Galatians: Three Possible Dates (AD 49-55

Article entitled: “Farmer’s Argument for Matthean Priority” Edited by Geoff Trowbridge.

Found here: http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm [Editorial note - The sixteen main points of William R. Farmer’s argument, as well as many of the examples and elaborations, have been lifted verbatim from his book, The Synoptic Problem, Mercer Univ. Press, 1981. However, I have freely reworded and reworked many details where appropriate for the sake of brevity. For a full appreciation of Farmer’s work, consult the aforementioned book, or his more recent The Gospel Of Jesus, Westminster

John Knox Press, 1994 - G.T.]

Farmer puts the three synoptics in this order: Matthew, Luke, then Mark.

Three Good Sources on the Synoptic Problem from an Evangelical Perspective:

• David Alan Black and David R. Beck (editors). Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand

Rapids,

Michigan USA: Baker Academic, 2001. • James Breckenridge. Evangelical Implications of Matthean Priority (article). Found in the

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 26/1 (March 1983) pp. 117-121. He argues for Matthean priority from a conservative evangelical framework while keeping the results and input of form criticism clearly in mind. • David Laird Dungan. A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the

Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels. New York City, NY USA: Doubleday, 1999. • John Wenham. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem.

Downers Grove, IL USA: Intervarsity Press, 1992.

Galatians: Three Possible Dates (AD 49-55)

As we noted, opinions about the date of the epistle of Galatians vary widely. They range from AD 49 just before Paul’s second missionary journey (suggested by Frank Viola), to AD 51-52 while Paul was in Philippi or Corinth on his second journey (my view), or as late as AD 55 while Paul was in Ephesus on his third journey (advocated by Arthur Ogden).

Those who read my First Century Events manuscript will notice that the date of Galatians was not pinpointed. Two possible dates were given: AD 53 and AD 55. Since that was written, however, a lot more study has been done to tighten the range of possible dates. Below are the results of that study:

It is important to keep the dates for the three missionary journeys and the Jerusalem Council clearly in mind as we look at the possible dates for Galatians. Here is how we are sequencing these events that are mentioned here in Acts and Galatians:

Acts 14 – First Missionary Journey (AD 45-48) Gal. 2:11ff – Peter visits Antioch and Judaizers come (AD 48-49) Acts 15 & Gal. 2:1-10 – Jerusalem Council (AD 49) Acts 15-18 – Second Missionary Journey (AD 49-54) Acts 18-21 – Third Missionary Journey (AD 54-58)

Barnes Notes (commentary): Chrysostom says it was written just before the epistle to the Romans (AD 57-58). Theodoret and Lightfoot thought it was written at Rome during his imprisonment there (AD 61- 63). However, there are many good reasons why such a late date is simply not possible, which we will look at here. Tertullian and Epiphanius both believed this

29 was the earliest of Paul’s epistles (i.e. before the Thessalonian correspondence was written in AD 52-53). Dr. Benson builds on that idea, by arguing that it was written while Paul was at Corinth the first time for a year and a half in AD 51-53 (see Acts 18:1-11). I tend to agree with Benson on that.

I. Early Date – AD 49 (Frank Viola)

A. Viola, in his book, The Untold Story of the New Testament Church, pp. 82-85, says Paul wrote Galatians sometime after his first missionary journey while he was still in Antioch, but before the second journey, and even before the council in Jerusalem. This would indeed make it the very first epistle that Paul wrote.

