·.

so JOURNAL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIETY.

The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians,

And Certain Passages in tlze First Epistle to the
Corinthians. 1

BY PROF. B. B. WARFIELD, D.D.

i
T HE determination of the exact date of the Epistle to the Gala-
. tians is one of the most delicate problems of New Testament
cntrcrsm. The difficulty lies, not in the harmonizing of apparently
conflicting statements or hints, but in the total lack of all plain
indications one way or the other. The matter is not so much in
dispute as in doubt. The proof is not only satisfactory but over-
whelming that this epistle belongs with that group of great epistles-
I and .2 Corinthians and Romans- which Paul wrote on his third
missionary journey, in A.D. 57 and 58, and which in Opposition to the J
errors of the Judaizers he made the chief vehicles of his doctrine of .i
salvation. But as soon as it is asked where in this group it is to b~
\.·
placed, whether first, before I Corinthians, or near the end, between
2 Corinthians and Romans,- whether, in other words, its composi- j
tion is to be assigned to the three years' stay of the apostle a.t Ephe- •
sus .(A.D. 54-57) or somewhere in Macedonia during his subsequent
journey from Ephesus to Corinth or even in Corinth itself (57-58),-
every student finds himself immediately in a strait betwixt two. The
plain fact is that this epistle is unique among Paul's letters in its entire
lack of any allusion, capable of easy interpretation, to the apostle's cir-
cumstances and surroundings at the time when he wrote it. The stu-
dent therefore is left to such vague and doubtful considerations to
guide his decision as he would allow but subordinate weight to under
other circumstances; and every slightest indication that promises to
help to a doubtful conclusion is here invested with some importance, l

-whether it be derived from an obscure hint in the epistle itself or

from a comparison of its style and lines of thought and feeling with
the other letters of its group. Two such considerations have divided
. )

the opinions of recent investigators. The one, which, as the most

tangible and easy of interpretation, has determined the decision of
most critics, is derived from the indefinite words of Gal. i. 6 : " I
1 Read in December, 1SS4.
 DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 51
marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you,"
from which the inference is drawn that the epistle must have been
written soon after the apostle had left Galatia. Thus, these critics 1
have been led to place the writing of the letter at Ephesus, and to
give it the first place in its group. The other, which has of late, in
the train of Bishop Lightfoot's admirable argument in its behalf/ been
obtaining an ever-increasing following, is derived from the close re-
semblance of Galatians to Romans and 2 Corinthians, from which it
is inferred that it belongs with them in time as well as in character.
Thus, these critics 8 have been led to place its composition in Mace-
donia or at Corinth, and to interpose it between 2 Corinthians and
Romans.
Neither of these dispositions is anything more than provisional.
The inferences on which they rest are alike insecure ; and each is
adopted by its advocates only in the absence of decisive considera-
tions either way. When grains are weighed against grains, a hair may
tip the scales. The o1hw> mxlw> of i. 6 is clearly sufficiently consis-
tent with a date for the epistle only a little more than three years after
Paul's leaving Galatia, and, therefore, with the theory that it was writ-
. ten in Macedonia in 57· On the other side, the resemblances of
this epistle with 2 Corinthians and Romans, while such as constitute
ample proof that it was written about the same time with them, are
not such as will prove absolute contemporaneity, and in the case of
those with 2 Corinthians are not such as even suggest the order of com-
position. ' The likenesses coexist with equally marked differences,
which suggest either lapse of time, or at least great changes of circum-
stances. Prof. Jowett appears to have correctly stated the matter
in the words : "The similarity and dissimilarity between the two epis-
tles [to the Galatians and to the Romans] are of that kind which
tends to show that the Epistle to the Galatians could not have been

1 These are such as De \Vette (in his Einleitzmg, Ed. 4), Olshausen, Usteri,
Winer, Neander, Guerike, Meyer, Wieseler, Davidson ( 1849), Lange, Schaff, Reuss,
Alford, Turner, Riddle, etc. Dr. Jowett, though not decbively, also takes this
view in Ed. r, vol. i.
2 St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, etc. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D. Andover

(Draper): 1870, pp. 42 sq.

