Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Gal2:10 "All they [the "Nazarene" leadership] asked was that we should continue to remember the poor,
[collect "survival" money for the church of Jerusalem: 1Co16:1-4, 2Co8-9, Ro15:25-27]
` the very thing I was eager to do.
[and not "am eager to do" or "will be doing"]"
That would suggest the money collections have been done already, as in late 57 or early 58C.E., or more specifically for the Galatians, in early 55 (1Co16:1).
Note: details on the dating are according to my study, as explained in Appendix B (28) and Paul and the Corinthians
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, the combination of the charge to "continue to remember the poor" and Paul's response that he was "eager to do this very thing" makes it clear that the collection was yet to occur. Paul plans to do it, but gives no indication that he has begun to do so.

This exchange fits much better with equating Acts 11 with Galatians 2. Paul has brought some relief from the Antioch church because of the famine. But as he is leaving, James encourages Paul to do more. Paul expresses his present desire to do so in the future. H.D. Betz's study on Galatians implies an ongoing activity. Galatians, at 54-56. The future holds the collection, not the past.

Yes I agree that when the meeting took place, the collection did not occur yet. But 'Galatians' was written AFTER the meeting, and Paul did not say how long after. A lot of things happened, in the future (relative to the meeting) between the "council" and the writings of 'Galatians', including the collections, as I explained on my page.
As far as the visit you mentioned, the one prior to the famine, it is not reported by Paul (see Gal1:18-2:1). Furthermore, that a collection was done in Antioch among Christians, because a famine was predicted years in advance, does not pass my reality check. Furthermore, it looks to be part of "Luke" ploy (& coloring) to show that Paul was most attentive to the "Nazarenes".

It would help you put together a year by year history of Paul's ministry (as I did). Maybe, if you do that, you'll see problems with your hypotheses.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B) According to Gal 4:13-14 "You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, ... For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me."
those Galatians got converted because Paul (apparently travelling on his own) had to stay among them, in their care, in order to recover from illness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul nowhere says that he had to stay with them in their care. Here is the entirety:

"I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong; but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. Gal. 4:12-14.

How Paul's illness caused the occasion of his preaching the gospel is unsaid. For all we know, Paul was in Tarsus recovering when Barnabas found him. Moreoever, as I indicate below, this line of argument is unconvincing because Acts failed to mention any sickness associated with any of Paul's evangelizing efforst in any part of Galatia.

You are disputing "in their care". Well I do not want to stress that point but "For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me" shows the Galatians in question would have done then anything they could to alleviate Paul's illnesses. And they likely did, as implied in the quote.
Your translation "the first time" is hotly disputed. "At the first" or "at first" is more correct, meaning Paul did not wait before preaching his gospel to those Galatians, when with them. That does not mean Paul visited those Christians again.

"because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject,"
That would tell me Paul preached the gospel here BECAUSE of his health condition, which obviously included problem with his eyes, a good reason why he decided not to continue his journey.
Furthermore, it is the only time, according to Acts and his own letters, that Paul is dealing with converts outside of a city. Essentially these Galatians are villagers & towners, not city folks. That's a notable exception which shows those country folks were not targeted by Paul. Paul aimed his gospel to city folks.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

None of this explains why James would raise an issue that had nothing to do with the conversation Paul reports. But Acts provides such a reason.

That is the question under consideration. If Paul wrote Acts before the Jerusalem Council then he did mention it.

There seems to be no reason for Acts to have invented a second visit.

Why would Paul, who indisputably was raising money for the Jerusalem Church all over the empire, need any coloring ont his issue? If anything, the entire affair is understated. Nor is Paul given a leading role in the raising of the relief. In fact, he played no part in it at all. He was simply asked to deliver it.

We do not know when or in what form the revelaton occurred. We know there were Christian prophets travelling around the empire. That one may have predicted something that others took to mean the famine that happened later is hardly surprising. Nor do I think the text suggests that the Christians in Antioch spent three years raising funds.

Problems such as? You've not identified a single chronological impossibility, or even unlikelihood, in equating Acts 11 with Gal. 2.