B. Viola’s arguments look plausible at first glance, but when they are examined in light of the following two phrases, the early date becomes problematic and improbable: 1. “so quickly deserting” (Gal. 1:6 NAS95) – There would not be much surprise, nor such an intense reaction by Paul, if he had not yet visited the second time. It was on his second visit (AD 49-50) that he delivered the decrees from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4; cf. Acts 15:20 and 15:28f). If the Galatian churches had not yet seen those decrees, then Paul’s strong rebuke here would have been improper. This means he could not have written this any time BEFORE the council, or before he had visited the Galatians the second time and delivered the decrees to them. This strong rebuke necessarily implies that they already knew about the decrees and chose to ignore them. 2. “the first time” (Gal. 4:13 NAS95) – This implies Paul had already visited the Galatian churches at least twice, before he wrote the epistle of Galatians. Evidently Viola did not notice this point, even though he is otherwise very focused on the historical background behind the text. This phrase absolutely negates the idea that Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council and Paul’s second missionary journey. It forces a date after Paul’s visit to them at the beginning of his second journey.

C. However, Viola takes a position on the visit of Peter to Antioch (mentioned in Gal. 2:11-14) which is worth very serious consideration. He dates Peter’s trip to Antioch before the coming of the Judaizers to Antioch, and thus also before the Jerusalem Council (Viola, p. 82-91).

This means that a flashback must be inserted at Gal. 2:11 after it had just talked about the

Jerusalem council in the previous verses (Gal. 2:1-10). I likewise struggled to understand how this visit of Peter and the Judaizers to Antioch could have occurred after the Jerusalem

Council. It was refreshing to see that someone else had noticed the problem and suggested a flashback solution to it. This very problem is the reason why so many interpreters have been forced to say that the meeting in Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 2 could not be the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. However, instead of using a flashback to push the visit of

Peter prior to the Council, they invented another earlier council in Jerusalem to resolve the chronological conflict. But all of us see the problem of having Peter’s visit occurring after the

Council. That would make Peter out to be a very fickle and forgetful hypocrite, after clearly and strongly defending Gentile freedom at the Jerusalem Council. And it would make the activities of the Judaizers much more transparent and radical after the Council than they were before the council. That simply is not credible. The simplest and best solution (Occam’s razor) is to insert the flashback at Gal. 2:11, as Viola has done. This makes all the puzzle pieces fit together nicely. Unfortunately, most interpreters have overlooked this solution.

This is not the only time Paul has ever used a flashback in his historical narratives. It was a common literary device, employed by almost all ancient historical writers, and even by writers today. Josephus is a good example of this. He has flash-forwards and flashbacks sprinkled throughout all of his narratives (especially in the Wars). Students of Josephus have to constantly

30 keep that in mind as we try to reconstruct a chronological sequence of events from his writings.

Those of us living in the twenty-first century, after the advent of personal computers and the development of word processing software, have a hard time understanding why the ancient writers had so many flashbacks and flash-forwards in their writings. Writing surfaces (papyrus and parchment) were extremely expensive. They could not afford to waste a page of it. And it was extremely time-consuming to wash off (blot out) a whole page of a scroll and re-write a sequence in chronological order. It was much easier to do what the Biblical writers and Josephus did. Simply insert a flashback and go onward with the narrative.

Next, we will look at the late date of Galatians that is advocated by Arthur Ogden in his excellent book, The Development of the New Testament.

II. Late Date – AD 54-55 (Arthur Ogden) His main argument is that Paul could not have heard about the Judaizer controversy while he was in Greece on his second journey, and that he more likely heard about it while he was at Ephesus on his third journey. Ogden has suggested that Galatians was written later after Paul had visited Galatia on his third journey, and while he was at Ephesus (AD 55). Ephesus was a lot closer to the churches of Galatia than Athens or Corinth, so it would have been easier for Paul to hear about the Galatian shakeup if he was nearby in Ephesus. However, if he was so close to them, why didn’t he simply go over there and straighten things out in person, or send one of his traveling companions? The fact that he sent an epistle instead, suggests that he was too far away to go himself or send one of his associates. Paul usually wrote letters to churches that were separated from him by a considerable distance, and at a time when he was not able to go visit them. It would not have been difficult for Paul to have heard about the Galatian problem while he was at Corinth on his second journey (AD 51-53) and wrote to them at that time, since he was stationed there for a year and a half. A controversy over circumcision at Galatia would have been much more likely in AD 51, than three years later after they had been firmly established by three visits of Paul. The fact that Paul marvels about their “so quick” disturbance (Gal 1:6) after he had been there, implies an earlier date, such as the middle date in AD 50-51.