8 So, De \Vette (in his Commentary, hesitatingly), Dleek, Credner, H owson
(Com. in The Bible Commmla1y) , Conybeare, Sanday, Davidson (r 8Sz), Farrar,
etc. Even the most popular publications are following the lead of Dr. Lightfoot:
cf. a volume pdnted by the Tract Society, L ectures 011 the N ew T estament ( 1881),
"Galatians," pp. 7 and 10; and another by The l'resbytcrian Board of Publica·
tion, The Westmimter Questio1t B ook for r885 (r884), p. 8.
 JOU&.,.AL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIETY.

written either after or contemporaneously with the Epistle to the

Romans, and that it was not, therefore, a compendium of it; nor is
it probable that it was written very long before it." "A similar infer-
ence may be drawn from the relation of the Epistle to the Galatians
to that [the second] to the Corinthians." 1 The resemblances are
thus clearly sufficiently consistent with a date for the Galatians
shortly before the apostle left Ephesus. 2 Whether, therefore, we
accept the one conclusion or the other, we do it hesitatingly and with
a feeling that the scale scarcely turns to the one side rather than the
other.
In this state of affairs, critics are in search of hairs that will tip the
beam. Dr. Lightfoot has brought forward two to throw into the scale
for the later date : the one derived from the history of St. Paul's per-
sonal sufferings, with which he supposes the hints in these epistles to
agree best if they are taken in the order, Corinthians, Galatians,
Romans ; and the other from the development of the J udaistic con-
troversy, which, in like manner, he supposes to be best explained by
assuming the same order. Both points appear, however, to be some-
what strained. Baur has set forth an order of development for the
controversy with the J udaizers, which requires the epistles to follow
the sequence, Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, and which is no less or
more likely than that defended by Dr. Lightfoot. In truth, however,
any such arrangement is of more than doubtful propriety, and must
proceed on the covert assumption- and, we may add, manifestly
erroneous assumption- that the Judaizing heresy had reached, at
the same point of time, the same stage of development everywhere.
So soon as we remember that some of these epistles were written to
enlightened Corinth, and others to barbarous Galatia, all these nice
arrangements are seen to be the growth of misunderstanding. The
1 The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romam, etc. By
Benjamin Jowett, M.A. London (Murray): 1855· Vol. i., p. 202.
2 The resemblances to Romans are most fully set forth by Dr. Lightfoot, as
quoted above. Perhaps Dean Howson has most fully set forth the resemblances
to 2 Corinthians in the introduction to Galatians in The (Speaker's) Bible Com-
men/my. When Dr. Lightfoot writes, p. 55, "I cannot but think that the truths
which were so deeply impressed on the apostle's mind, and on which he dwelt
with such characteristic energy on two different occasions, must hav~ forced them-
selves into prominence in any letter written meanwhile," we feel doubtful
whether he has, in the present application of these words, sufficiently considered
that the intermediate letters were written to a different community, that those
truths made prominent in Galatians and Romans were not new to the apostle,
and that they are as prominent as the occasion seemed to allow in both 1 and 2
Corinthians.
 DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 53
difference of Paul's treatment of the matter in these several epistles
is, of course, due to the different states of affairs in these several
churches; and so much as to speak, with this narrow reference, of
the " progress of the controversy " is to introduce incongruous ele-
ments into the discussion. Paul was not a learned controversialist
settling a theological controversy for the eye of the learned world,
but a distressed pastor confuting error in his churches,- and for each
church its own error. It would be more to the point if it could be
shown that this order of epistles falls in more naturally with the hints
dropped in them of the course of the apostle's personal sufferings.
Unfortunately, however, the case is not so. The allusions to his suf-
fe,rings which Paul makes in Galatians range most closely with those
made in I Corinthians, and this, indeed, is apparent from Dr. Light-
foot's presentation of the matter. The state of uncertainty in which
the balance swung does not appear, therefore, to be essentially altered
by these new considerations.
The object of the present paper is to bring its hair to be thrown
into the opposite scale. There are a few obscure allusions in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians which, taken together, seem to raise
a probability in favor of the priority of Galatians to that epistle suffi-
cient to determine our opinion. These allusions seem to have been
heretofore overlooked. They are not asserted to be demonstrative ;
but, in the nice balance in which the question hangs, they are thought
to be worth adducing. And, unless we mist~ke, when taken together
they raise· a stronger probability than has as ·yet been made out
in either direction. Before we proceed to them, however, it will be
well for us to inquire what can be known of the condition of the
Galatian churches at the time of Paul's second visit to them. The
settlement of this question is not, indeed, necessary to the validity of
the inferences we are to draw from the allusions in I Corinthians, but
it will add new strength to them.

