Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Dieter wrote:

<<It seems improbable to me that Paul would not have shared a major conviction with the Galatians already on his first visit there. In deed since in my view the issue is not circumcision as such but the reason for desiring it (i.e. avoiding persecution), I am quite positive that Paul thinks he has been very clear on the matter by vividly portraying the crcuiform life before their eyes (3:1, 4:12ff). Also, as I have mentioned before, I do not think we need outsiders to understand the problem in Galatia.>>

 

I'm not suggesting that Paul failed to preach his full gospel to the Galatians on his first visit. I am, however, suggesting that they failed to understand his non-circumcision thing (and who can blame them?). Paul had visited Galatia only once (in my view) and there is no reason to suppose that the theme of non-circumcision dominated his preaching. The circumcision issue does not loom large in most of Paul's letters and may not have loomed large in Paul's initial preaching to the Galatians. No doubt he felt that he had done enough to make himself clear on the issue, but I think we can forgive the Galatian believers for becoming confused.

 

Dieter wrote:

<<The way I look at it, Paul did indeed express his independence, because he wanted to make sure to his readers in Galatia that HE would never vacillate just because he found himself in a tight spot. His message of weakness and crucifixion with Christ had apparently been mistaken for spinelessness. Paul makes sure to rebut that misconception beyond doubt. I believe that Gal 1:10 makes sense once you view ch's 1-2 from this point of view.>>

 

Dieter, perhaps I can be more specific. Why, for example, did Paul write that he did not meet any other apostle, except James (1:19)? And why did he write that he did not go up to Jerusalem (1:17)? I don't see how Paul's statements like these would serve the purpose of convincing the readers that he never vacillated. If they do, then they are too subtle for me, and probably too subtle for the Galatians, I think. Or have I misunderstood you, Dieter?

You suggest that the letter was written during the Ephesian period. Why, then, did the Galatian situation take so long to occur? Why did the issues that Paul addresses in the letter not arise prior to Paul's second visit to Galatia. Or if they did, why did Paul not resolve them on his second visit? The letter seems to be a response to a new situation in Galatia. If the influencers were home grown, why did they sprout up so late? Why did their influence come as such a surprise to Paul if he had travelled through the region at least twice before? I am unable to reconcile your late date for Galatians with your home grown influencers theory.

Richard.