In the discussion on the chronology of the Pauline letters when discussing a new order of the NT, Brian and I began to discuss the placement of Galatians. The letter was either written to south Galatian as Paul’s first letter, or to Northern Galatian after the Thessalonian correspondence and maybe the Corinthian correspondence. Brian and I both agreed on the former but we were unsure what the consesus amongst scholars was; so I decided to investigate. So far as I can find the results are pretty heavy in favor of South Galatia 47-49 AD.
South/Early Date
Elwell/Yarbrough – Encountering
Blomberg – Pentecost to Patmos
Ridderbos – Galatians
South/Late Date (Updated)
Daniel Kirk
North/Late Date
Brown – Introduction (Updated)
Achtemeier, Green and Thompson - Introduction
Betz – Galatians
Most of those who chose a Southern and early date did note that there is evidence for both possibilities and that there is less consensus among the critical scholars. It seems that the North Galatian region was almost accepted universally until the 2oth century. I tried to look up Brown’s Introduction on Google books but the page was blocked so with Achtemeier, Green and Thompson – Introduction. I do not have Martyn, Luhrmann, Morris, Matera, Betz, Barclay or Nanos. If you have access to any of those or any other significant works would you mind looking them up and letting us know?
June 12, 2009 at 8:40 am
Moises Silva advocates: South/Late.
June 12, 2009 at 10:15 am
Mike,
Thanks I knew there was a South/late idea but I only it mentioned by one much older commentator.
June 12, 2009 at 10:20 am
Betz: North/early
June 12, 2009 at 10:44 am
Really, how does he get Paul up into N. Galatia during the first journey?
June 20, 2009 at 2:26 pm
‘The arguments in favour of the “province theory” (so-called “South Galatian” theory) depend on the historical reliability of the itineraries of Acts, and upon the argument from silence. It is strange, however, that the Galatian churches are barely mentioned in Acts. There is no story telling about the founding of the churches. In fact, one may even doubt that Luke has a clear idea of whether or where they existed (See 16:6; 18;23). Whether the author used actual information about the itineraries of Paul, or a source from which his itineraries came, is still an unsolved problem. There is no real need to think that the author of Acts always had reliable or complete information…..It is not necessary at this point to discuss fully the pros and cons of the two theories. The arguments used on both sides are mostly speculative. All we can say is this: it is more probable that the Galatian churches were located in central Anatolia (the so-called “North Galatian” theory). The arguments against this assumption, which were advanced by the defenders of the “province” hypothesis, have been shown to be inconclusive or built up on other unproven presuppositions’ [Betz: 'Galatians'introduction, p4-5]
‘Among scholars, all possibilities from an early date to late are represented. It should be noted that the guesses are mostly speculative and are based upon unproven hypotheses or upon arguments from silence. On the whole, an early date is more commendable than a late date…..The years between 50-55 as the date of writing may be accepted as a reasonable guess.’
[Betz: 'Galatians'introduction, p11-12]
June 20, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Thanks for the explanations, I would count that as making no claim to date if he gives a 50-55 range. Early is usually 49/50 and late 54-56, so I’ll put him under North/Late.
June 12, 2009 at 1:40 pm
seems like Raymond Brown is North Galatian, with late (54-55 from Ephesus). But then Brown dates everything late.
June 12, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Thanks, Ill put it in
June 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Thanks very much for this. FWIW, Heroman (not yet published) takes South/early also.
In all seriousness, I’d be very grateful to see a further divide on the question on Gal.2. IOW, how many of the South/early positions have G.2 referring to the Council and how many to the relief delivery?
You know, just if you get a chance.
June 15, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Acht, Grn, Thompson: North. Somewhat later date. With the caveat: none of this matters for how we interpret the letter itself.
Kirk: who cares where? Probably south. Written late: after 1 Corinthians, before 2 Corinthians. It’s Paul’s response to what he discovers when he sends someone to tell Galatia how to participate in the collection (1 Cor 15)–a collection the Galatians did not in fact end up participating in. Paul thought they were a good and faithful congregation of his (hence his expectation they’d participate in his offering to Jerusalem), but found out otherwise and responded with Galatians.
This explains not only the parallels in concerns, arguments, and scripture citations b/t Gal and Rom, but also Paul’s new-found urgency to go to Jerusalem (which he didn’t have when writing 1 Cor 15).
June 17, 2009 at 10:49 am
Thanks Dr. Kirk. I added a new South/Late category for you and Silva.
June 28, 2009 at 12:04 pm
On June 20th, Daniel said, “Early is usually 49/50″. On June 12th, I should have said, “How many early/south positions put the letter after the council?”
Probably most evangelical scholars would like to see the letter before the council, but I’m convinced it was after. Any help here would be appreciated.
How early is “early”, precisely?
June 29, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I did not check each one to make sure their support of the early date, which is usually 49-50 depending on other circumstances, meant pre-Council, but I am pretty most agreed. In addition, I talked him Schnabel today and he takes pre-Council/South position. His Acts commentary in the ZEC should be out sometime in 2010-2011.