Galatians and Earliest Christianity

(A Paper delivered to the Conference, 'Off the Beaten Track with St Paul,' Macquarie University 12 May, 2000)

About a year ago I visited Yalvac (Pisidian Antioch) where I was warmly welcomed by Dr Mehmet Tashlialan, an eminent Turkish archaeologist.

It is truly gratifying that he is with us for our conference at Macquarie and I thank the Society for the Study of Early Christianity for their vision.

Dr Tashlialan was appointed to Yalvac 21 years ago as Museum Director and the chief archaeologist of Pisidian Antioch.

There is a long history of investigation of site (including by Sir William Ramsay), but little had been done throughout greater part of twentieth century.

But under Mehmet Bey, from 1979, the work has been continuous and methodical and very patient. And there is much now to see.

It is safe to say that perception of Pisidian Antioch been permanently changed through his labours and passion. The following is now clear.

1. Antioch was the oldest and biggest colony of Caesar Augustus in Pisidia. As a colony of Rome, town planning followed features of its mother city.

2. Augustus created the colony created 25 BC shortly after Actium 31 BC. Actium was the decisive battle that installed Augustus as Princeps and ended the Roman Revolution. The great Temple of Augustus and various epigraphic and other signs commemoration Actium signal the importance of the new colony.

3. Antioch was a place of strategic military importance. The best access across Anatolia was through Pisidia, a narrow corridor between the coastal Taurus escarpment and the Sultan range. Pisidian Antioch was situated in a high and commanding location and controlled the rout from Ephesus to North East Anatolia and to Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. Clearly Antioch was of immense strategic importance to Roman interests in the east.

Discovery of milestones near by reveal that Antioch was the hub of Via Sebaste, the highway named after Augustus.

4. Many serving legionaries lived in Antioch, and retired legionaries as well.

Antioch, the Roman colony was the kind of place Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, who was a Roman citizen, would go.

The more so, since Dr Tashlialan has unearthed several inscriptions bearing the name SERGIUS PAULLUS.

Did you get that ?

These Sergiis must have been related in some way to Sergius Paulus, the Proconsul of Cyprus, to whom Paul preached in Acts 13. Sergius Paulus was first high Roman official to profess faith in Christ. Subsequent to this Saul adopted his name, Paulus. And also his patronage, one supposes. Paul went directly from Cyprus to Antioch, a region where the Sergii family was influential.

There must be some connection between this triangle of facts:

The conversion of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus
Sh'aul adoption of the name Paulus
Paul's direct and immediate journey through Perga to Antiocheia.
Mehmet Bey's discoveries have opened up very interesting questions for the study of early Christianity

*******************

Let me turn now to Paul's Letter to the Galatians.

This letter has excited ongoing questions for NT scholars.

1. Were the people of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe 'Galatians'? The Province of Galatia is rather more northerly that the regions Paul visited in Acts 13-14.

2. Was his Letter to the Galatians written soon after Paul's missionary tour to Pisidia and Lycaonia , that is c. 48 or was it written a decade later ?

In regard to (1) the Galatians, Stephen Mitchell and Colin Hemer have established that the people of Pisidia and Lycaonia could, indeed and would, have been called 'Galatians.'

In regard to (2) the dating, my own reading of the letter urges an early date as the more likely. Paul's reference to the Galatians' faith having been overturned 'so quickly' makes more sense relative to recent missionary preaching than to the advent of later 'troubles' among the Galatians.

Paul's extended review of events in this letter begins with his 'former life in Judaism' and ends with the 'troubles' among the the 'foolish Galatians.' Paul's historical review does not extend beyond the Galatians to the Macedonians, to the Achaians or to the Asians, or to his second and third visits to the Galatians - as otherwise the Letter would have done. Nor are any further relationships with the Jerusalem leaders mentioned after the private meeting when it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas should 'go' to the Gentiles.

The Letter is concerned only with the aftermath of Paul's initial preaching. The Letter makes most sense if it is understood to to relate the 'troubles' that arose 'soon' after Paul's first visit to the Galatians.

In this case, as I now firmly believe, Galatians is Paul's earliest extant letter. Here I follow distinguished Roman historians like William Ramsay, Fergus Millar and Stephen Mitchell. Would that more NT specialists listenedto their ancient history cousins.

