Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

>I am interested in getting some feedback from the list on the dating of
>Galatians. Is the North Galatian theory still held by some or is the South
>Galatian hypothesis accepted by all? On the relationship of the Jerusalem
>visits in Galatians and Acts is Lightfoot's G2=A3 argument or Bruce's G2=A2
>position considered the most cogent by list members?
>
>G2=Gal. 2:1-10
>A2=Acts 11:30 12:25
>A3=Acts 15:2-29


Dear Paul,
While some hold theories of the location of these communities or the
connections between various Acts passages and Gal 2 with some conviction,
most recent works on Galatians tend to survey the various possibilities and
then choose one they favor, but usually not with a great deal of weight
thereafter attached for interpretation. The paucity of information that can
ground these more historical inquiries is disappointing and not generating
a very good debate at the moment. Some have been engaged in it over the
years, but not as much in recent scholarship (since late 70's).

By the way, a glance at Pauline Parallels will reveal 5 instead of 3
schemes for correlating Gal. 2 with Acts. And for what its worth, it seems
to me that the implied situation of the Antioch incident is before the
meeting described in Acts 15, but not the one in Gal. 2. I would recommend
James Scott's Paul and the Nations (Mohr Siebeck) for a new wrinkle on the
question of north or south.

As Neil Elliott and I prepare The Galatians Debate (Hendrickson, 2001?),
the real debates we have found in recent scholarship are in the areas of
rhetorical analysis, and thus the focus is on the situations, persons,
purposes, and messages  "implied" in the correspondence. (James Hester I
see has just responded, and he is one of the representative voices of this
debate on rhetoric and Galatians in the past 20 years.) Are Neil and I
missing something with our focus?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
University of St. Andrews
and Kansas City, Missouri