The Ga!atimz Churches at Paul's Second Visit.

Commentators and historians seem to have been sometimes rather

rash in their inferences as to the state of the Galatian churches, at the
time of the apostle's second visit (Acts xviii. 23). There appear to
be only five passages, which can be with any likelihood adduced as
bearing on the matter; and no one of these speaks with unwavering
voice. One of them, indeed (Gal. v. 3), may be at once set aside
54 JOURNAL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIETY.

as in every probability not referring at all to a former visit; 1 it is

rather a strong asseveration, repeating, and at the same time broaden-
ing, the foregoing verse. We have left, then, only four passages, all
of doubtful import. Acts xviii. 23 merely tells us that Paul "went
through the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order, establishing all
the disciples,"- a phrase which does not go very far in this matter,
but which does not suggest that Paul found any serious heresies at
work there.
The reference of Gal. i. 9 is not entirely obvious. Some have
understood it to refer only to ver. 8/ though the contextual argument
strongly suggests a reference to a previous occasion, when the apostle
and his companions had made this proclamation.3 Most expositors 4
at once assume that the second visit is meant, and infer that there
was, therefore, at that time a tendency already visible, or a temptation
already working towards Judaizing. There is nothing in the context,
however, to suggest this. On the contrary, the surrounding verses
would rather lend color to the feeling that the apostle is adducing
here a· prophetic warning, -just as at Miletum he prophetically
warned the Ephesian elders of the errors which he himself had to
oppose at a later day. There is certainly nothing in the context to
suggest a distinction between the first and second visits. Von Hof-
mann, accordingly, understands " the first visit to be here meant, and
argues that the apostle would never have spoken of the second visit
as distinguished from the first by a simple r.po, especially· if the
warning had been cailecl out by a serious tendency in the churches to
listen to another gospel. The apostle had had experience enough,
he adds, of the Judaizers at Antioch to suggest to him the need of
such a warning. This much is at least worth our careful attention :
the apostle actually says only "on a former occasion," and leaves it,
apparently as a matter of small moment, to the knowledge of the
reader, to supply the closer definition.
The passage at Gal. iv. 16, "So, then, have I become your enemy
by telling you the truth?" is with even more doubtful justice applied
to the second visit. The context suggests no such definition of time ;
and the reference has actually been taken to the time of writing 0 and

1 So, e.![., Ellicott, Lightfoot, Alford, Eadie, SchafT, Sanday. Contra: !\!eyer,

Sieffert, Schmoller. 2 So, Chrysostom, Bengel, vViner, Neander.

3 See this well stated in Ellicott.

4 E .g., Ellicott, Meyer, Lightfoot, Alford, Eadie, Schaff, Sieffert, Sanday.
6 Die hcilige Schrijt neuen T estaments, etc., ii. I, p. I 5, 2d edition.
G Jerome, Luther, Koppe, Flatt. ·
 DATE OF THE EPISTLES TO THE GALATIANS. 55
to the first visit as well as to the second 1 visit. The commentators
appear to have seriously misunderstood the purport of the verse,
however, when they explain it as a declaration, that the apostle had
some time or other severely blamed the Galatians. Both notions,
that the truths he had told them were disagreeable, and that they
were about the Galatians, are gratuitously brought into the passage by
the expositors. If we observe the emphasis of ~x8p6>, and the tense
of y/.yova, we will see that a fair paraphrase of the passage would be
something like this : ·"So, then, is it an enemy of yours that I have
become,. by dealing 2 truly with you?" 3 or even "So, then, is it an
enemy of yours that I have become by proclaiming the truth to
you?" 4 Here is no distinction between what the apostle had been to
them and what he now is; or between what he had been once, and had
not been on another occasion,- no hint of a change in him. The
contrast is between what he has been and is to them, and what the·
J udaizers are to them. Only if the context demanded a contrast
between what the apostle had been to them on two previous occa-
sions, could the ordinary interpretation be right. So far, however,
from suggesting that, on his last visit, he had been harsh, the context_
emphatically states that he had been tender to them (vers. r8, rg).
On the other hand the succeeding verses do suggest a contrast_
between Paul's dealing with them and the conduct towards them of
the Judaizers. The verse, then, in all probability, does not distin-
guish times, but asserts that he had been always_: and was now, as
. much as ever (vers. r8-zo), despite appearances- true to them,
while the Judaizers were self-seeking and designing. 5
1 Ellicott, Lightfoot, Meyer, Alford, Eadie, Sanday, Schmoller, Riddle, Schaff.
2 Compare the Revised English Version of r88r, marginal reading.
3 Compare Revised English Version, r88r, American appendix.
4 Compare Grimm's Clavis, sub. 1•oc., and Eph. iv. 15, where only elsewhere in

