Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

This is becoming a productive thread and I hope it continues.

My main focus is on historical questions like the date of the letter, and I
suggest that an early date is rather likely, whether or not the influencers
were home-grown.

Thanks for your thoughts on 5:11, Mark, but I am not at all convinced. I
prefer the view that the Galatians had been persuaded that Paul supported
circumcision as the final step of conversion. But it occurs to me that
home-grown influencers could have been the persuaders.

Justin Hardin wrote:
<<Mark's suggestion is certainly possible.  Another possibility is that the
Thessalonian situation was different precisely because they were willing to
follow Paul's example of suffering.  NB Paul's commendation of them at the
outset of the letter in 1Thess 1.6-7 'And you became imitators of us and of
the Lord, for you received the word with much affliction, with the joy of
the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in
Macedonia and in Achaia...' when contrasted with Paul's appeal in 4.12
'Become as I...' (for the meaning, see Goddard and Cummins, JSNT 1993). >>

Interesting. Another thing to consider is that the Jews in Galatia may well
have been stricter on circumcision than those elsewhere. It was because of
the Jews of south Galatia that Paul circumcised Timothy, and this suggests a
strictness. (I have also speculated that it was their reputation for
strictness that made John-Mark turn back). These Jews probably originated in
Babylonia (could that account for their stricter stance of circumcision?).
Some have argued that the south Galatian Jews were LESS strict and they cite
the fact that Timothy was uncircumcised and had mixed parents. But I have
questioned whether Timothy was a native of south Galatia. Anyway, strict
Jews of south Galatia could well be the influencers, if the influencers were
home-grown. It therefore becomes attractive to explore the combination of
the south Galatia theory with the home-grown influencers theory.

Mark wrote:
<<So far, I would say the strongest implication is that they do know about
Peter, and from Paul's earlier telling.>>

What about Barnabas? I can imagine him telling the Galatians about the
naming of Peter. We don't know much about his relationship with Peter, but
we know that he failed to take a stand against Peter in Antioch. He was
given his name by the apostles and this indicates that they had authority
over him, because in cases of re-naming the namer has authority over the
named. So I agree that Paul's use of "Peter" in 2:7-8 does not require
outside influencers.

I wrote:
<<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.>>

I would be interested to read you thoughts on this, Dieter. Or perhaps you
can refer me to something in the archives if it has been discussed before.

One more minor point. We cannot be sure that the Galatian situation occurred
after the events of Gal 2, as was suggested. The influencers might have been
at work before the Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1-10 and Paul's information on
Galatia might be earlier than the visit. That is to say, Paul may have
learned about Galatia just before the Gal 2 visit, and decided to visit
Jerusalem before sending an envoy to Galatia with the letter. Alternatively,
he may have learned about Galatia during his Gal 2 visit, in which case he
may have dispatched his envoy from Caesarea so that they could travel
directly to Perga.

Richard.