The Problem
When we begin to put together the pieces of a letters based
chronology, we find that the letters are not explicit on whether the
great founding missions in the west occurred before the Jerusalem
conference (option A) or after the conference (option B).
To view these alternatives, you may click on:
Letters Based Chronology (3),
for Chart A
Letters Based Chronology (4),
for Chart B
Leveling the Playing Field
It needs to be made clear at the
outset that B deserves no preference just
because it is favored by Acts (nor should we be prejudiced against B
because Acts favors it); i.e., B is not a default position: it must
be demonstrated as much as A must be.
Criteria
 | The choice between option A or B will be based on the
letters. See Letters Based Chronology (1). |
| The preferred option will avoid time compression. |
| The preferred option will exhibit coherence. |
Testing Option A
The hypothesis adopted in these studies is option A;
namely, that Paul’s founding missions in Galatia, Macedonia and
Achaia took place before the Jerusalem conference. There are several lines of
inquiry which seem to support
option A.
1. Does option A avoid time
compression?
With regard to his three Jerusalem visits, Paul is
specific enough about time intervals leading up to the first and the
second visits, but he is not specific relative to the third visit. The first
visit comes
after three
years, probably three years after his return to Damascus from
Arabia. On this visit he meets Cephas. The second visit comes fourteen years later,
on the occasion of the conference, at which Paul’s gentile mission is approved
and the collection is agreed on. The third visit is announced
prospectively, the purpose of which is to deliver the
collection (and for no other reason: he preferred being on
his way to Spain, via Rome, instead of to Jerusalem).
Now the timing of this third visit is controlled by a number of factors:
| The time needed to reach Ephesus from Jerusalem and Antioch (traveling perhaps by way of
Galatia), and to found a congregation in Ephesus; |
| The time needed for a lively correspondence with Corinth (some
four or five letters), with Galatia, with Philippi, with
Philemon, and with Rome (making allowance for imprisonment in
Ephesus extending as little as three months, and as long as a
year); |
| The time needed to initiate and finally to complete the
collection for Jerusalem; |
| The time needed for travel to Corinth (intermediate visit) and
subsequently to Troas, Macedonia and Corinth (third visit); and |
| Paul’s expressed sense of urgency, if not haste, to complete
the collection (Galatians 2:10). |
This urgency would not seem to allow for the postponement of the
collection to some
indefinite future, since it was surely intended in part
at least for the relief of human need (help delayed would be help
denied), and in part to prevent the Jerusalem accord
from falling apart; i.e. the collection was a way of showing good faith on his part,
however he might have felt that James and even Cephas had violated at
least the spirit of the agreement in connection with the Antioch
episode. Not surprisingly, advocates of option B have
suggested that Paul’s sense of urgency was directed to a different
collection or collections, perhaps earlier, than the one referred to
in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans; but such suggestions fail for
want of any letters evidence whatsoever.
To determine if option A meets these requirements, we need to estimate minimum and
maximum time spans between the second and third Jerusalem visits. A time span of some three years at a
minimum would be required between these visits. A maximum time span of more than four years
would bring into question the credibility of his professed urgency
to provide a collection for Jerusalem. We estimate then a time span
of three or four years between the visits. These time constraints are
comfortably accommodated by option A. See Letters Based Chronology (3),
for Chart A.
The case for option A becomes even more convincing
when we take into account the failure of option B to
accommodate these time requirements between the second and third
Jerusalem visits. See Letters Based Chronology (4)
, for Chart B. Option B is unable to fit into this
period the sum of the two following time spans:
| The four to seven years of the founding missions, allowing
three to four (or as much as six) years for travel between
Jerusalem and Corinth, and for settled missionary work, when he
is supporting himself with his trade, in Galatia, Macedonia and
Achaia; plus |
| The three to four years calculated above, during the Ephesian
period and the closing months. |
Thus option B yields a total time requirement
of seven to eleven years. Such a time span far exceeds what is reasonable to expect of Paul
in exercising due diligence on the collection project. Or, to put
the matter differently, while option A is quite free from time
compression, particularly
between the second and third visits, option B shows
serious time compression.
Freedom from
time compression as a
criterion for doing Pauline chronology is an important contribution
of Robert Jewett. In his survey
of earlier chronologies (1979:67-8; cp. 91-2), he calls attention to the problems which are
encountered when chronologers ignore the constraints imposed by
necessary travel time; see for example his critique of Georgi’s [B-type]
chronology, which allows only eighteen months for the trip from
Jerusalem to Corinth (Georgi 1992:132-4). John Knox (1987:47-49)
anticipates the notion of time compression, if he does not use the
exact term.
2. Does option A respect the
requirements of the collection?
Another line of investigation related to the first one also
supports option A against option B. If we assume option A,
the beginning of
work on the collection in Paul’s pre-conference missionary
foundations (Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia) follows nicely upon the
conference. But if we assume
option B there is a quite unintelligible delay, the
collection beginning in these mission locations after a minimum of two
years from founding (Corinth) and as much as five years (Galatia)
and seven years (Macedonia) from founding—hardly an exercise of
due diligence on behalf of the poor in Jerusalem.
