Bernard Muller

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

I am not dodging your question. I am just out of arguments.
Here is the ones I recall I made:
a) The title "to the churches of Galatia" is unique among Paul's letters, because it mentions a province and not a city. So the suggestion these Galatians are not inhabitants of cities.
b) Nowhere in 'Acts' or the other Pauline letters, Paul is said to be preaching in the countryside, but only in cities. So why he would do so in 'Galatians'? Because he had to stay in some unnamed place (likely not a city, which would be mentioned), because he was sick. Paul preaching in Galatia "outback" was not planned. That's the feeling you have from reading 'Galatians'.
c) For a dating prior to the 1st journey, Paul is clear he did not go in Galatia before, according to Gal1:21, only Cilicia & Syria.
d) You said no church leaders appear in 'Galatians'. But in Acts, the apostles are said to name church leaders before their departure, in the 1st missionary journey. So maybe, we are not talking about the same Galatians.
e) Paul is not alone in the first journey, always described with Barnabas. But in 'Galatians' he seems alone when with the Galatians, when he was converting them. And no mention of Barnabas (when Paul was with his Galatians).
f) In Acts, the only time when "Luke" suggested Paul spent a fair amount of time in the "wild", as a free man, and when going from Galatia to Ephesus, occurs in Ac18:23-28ff-19:1. This is a lot more likely location for the Galatians of 'Galatians':
Paul is then described to be travelling alone, spent time in "interior" location (probably at the border of Asia Minor & Galatia -- whose borders are not well known and may have crossed Phrygia, an unofficial area).

That's all Layman. I do not have anymore. Amen

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

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

Of course there is, like in any agricultural area around the Mediterranean sea, then and now.
Actually a few years back (it's amazing how time flies so quickly ) I drove in that area, from Konya (former Iconium) to Beyeshir (& slightly beyond westward). I recall fertile valleys between montains, with villages of course.
I also drove from Ephesus to Afyon and then to Bolvadin. See later.

Layman wrote:
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 ..."

Bernard wrote:
Your scholars comments are rather forced (and they fudge the meaning of certain words in their favor).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
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?

No I do not know koine Greek but there are many authorities on the same subject and they do not agree. Colin Meyer gave his opinion and paraphrased his own way. But the reading of that passage of Galatian in any translation does not convey that for me, at all (part of my methodology is to keep my sanity).

I do not know about the motivation of Actemeier and Segal.
But I do know the dating of Galatians is hotly contested. I have that on one of my webpage:
>> The dating of 'Galatians' has been proposed anywhere from 48 to 57C.E. <<
Actually for me, it may be even very early 58 and written in Corinth.

My very conservative NIV mentioned two different theories on when & where about those Galatians, none I agree with, at least completely.
On one theory, it says that the letter may have been written in 57 from Macedonia, which is very acceptable by me. And I think I could find scholarly works to support me on that.

Checking Kirby's website (thanks Peter ), we have "Paul most likely visited the north Galatian districts, as Acts 16:6 and 18:23 seem to indicate." (Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. 1999). Except I do not think Paul went as far North as that.
But BTW, the more you make a detour North West from Antioch Pisidia (or even better Iconium), the more the terrain is flat. Then at the old city of Synnada (close to today Bolvadin, 30 miles SE from Afyon) you pick up valleys going South West, then West towards Ephesus (and going close to old Laodicea & Colosse). You avoid a lot of exhausting up and down like that.
BTW, Wallace gives a latest date of 55/56 CE.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia we have:
"Those who defend the North-Galatian theory place it as late as A.D. 57 or 58."
What about the Southern Galatia Theory:
"Cornel and the majority of the upholders of the South-Galatian theory suppose, with much greater probability, that it was written about A.D. 53, 54."

Actually there is more dating for each of the two main theories:
"If it is addressed to the Galatians in the north, the letter was probably written around A.D. 54 or 55, most likely from Ephesus after Paul's arrival there for a stay of several years on his third missionary journey (Acts 19; Acts 20:31). On the South Galatian theory, the date would be earlier, perhaps A.D. 48-50. Involved is the question of how one relates the events of Gal 2:1-10 to the "Council of Jerusalem" described in Act 15 (see the notes on each passage)" (NAB, Galatians introduction)

So everything goes, but for myself, and using my reconstruction of Paul's journeys, which required me one year or more to finalyse (and I have 11 pages related to that!), that's what I have. The important thing is I satisfy myself and everything fits, which it does. Amen

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Layman wrote:
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 ..."

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?
Please tell me you aren't falling back into "my opponents may be mentally unstable" ploy. Just face the arguments head on. You are not the only sane person with a theory about Jesus. And many, many respected scholars--even many who agree with your ultimate conclusion--agree that the Greek in Gal. 2:1 can be read to refer to conversion or to his previous visit.