III. Middle Date – AD 50-51 (Zahn, and others, including this author) A. The phrase “so quickly deserting” points to AD 50-51 date: The major reason I tend to date it early (before AD 54) is because of Paul’s statement that he was amazed that the Galatians were “so quickly deserting” the true gospel for a different gospel (Gal. 1:6). This points to a time when the Judaizer controversy had not completely died down, such as would have been the case at the beginning of Paul’s second missionary journey during which he and Silas had delivered the decrees from the Jerusalem Council to all the churches of Galatia. Paul’s amazement at their “so quickly deserting” would not make much sense in the mid50’s when the Judaizer controversy was much less acute. The fact that the Galatians were still having major problems with it points to the AD 49- 51 timeframe when the controversy was still raging. The Galatians were the first ones beyond Antioch to receive the Jerusalem decrees (in AD 49-50). That should have settled the issue for them, but the Judaizers came there right after Paul had left, and they confused the Galatians. A number of the Galatians must have capitulated, causing those who did not accept circumcision to write a letter or send a messenger to tell Paul what was happening. Evidently the courier connected fairly quickly with Paul, or some of his associates, since Paul indicates that their departure was “so soon” after he had been there. All of this fits his second journey really well, especially in the first year or so of it. And that would put him in either Philippi or Corinth at the time he heard about the Galatian problem. He did not stay in Philippi for very long, but it was long

31 enough to write one short letter like Galatians. He was in Corinth for a year and a half, which would have been plenty of time to write some letters, not only to Galatia (AD 50-51), but also two other letters to the church at Thessalonica (AD 52-53). B. Which Council in Jerusalem is Gal. 2:1-10 talking about? There is a significant historical problem here in Galatians 2. Notice in Gal. 2:1-3 that Paul mentions Titus as going along with

Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for the meeting with the apostles. This trip to Jerusalem could not have occurred any earlier than AD 50, since Paul tells us in chapter one that he first visited Jerusalem after his 3 years in Arabia, but not again until 14 years later (3 + 14 = 17 years, added to 32 AD becomes AD 49). This forces the issue in Galatians 2. Either it is talking about the trip to the Jerusalem Council, or we would have to believe that there was another later trip to Jerusalem to discuss the same things and get another decision from the apostles and elders there. Any subsequent trip does not fit into Paul’s travel itinerary, nor can we believe that the decisions of the first council were not sufficient, forcing Paul,

Barnabas, and Titus to go to Jerusalem again. C. More evidence that the Gal. 2 trip to Jerusalem was the Jerusalem Council trip (Acts 15):

There is no record in Acts (or in any other epistle) of any meeting in Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas and Titus before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Nor would it have been possible for Titus to have been present at an earlier meeting, since he did not join Paul’s traveling companions until the first missionary journey. This meeting mentioned in Galatians 2, therefore, has to be the Jerusalem Council, since it clearly could not have included Titus before that, nor could it have included Barnabas after that. As we know, Barnabas no longer traveled with Paul after their disagreement at the beginning of Paul’s second journey. Since

Galatians 2:1-10 mentions both Titus and Barnabas going to Jerusalem with Paul, it forces the date of this council to be after the first journey and before the second journey. That is exactly where Acts 15 places it! Philip Schaff, in his multi-volume History of the Christian

Church, agrees that Galatians 2 must be speaking of the Jerusalem Council. D. We must remember that Paul and Barnabas were not working together after the beginning of the second missionary journey (AD 49). So, this trip to Jerusalem by Paul, Barnabas, and

Titus, appears to force the date of Galatians after the Jerusalem council for sure. Since the trip to the Jerusalem council (AD 49) was obviously past when Paul wrote, it fixes AD 49 as the earliest possible date of writing. E. The mention of Titus here in Galatians 2:3 is another proof that the trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 2) was the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The first mention of Titus by name in our New

