Introduction
This article is an inquiry into what we can determine, on
the basis of the letters alone, about the relationships between Paul and
Galatia. We shall seek to clarify these questions: the founding mission in
the sequence of events; the Jerusalem conference and what it meant for the
Galatians; the Antioch episode and its significance for the Galatian
controversy; the possibility of a return visit by Paul to Galatia; and
finally the collection in Galatia and its relationship to the controversy
there.
The methodological procedures which are to be followed
are already set forth in other parts of this web site; click on Letters Based Chronology (1)
to (4). In particular, it is of crucial importance to avoid
harmonizing Acts to the letters, or, more seriously, the letters to Acts.1
Various Galatians commentaries formally acknowledge the priority of
the letters, or the dubiousness of depending upon Acts, but the picture
which emerges in each case is to one degree or another distorted by an
overlay of Acts information.2
We can agree,
one would hope, that a methodology provides cleaner results when we
correlate sources only after we reach conclusions about each independently.
Let us first do a letter chronology, or chronologies—for chart [A] click on Letters Based Chronology (3),
and for chart [B] click on Letters Based Chronology (4);
and let us do an Acts chronology—click on Acts as a Source
(2).Then we may assess what each can contribute to our
knowledge of early Christianity, and of Paul, in particular.3 But we are not yet at that
point: in this paper we shall try to
clarify what the letters tell us about Paul’s relationships with the
churches of Galatia, leaving Acts to one side.4
The
present paper will also provide a further occasion for testing hypothesis
[A], that the founding missions in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia were
completed before rather than after the Jerusalem conference. At the same
time, we should be aware that an alternative letters chronology [B] can be
constructed which places these founding missions in the period after the
conference.5
* This article is a revision of “Paul and Galatia,” Proceedings:
Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 13 (1993) 55-69.
1Click on B.
W. Bacon, for a warning from 1907 against the dangers of
harmonization!
2See below, Detached Note, “The Use of Acts by
Various Commentators,” with reference to: Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians,
WBC 41 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990); Dieter Georgi, Remembering
the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1992); Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); and Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A
Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
3For a modest attempt in this direction, click on Acts as a Source
(4).
4There are substantial reasons for excluding Acts from consideration
in reconstructing Paul’s career; click on Reasons.
5Click on Option
B.
Detached
Note: “The Use of Acts by Various Commentators”
We are reviewing here the question of the use of Acts in
the work of four authors: Richard N. Longenecker, Dieter Georgi, Dieter
Lührmann, and Hans Dieter Betz (see note 2 above). There is much
that is methodologically sound in their writings. Longenecker (lxxiii) and
Lührmann (21) acknowledge explicitly the priority of the letters.
Lührmann declares Luke wrong about Paul’s persecuting activity in
Jerusalem and about the famine visit. Betz doubts that Acts had reliable
or complete information about Paul (9-10), and resists attempts to
harmonize Acts and Galatians in discussions of the resurrection appearance
to Paul and of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem (63, 84). Georgi is skeptical
(21) about the trustworthiness of Acts 15.
In varying
degrees, however, these four commentators portray Paul’s career in ways
which show significant accommodation to Acts. We find surprisingly
positive assessments of the historical reliability of Acts. Longenecker
assumes the basic reliability of Acts (lxxviii-lxxix). Georgi
characterizes Luke as the first historian of Christianity (126) and
declares that Acts probably gives a historically correct report of the
events leading up to the apostolic conference (23, n. 14). Betz remarks on
how much seemingly reliable historical information is contained in Acts 15
(84, n. 253).
Beyond a general assent to the
trustworthiness of Acts, the four interpreters find particular pieces of
information in Acts reliable. Lührmann (21) and Betz (3) affirm Paul’s
Roman citizenship, despite convincing arguments to the contrary offered by
Stegemann; click on Roman
Citizen. Lührmann has Paul
beginning his work in a given city by making contact with the synagogue,
as portrayed in Acts (40, 77). Betz represents Paul as a delegate to the
apostolic conference from Antioch (82, 84). Betz also makes Barnabas the
former mentor of Paul (104). Georgi (111) and Lührmann (41) shade the
reconstruction of the collection project to Acts 20:4, which is
interpreted as listing delegates to accompany the collection—even though
Acts is apparently unaware that the purpose of the journey to Jerusalem is
to deliver the collection which Paul has been gathering.
In
sum, we see a puzzling inconsistency between the professed caution of
these authors about Acts, on the one hand, and their perhaps over-generous
assessment of the usefulness of Acts, on the other hand. Something of this
same ambivalence toward Acts is evident in J. Louis Martyn’s otherwise
impressive commentary on Galatians; click on Paul and Antioch (1).