Some rather strange scenarios thus
follow from option B, an option which would essentially limit
Paul’s activity to the regions of Syria and Cilicia for the
fourteen years between the
first and second Jerusalem visits, and would require Paul
Bunyanesque accomplishments during his closing years, in frantic
travel, church founding, working at his trade, writing letters, and
fretting over the newly-begotten children of his preaching.
| Paul agrees to gather a collection, and then proceeds to found the churches which would be
asked to contribute or would volunteer to contribute to the
collection (Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia). |
| Having founded these churches, he delays some two to
seven years before seriously turning his attention to the
collection project. To this, we may add the absence of any evidence that he might have solicited
contributions from any of his churches on the founding visit
(see J. Murphy-O’Connor 1982:83-84),
and the inappropriateness of his having done so. |
| The more one emphasizes the continuing action of mnêmoneuômen
(“that we should remember”) in Galatians 2:10,
the more evident it becomes that (on option B) it was this
continued remembering which was neglected. |
| Advocates of option B have resorted to the
hypothesis of a hasty post-conference collection effort in Antioch (Georgi
1992:43-5), a view without visible supporting evidence from the
letters. |
| To be sure, one might assume that Paul had founded
gentile congregations in Syria and Cilicia which were able to
fund adequately a collection for Jerusalem, but there is not a shred of
evidence for such an assumption. |
| If the collection functioned at least in part as a way of
bringing about unity and reciprocity between the Jewish and
gentile wings of the church (2 Corinthians 8:14; Romans 15:27),
it seems strange that, on option B, at the time Paul
agreed to the collection, the gentile wing hardly existed.
Before Paul’s founding missions in the west we know of mixed
congregations like Antioch, but none which are exclusively
gentile—unless we beg the question, and assume the conclusion,
supposing that Paul funded exclusively gentile congregations
during his presumed fourteen years in Syria and Galatia,
congregations which so far as we know did not participate in the
collection (Romans 15:26). |
3. Are the retrospective texts of Galatians 2:2 and 2:5
intelligible, on the assumption of option A?
The intelligibility of texts such as Galatians 2:2
and 2:5 is considerably enhanced, on the assumption of this hypothesis.
Galatians
2:1-2 1Then
after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking
Titus along with me. 2I
went up in response to a revelation.
Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with
the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles,
in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.
Galatians 2:2 shows that a great deal was at stake for a
substantial part of Paul’s law free gentile mission already
successfully completed
when he attended the conference. If such was the case, one might
infer that he had already established churches in the west;
whereas if they had not been founded, he had relatively little
at stake. Or, to put it differently, Why would
Paul have been so apprehensive about the work he had
accomplished among gentiles, when we have no evidence of
gentile mission centers which he had established in Syria and
Cilicia?
Galatians 2:5
To them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the
truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
[RSV]
This text readily implies that it was not just a potential
securing of the freedom of the Galatians from requirements of
the law, but securing freedom which they had been enjoying and
which was now in jeopardy.
Challenges to the option A hypothesis
It is no surprise that option A has come under attack. It
has been challenged by two objections, one substantial, the other
less so.
| Galatians 1:21 is silent on any travels beyond Syria and
Cilicia; but if Paul had really founded churches in the west before the conference, would
not reference to such travels have supported his claim to independence from
Jerusalem? |
| Some interpreters argue that Barnabas was a traveling
companion of Paul during his missionary travels; but since there
is no convincing evidence that Barnabas was part of Paul’s
founding missions in Macedonia and Achaia, these founding
missions could not have been made before the Jerusalem
conference; so, Ogg 1968:90 and others. |
The former of these objections is serious enough that it will be
discussed separately below. The latter objection may be answered
briefly. The weak link in this argument is the claim that Paul and
Barnabas were inseparable in their work on the gentile mission. The
letters do not justify the notion of a lengthy partnership between
Paul and Barnabas, extending until the Antioch episode. The fact
that the two met for the trip up to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1) does
not require that they had been laboring together for the previous
fourteen years. The idea of such a lengthy association is of course
based only upon Acts (11:25-30; 12:24–15:39). With the
invalidation of its major premise, the whole argument is shown to be
unfounded.
Some critics argue that Paul could not
have met Barnabas to travel to the Jerusalem conference (Galatians
2:1) if Paul was missionizing in the west; so, Georgi 1992:129.
On the contrary, one may suppose either (a) that Paul was not
without ways of arranging to meet Barnabas in Antioch or some other
place, or (b) that Paul might have known that he could find Barnabas
in Antioch, if he went there; click on Paul and Barnabas.
The Silence of Galatians 1:21, on Pre-conference Founding
Missions
Galatians 1:21–2:1 21Then
I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22and I was
still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23they
only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is
now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And
they glorified God because of me. 1Then after fourteen
years I went up again to Jerusalem . . . .