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)
48 - Paul's First Missionary Journey (including Southern Galatia--Lystra and Derbe) (Acts 13 & 14)
48/49 - Judaizers in Antioch and Incident with Peter.
48/49 - Paul writes Galatians.
49/50 - Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15)
50-52 - Second Missionary Journey/1 & 2 Thess. written.
53-57 - Third Missionary Journey (Acts 18:23-21:16)
54-55 - 1 & 2 Corinthians written.
55 - Romans written.
56 - Paul arrested in Jerusalem.
60 - Imprisonment in Jerusalem.

There are other chronologies that give differning times for Paul in his home region, but also equate Gal. 2 with Acts 11. Harold Hoehner, for example, places Paul going to Antioch in 43 CE and Paul's second visit in 47 CE.

Layman

I have no doubt that they showed him hospitality, but what Paul seems to be marvelling at is their reaction to his ill health. The statement that "you did not treat me with contempt or scorn" indicates that unlike other ancients, the readers were not repelled or reacting out of superstition by whatever physical manifestation his sickness had.

Nowhere does Paul say that he was sidelined by sickness and could go no further.

It was not my translation, but the NASV. But it's not really important for my point.

Dealt with this above.

I still don't see how you have proven that these are not "city folk." Or what the distinction is between "villigars" and "city folks." Or why that would preclude Paul having preached to them prior to 48 CE? Why could not this have happened during the year of Paul's ministry in Antioch? Or during the first Missionary Journey?

Layman

But what kind of contradiction do you think we have here? A difference in labelling? I think that's the most that is established. And even that is not all that forceful.

While it is true that Luke refers to "the eleven" in Luke 24 and Acts 1:26/2:14, it also appears that Luke believes that the group is by structure the "Twelve." In Acts 1:26, he has the Jerusalem Church formally choosing another disciple of Jesus to be "added to the eleven apostles."

Peter Kirby

It's a "difference in labelling" not to be ignored but explained, either on the hypothesis that Paul knew the story in Luke&Matthew (cf. Papias--all wildly different) about how Judas killed himself and was excluded from the apostolic circle but chose to use "Twelve" unlike the NT writers (John, Matthew, Luke-Acts) who tell the Judas story...or, what is more likely, if Paul and Revelation (and some extracanonical works) included a "Judas" among the Twelve in the first place, then Judas at the time was one of the apostles of the Lamb after the resurrection. The idea that the author of 1 Cor 15:3-11 knew of the defection and death of Judas and the fact that the appearance was literally to Eleven is simply ad hoc, postulated to preserve preconceptions.

Acts 1:26 adds to the proof that the earliest belief on the Twelve was that there were twelve apostles from the beginning to the End, and the Matthias figure (certainly a candidate for Turton's "gnost" status if anyone were) has to be invented to reconcile this earlier belief with the Judas legend. I am surprised that you treat the opening scene of Acts as unvarnished reportage.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I don't think I've ever suggested that any part of Luke/Acts was "unvarnished reportage." And I know I certainly don't believe that to be the case.

But I think you assume too much too quickly here. Like J.P. Meier, I think the "twelve" was an institution established by Jesus. It was a naturally developed inner core of trusted disciples. The number, corresponding with the Twelve Tribes of Israel, is obviously symbolic and tells us something of Jesus' view of his mission and himself. If the number is "eleven" it means nothing. It's only significant with twelve.

In this light, it seems very likely that one of the first orders of business of the Jerusalem Church would be to bring the number back up to Twelve.

If you want to argue about the historicy of the Judas figure as traitor perhaps we can pick that up in another thread. If you assume that there was no traitor figure originally, then you have no choice but to conclude that Acts 1:26 is fiction. But if you think it's an open question or that the traitor figure was historical, then Acts 1:26 makes perfect historical sense.

[I was obviously having a hard time keeping up with your edits. ]

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would preclude these Galatians as being city folks of southern Galatia, the ones met by Paul with Barnabas during the so-called first missionary journey (as narrated in Ac13:14-14:24) and revisited by Paul (with companions) in 50C.E. (Ac16:1-6) and (without companions) in the latter part of 52 (Ac18:23).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would Gal. 4 preclude Southern Galatia?

Actually, I do not preclude Southern Galatia, because I think Paul converted his Galateans peasants somewhere between the cities of Southern Galatia he revisited alone (Acts18:23) and Ephesus.

