10 Jan 2003 Introductory
15 Jan 2003 Who is "troubling" Paul in Galatians?
17 Jan 2003 Galatians, Paul and other questions
17 Jan 2003 Galatians, Paul and other questions (more)
20 Jan 2003 More on the Galatians
You are registered for the RelSt 436 Paul Seminar, and I wanted to alert you
the existence of a new web page (also linked from my web page) for the course,
The course has no specific textbook, beyond the ancient writings attributed
or associated with Paul, but the book list that you will find linked to the
"book review" assignment gives you various options to explore. For those with
little background, I would suggest that you read one or more of the general
treatments (e.g. Ziesler, Murphy-O'Connor, Fitzmyer, Bornkamm) early in the
course, and then report on a more specialized monograph later. Some course
participants will be prepared to move to more specialized materials more
The first formal assignment is to read and reread the letter attributed to
and addressed to the "Galatians." I've asked you to read it in at least three
(marked down from five!) significantly different translations -- that is, don't
use the RSV and NRSV as two, since they are very similar in translational
approach (also, KJV [= AV] is quite similar to the new KJV) -- for a convenient
listing of many of the translations, see the Bible Gateway link on the course
I would also like to determine which students have appreciable background (e.g.
have taken a general course in New Testament or Early Christianity or
similarly), and which not. No prior preparation is assumed, but I can probably
be of more help as a teacher if I know the overall situation. Thus please
respond to the following range of possibilities (note that use of the "reply"
function will send your communication to the entire class list; to address me
privately, use email@example.com ):
1. No significant background;
2. Some exposure to the subject matter in a religious context;
3. Some general exposure in an academic context (e.g. world religions);
4. Have had a course dealing with the historical period and/or literature.
Thanks. This will be very helpful.
The following exchanges are taking place on the Corpus Paul electronic
discussion list, and since they deal with Galatians and raise some interesting
possibilities, I decided to pass them along. I'll add the Nanos book to our list
for reviewing. Pay attention to the left hand markers (> or > >) to determine
the sources of the various comments -- ">" is a reply to "> >" etc.
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:00:09 -0500
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Once more, Paul and apo/dia anthropon/ou (Matthew Baldwin)
> 2. Re: Paul, an apostle, not from humans nor through a
> human? (Christopher R. Hutson)
> 3. Re: Once more, Paul and apo/dia anthropon/ou (Mark D. Nanos)
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:28:03 -0500
> From: Matthew Baldwin <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Once more, Paul and apo/dia anthropon/ou
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> I just wanted to correct myself... re-reading my earlier post, I realized
> I stated that representatives from Jerusalem had been in Galatia claiming
> Paul was their subordinate. That is a possible reading of the text but may not
> be the most probable. I don't think Mark N. believes it was Jerusalem
> representatives in Galatia (or am I wrong, Mark?).
> However, I think it is very probable, given the course of Paul's argument
> Gal 1-2, that the "hoi tarrasontes humas" ["those who are troubling you"] who
> bring the as-if "heteron
> euangelion" ["other gospel"] were undermining Paul's authority to teach by his
> own authority
> through making the charge that he was subordinate to the Jerusalem apostles.
> Who else would they have charged that he was subordinate to? And if this
> wasn't the charge, why does Paul then go out of his way to emphasize the
> non-supervisory role which the Jerusalem Pillars have played in his career?
> Paul's majesterial opening lines to this letter would refute such a charge
> before it is made, and might at the same time turn a related charge back upon
> the opponents: dependence upon some kind of human or human traditions (or at
> any rate, upon a "second", a mediator, e.g. the angel-ordained Torah, where God
> is "one").
> So I concurr that the rhetoric is offensive, but dispute the claim that
> reader understands human/s=Jerusalem apostles equation directly from Paul's
> comments; ANY human mediation of Paul's gospel is denied; even Paul's
> as a human mediator is denied in the statement. The Jerusalem pillars are only
> some of the humans whose authority over Paul is denied in the statement; i.e.
> they are a subset of "humans," they do not comprise the whole category.
> Matthew Charles Baldwin
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:02:47 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul, an apostle, not from humans nor through a
> From: "Christopher R. Hutson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> In response to the question:
> > Anyway, is it too far off to theorize--if only for that sake--that
> > of Paul's opponents, either in Galatian and/or in Corinth, are actually
> > believers in Jesus who proclaim the gospel in a manner similar to the
> > mysteries? What I mean is, could it be that circumcision, kosher
> > laws, and the other "works of the law" were seen as rites of initiation
> > or fuller expressions of faith? I guess this sounds something like a
> > Jewish/Gnostic, or protognostic thing. Has it already been discussed,
> > refuted?