the New Testament the word occurs. It is certainly striking that in both passages
the word is used in contrast to false teaching. In our own opinion, this is the
true sense here; and the reference is to the preachin[[ of truth.
G Holsten's very valuable note on this passage escaped our eye until after the
above was written; he alone of the commentators appears to have correctly
caught the sense: "Paulus gibt mit diesen worten das an, was a us der ersten
seligpreisung der Galater unter der bearbeitung der judaisten, der sie unvers-
tandig gehiir gegeben, in der gegenwart hcrauskommen ist ('Yi'Yova). Die juclai-
sten batten den Galatern den Paulus als feind geschildcrt, der durch sein cvange-
lium sie urn die sohnschaft Abrahams unci das vollerbe des heils bringen werde,
wenn sie nicht dem evangelium clet· judaisten gl1iuhig gehorsamen unci gesetz unci
beschneidung auf sich rechnen wUrdcn; die Gal::tter aber batten die judaisten
geglaubt. Unci wei! Paulus in v. 16, mit den worten: euer feind den ausspruch
 JOU&'<AL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIETY.

Finally, Galatians v. 2 r bears on its face the absence of temporal

definition. The apostle simply says he had on a former occasion
given the same forewarning that he now repeats. Nor are the sins of
this catalogue sufficiently unlike those of Romans xiii. 13 or 2 Corin-
thians xii. 20 to j~stify our finding in them any such special reference
to the condition of the Galatians that we may assume that they were
in evil case when the apostle visited them the second time and that
this warning was then delivered. No doubt these particular sins were
chosen for condemnation, because they were specially applicable to
the Galatians. But it is safe neither on the one hand to assume that
the apostle gives here a verbatim report of his previous warning, nor
on the other to assert that the character of the Galatians was not
sufficiently evident during his first visit to suggest such a warning.
"This solemn censure," says Dr. Eadie, "might be given at any of
his visits, for it fitted such a people at any time."
It produces an almost ludicrous effect on the mind to remember
that these passages are absolutely the whole basis of fact for the very
detailed descriptions of the sad condition of affairs at Galatia at the
time Of Paul's second visit which some writers have wrought out.
Even t11e more cautious accounts of such commentators as Meyer and
Lightfoot appear scarcely justified. At the most, even when we apply
the hints of Galatians i. 9 and v. 2 r to the second visit, we learn noth-
ing further than that the apostle felt constrained to fort'\vam them
then against divisions and strifes, and, probably also in the way of fore-
warning, to put them on their guard against other gospels than that
he preached. There is a complete lack of anything that will justify
us in asserting it to be even probable that the Judaizing heresy had
already broken out, or even that unhealthy symptoms threatening the
purity of the church had already appeared or that there was an
inclination to yield to them apparent. When Reuss 1 takes refuge in
the broad statement that the Galatians could not have understood
their letter at all, had not Paul been discussing the same matters with
them immediately before orally, the attenti~e student will not need to
have it pointed out to him that nothing could be more mistaken,-
and that nothing is presupposed in the letter beyond what must have

der judaisten liber ibn aufgenommen hat, wie die Galater wol verstehen, so kann
er nun (v. 17), unvermittest auf diese judaisten libergehen und die selbstsucht
ihrer beweggrlinde den Galatern enthlillen."- Das Evange!ium des Paulus
dargeste!t von C. Ho!slm, i. I, p. I I6. Berlin, I88o. With this we very heartily
agree.
1 § 85 of llistor;' of theN. T., E. T., by E. L. Houghton, Boston, 1884.

