Editing Epistle to the Galatians (section)

====Earliest epistle====
A third theory{{Sfn | Fung | 1988 | pp = [https://books.google.com/books?id=THYUsu7sLGEC&pg=PA16  16–22]}}<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.theologywebsite.com/nt/galatians.shtml|title= New Testament Study Helps: Galatians|website=Theology WebSite|access-date=2007-07-11 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070928170851/http://www.theologywebsite.com/nt/galatians.shtml|archive-date= 2007-09-28 |url-status= dead}}</ref> is that Galatians 2:1–10 describes Paul and Barnabas' visit to Jerusalem described in Acts 11:30 and 12:25. This theory holds that the epistle was written before the Council was convened, possibly making it the earliest of Paul's epistles. According to this theory, the revelation mentioned (Gal. 2:2) corresponds with the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:27–28). This view holds that the private speaking about the gospel shared among the Gentiles precludes the Acts 15 visit, but fits perfectly with [[Acts 11]]. It further holds that continuing to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10) fits with the purpose of the Acts 11 visit, but not Acts 15.{{Sfn | Fung | 1988 | p = [https://books.google.com/books?id=THYUsu7sLGEC&pg=PA19 19]}}

In addition, the exclusion of any mention of the letter of [[Acts 15]] is seen to indicate that such a letter did not yet exist, since Paul would have been likely to use it against the legalism confronted in Galatians. Finally, this view doubts Paul's confrontation of Peter (Gal. 2:11) would have been necessary after the events described in Acts 15. If this view is correct, the epistle should be dated somewhere around 47, depending on other difficult-to-date events, such as Paul's conversion.{{Sfn | Fung | 1988 | p = [https://books.google.com/books?id=THYUsu7sLGEC&pg=PA19 19]}}

[[Kirsopp Lake]] found this view less likely and wondered why it would be necessary for the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to take place at all if the issue were settled in Acts 11:30/12:25, as this view holds.<ref>{{cite book|last=Lake|first= Kirsopp|authorlink=Kirsopp Lake|chapter-url= https://archive.org/details/thebeginningsofc05unknuoft/page/200 |title= The Beginnings of Christianity | volume = 5|date=1933|publisher= Macmillan |editor1-last=Foakes-Jackson|editor1-first= F. J.|editor-link=F. J. Foakes-Jackson|location= London |page= 201|chapter= The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem|editor2-last=Lake|editor2-first= Kirsopp}}</ref> Defenders of the view do not think it unlikely an issue of such magnitude would need to be discussed more than once.<ref>{{cite book |last=Marshall|first=I. H.|authorlink=I. Howard Marshall|title= The Acts of the Apostles|date=1980| series = [[Tyndale New Testament Commentaries]]| publisher = William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company | location=Grand Rapids|page= 205}}</ref> New Testament scholar [[Joseph Lightfoot|J.B. Lightfoot]] also objected to this view since it "clearly implies that his [Paul's] Apostolic office and labours were well known and recognized before this conference."{{Sfn | Fung | 1988 | p = [https://books.google.com/books?id=THYUsu7sLGEC&pg=PA19  19]}}

Defenders of this view, such as [[Ronald Fung]], disagree with both parts of Lightfoot's statement, insisting Paul received his "Apostolic Office" at his conversion (Gal. 1:15–17; [[Acts 9]]). Fung holds, then, that Paul's apostolic mission began almost immediately in Damascus (Acts 9:20). While accepting that Paul's apostolic anointing was likely only recognized by the Apostles in Jerusalem during the events described in [[Galatians 2]]/Acts 11:30, Fung does not see this as a problem for this theory.{{Sfn | Fung | 1988 | p = [https://books.google.com/books?id=THYUsu7sLGEC&pg=PA19 19]}}