Testament is in Gal. 2:3, and by implication in Acts 15:2 (since Titus was one of the “some others” who went to Jerusalem with Paul). This trip was in AD 49, after they had returned from the first missionary journey and had “spent a long time” with the Antioch brethren (Acts 14:28). Evidently Titus was a trophy of Gentile conversion from the first missionary journey which Paul wished to take with him to Jerusalem to showcase the fruit of his missionary activity, and to serve as a test case in the dispute over circumcision. This strongly implies that Titus was not a resident of Antioch, but rather a convert from the regions where Paul and Barnabas had just preached the gospel on their first journey. Mentioning Titus to the Galatians (Gal. 2:3) would mean something to them, since Titus was from a nearby region, and thus shared their

Greek culture and uncircumcised status. And Titus was representing them as a test case at the Council in Jerusalem. However, it does not seem that Titus was from the Galatian churches, but rather from one of the other cities through which Paul passed on his way back to Antioch after leaving the Galatian region. The reason I say this is because Paul provides a little introduction to

Titus when he says that “he was a Greek” (meaning that he was not a circumcised Jewish believer). If Titus had come from the Galatian region, they would already have known that

Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This shows that Titus must not have joined Paul and his companions until after Paul left the Galatian region, and started on his return journey back to Antioch of Syria. Whatever the Gal. 2 trip to Jerusalem is, it cannot have occurred before the end of Paul’s first missionary journey, since it mentions Titus going along with Paul and

Barnabas, and Titus would not have been with Paul until after the first missionary journey. F. The mention of Barnabas going to Jerusalem with Paul also proves that this trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 2) must be the Jerusalem Council trip (Acts 15). At the beginning of Paul’s second missionary journey, Barnabas separated from him and took Mark with him to Cyprus (Acts 15:39). This means that whatever trip to Jerusalem Paul shared with Barnabas must have occurred before the beginning of the second missionary journey. G. So, now we have proof from Gal. 2 itself, that the trip to Jerusalem mentioned here, absolutely must be the Jerusalem Council trip mentioned in Acts 15. Here is the logic for that:

Major Premise 1: Titus went to Jerusalem with Paul, but he was not available to do that until after they returned from the first missionary journey (AD 48). Minor Premise 1: Barnabas went to Jerusalem with Paul, but he could not have done that after the beginning of the second missionary journey (AD 49). Conclusion 1: This means that whatever the Gal. 2 trip to Jerusalem was, it had to have occurred between the end of Paul’s first missionary journey (AD 48) and the beginning of his second one (AD 49). Furthermore:

Major Premise 2: Acts 15:2 tells us that “Barnabas and some others” went with Paul to the

Jerusalem Council after they returned from first journey (AD 48). Minor Premise 2: Acts 15:36 shows that the Jerusalem Council occurred before Paul and

Barnabas separated at the beginning of the second journey (AD 49). Conclusion 2: This means that the trip to the Jerusalem Council mentioned in Acts 15 occurred between the end of Paul’s first missionary journey (AD 48) and the beginning of his second one (AD 49). Furthermore: Major Premise 3: The Galatians 2 trip, and the Acts 15 trip occurred within the same short time frame (between the first and second missionary journeys). Minor Premise 3: Acts 14-15 does not mention, nor allow for the possibility of two different major trips of Paul, Barnabas, and “some others” (incl. Titus) from Antioch to Jerusalem during that short time frame (AD 48-49). Conclusion 3: Finally, therefore, we have to conclude that the trip to Jerusalem mentioned in

Gal. 2 must be the same exact trip to the Jerusalem Council that is mentioned in Acts 15.