..
 DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 57
been well known in every community, where Jewish and Gentile
believers existed together.
And if this is all we can learn concerning the condition of the
Galatians at the time of the second visit, even if we apply both
passages to that time, we are in a condition to estimate what we
know of it in the actual state of doubt as to the true temporal refer-
ence of those passages. This much may be asserted as scarcely
liable to contradiction : that the very indeterminate nature of the
passages is itself a disproof of the theory which supposes a great
change. to have passed over Galatia between the apostle's first and
second visits there. It is little short of incredible that he could have
written so indefinitely if his second visit had been essentially different
from his first. The broad 1rpo- of i. 9 and v. 2 r, in other words, is
an authoritative charter granting a monopoly to the opinion that the
whole of the apostle's dealing with the Galatians up to his writing of
this letter had been of one kind, -that he was conscious of no
marked differences in their circumstances, demanding a marked dif-
ference in his treatment of them at his second visit,- and therefore
that these churches were not in any essential danger at his visit at
Acts xviii., which was not already threatening them at Acts xvr.
The calm language of Acts xviii. 23 is in harmony with this
inference.
Other hints in the letter to the same purport are not wanting. The
fall of the Galatians is represented as a sudden and unexpected one
(iii. r, i. 6). The apostle writes the letter under shock and surprise
(i. 6). The statements of iv. r8-2o appear to distinctly assert that
when last present with them he had not had occasion to be harsh.
Davidson well says : " The information [concerning the heresy of the
Galatians] occasioned an outburst of righteous indignation. . . . The
information was therefore unexpected." 1 Even Reuss admits that
" the transformation . . . had come to the knowledge of the apostle
suddenly, and . . . astonished him." 2 When we add to these
notices and hints the fact that the epistle nowhere gives indication
that the apostle had opposed or combated these evil tendencies
when in Galatia, the probability rises very high that that very numer-
ous body of critics 3 are right who assume that the inroads of the
Judaizers began only after the second visit.
1 Introduction to theN. T. 1st Ed. London: 1849· Vol. II., p. 296.
2 As above.
3 E.g., Davidson (as above, p. 307); De \Vette (Eiultitttltg, Ed 4); Schafl

(His/, of Apost. Church); Bleek.

ss JOURNAL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIETY. .·,

Two inferences follow from this conclusion of sufficient interest to

warrant stating them. 1. We must put the composition of the epistle
as late as other indications will allow. Some time, after all, even
though an amazingly short one for so great a change, must be allowed
for the machinations of the Judaizers to develop themselves and
spread through these churches. The epistle was not, then, written
at the beginning of the stay in Ephesus, but most likely only at the
end of it, or after the departure for Corinth. 2. Since we must
assume that the apostle wrote immediately on hearing of the evil
..
·-:-
case into which the churches had drifted, any allusions which we may
find to the Galatians as heretics are allusions to the Epistle to the
Galatians, and presuppose its existence.
Bearing these results in mind, we are in a position to estimate at
their highest value the faint allusions, which we think we have found
in I Corinthians, to the Epistle to the Galatians as already existing.

Allusions £7z I Cor£ntlzz'ans.