As for Actemeier and Segal, the fact that very well respected scholars--leaders in their field-- who disagree with the basic premise accept that Gal. 2:1 refers to a 14 year gap from Paul's conversion should give even you pause to keep the other option open.

I dropped by the library today and went through about five or so commentaries on Galatians, from a variety of perspectives. Again, even those who equate Gal. 2 with Acts 15 commented on how Gal. 2:1 can be read either way. Some more comments:

"Thentakes us along to the next significant time ..., namely Paul's second visit to the Jerusalem apostles. This took place after fourteen years, which may mean fourteen years after the apostle's conversion to fourteen years after the events narrated at the end of the previous chapter, probably the former." Leon Morris, Galatians, at 64.

Perhaps more persuasive is this discussion by a scholar who accepts your theory of Gal. 2 = Acts 15. He begins by noting the use of the same word for "then" in Gal. 1:18, 21, and 2:1:

J. Louia Martyn, Galatians, The Anchor Bible, 180-82.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
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."

Yes, but this is not the way it is written in 'Galatians'. Anything can be easily reput: that does not prove anything.
This is the way it is written, taking in account the "then":
Gal1:13-2:1, YLT
13 for ye did hear of my behaviour once in Judaism, that exceedingly I was persecuting the assembly of God, and wasting it,
14 and I was advancing in Judaism above many equals in age in mine own race, being more abundantly zealous of my fathers' deliverances,
15 and when God was well pleased -- having separated me from the womb of my mother, and having called [me] through His grace --
16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might proclaim him good news among the nations, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem unto those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus,
18 then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to enquire about Peter, and remained with him fifteen days,
19 and other of the apostles I did not see, except James, the brother of the Lord.
20 And the things that I write to you, lo, before God -- I lie not;
21 then I came to the regions of Syria and of Cilicia,
22 and was unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea, that [are] in Christ,
23 and only they were hearing, that `he who is persecuting us then, doth now proclaim good news -- the faith that then he was wasting;'
24 and they were glorifying God in me.
1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;

Koine Greek or not (would that make any difference?), my instinctive reading (with no double think), as Paul's audience would hear it, tells me the second visit of Jerusalem is linked to the first one, more so with the word "again". The "then" is only used here to indicate a sequence is narrated. Notice the additional "then" at 21. And the lapse of 14 years is best understood as between two similar short-lived events, that is the two narrated visits to Jerusalem.

Hemer notes that "Either interpretation is a legitimate use of the word ..."

Legitimate, but how does the whole thing sound; that's the question.

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?

I do not know. Is your "Acts 11?" a typo? I'll assume it is and will read Acts 15.
What I think is most Christian scholars accept 34-35 for Paul's conversion (the NIV bible implicitly also indicates 34-35). Many of those have Gal.2=Acts15 (Actemeier and Segal seem to be among those).
That meeting description in Acts15 fits best the Gal.2 meeting, except of course it is very much embellished in Acts, with Paul meeting all the apostles. That meeting in Acts15 happens before the first journey in Acts, that is years before Gallio, as governor of Achaia in 51-52 (Ac18:12) during the second journey.
So evidently, we can expect all kind of attempts to indicate the 14 years to point to 48-49 rather than 51-52.
I do not have any problem with 52. Actually Acts indicates Paul did a trip to Jerusalem at about that time, that is between the 2nd & 3rd journey (Ac18:22). And one reason why I confirmed 52 rather than 50, is by going backward, taking in account all the lapsed times indicated in Acts and also 2Corinthians. Furthermore, as more & more accepted now, I also took in account that 2Corinthians is actually 3 letters put together (which is very obvious), written at different times and in very dissimilar situations.

Please tell me you aren't falling back into "my opponents may be mentally unstable" ploy.

No, not a all. I would say that if they change their mind every week or month, but I do not think it is the case.

Just face the arguments head on.

The arguments I am facing are just scholarly opinions (shall I say fudging!) to allow for the "council of Jerusalem" to happen earlier than 51-52!

And many, many respected scholars--even many who agree with your ultimate conclusion--agree that the Greek in Gal. 2:1 can be read to refer to conversion or to his previous visit.

In this field, they are many respected scholars. And many of those disagree with each other. But still all are well respected (as long as their study are advantageous for the faith). That's the nature of biblical studies, more so amidst Christian circles.

As for Actemeier and Segal, the fact that very well respected scholars--leaders in their field-- who disagree with the basic premise accept that Gal. 2:1 refers to a 14 year gap from Paul's conversion should give even you pause to keep the other option open.

