). Actually "passionate urgency" can better explained "so quickly" even if Paul was thinking about 5 years.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Okay. I am beginning to suspect you are dodging this question. I don't want to. I want to hope you want to hash out this issue earnestly. So, I will ask again:

What about this being addressed to "villagers" instead of "city folk" precludes an early dating of Galatians?

You have answered that "it cannot be the 1st missionary journey"?

That is hardly an answer. Please explain why it can't be the 1st missionary journey. Are there no villages in Southern Galatia?

Layman

Your conclusory assertions are hardly sufficient to rebut the authority I referenced. Are you profficient in koine Greek?

Any why would Actemeier and Segal "force" a reading of 14 years from Paul's conversion if they accept your theory that Gal. 2=Acts 11?