There' is, of course, but one passage in I Corinthians in which Gal-
atia is explicitly mentioned,- that found at xvi. I : "But concerning
the collection for the saints : as I gave order to the churches of Gal-
atia so do ye, -on the first day of the week let each of you lay by
him in store," etc. Here is not only an implication, but a direct
assertion, of communication between the apostle and the Gal~tians.
But nothing is said as to the time when the apostle gave this com-
mand. It is not very probable, however, that he is referring in this
simple manner to a command given so long ago as three years before,
when he was personally with them. And this is somewhat supported
by the fact that, at the time when Paul wrote I Corinthians and there-
after, this collection was much in his thoughts, while there is no proof
that he had it in mind three years before. We are glad to see that
Bishop Lightfoot 1 agrees that some time subsequent to Paul's
second visit to Galatia is probably referred to in these words. But if
we thus assume, as appears most natural, that Paul had personal com-
munication with the Galatian churches shortly before he wrote I Cor-
inthians,- i.e., late in his stay at Ephesus,- a faint probability is
raised that this occurred when he sent the epistle to them. So early
a writer as Capellus, followed by Burton, saw this, and assumed that
1 Commentary on Galatia11S, p. 32. So also Prof. Jowett, I. c. I., p. rg6. At
p. 6o, Dr. Lightfoot supposes this communication to have taken place only just
before I Corinthians was written.
 DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 59
Paul gave this command through the messengers who bore his letter.
It does not seem to be a valid objection to this, that the command
here alluded to is not actually found in the epistle. It was somewhat
of a custom with Paul to leave personal matters to the oral communi-
cation of the bearers of his letters ; I and this would be especially
appropriate in the case of the fiery and tumultuous letter to the Gala-
tians. And there are hints in the letter, or, at least, general instruc-
tions, to which such an oral command would be a fit supplement, and
which, in a way, prepared the way for it (ii. 10 and vi. 6-10). On
the other hand, there are difficulties in the way of supposing that the
apostle was in constant communication with Galatia during his three
years' stay at Ephesus. It is almost inconceivable that the Judaizing
heresy there did not require most of this time for its development,
and quite inconceivable that Paul should be in close communication
with the churches and not be informed of what was toward. The
tone of surprise of his letter sufficiently proves that he was wholly
unprepared for the bad news when it did reach him, and this appar-
ently indicates that he had not heard from the Galatian churches for
some time previously. Of course, it is possible that Paul sent this
command by a special messenger from Ephesus, and only heard from
him, on his return to him in Macedonia, of the sad state of affairs in
Galatia, and then was led to write the letter. A hundred other sup-
positions may be possible ; and, in the presence of any decisive
considerations one way or the other, this passage could raise no prob-
ability in opposition to them. But we are here weighing the faintest
indications, and it appears easier to suppose that he sent the com-
mand by a messenger whom we know he did send, than to invent a
special and additional messenger for it. 2 As a mere balance of proba-
bilities, then, it seems to remain as rather the likelier hypothesis per
se that Paul sent the command by the bearer of the letter. Of course
1 Cf. I Corinthians iv. 16; Ephesians vi. 21 sq.; Colossians iv. 7·
2 If the common appeal to 2 Corinthians viii. 10, ix. I, 2 to show that the col-
lection was taken up first of all churches at Corinth, and that, a year only before
2 Corinthians was written, were justified, it would be almost demonstrated that
Galatians was written just before 1 Corinthians. (See Dr. David Brown's note on
I Corinthians xvi. I in Schaff's Popular Commmtary.) For I Corinthians would
presuppose, then (xvi. r), a communication to the Galatians less than a year before
(2 Corinthians viii. 10), conveying a command as yet unfulfilled. But the lan-
guage of 2 Corinthians viii. ro, ix. I, 2 is strained in this application of it. It only
says that the Corinthians preceded the Macedonians in this matter, and took up their
, collection the previous year, i.e., after I Corinthians, which was hence probably
w~itten before passover.
6o JOUfu'<AL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIE1Y.

this would give way before any evidence that the letter was written
after I Corinthians ; but in the absence of such evidence the
probability is tangible, and if any further hints can be found in
I Corinthians pointing to the priority of Galatians, it will become

strong.
Such a further hint appears to be possibly lurking in the somewhat
obscure passage, I Corinthians ix. z : "If to others I am not an
apostle, yet to you at least I am." The apostle is commending the
law of love to the Corinthians, and is appealing to them to embrace
it by his own example. To enhance the value of this example he
points out that he is free from all and an apostle. The mere asser-
tion of this is enough for his present argument. But the presence of
Judaizers (the Peter-party) at Corinth leads him to pause to prove it.
Is it wrong to see in the tone he adopts in this proof a deeper and
more serious worry than the stage of the Judaizing controversy at Cor-
inth gave occasion for? At all events, in the midst of it he, quite
needlessly for his purpose in this general context, introduces an allu-
sion to. certain others who denied his apostleship. This UA.Aot>-
which, moreover, is emphatically put forward- has been quite a
puzzle to commentators. Hofmann and Holsten wish (plainlyv.Tongly)
to understand the dative to express relation, rather than judgment,
and the /J.AAot> to refer to believers not converted by Paul,-the Jewish-
Christian party, or, as Hofmann prefers to say, with a reference to the
arrangement reported in Galatians ii. 7-8, the Christians of the Cir-
cumcisiOn. Meyer sees in it a reference to the strangers who, non-
Corinthians themselves, had brought Judaizing doctrines to Corinth.
Certainly they were non-Corinthians,- but why "who had come to
Corinth"? There is no hint in the passage of this, and it seems
inconsistent with the emphasis that falls on llim> in contrast with
v 1uv. Moreover, as the vfL'lv are here not individuals, but a church, '·
/J.AAot> should be a church, or churches, too. Briefly, then, here is a
'l
reference, in a passage the tone of which betrays strong feeling, to
some other church or churches than the Corinthians, which denied
Paul's apostleship. We immediately think of the Galatians, who
alone, so far as we know, were before the Corinthians affected with
this form of Judaizing error. It may add an additional plausibility to
this supposition to note that this passage, I Corinthians ix. I sq.
(especially verse I I), has some points of resemblance with a passage
in Galatians (v. 6-8). Holsten has also pointed out that the use of
the phrase " Am I not free? " here (verse I) finds its explanation in
Galatians ii. 4, 5· On the whole a reference to the heresy of the
 DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 61

