(4) Time and Place. Respecting the time when and the place where this epistle was written, great diversity of opinion prevails. Marcion held this to be the earliest of Paul's epistles (Epiphanius, Adv. Ha.res. xlii :9) ; and Tertul lian is generally supposed to favor the same opin ion, from his speaking of Paul's zeal against Juda ism displayed in this epistle as characteristic of his being yet a neophyte (Adv. Marc. i:2o).
Michaelis also has given his suffrage in favor of a date earlier than that of the Apostle's second visit to Galatia, and very shortly after that of his first:. Koppe's view (Nov. Test. vol. vi. p. 7) is the same, though he supposes the Apostle to have preached in Galatia before the visit men tioned by Luke in Acts xvi :6, and which is usually reckoned his first visit to that district. Others, igain, such as Mill (Proleg. in Arov. Test. P. 4), Calovius (Biblia Must. t. iv. P. 529), and, more recently, Schrader (Der Ap. Paulus, th. s. 226), place the date of this epistle at a late period of the Apostle's life.
The majority, however, concur in a medium view between these extremes, and fix the daie of this epistle at some time shortly after the Apostle's second visit to Galatia. This opinion has decided support from the epistle itself. From the Apostle's abrupt exclamation in ch. i :6, 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you,' etc., it seems just to infer that he wrote this epistle not' very long after he had been in Galatia for the second time, and perhaps while he was residing at Ephesus (Gal. i :6; iv :t3 ; comp. Acts xviii:23; xix:1 ff.). W. L. A.
(5) Difficulties. Among the difficulties con nected with the Epistle are the apparent dis crepancies made by St. Paul in Galatians ii. and Acts ix :23 . Comp. also Galatians i :23 ; Acts ix : 27, 28. To these objections it has been answered by Pfleiderer (Hibbert Lect. p. to3. comp. p.
z z), that 'the agreement as to the chief points is in any case greater than the discrepancies in the details, and these discrepancies can be for the most part explained simply by the difference of the standpoint of the relaters.
"It is further objected that the conduct ascribed to St. Paul in the Acts is inconsistent with the attitude he assumes and the principles he maintains in Galatians. In Acts he is represented as cir cumcising Timothy (xvi :3), as shaving his head in fulfillment of a vow (xviii :z8), as attending the Jewish feasts (xx :16), and as being at charges for four men who had a vow on them (xxi :23, 2.1)• Such acts of conformity to the law are, it is thought, incompatible with the principle St. Paul lays down in the Epistle, 'If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.' The solution is obvious. When St. Paul makes this strong state ment, what he means is, If you observe the or dinances of Moses because you believe them to be necessary to salvation,Christ shall profit you noth ing. Together with this fundamental principle he held also as an ethical maxim, that it is right to become all things to all men, a Jew to the Jew if need be. And when he observes the Alosaic ordinances in the temple, it is not because he believes they have any virtue for salvation, but because he wishes to give no offense to his Jewish brethren. These Jewish observances have become to him matters of indifference, and only when they are lifted out of their proper position and con sidered essentials do they become dangerous. 'Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircum cision' (Gal. vi :13 ; comp. t Cor. vii :18). That he did not yield when it was demanded of him as a matter of principle that he should circum cise Titus, is perfectly consistent with his circum cising Timothy as a concession to expediency. (Marcus Dodds, Hastings' Bib. Dirt.)