*******************

I turn now to the main part of my paper. Paul's review of events, people and places in in Galatians.

Paul's most comprehensive rehearsal of past events is to be found in this letter. The data is not given as a straightforward narration of events, however. Paul's details are given apologetically, to defend himself while at the same time undercutting his opponents in Galatia and his critics in Jerusalem.

Paul's details - as details - are unlikely to be wrong. He would not risk misstating raw facts whose integrity could be overturned by his critics in Jerusalem. Interpretation of those facts, however, may have been another matter.

Why is Galatians important for the history of early Christianity ? It is because the Gospels and the book of Acts, that are overtly historical in character, have been viewed so negatively by many critical scholars . Paul's letters, however, are pastoral in intent, but have many historical detail which are mentioned incidentally rather than to provide new information. So Paul's letters form a kind of template by which to measure history in the Gospels and Acts.

But of no letter is this so true as Galatians. Galatians takes on even greater significance if, as I am proposing, it is Paul's earliest extant opus. This would make it the most ancient document of early Christianity, the work closest in time to the historical Jesus and the rise of the new faith.

1. Jesus Christ in Galatians
The name 'Jesus' does not appear on its own, but as 'Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus.' The name 'Christ,' however, occurs on its own quite frequently, without 'Jesus.'

It is likely that Paul's use of the word 'Christ' still carried the idea of a title, the Christ. In the fullness of time, God sent forth his Son, the Messiah Jesus (4:4; 3:13; 1:1).

Presumably when Paul preached he sketched in many personal details about Jesus of Nazareth. Today we are well removed in time from the NT era so that reference to 'Christ' and 'crucified' have become almost exclusively theological terms. But hearers as close in time as they were to Jesus must also have had historical and biographical questions: 'Who was he ? Where did he come from ? Who were his parents ? What was he like ? What did he do ?' But these would have been addressed when the missionaries first came to Pisidia and Lycaonia so that by the time the letter was written the answers were already known.

Yet Galatians is not without historical references to Jesus. Paul speaks of him as the messianic Son (the Christ) but also as the filial Son of God ('[God's] Son' - 1:16; 4:4, 6). For his part Christ (based on Mark 14:36) called God, 'Abba, Father' (4:6; cf. 1:1,3,4). Christ was 'born of a woman' (a reference to the Virgin Birth, perhaps) and 'born under the law' (that is, into a family of observant Jews). Jesus had a brother named James. Jesus the Christ was killed by crucifixion (3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14). God his Father raised him alive from the dead (1:1).

Galatians mentions historical details about Jesus that broadly coincide with the figure we see in silhouette in the Gospels.

2. 'The Faith'
Paul reports that the churches of Judaea 'had been hearing,' that 'he who was once persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith that he was once trying to destroy' (1:23).

This is revelatory.

Paul himself says that in his 'former way of life in Judaism' he 'was persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy her' (1:13). Paul does not directly identify 'the faith,' or doctrine, held by 'the church of God.' But there is a creed-like passage in Galatians that possibly reflect s that early 'faith' Paul attempted to destroy.

When the time was fulfilled
God sent forth his Son
born of a woman
born under law
to redeem those under law
that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Because you are sons
God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts
crying, 'Abba, Father.'

The 'faith', whether this or something else, must have been in place within a year of Jesus since Paul's persecutions must have occurred within a year of the historical Jesus. Paul did not invent this' faith' since he had attempted to destroy it.

3. Early Christianity in Galatians
a. Apostles in Jerusalem

According to Galatians Paul made two visits to Jerusalem. The first was within three years of his Damascus experience 'to become acquainted with' Peter. Paul also 'saw James' but none of the other apostles (1:18-19). So, no more than four years after the historical Jesus we find 'apostles' in Jerusalem, among them Peter and James.

At the second visit (2:1-2), 'after a lapse of fourteen years' Paul with Barnabas met privately with the three 'pillars' of the Jerusalem church, the leading apostles.

These two references tell us that 'Jerusalem' was the headquarters of 'the apostles.'

b. James, brother of the Lord, apostle and 'pillar'

During that first return visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion James 'brother of the Lord' was already called an 'apostle' and regarded as sufficiently important for Paul to meet.

At his next visit to the holy city more than a decade later, however, James' name is listed before Peter's. A year or so later it was 'from James' in Jerusalem that 'certain men' went to Syrian Antioch apparently to address some local irregularity.