Galatians, which implies, as pointed out above, the epistle, seems

somewhat likely here.
Another passage of somewhat like character meets us at r Corin-
thians vii. I 7, where Paul after broadening the rule suggested in
verses 8-r6 into the general principle that each man is to continue
in the condition in which God has called him, says that he thus com-
mands in all the churches, and immediately illustrates it from circum-
cision, inevitably suggesting to us the words at the end of Galatians
(vi. IS) : "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision;
but a new creature" (cj. also Galatians v. 6), which is very closely
related to verse I9 of this chapter: "Circumcision is nothing, and
uncircumcision is nothing; but a keeping of God's commandments."
Apparently when the apostle speaks of commanding other churches,
his mind goes back to the Galatians and he remembers what he has
written to them. This is natural if we assume that he had just com-
pleted the Galatian letter when he was called upon to write I Corin-
thians. And the very naturalness of the result of such an assumption
raises a probability in its favor.
Still another passage of similar character is worth adducing. It is
found in I Corinthians iv. q. The apostle beseeches the Corin-
thians to imitate him in his freedom from party-spirit, and tells them
that he sends Timothy to them for the very purpose of enabling them
to be the better imitators of him in his devotion to others and his
inability to become a party leader. Hence Timothy will remind them
" of all his ways that are in Christ Jesus, even as everywhere, in every
church he teaches." The strength of this doubled universal is cer-
tainly significant. And we may suppose that Paul had, under some
temptation to the opposite conduct, lately taught some church some-
thing that involved the refusal on his part to appear as a party leader
and the disapproval in them of such party strife and division. Do we
not again think of the Galatians? In whom else if not them can this
pointed reference find its fulfilment? But if the reference be to the
Galatians, it is, in the light of what we have d1scovered as to the
time of the origin of Judaizing among them, to the Epistle to
the Galatians.
Of course, considered as proof this argument is very imperfect.
What we are in search of is only some, even faint, hint to lead us in
choosing between two opinions, either probable enough in itself, but
neither of which has decisive evidence in its favor. The probability
raised by each of the passages, which we have adduced, separately,
is no doubt small. But it is worth remarking that that raised by each
 JOURNAL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIETY.

is independent of all the others; so that they are related cumulatively

to one another. Apparently each raises a slight presumption in favor
of the priority of Galatians to I Corinthians; the probability that
results from the cumulative union of I Corinthians ix. 2, vii. q, and
iv. I 7 is large enough to be felt and estimated; and therefore the sup-
port which these three passages taken collectively give to the most
natural implication of I Corinthians xvi. I is strong enough to make
that implication somewhat the most probable one,- for their union
with it too is cumulative. Thrown into the trembling balance, this
final presumption seems to be enough to determine the dip of the
scales to the side of the priority of Galatians to I Corinthians. The
hints conveyed in these passages apparently stretch even to another
point, and suggest that Galatians is only just earlier than I Corin-
thians,- perhaps only a few weeks, scarcely many weeks.
Some supporting considerations buttressing this conclusion might
be suggested. Among them are the passages resembling each other
that may be turned up in the two epistles, and the list of which is
capable of considerable enlarging over what the "Introductions" usu-
ally give. As an example I Corinthians x. 32-xi. 2 is quite worth
comparing with Galatians iv. I2 sq. But not staying to dwell on what
is already familiar, it may be well to call attention to two points con-
nected with St. Paul's sufferings,- the one with his internal sorrow,
and the other with his bodily torture, -both of which seem to fall in
with the order of the epistles which places Galatians first.· When
Bishop Lightfoot represents the apostle's sufferings as ever increasing ,,
•1