The
cumulative effect of the kinds of dependence upon Acts which we have noted
is to encourage harmonization, and in subtle ways to distort what Paul
himself has to say about his career.
The Founding Mission
in Galatia
There is not very much we can say from the letters about
the circumstances surrounding the founding mission, except that Paul came
to Galatia because of illness (Galatians 4:13-15). Paul speaks of the warm
welcome he had received from the Galatians. On the hypothesis of
pre-conference founding missions in the West, he had recently been working
in Syria and Cilicia, following his first Jerusalem visit (Galatians 1:21).6 Nothing in the texts suggests that he was accompanied
by a companion or companions, though by the time he had completed his work
in Galatia, had traveled through Macedonia, and had reached Corinth, his
co-workers were Silvanus and Timothy (2 Corinthians 1:19); it is
possible that one or both had been with him in Galatia.
Paul’s
mission among the gentiles of Galatia (Galatians 4:8-9) was in response to
his commissioning as an apostle to the gentiles (1:15-16). At the center
of his message was Jesus Christ, who was publicly portrayed as crucified
(3:1), whose death was for people’s sins (1:4), who had been raised from
the dead (1:1), and who would rescue God’s people from the existing evil
age (1:4). Paul became a kind of father to the people in these Galatian
communities (4:19). They shared with him in the life of Spirit as they
came to faith in response to the Christ whom he was preaching (3:2-4). It
was probably at the founding visit that Paul also gave these converts from
a pagan way of life the solemn warnings about the kind of vices which
would exclude them from the kingdom of God (5:17-21).7
The
“truth of the gospel” proclaimed by Paul at the founding visit had
given participation in the people of God to these gentiles without their
being required to undertake observance of the Law. It was this truth which
Paul was committed to maintain for the Galatians at the Jerusalem
conference (2:5) and in Antioch (2:14).
6Galatians 1:21 is a difficult text, and views will vary on
whether it allows or forbids pre-conference founding missions in the west.
At least Paul does not say that he worked only in Syria and Cilicia during
the fourteen years between the first and second Jerusalem visits. His
rhetorical strategy seems to have required brevity, and hence he is
obliged only to demonstrate his distance from Jerusalem in time (fourteen
years) and space (at least as far away as Syria and Cilicia), without
providing a full list of the places he has visited in the intervening
period. For a fuller
discussion, click on Letters Based Chronology (2), where I
have presented more fully the arguments for chronology [A].
7See Galatians 5:21, “. . . kathôs proeipon
[as I warned you before].” It is less likely that the previous warning
in 1:9, “hôs proeirêkamen [as we have said before],” about
false teachers, took place at the founding visit, since it is questionable
whether competing preachers would have made their way to the Galatian
congregations so early. Such a warning appears more likely during a return
visit, if there was a return visit.
According to the hypothesis we are testing, Paul left
Galatia and proceeded to Macedonia, and then on to Achaia.8
Paul had thus succeeded in establishing three of his four major missionary
foundations before he looked eastward again, for the Jerusalem conference.
In the fourteen years since his first Jerusalem visit, he had founded
congregations in Galatian territory, in Philippi and Thessalonica, and in
Corinth; and he had composed the letter which we call
1 Thessalonians.
The
Occasion. We can only speculate about the circumstances which
might have convinced him that he should travel up to Jerusalem, fourteen
years after his first visit (Galatians 2:1).9
Whatever the situation may have been, Paul believed that
he had received direct divine guidance to make the trip (2:2). To this we
may add the observation that the greater the extent of Paul’s apostolic
labors before the conference, for which we have made due allowance in our
present hypothesis, the greater the risk was that his efforts might be for
nothing (2:2);11 hence, he submitted for review in Jerusalem
the gospel which he had been preaching to gentiles in Galatia, Macedonia
and Achaia.
8An alternative route—from Syria/Cilicia to Macedonia by sea,
and thence to Achaia and then to Galatia—is conceivable, but fails to
explain why Paul might have bypassed Asia Minor to reach Macedonia. The
possibility of a founding mission in Asia/Ephesus before the Jerusalem
conference may be left open, but is not required by the present
hypothesis.