At every turn of the way in my reconstruction, I am sure some scholars came out already against anyone of my conclusions. I am also sure, that in almost all cases I would be able to find works which would support the same conclusions, one by one. That's the way it is out there.

I dropped by the library today and went through about five or so commentaries on Galatians, from a variety of perspectives. Again, even those who equate Gal. 2 with Acts 15 commented on how Gal. 2:1 can be read either way. Some more comments:

"Then takes us along to the next significant time ..., namely Paul's second visit to the Jerusalem apostles. This took place after fourteen years, which may mean fourteen years after the apostle's conversion to fourteen years after the events narrated at the end of the previous chapter, probably the former." Leon Morris, Galatians, at 64.

Perhaps more persuasive is this discussion by a scholar who accepts your theory of Gal. 2 = Acts 15. He begins by noting the use of the same word for "then" in Gal. 1:18, 21, and 2:1:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galatians 1

16. [After God's call sent me to preach his Son among the Gentiles] I immediately kept to myself, not asking advice from anyone. 17. Nor did I make a trip up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before I became one. One the contrary, I went away to Arabia, and later I returned to Damascus.
18.Then, after three years had passed, I did go up to Jerusalem in order to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him two weeks. 19. I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the brother of the Lord. 20. What I am writing to you is no lie, God being my witness!
21.Then, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilica. 22. And through the whole of this time, I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ. 23. The only heard it same about me that 'the man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he had earlier tried to destroy"; 24. time and again they ascribed glory to God because of me.

Galatians 2

1. Then, after fourteen years, I went up to Jerusalem again, accompanied by Barnabas...

Given the structure of the narrative, one's first impression may be that Paul depicts that sequence in a simple way, relating each event to its predecessor: First, 'A' happened; then "B'; then "D." But what is one to make of the fact that in two instances Paul combines the adverb 'then' with a specific number of years?

1:18. Then, after three years ...
2:1. Then, after fourteen years ...

Does Paul intend in these two instances a simple narrative sequence, measuring an interval between consecutive events? Or does he, in one or both cases, measure a specific number of years from the first event in the sequence? This question has been extensively and sharply debated.

Yes, I agree with this last sentence. The rest is a very convoluted (and shall I say apologetic?) explanation:

We do well to approach the question by taking into account not only Paul's use of the adverb epeita but also the instance in v 16 of the adverb eutheos: 'immediately after that [my call], I kept to myself....; nor did I make a trip to Jerusalem...' In this sentence Paul is clearly taking his call as the point from which chronological measurement is to be made, and he is using the adverb eutheos to indicate the temporal measurement between his call and a trip to Jerusalem. He says, that is, that immediately after his call he kept to himself, not going to the Jerusalem church.

OK, so far.

It is highly probably, then, that he uses the adverbial expression in v. 18-then, after three years-in the same way, indicating the length of time between his call and his actually making a trip to Jerusalem. One may paraphrase the two reference to a Jerusalem trip as follows:

16. Immediately after my call, I kept to myself. 17. I did not make a trip up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before I became one. 18. Then, not having gone up to Jerusalem immediately after my call, when about three years had passed since that event, I did go up to Jerusalem in order to visit Caiphas.

Still OK so far. But then, at the very end, comes the leap of faith:

And the same intention **seems** to be expressed in 2:1:

Then, about fourteen years **after my call**, I went up to Jerusalem again, accompanied by Barnabas.

This is a biased interpretation. I noticed the insertion of after my call, which does not show in Gal2:1. That also demonstrates that if Paul wanted to say these fourteen years are from his conversion, he could have done so in a few words.
It is just an opinion introduced by "seems".
This is not evidence.

Actually, the whole object of the passage is to show to the Galatians his relationship with the pillars and describe his visits to Jerusalem. At one point, Paul declares he did not go to Jerusalem after his conversion (as it would be expected by the Galatians, in order to get "the infos" first hand).
Then three years after that, comes the first narrated visit to Jerusalem. Paul made a point he wanted to meet Peter (at that time, Peter was still the top man, with James waiting in the shadow) and stayed with him for two weeks. He also said he met James too.
From that point on, who cares about the conversion? Paul is dealing with his "ministry", then his next visit to Jerusalem "again".

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

With sincere respect here Muller, your intuitive sense doesn't get you very far with me.

The whole thing can go either way actually. But Paul's focus here is on his conversion. Context leans towards dating the second trip from his conversion.

When did Segal convert?

And how did you learn Actemeier's religion?
If they equate 2 with 15, to what end?

I doubt it. Especially since its author equate Gal. 2 with Acts 15. What is he apologizing for?

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
When did Segal convert?
And how did you learn Actemeier's religion?