until he came to Troas and thence to Macedonia where they reached

their climax, before Titus' coming relieved him, we cannot follow
him. Paul himself says his sufferings did not cease when he reached
Troas (z Corinthians ii. I3), or even when he came to Macedonia
( 2 Corinthians vii. 5) ; but this is essentially different from saying
that all this time they were increasing. On the contrary, such pas-
sages as 2 Corinthians ii. 4 appear not obscurely to hint that his
inner sorrows were at their climax when r Corinthians was written,
though he struggled to prevent their expression in order to spare the
Corinthians. Indeed, the free expression of his past griefs in 2
Corinthians is proof enough that they were well past as he wrote, and
Paul sets as the time of their greatest pressure the date of I Corin-
thians. Now, if at this time he was suffering under the stunning
blow of the Galatian' apostasy as well as under the evil news from
Corinth, his deep grief is explained.
Again, the climax of his outer sufferings had been reached in Asia

-..
 DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

( 2 Corinthians i. 8- IO). What desperate experience is here alluded

to is, no doubt, not very clear. It seems obvious, however, that it is
not the disturbance stirred up by Demetrius at Ephesus and recorded
in Acts xix. That uproar did not bring the apostle into personal
suffering, and he left Ephesus immediately afterwards. The narrative
in 2 Corinthians seems to exclude any later occasion from considera-
tion. Nothing appears in Acts or the Epistles so suitable for the
reference as the allusion to the fighting with beasts, dropped some-
what incidentally at I Corinthians xv. 32- there passed over lightly
in accordance with the intention of the apostle recorded in 2 Corin-
thians ii. 4, but here in accordance with the altered character of his
writing dwelt more fully upon. Indeed, the manner in which the
apostle here describes his trial, almost implies that it had been
already alluded to between him and the Corinthians. It is scarcely
necessary to say that there exists no decisive reason for explaining
away the hint in I Corinthians xv. 32 as if it were meant only figura-
tively. But if we assume that such a fighting with beasts did occur
at Ephesus, the rather obscure verse at Galatians vi. I 7, " From
henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear branded on my body
the marks of Jesus," receives a ready explanation. And its implica-
tion that the experience was recent, accords with the supposition that
Galatians was written immediately before I Corinthians, before the
writing of which the beast-fighting had occurred. Moreover the
hints in these two epistles that have been read by some as imply-
ing that the apostle was ill at the time that he wrote them, and espe-
cially the large, painfully-formed and misshapen letters with ~hich
he wrote his accustomed line or two at the end of the Epistle to the
Galatians (Galatians vi. II), are explained, if we assume that he had
been thrown to the beasts shortly before these letters were written,
and was still suffering from the deadly injuries then received.

In the light of these considerations we may be able to come to a

provisional conclusion concerning the date of the Galatian letter. In
accordance with its resemblances with Romans and 2 Corinthians, we
must place its origin some.what near the dates of those epistles. In
accordance with the oi5Tw; mx_f:w; of i. 6, the reference of which is no
doubt to the time of the conversion of the Galatians, but, conjoined
with that, also to the time of his last seeing them : " I marvel that
you are so quickly [after your acceptance of him and my experience
of your hold upon him]" (cf. the context)- we must place it not
too long after the apostle's second visit. In accordance with its
 JOURNAL OF THE EXEGETICAL SOCIETY.

hints as to its place in the history of the apostle's personal suffering,

external or internal, we must place it almost contemporaneous with I
Corinthians. And in accordance with some seeming allusions to it
in r Corinthians, we must place it before I Corinthians. We pro-
pose, therefore, to assume provisionally that the epistle was written at
Ephesus, about or somewhat earlier than the passover time of the
year, A.D. 57, and only a few weeks at most before I Corinthians.
This conclusion is not firm ; it can be readily overturned by any real
evidence to the contrary. But in the lack of decisive evidence either
way, it appears to be the most probable conclusion attainable.