H. Paul says it was because of a “weakness of the flesh” (serious bodily illness or injury) that he preached to the Galatians on his first visit. Indeed, it was on his first visit to Lystra (one of the cities of the Galatian region) where he was stoned unconscious, dragged out of the city, and left for dead (Acts 14:19). Shortly afterwards he came back to consciousness and returned to the city with the disciples. However, there is no indication that he was fully recovered from that stoning. Then he went to nearby Derbe, another city in the Galatian region. Evidently, he still had a serious “weakness of the flesh” (resulting from the stoning) when he preached to the folks in Derbe. He was still bruised and injured. Furthermore, Paul implies that the “weakness of the flesh” had something to do with his eyes, when he says, “if possible you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me” (Gal. 4:14-15). It would be no surprise to find out that the stoning in Lystra may have affected his eyesight. In fact, it would be more surprising if it had not. This tells us which journey was “the first time” he was there (Paul’s first missionary journey).

I. Galatians was written after two or more visits of Paul to Galatia. Notice in Gal. 4:12-15 that

Paul mentions their extremely hospitable relationship with him “the first time” he visited them (when he had the “weakness of the flesh”). This implies that he had been there more than once before he wrote this epistle to them. We know from the book of Acts that Paul visited the

Galatian churches on all three missionary journeys (Acts 13-14; 16:1-6; 18:23). The use of the phrase “first time” implies that he had been there more than once before he wrote, and that his last visit was at least his second missionary journey or later. That means that Frank Viola’s early date theory (before the second missionary journey) simply can not be right.

J. Paul’s “amazement” at their “so quick desertion” (Gal. 1:6) implies that he was writing soon after he had visited there (on his second journey). Paul would not be as “surprised” at the

Galatians deserting his gospel if it had been a long time since he was there. His alarm came because of the rapidity of their departure “so soon” after he had been there. This only makes sense if his visit there had been recent. Anything over two years would not be recent enough.

That implies that his visit to the Galatian churches was less than two years before he wrote, and more probably closer to a year or less. Otherwise, his amazement over their “so quickly deserting” would not be so surprising.

K. Furthermore, this phrase “so quickly” does not fit the third journey (Gal. 1:6). It would be difficult to believe that the Galatian churches still had not understood the circumcision issue at so late a date as AD 54, after three visits of Paul, and after having the Jerusalem decrees in their possession for four years. That would not be a very “quick” desertion. It would be much more reasonable to date it soon after his second visit there at the beginning of his second journey (AD 50-51), soon after he had delivered the decrees. After Paul left, the Judaizers could have swooped in quickly and unsettled things. This explains Paul’s amazement at their so quick desertion. This provides a date for Galatians sometime soon after Paul’s second visit there (AD 50-51).

L. Ogden (pp. 24-25) reminds us that Paul spent “many days” in Philippi (AD 50-51) on his second journey (Acts 16:18), which could have been as much as three months or more. Furthermore,

Luke stayed behind in Philippi when Paul and Silas moved on to Thessalonica. Luke was a scribe. His location there in Philippi would have enabled him to act as a hub for any couriers that traveled between Macedonia and Turkey. It is possible that the news about the Galatian disturbance by the Judaizers could have reached Paul while he was still in Philippi. Depending on how long “many days” was, it is certainly possible that Paul could have written the Galatian epistle from Philippi (AD 50-51), before he went to Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth (AD 51-52). Since Luke remained in Philippi, he could easily have intercepted the couriers coming from Galatia and relayed their message on to Paul in either Thessalonica, Berea,

Athens, or Corinth. We do not know how soon (AD 50) or late (AD 52) Paul received the news from Galatia, but we can be pretty sure that it occurred either while Paul was there in Philippi (AD 50), or afterwards while Luke remained there to relay messages to Paul wherever he was in Macedonia or Greece at the time (AD 51-52).

Conclusions on Date of Galatians:

Above we have seen that Galatians could not have been written before the second journey (AD 49), nor after the third visit there (AD 54-55). This means that it had to be written sometime between his second visit (AD 49) and his third visit (AD 54). Even more precisely, it had to be written “so