I did some "Google" research on your scholars.

First, Colin J. Hemer, was an Anglican scholar. His name is all over the web, mostly in Christian websites and lists.
His books on Acts (which he dates 66) and the seven churches of Asia are very popular in Christian circles.
Here are some of the things I gleaned:

Colin J. Hemer, "The Adjective 'Phrygia,'"Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976): 122-26.

From a reviewer of his book:
Ok, for all you researchers and apologists of the Christian faith, this is a necessary tool to add to your library. I cannot even begin to explain the enormous amount of detail that Hemer has produced in this work. ...
He has very painstakingly proved that the Book of Acts would HAVE had to have been dated around 66 A.D. or possibly even before. ...
If you are a serious researcher or even just a cursory researcher who likes to gather great evidential works for the Christian religion then you cannot be without this crucial text. It is an invaluable tool to add to your collection.

From another reader:
Hemer defends a pre-70 A.D. date for Acts, along with presenting a strong case for authorship by Luke, the companion of Paul. He also presents an excellent argument for an early date for Galatians as part of his overall historical reconstruction. ...
If you have an interest in Acts and its historical reliability, then you need look nowhere else than right here. Colin Hemer has given you all you could ever want in this field.

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I think is most Christian scholars accept 34-35 for Paul's conversion (the NIV bible implicitly also indicates 34-35). Many of those have Gal.2=Acts15 (Actemeier and Segal seem to be among those).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did Segal convert?
And how did you learn Actemeier's religion?

I do not think I assume Actemeier & Segal's religion here. What does Gal.2=Acts15 assumption have to do about religious beliefs?
I used "seems" because of your typo (Gal.2=Acts11?).
According to "Google", Actemeier & Segal are not well known (as their works). I could not get anything significant about them. And I do not know in what depth they went in their study of the dating of 'Galatians'. It happens often that what is flagged as indirect evidence is no more than some musing or quick remark by some scholar.
I agree they may not be Christians, but even non-Christians can make errors. Wouldn't you say so?

And your main argument came from:

J. Louia Martyn, Galatians, The Anchor Bible, 180-82.

I got the following from the Anchor Bible Training Center webpage:

Dear Prospective Student!
By the mere fact that you have logged into this website indicates a desire within you, that maybe you're not even aware of, for a fuller, deeper understanding and knowledge of God.

Two years at Bible School will put you ahead in your knowledge of God’s Word by approximately fifteen to twenty years over the person who only attends two or three church services per week. Why take twenty years to grow in God when you could do it in two and be more effective for Him in those remaining eighteen years?

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Oh no, CHRISTIANS! God forbid that they actually write about the Bible.

What is your point?

And, FYI, Alan Segal is a well respected Jewish Scholar. I have no idea what Actemeier's faith is, but from what I have read his opinion of Acts correlating with Galatians is low.

And Martyn is guilty by association I guess. Didn't I mention that he equate Gal. 2 with Acts 15? Thus what is the apologetic motive for understanding the 14 years as referring to his conversion.

You've given me your "intuitive" nonChristian sense of this verse. I've given you argument and references to a diversity of scholars, from convervative to liberal, from Christian to Jewish. From those who accept that Gal. 2 - Acts 11 and from those who accept that Gal. 2 - Acts 15.

If you are trying to show that all of these scholars are hopelessly biased on this issue you have failed miserably. And pathetically.

Layman

I didn't know that Google had a popularity meter.

But no, Segal is no lightweight.

http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/religion/segalcv.html

Layman

Umm. I think you did:

What I think is most Christian scholars accept 34-35 for Paul's conversion (the NIV bible implicitly also indicates 34-35). Many of those have Gal.2=Acts15 (Actemeier and Segal seem to be among those).

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Umm. I think you did:
What I think is most Christian scholars accept 34-35 for Paul's conversion (the NIV bible implicitly also indicates 34-35). Many of those have Gal.2=Acts15 (Actemeier and Segal seem to be among those).

GUILTY!!!
I should check my own writing first. I agree the last "those" are the same as the preceding "those". And the first "those" has to be "most Christians scholars".
But I did not want to mean that, just Actemeier & Segal had Gal.2=Acts15 (and not because they would be Christians), which is the "natural" (but shallow) way to understand it, even if I do not agree.
And I did not mean to criticize Christian scholars for coming with 34-35, and suggesting they would do that because of faith. I myself arrived at 35 for Paul's conversion.
I'll have to be more careful next time.

But with so many "respected" scholars having Gal.2=Acts15, why don't you take a step in the right direction?
Oh yes, I forgot, there is that Colin Hemer, all over the web with his apologetic books!

Yes, Segal has an impressive resume. I checked.

Best regards, Bernard