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most likely time for Paul's unplanned stay among (strictly) Gentiles in Galatia is when visiting the Christians in Galatia/Phrygia (as per Ac18:23), as "Paul took the road through the interior" (Ac19:1) on his way to Ephesus from Antioch (Syria). The place Paul had to stop was probably a town in southern Galatia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basic problem for this entire line of argument is that Acts, despite having Paul missionize various parts of Galatia, nevermentions any physical infirmity at all. Indeed, other than mentioning some persecution, Luke is almost conspicuous by failing to mention Paul's "thorn in his flesh." Therefore, his failure to mention it in conjunction with missionizing Southern Galatia is irrelevant to the issue.

'Acts' is far from mentioning everything about Paul's journeys. As we know 'Acts' does not say anything about what happened after the two years in Rome. Another big item is the emprisonment in Ephesus, for more than one year. See that page which shows that happened in Ephesus:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appp.shtml

2Corinthians (11:23-25) has Paul claiming he was exposed to death again & again, got flogged by the Jews five times, beaten with rods three times, stoned once and shipwrecked three times. That does not appear in 'Acts'. Furthermore, Paul said he went to Arabia after his conversion (Gal1:17). That does not show in 'Acts'.
'Acts' is not (in the second half) a complete history of Paul's journeys.
Going back to the topic, just a three months delay before Paul could reach Ephesus, was not too important. That Paul converted some peasants along the way was not either.
However, after 'Acts' says Paul went through Galatia & Phrygia (18:23) on his way to Ephesus, in the narration "Luke" "abandoned" Paul and talked about Apollos (18:24-28), his conversion to Pauline Christianity, him going from Ephesus to Corinth, then wrote: "While Apollos was in Corinth [this must have taken some time, like months; nothing was going fast in these days], Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus."
It seems to me that going to Ephesus from the cities of Galatia took a long time for Paul, and "Luke" knew it.

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's also notice the epistle is not addressed to the Christians of one city or to an individual (as for all other Pauline epistles) but rather inhabitants of (a part of) Galatia, implying those new believers were rural people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not hardly. Paul was in Antioch for a year or so. It is unlikely he (or other Christians from Antioch) neglected to establish other churches in the region. Indeed, Paul's stragety seemed to be to establish a church in a major area and he or his disciples would missionize the surrounding area as well.
And Paul is inclined to use provincial titles, including Macedonia (16:5), Achaia (16:15); and Asia (16:19). Additionally, Paul refers to "the churches of Galatia" in 1 Cor. 16:1.

For your first observation, you are right. According to 'Galatians', during the period Paul was based in Antioch, he did go (likely with Barnabas) to other places. They are specified in Gal1:21 and they are Cilicia & Syria, but NOT Galatia.
I do not know from where you get Paul & disciples by design missionizing the countryside (which would be very much time consuming & require a lot of missionaries, and at a time when whole cities were still untouched by Christianity). That does not appear in either 'Acts' or Paul's letters.
Paul's strategy was to convert people in cities. City folks were targeted. We do not have any evidence otherwise.
And the churches of Galatia are likely the one created among villagers & towners by Paul, I agree.
"Achaia" appears in "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first convert in Achaia.". That does not say anything about the whole of Achaia was missionized. And the churches of Asia did not need to be in the countryside either.

You gave me a huge backlog to address.
I'll answer it later.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Bernard,

Take your time with the backlog. This whole area is one that I have wanted to explore in depth for some time. You seem the perfect discussion partner to explore it with. I am in no hurry. And I need to check some maps that I do not have at work.

For now:

We agree that Southern Galatia is a potential destination for Galatians.

We agree that Luke does not tell us all of Paul's exploits. That was one of my arguments against your argument that Gal. 4 precludes an early date for Galatians. What about Gal. 4 precludes an early date for Galatians?

More later.

Layman

And what about the first missionary journey (or something equivalent)? If, as my above chronology notes, the 1st Missionary Journey took place after the first trip to Jerusalem but before the Jerusalem Council, the writing of Galatians fits right in between them. And, it would explain how Paul could say that the churches so "quickly" drifted from their faith. What gap does your chronology place between Paul's founding of these churches and the writing of Galatians?