We note James' progress. First we meet him as an apostle, important enough of the the apostles apart from Peter for Paul to meet. Next, however, he is, 'primate' in Jerusalem and 'the Land of Israel.' Finally as the the incident in Antioch shows, James also exercised a kind of primacy beyond the borders of Land of Israel (modelled perhaps on the authority of the High Priest in Jerusalem that extended beyond Israel's borders).

c. Peter, apostle to the circumcised

James' progress is matched by Peter's regress.

At first Peter is 'apostle to the Jews' in the Land of Israel, entrusted by God to take the Gospel to them. Peter began this ministry before Paul began his since Paul is measured against Peter and found acceptable.

So Peter is 'Primate' of Jerusalem and of the Land of Israel when we first meet him three years after Paul's great turnaround near Damascus. But at the meeting in Jerusalem more than a decade later he has slipped in behind James. At our third glimpse of Peter he is not even in Jerusalem but now in Antioch in Syria. When James' people arrive Peter merely succumbs to James' directive. One other small piece of evidence is Paul's rebuke that Peter had 'lived like a Gentile.' Most likely this refers to Peter going to the house of the Gentile Cornelius and eating with him. Once more, a passing reference in a Pauline letter corroborates a detail in the book of Acts.

Mention of John as the third of the 'pillars' (2:1) suggests that he, too, had been involved in ministry to Jews in the Land of Israel throughout thesame period, very probably working alongside Peter in his 'mission.' Whenever John appears in the book of Acts he is always with Peter. In the Fourth Gospel the 'beloved disciple' and Peter appear to be specially connected.

The rising fortunes of James in Jerusalem and the corresponding declining fortunes of Peter are also broadly discernible in the book of Acts.

4. Paul, apostle to the Gentiles
Throughout his appeals to the Galatians Paul mentions a number of autobiographical details. These are not gratuitous, however, but intentional to the 'case' Paul is arguing throughout. Furthermore, these references appear to be in chronological sequence.

a. 'Former Life in Judaism' (1:12-13)

Paul speaks of his 'former way of life in Judaism' in which he 'was advancing beyond many of his own age from his nation.' His pre-eminence is explained as 'being more exceedingly zealous than them in the traditions of [his] fathers.'

This did not mean mere scholarship. His pre-eminence among his contemporaries, evident in zeal for the traditions, was concretely expressed in his 'immeasurable' persecution of the church of God in order to to destroy it. Consistent with this extreme 'zeal' Paul at that time also 'preached circumcision' (5:11). Presumably this was to close off to proselytes an easy, circumcision-free, route into the covenant of the God of Israel.

But Paul gives this brief autobiographical in 1:12-13 for a purpose, to show that his radical turnabout owed nothing to man. It was God's doing. Paul is arguing that he owed his authority to preach to the Gentiles to God and not to men, not even the apostles in Jerusalem.

b. Damascus Road 'call' (1:15-17a)

Some time during his persecution of the 'church of God' going to Damascus God 'called' Paul to proclaim '[his] Son' to the Gentiles.

Paul 'did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,' that is, 'go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before [him].' Years later when he met a second time with senior apostles there they were to add nothing to his message (2:2, 6, 9).

Paul's sense of God's 'call' changed the direction of his life and, indeed, the course of early Christian history and, in time, world history. Without Paul's westward, Romewards missions it is likely that Christianity would have been circumscribed to the fringes of Judaism and confined to the Levant. Without Paul it may easily have become another relic, a bygone curiosity of the religions of Antiquity.

c. Damascus, Arabia, Damascus (1:17b)

Rather, as he relates in the briefest terms, he 'went away into Arabia and came back again to Damascus.' In all this occupied a period of up to three years (1:18), the greater part of which I suppose was in Arabia.

A passing reference in another letter suggests that Paul's activities in 'Arabia' provoked Aretas king of the Nabataeans to seek Paul's arrest in Damascus (2 Cor 11:32). Presumably this indicates that Paul had been preaching the Son of God to the Nabataeans to the annoyance of King Aretas. God 'called' Paul to 'proclaim his Son to the Gentiles' and Paul set about doing this immediately, chiefly in 'Arabia,' initially. It is by no means impossible that Paul reached even to the capital, Petra within this three year period.

d. After three years up to Jerusalem (1:18-20)

Even after his foray into 'Arabia' he did not go up to Jerusalem directly, to confer with those who were 'apostles before him.' Rather, he returned to Damascus. Only then, in his own time, I hear him saying, did he at last go up to Jerusalem.