9We can probably exclude the explanation that he was
summoned to Jerusalem. We shall also put to one side the explanation
provided by Acts, where we are told that law-observant Christians from
Judea urged circumcision for the gentiles in Antioch as a condition of
salvation, and that Paul and Barnabas were appointed to represent the
interests of these gentiles before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem
(Acts 15:1-3). The Acts account may contain reliable reminiscences of
Judean interference at Antioch, but we must be cautious in using the
narrative as it stands because of: (a) uncertainty whether Acts has placed
this interference in the right sequence; (b) uncertainty whether Acts has
accurately defined the point at issue; and (c) the tendency of Acts to
withhold from Paul apostolic rank; from the point of view of the author,
the apostles are in Jerusalem, they have seen Jesus during the forty days,
and they are twelve in number—and Paul does not qualify on any of these
points. H. D. Betz throws his usual caution to the winds when he uses Acts
15:1-2 as the basis for describing the occasion of the conference (Galatians
85) and succeeds, so far as this issue is concerned, in thoroughly
harmonizing Galatians and Acts.
10In W. O. Walker, “Why Paul Went to Jerusalem: The
Interpretation of Galatians 2:1-5,” CBQ 54 (1992) 503-10, we find
the interesting proposal that the false brothers of Galatians 2:4 have
instigated their intrigue at some point before the conference—at
Antioch, in Syria or Cilicia, or (one might also suggest) in one of
Paul’s other missionary foundations, such as Galatia, Macedonia, or
Achaia.
11It is difficult to estimate what exactly Paul sees the
risk to be: his disqualification as an apostle? the existence of two
separate bodies of believers? the mass re-conversion of his gentile
congregations?
The Route. The
journey to Jerusalem may well have originated in Corinth, though we have
no direct information; click on Corinth. Whatever
the point of origin, Paul could have joined Barnabas at some pre-arranged
place such as Antioch or Caesarea and then completed the trip up to
Jerusalem.12 Titus could have joined them in Antioch, but more
likely was a convert from one of Paul’s missionary foundations.
The Meeting. Paul
gives his version of the conference to convince the Galatian readers of
his independent apostolic authority and of the legitimacy of the law-free
gospel which he had been preaching among them and among other gentiles.13
There are various ways of formulating the problem which was to be
addressed at the meeting; it is sufficient to indicate that the central
question was whether gentile converts were obliged to submit to
circumcision and to the observance of Torah. It is understandable that,
from the side of the Jewish Christian mission, believers had been
law-observant from the beginning, and thus that they saw Paul’s law-free
gospel for the gentiles as taking liberties without due authorization. It
is equally understandable that, from the side of the gentile Christian
mission, the imposition of Torah upon gentile converts seemed to be
unrelated to the new life which they had experienced in Christ. Given this
alignment of the parties to the discussion, it is not surprising that
certain zealous types attempted to impose circumcision upon Titus, nor is
it surprising that Paul resisted this attempt (2:3-5).
The Results.
Probably neither party was completely satisfied with the agreement which
was reached.14 When Paul says that Titus was not circumcised,
and nothing was added (to his law-free gospel, i.e. no additional
conditions were imposed upon gentile converts), we are probably to
conclude that Paul’s view prevailed (2:6). This part of the agreement
was not good news for the Jewish Christian mission. On the other hand, the
comity arrangement which was worked out (2:7-9) salvaged as much as was
possible for the Jewish Christian position, in that a part of the church
was permitted to remain law-observant, i.e. the law-free gospel was not to
be imposed upon Jewish Christians. At the same time, this dual mission
concept, strategically useful as it was for the continued spread of the
gospel, contained within it (as we can see in retrospect) the seeds of
controversy: it had not addressed the problem of table fellowship between
Jewish and gentile Christians, as events at Antioch were to show; and it
had left open circumcision and law observance as a credible alternative to
the law-free gospel, as the approaching storm in Galatia was to prove.15
Finally, the agreement that Paul and Barnabas should
remember the poor (2:10) was on balance a well-conceived and even
statesmanlike move. It provided the opportunity for gentile believers to
relieve human need, and at the same time to make a gesture of good will,
signifying respect and appreciation,16 toward Jewish believers
in Jerusalem. It was thus a step in the direction of mitigating the
divisive effects of the dual mission system.
12Click on
Paul and Barnabas.
13Paul’s participation in the Jerusalem conference
does not of course guarantee the objectivity of his report; he was no
impartial observer, but a passionate advocate for his vision of the
gentile mission. But if his version of the proceedings is to be corrected,
it is to be corrected on the basis of the letters, and not Acts.
14Paul is somewhat imprecise about the findings, so that
one suspects that he was not quoting from a formal conference document.
15The comments of Betz on the alignment of the parties
at Jerusalem, and later at Antioch, are stimulating and instructive, even
if I do not follow him in every detail.
16See Georgi, Remembering the Poor 33-42.
