Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Dieter,

 

Let's first consider the possibility that Galatians was written during Paul's initial visit to Macedonia and Achaia. You agree that it is doubtful that an Galatian envoy would made the long journey to the Aegean or known where to find Paul. The other possibility is that Paul sent someone to Galatia to check up on the Galatians and that that someone returned to Paul and that Paul then sent someone with the letter. I find this equally unlikely. The churches in Macedonia and Achaia were small and new and from 1 Thess it seems that Paul's communications were infrequent even with the Aegean churches. There were enough local churches needing the attention of Paul and his very small team.

 

Communication between Paul and Galatia is more likely during the later stages of his Aegean career, such as during his Ephesian period. However, as I said before, such a late date makes it difficult to account for the confusion in Galatia. Would anyone at that time have thought it plausible that Paul taught circumcision? I doubt it. Paul would have visited them two or three times by then. Furthermore, the apostles had known Paul's position on circumcision for many years (See Gal 2). And we are not justified in dismissing the evidence of Acts 21, which tells that Paul did have a reputation for opposing circumcision. Also, if Paul had sent an envoy to Galatia, as you suggest, Dieter, why did that envoy not simply clear up any confusion that the influencers had sown? Why did he not simply point out that Paul did not preach circumcision? And if the influencer had been in contact with the Jerusalem apostles AFTER the Gal 2 visit, as you suggest, why did the apostles not explain to them that Paul did not preach circumcision? I'm having difficulty reconciling 5:11 with your reconstruction, Dieter.

 

Partly for these reasons I prefer to place Galatians early. I am impressed by Longenecker's analysis. He writes that the influencers included in their presentation "the charges that Paul, as a matter of fact, actually did preach and practice circumcision, but that he withheld this more developed rite only so as to gain his converts' initial favorable response. Thus, in effect, he was more interested in winning their approval than God's approval (cf. 1:10), since he really did believe in circumcision...". This makes good sense. The influencers' false assumptions about Paul's position are understandable at a time when he had visited Galatia only once and was not well known in Judea (Gal 1:22) and had not even yet laid out his gospel to the apostles (Gal 2:2). I imagine that the influencers told the Galatian believers about the need for circumcision and that they remarked that Paul had not told them that they needed to be circumcised. To this the influencers replied that Paul had presumably decided not to burden them with too much too soon and that he would doubtless urge them to circumcise when he next visited.

 

I agree with Dieter that the influencers did not oppose Paul. They just misunderstood him and inadvertently misrepresented him. They thought that they were completing the task that he had started in Galatia. I also agree that the readers were surprised at what they read. It seems to me that Paul uses extreme rhetoric in an attempt so overturn the view that he had omitted circumcision from his preaching just to attract converts. When you tell someone something and they reply, "You don't really believe that: you are saying that just to gain my allegiance", you have to use extreme language to make them believe that you really do believe it. You have to take a more extreme position than you would otherwise do, so as to correct the other person's misconception. This type of rhetoric is evident in 5:2-12, which begins with, "Behold, I Paul say to you". I therefore think that Paul was more moderate on the circumcision issue than appears at first sight from Galatians. Acts supports this view. 

 

Dieter wrote:

<<It seems plausible to me that the crisis in Galatia arose from socio-religious intra- and inter-group problems IN Galatia, and that support from Jerusalem was sought not because there was a conscious effort to oppose Paul, but maybe simply because (as you said yourself) Paul was harder to get in touch with than the Jerusalem apostles.>>

 

How do you explain why Paul proclaims his independence of the Jerusalem apostles?

 

Richard.