 |  |
CHRONOLOGY
ACTS
EPISTLES
86
OF
AND
`Before the appearance of his (Prof. Ramsay's) books setting out the South Galatian theory, the epistle to the
Galatians seemed to be in the air, and to have no relation to the Acts of the Apostles or to any other writing. His
brilliant work illuminated what had been before a dark corner. The interest so aroused led me to study the
subject more closely, and eventually to form the opinion expressed in these pages, as to the earlier date of the
epistle. The later date was the burden laid by necessity upon the holders of the North Galatian theory. Prof.
Ramsay might have cast off the burden so inherited. Instead of so doing, he gratuitously (as it seems to me) tied
*
the burden round his neck to the great injury of the South Galatian theory'.
Without going through all the controversy raised in this book, we give the following summary of the essential
points:
(1) Was the epistle written before or after Acts 15?
(2) The private conference of Galatians 2 took place upon the second visit of the apostle to Jerusalem, which was
that of Acts 11:30. The reference to `the poor', and Paul's expressed readiness, coincide with the errand of
mercy mentioned in Acts 11:30.
(3) After the private conference at Jerusalem, Peter dissembles at Antioch. The question at issue at Antioch was
not, `should the Gentiles be circumcised'? that had been settled; but, `should the circumcised eat with the
uncircumcised?' On this point Peter wavered. Peter felt the force of the rebuke, and acted accordingly at the
public Council (Acts 15).
(4) Paul paid the Galatian churches two visits (Acts 13). The return visit was important. The faith which the
apostle had preached (13:39), they were exhorted to `continue in' (14:22), and the persecution which they
knew the apostle suffered (13:50), was a part of their expectation also - `we must through much tribulation
enter the kingdom of God'.
(5) While the apostle abode at Antioch for `a long time' some of the emissaries from Jerusalem went on to
Galatia. The result of their visit is recorded in Galatians 1:6. Paul at once, from Antioch, and just before the
conference (Acts 15), wrote the epistle.
(6) The contention which necessitated the conference necessitated also the epistle.
(7) The decrees, formulated by the Council, are never mentioned in the epistle. If the Apostle had received
them, he would be obliged in all honesty, to have said so. Further, the fact that these decrees practically
endorsed the exemption of the Gentiles from the Law was a strong argument for the apostle. If the epistle
had been written after Acts 15, would not the apostle have settled the question at once by reference to the
decrees?
In the epistle we can have no doubt the apostle uses the strongest arguments that at the time of writing were
possible. The close connection between Acts 13 and the epistle is also an argument for nearness in point of time.
He argues in the epistle as though his teaching would be still clearly remembered.
Galatians 4:20 suggests a desire to revisit them. Why did he not go? The simple reason was that he was obliged
to go up to Jerusalem for the conference instead.
Douglas Round's own summary is as follows:
(1)
By this view no visit of Paul to Jerusalem is suppressed.
(2)
The most forcible arguments that could be used at the time are used.
(3)
No inconsistency is intruded into the Acts.
(4)
Every phrase which bears upon the date is simply and naturally explained.
(5)
The authority of the Council at Jerusalem, and the decree made, remains unimpaired.
(6)
The epistle was written from Antioch or the neighbourhood.
(7)
The churches of Galatia were those of Pisidia, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe.
*
In a review of the first edition of this Analysis, F.F. Bruce pointed out `... that in his later works (The 14th
edition (1920) of St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 22-31) Sir William Ramsay did accept the view expressed here, that
Galatians is the earliest of the extant Pauline letters'.