We do not know by what means or through whom the former extreme persecutor of the church of God came into contact with its leader Peter in Jerusalem. Their first moments together may have been very strained. Paul's verb historesai means 'to become acquainted with,' or perhaps 'to inquire of' but it gives nothing away to Peter. Paul does not say that he 'reported to' Peter, or 'took instructions from' Peter. Furthermore, he only 'saw' James, brother of the Lord but no other apostles.

e. Syria and Cilicia (1:21-24)

During that visit Paul had no exposure to 'the churches of Judaea that are in Christ' who had not seen him in the flesh. These Judaean Christian churches are to be distinguished from the 'church of God' in Jerusalem. They had come into existence during the persecutor's three year absence from Jerusalem.

But though they had not seen him they 'had been hearing' for some time that the former persecutor and would-be destroyer of 'the faith' was now its preacher. They began hearing this during his ministry in Damascus and Arabia and also from distant Syria and Cilicia (that is from the region of Tarsus) to which he had now gone.

f. After fourteen years up to Jerusalem (2:1-10)

This was a lengthy span to have been 'proclaiming the faith' away from Jerusalem, unsupervised and unendorsed by the apostles. Paul accompanied Barnabas as to Jerusalem where they met privately with the 'pillars' James, Peter and John. The uncircumcised Gentile Titus from Antioch was also present.

Three closely connected decisions were made behind closed doors. First, Paul successfully resisted the attempt of 'false brothers' to compel Titus to be circumcised (2:3-5). Paul states that he fought and won that battle 'for you,' that is, to preserve 'the truth of the Gospel' for you Gentiles in Galatia. Second, the 'pillar' apostles endorsed Paul's circumcision-free gospel that he had been preaching to the Gentiles (2:2, 6). Third, the 'pillars' recognised that God had 'entrusted' to Barnabas and Paul an 'apostolate' to the Gentiles and that they should 'go' to them.

The momentous journey from Antioch in Syria to Cyprus and from there to Pisidia and Lycaonia followed from the private concordat between the Jerusalem 'pillars' and Barnabas and Paul, recorded in Gal 2:7-9. The importance of that concordat has not been sufficiently recognised. But it changed the course of early Christian history and within a few years it began to change the direction of world history. It was the first major step in bringing the message of Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews to the Nations of the world.

g. 'Go[ing] to Galatia (3:1-5; 4:12-20)

Paul speaks at some length about coming to the Galatians and their warm welcome despite his 'weakness in the flesh' which appears to have been related to his eyesight (4:13,15).

He reminds them that when he preached Christ crucified they received the Spirit and witnessed miracles but also suffered (persecution, presumably -3:1-5).

The emphasis on the Spirit appears to be connected with the strength of the Galatians' experience of the Spirit when Paul preached his Christ-centred, circumcision-free Gospel among them. Because God sent the Spirit of his Son to their hearts they - like Christ - cried, 'Abba, Father' (4:6). Through that Gospel and the inner work of the Spirit they were free from the bondage of law-keeping, free to know God directly as 'Father' in and through his Son, Christ, which they would not otherwise have been 'free' to do. In consequence, too, they had begun to enjoy 'freedom' through the Spirit from'the works of the flesh - fornication, uncleanness, riotous behaviour, idolatry, magic, domestic and local conflict, jealousy, bad temper, selfishness, division, factions (5:19-20).

h. Incident in Antioch

I estimate their missionary circuit took Paul and Barnabas away from Antioch in Syria for a period of between six to twelve months.

At about that time Paul returned to Antioch in Syria he found Peter there. At first Peter ate with the Gentile Christians but upon the arrival of envoys from James he withdrew table fellowship from his Gentile brothers and sisters. Other Jewish believers including Barnabas joined Peter in this separation from uncircumcised fellow-Christians. Presumably the circumcision question meant separation at the Lord's Supper, making the fracture in the church absolute.

i. News from Galatia

Equally seriously, troubles had arisen in the brief period since Paul left his Pisidian and Lycaonian mission churches . In that general era many Gentiles had become God-fearers attending the synagogues, seeking inclusion among the Lord's covenant people, Israel. Jewish opinion was divided. Some felt inclusion was only a matter of a morality, fulfilled by observing the ethical decrees of Judaism. Others, however, insisted on circumcision as the sine qua non, the only gate to righteousness with God and inclusion among his people.