> > Tom Edmondson
> You may want to begin by reading up on the work of the old
> Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (History of Religions School) that thrived
> ca. 1890-1915 or so. Those scholars were especially interested in ideas of
> religious syncretism and how Christianity might have been influenced by
> hellenistic religions. On your question in particular,
> Franz Cumont, Textes et monuments figur=E9s relatifs aux myst=E8res de Mithra
> Franz Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (ET, 1910).
> Richard Reitzenstein, The Hellenistic Mystery Religions (1910).
> Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1913).
> You can find a summary of the ideas of the History of Religions School in
> any introduction to the history of scholarship on the New Testament, such as
> that of Kuemmel. See also the comments by Abraham J. Malherbe in E. J. Epp &
> G. W. MacRae, editors, The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters
> (Fortress & Scholars Press, 1989), 11-13.
> Your question seems to be framed more in terms of Galatians than of 1
> Corinthians. On the identity of the "troublers" in Galatia and their issue,
> I find Mark Nanos, The Irony of Galatians (Fortress, 2002) most provocative.
> I'll let him speak for himself, since he's on this list, but he reads the
> "troublers" as non-Christian Jews from the local synagogue and does not
> posit any influence from mystery religions in order to explain Paul's
> rhetoric in the letter.
> As for 1 Corinthians, it was fashionable a generation ago to find Gnostics
> under every bush in the NT, including 1 Cor, but I personally don't see a
> need to posit proto-Gnostics in Corinth in order to explain Paul's rhetoric
> in that letter.
>> But I will grant that the mystery religions are very interesting, and
> wouldn't be surprised if some early Christian converts from paganism
> understood some of their Christian rituals in part in categories they
> brought with them from prior worship of Mithra or Isis or some such.
> Whether Paul targets the mysteries or proto-Gnostics in any particular
> letter is not at all certain to me.
> Did you have in mind a particular passage?
> Happy studies,
> Christopher R. Hutson
> Hood Theological Seminary
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:35:24 -0600
> From: "Mark D. Nanos" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Once more, Paul and apo/dia anthropon/ou
> Thanks for the interaction and clarification. You raise a few points for
> > I just wanted to correct myself... re-reading my earlier post, I realized that
> > I stated that representatives from Jerusalem had been in Galatia claiming that
> > Paul was their subordinate. That is a possible reading of the text but may
> > not
> > be the most probable. I don't think Mark N. believes it was Jerusalem
> > representatives in Galatia (or am I wrong, Mark?).
> You are right, I do not find anything in Galatia indicating the situation in
> Galatia has to do with representatives from Jerusalem, or anywhere else
> outside of their local Galatian context, for that matter (I think they are
> non-Jewish members of the Jewish community in subgroups of Christ-believers,
> and it is "normal" pressure to comply with prevailing Jewish communal norms
> at issue). Without this assumption, it opens up the language of the
> narrative units such as fill much of Galatians to re-reading. Thus my
> interest in what Paul may be understood by the Galatian addressees to make
:> of his comment about not from/through human/s.
> > However, I think it is very probable, given the course of Paul's
> > Gal 1-2, that the "hoi tarrasontes humas" who bring the as-if "heteron
> > euangelion" were undermining Paul's authority to teach by his own authority
> > through making the charge that he was subordinate to the Jerusalem apostles.
> I do not see how this is indicated in the language of 1:6-7, or anywhere
> else in the letter (see argument in my Irony of Galatians), although that is
> the consensus view. By the way, I translate the phrase as "the ones
> unsettling," giving it a more neutral valence, and argue that Paul's letter
> is likely even more "unsettling" than whatever these "influencers" have
> done/taught to date.
> > Who else would they have charged that he was subordinate to?
> Why charged with subordination to anyone? Why would that be necessary?
> > And if this
> > wasn't the charge, why does Paul then go out of his way to emphasize the
> > non-supervisory role which the Jerusalem Pillars have played in his career?