How are we to construe this silence about pre-conference founding
missions in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia? Is option A
thereby refuted?
Silence is characterized by a certain ambiguity, which in the
case of Galatians 1:21 means that it can be read in two ways;
either:
| INCLUSIVELY, suggesting that Paul
had indeed been to Syria and Cilicia, but was content to let it be
understood that he had worked in other places. This reading
would favor option A.
Alternatively, the
silence could be read |
| EXCLUSIVELY, suggesting that Paul
had been to Syria and Cilicia, but nowhere else. This reading
would favor option B. |
Given this ambiguity, we need to look elsewhere to
decide the question. In support of option B, George
Ogg (1968:38), among others, has argued that if Paul had founded
his missions in the west before the conference, these missions would have been mentioned in
Galatians 1:21, in support
of his independence from Jerusalem.
On the contrary, the following considerations may be offered to
show that Ogg’s argument does not prevail.
| Galatians 1:21, taken together with Galatians 1:11–2:14,
offers quite sufficient evidence to support Paul’s argument
for independence from Jerusalem. No reader imagines that Paul
has not made his case. Listing more places he had visited before
returning to Jerusalem would have been rhetorical over-kill. |
Whether or not one agrees with H. D.
Betz’ classification of Galatians as an apologetic letter (1979:14-15), one can see that Paul’s purposes are best served by
brevity in this part of the letter (Betz 1979:9-61); see also the
discussion in Luedemann (1984, 46-61). Subsequently Joop Smit
analyzed Galatians following the model of a deliberative speech, and
explained (1989:11), “The statement of the facts [in the narratio
of a deliberative speech] should be brief, clear and plausible. A
narration is brief if it mentions just the facts that are
indispensable for the case, not more and not less. . . . Clarity of
statement is gained by preserving the chronological sequence in
which the events happened. Plausibility of statement is gained by
presenting the course of time, the location of the events and the
characters of the actors in a realistic way.” G. A. Kennedy (1984,
145) also views Galatians as deliberative rhetoric. Aristotle’s
observation (Rhetoric) that “there is very
little opening for narration” in political (i.e. deliberative)
oratory does not invalidate the proposals of Smit and Kennedy, and
may in fact confirm the importance of brevity; cp. Lyons 1985:174-5, who also sees Galatians as deliberative rhetoric.
| Paul demonstrates his distance from Jerusalem not only
spatially or geographically (headed away from Jerusalem) but
also temporally (only after fourteen years did he re-visit the
city). |
| Galatians 2:5 implies that at least the congregations in
Galatia had been founded before the conference, where Paul had held the line against the circumcision of Titus, “. .
. that the
truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.” Further, as Buck and
Taylor argue, “Paul did not have to tell the Galatians that he
had already visited them and converted them. They already knew
that” (1969:165). |
| Clearly the focus in Galatians 1:21-23 is not on where else he
had been working but on the point that he was still personally
unknown in Jerusalem, and that they only heard that he was
preaching the gospel (Knox 1950/1987:40-41). |
In sum, there is no compelling reason to read Galatians 1:21
exclusively, and option A stands.
We have tried to make clear that, in working on a letters based chronology, option B
should be given full consideration, as a possible alternative to A.
An assessment of the B option may now be usefully made.
To begin with, there is little or no positive evidence in the
letters for option B.
The letters, including Galatians, do not tell us where Paul went
after the Jerusalem conference and after the subsequent Antioch
episode.
Further doubt is cast upon option B by the following
problems, if B is assumed.
| Option B generates an awkward view of the collection, as we have already noticed. |
| Option B encounters difficulties with retrospective texts such as Galatians 2:2
and 2:5. For quite unconvincing interpretations, see Martyn
1997:190-3, on 2:2; and 1997:185, 198-9, on 2:5. |
| Option B results in excessive time compression in the period after the conference, as
we have earlier explained. This time compression is occasioned by
having to force Paul’s work on his major missionary
foundations into the period following the conference, at the
same time that there are constraints to limit the time span
between the second and third Jerusalem visits. |
| Option B also causes excessive time extension in the
fourteen year period before the
conference. Thus Paul has too little time to accomplish
monumental feats after the conference, and too much time for too
small a missionary field in the fourteen years before.
Murphy-O’Connor (1982:73) put it best when he said, referring
to A. Suhl’s B chronology, “. . . [He
has] divided Paul’s life into a period of implausible idleness
followed by a period of incredible activity
. . . .” |
In sum, there is too little to be said for option B, and
too much against it, for it to be convincing. Option A
emerges as the preferable alternative, providing a coherent view of
Paul’s labors, free from time constraints, and allowing the texts
to speak in a straightforward way.
|
|
|
Click Next
button below to continue, with Chart (A): Pre-Conference Founding
Missions
|
|
  
|
|