The latter had been Paul's pre-conversion view, apparently.

But when he came to these 'Galatians' Paul actually insisted on circumcision-free access to the covenant, based solely on inclusion 'in Christ' crucified and risen, by faith-commitment to him signalled by baptism. According to Acts that preaching provoked hostility at the time. The hostility probably intensified after Paul returned to Antioch-on-theOrontes.

Most probably the local opponents of Paul and Barnabas sent envoys to Jerusalem from whom they had received back a letter or even a visit from counter-missionaries bent on overturning Paul's circumcision-free preaching. Galatians implies there was now considerable opposition to Paul and his doctrines among these Galatians.

A group (of Jews, presumably) led by one man (5:10, 12) is now 'troubling' these churches whether by courting them (4:17) or by some form of duress towards them, (6:12) perhaps even persecution (4:29).

Critical to their strategy, however, is an attack on Paul, the source of which - directly or indirectly - must have originated from Jerusalem since Paul must go into so much detail in his defence about his relationships with Jerusalem. It was being asserted that Paul had no authority in his own right but was entirely subject to the apostles in Jerusalem (cf. 1:1, 11-12, 18-19; 2:1, 7-9, 11). Also, in his 'former life in Judaism' he had been - it was claimed - a 'man-pleaser' and 'still' is (1:11) and he 'still preaches circumcision' (5:11).

As a result of this counter-mission Paul believes the Galatians now regard him as their 'enemy' despite the warm and compassionate welcome they extended originally (4:4:12-16). Equally, their progress in Christ on the basis of a circumcision-free Gospel has stalled (5:7).

Although their Gentile believers have not yet submitted to circumcision (5:2) they have begun to observe the Jewish calendar, a first step perhaps, to being circumcised (4:8-11) in a counter-proselytizing process. Although Paul is concerned at developments in these fledgling assemblies (4:11, 20), ever the optimist he remained confident that they will return to the teachings he had given them originally (5:10).

Paul's own story, as he tells it for apologetic reasons corroborates Luke's version of it in the book of Acts, which he gives for differing apologetic reasons.

5. Significance of Galatians for History
I have argued that Galatians is Paul's earliest letter and therefore the earliest document of Christianity. Many scholars of the New Testament, though not all, accept the earliness of Galatian. The corollary, that Galatians is accordingly the first document of the new faith has not been widely noticed.

Although Galatians is designed to exhort and correct in doctrinal and pastoral matters it has numerous details of a historical kind, pressed into service for Paul's apologetic and polemical concerns in the Galatian churches.

Two words may be applied to the historical details in Galatians - those details are (1) early, and (2) they would have been subject to unsympathetic scrutiny by his critics in Jerusalem. As such these details, which are likely to true, be form a template by which some of the narratives about Jesus in the Gospels may be measured and by which, to a greater degree, the narratives in Acts covering the first two decades of Christianity may be measured.

While there are one or two matters in the book of Acts that do not easily square up with Galatians, by and large we must declare that the corresponding narratives in the book of Acts, measured against Galatians, shape up well. In short, the historical and geographical detail in Galatians tends to corroborate the historical and geographical detail in the book of Acts, and to a lesser extent, the Gospels.

One final observation. The earliness of Galatians allows us to lay to rest the old liberal myth that Paul was the founder of Christianity. This letter tells us that such entities as (1) 'the church of God,' (2) 'the faith,' and (3) 'apostles' headquartered in 'Jerusalem were well and truly in place prior to Paul's Damascus 'call' to preach to the Gentiles. It must be regarded as a matter of fact that the young and pre-eminent zealot was on a mission to destroy 'the church of God' and her 'faith.'

Paul may have become the most famous missioner of early Christianity, but he did not invent it. The blame for that must be laid at the feet of others before Paul, the apostles in Jerusalem before him and shortly before them, a man named Jesus.

These are among the issues of history and for historians raised by Paul's Letter to the Galatians.

Dr Paul Barnett
May 2000