DATE
DATE
If the South Galatian theory is adopted, an early date is possible. It is supported by such considerations as the following:
1. In protesting that he had a divine commission and not one derived "from any man” (Gal. 1:12), Paul lists his contacts with the Jerusalem apostles. These include a visit to Peter (1:18) and "fourteen years later” a visit again "in response to a revelation” (2:1-2; "again” indicates a second visit). These correspond to the visits in Acts 9:26; 11:28-30. Paul’s list must be complete, else his argument would be vitiated (see Gal. 1:20).
2. Paul does not mention the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which would have been very suitable for his purpose. This points to a visit before the council.
3. Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with the Gentiles (2:12) is more likely before than after the council.
4. This date is not invalidated by Paul’s words "I first [το πρότερον (to proteron, from πρότερος, G4728)] preached the gospel to you” (4:13), which some suggest means "on the first of my two visits” (NEB mg.) and points to a date later than Paul’s second
missionary journey. In classical Greek the expression means on the former of two occasions, but in Hellenistic Greek it signifies "formerly, in the past” (as in John 6:62;
9:8; Heb. 4:6, etc.). 14 In any case, Paul visited his South Galatian churches twice during his first expedition (see Acts 14:21).
In contrast, a date during Paul’s third missionary tour is favored by many. The early date is excluded by those who hold the North Galatian theory, for on this view Paul had not been to Galatia until this time. A later date is supported by such arguments as these:
1. The style and the thoughts expressed show an affinity with the Corinthian correspondence and with Romans, so the epistle to the Galatians accordingly should be dated close to them, say at Ephesus during Paul’s third journey (Acts 19) or even on the subsequent journey through Greece.
2. The visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is so closely connected with the subject matter of the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15 that the two must be regarded as independent accounts of the same visit (though some who favor the South Galatian theory see these as two different visits and simply hold that Paul wrote later than the council). It is reasoned that Paul did not mention the famine visit of Acts 11:30 because on that occasion his business was with the elders, not the apostles. But one short verse can scarcely be taken as a full account of all Paul did in Jerusalem. 15
3. Paul has already visited Galatia twice (Gal. 4:13), perhaps the visits of Acts 16:6 and 18:23. But we have already seen that the language does not necessarily mean two visits (see comments on Gal. 4:13, above).
4. In 1 Corinthians there is little about persecution, but there is much in 2 Corinthians. Romans is calm; evidently the trouble is largely in the past. Galatians fits into this sequence between 2 Corinthians and Romans. 16
The main point at issue is whether Paul is writing before or after the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Those who advocate a late date say that he writes later, and they emphasize what they see as discrepancies between Acts and Paul’s letters. They hold that Paul would never have accepted such an arrangement as the Council of Jerusalem reached according to the description in Acts; indeed, they find his recollection of what happened in Galatians 2. They point out that, though they are treated from different points of view, in both accounts the points at issue are circumcision and the relation of the Christian to the law. This view entails the further point that Paul has omitted one of his visits to Jerusalem (or, alternatively, that Luke has wrongly inserted one).
But it is much simpler to accept both accounts. 17 Paul’s two visits to Jerusalem are those of Acts 9 and 11 (Gal. 2 will refer to private contacts on the famine visit on this view; it is hard to date Peter’s vacillation after Acts 15), and Paul wrote Galatians just prior to the council. If this is rightly dated A.D. 48, 18 then this is the date of Galatians. That the letter precedes the Jerusalem Council seems indicated by the fact that Paul makes no mention of its verdict. Even if he did not make it his main argument, it is hard to see why he should omit all mention of such a significant support to his argument against accepting the whole Jewish Torah.