> Does he? Or is that while he arrived at his understanding of the gospel
> the addressees (Christ apart from proselyte conversion for non-Jews)
> relatively independently, it is not different from that of the Jerusalem
> apostles, when compared; thus, that it is inter-dependent (see nice argument
> of Koptak, "Rhetorical Identification...," now reprinted in Galatians
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Some of this may be of interest, especially to the more advanced among you
is a grad-level discussion). The theory that Paul wrote "Galatians" to the
nort-central area of Asia Minor (western Turkey) that had been settled
generations earlier (3rd century bce) by migrating and maurauding Gauls (thus
the name "Gaul-atians") would be what you probably would have learned if you
took this course in the late 1800s -- J. B. Lightfoot, a Cambridge ENG scholar,
was a major advocate of the north theory, which was challenged by William
Ramsay in the 1890s, among other advocates. For an extensive discussion of the
issues, published when the battle was still warm (if not hot, 1909), see
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06336a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia).
My responses are marked ">", while Kelle's questions are marked "> >".
Kelle asks --
> > I picked up the Irish Jesus/Roman Jesus by Graydon Snyder ( Chicago
> > Theological Seminary) at the SBL in November because of my interests in Irish
> > Christianity. Snyder posits that Irish Christianity stemmed from Paul's
> > missionary activity in Galatia and he spends a chapter examining the
> > relationship between Paul and the recipients of the Letter to the Galatians.
> > I'm not quite sure what to make of his assumptions and wanted to run them
> > past you since we have also jumped into Galatians. There are 12.
> Oi. I know the author, but not this book. Sounds a bit strained to me, but I'll
> try to say more below.
> > 1. The Celts settled into the Galatia territories in 278 BCE, and formed a
> > Celtic state with coins, buildings and a central government. They were known
> > as Gallogrecians and assimilated some of the nearby Phrygian influences.
> > There were, at the time of Paul, 2 Galatias, the Roman province in the South
> > and the Celtic territory in the North.
> As you recognize, this is an old discussion. Maybe Graydon has new evidence. I'm
> initially suspicious since it makes the northern area sound almost independent,
> within the Roman umbrella. Lightfoot would be the old defender of the north,
> Ramsay of the south.
> > 2. The letter to the Galatians, if written to the southern Galatia is best
> > dated at 49 CE after Paul's second visit if to the northern Galatia it would
> > be later (after the 3rd journey)in 53 or 54 ( He cites Acts 18:23 here.).
> > Because the tone of the letter is more in line with Romans, a later letter,
> > (than Thessalonians) he asserts that the letter was written to the north,
> > where there were no synagogues (none mentioned in the letter).
> These sorts of arguments rest mainly on the accounts of Acts, for dating. I
> would agree that Galatians and Romans were probably written fairly close in
> time, but what that time was, and whether the Acts material gives us any help
> with such problems, seems to me to be open.
> > 3. The stay in Galatia was a historic accident due to an illness ( perhaps
> > the "evil eye") and Paul was healed by the famous Celtic spas.
> This builds on allusive language in Galatians. Something unusual seems to have
> happened, and eyes seem to have been involved. But the spas ...?
> > 4. The "O foolish Celts" exclamation is probably not a parallel to the
> > Shepherd's "Oh foolish man" but a direct address to the northern inhabitants.
> Pretty much begs the question. (Substuting "Celts" for "Galatians" already does
> > 5. If indeed Paul was from Tarsus which was just south of the province of
> > Galatia, he would have been acquainted with Celtic culture.
> Not necessarily. It is rough terrain, probably discouraging lots of interactive
> travel, otherwise wouldn't these "Celts" have become more integrated into the
> Roman world after three centuries? I suspect that there is potential conflict
> between points #1 and #5. And north of Tarsus is not my image of Northern
> Galatia -- Tarsus is very much to the southeast in Asia Minor.
> > 6. No city is mentioned as the recipient so it must have gone to the northern
> > rural areas.
> How does this follow? Argument from silence -- is Paul in the habit of
> mentioning things like cities and synagogues when he sends heated replies?
> > 7. Gal 1:6 is a reprimand for the Celtic way of assimilation of other
> > cultures
> Begs the question. How can we know this? Does he understand "another gospel" to
> represent some local cult or threat? Or is it just that they are fickle?
> > 8. Peter's table fellowship in Gal 2:12 is his being a recipient of Celtic
> > hospitality which would have been a priority in the mission to the Celts.
> I don't follow. Isn't the setting of 2.12 Antioch? Does he picture the wandering
> Celts taking charge of the meals in Antioch? Or does he have Peter traveling
> into the far reaches of northern Galatia at this point? Sounds unlikely, either
> > 9. Gal 3:1-3 is a reprimand for Celtic Christians turning the vision of the
> > risen Christ into transmogrification - a Celtic cultural norm
> I don't even know what that means.
> > 10.Gal 3:6-18 and 24-25 referring to the Law would have with the 3 points of
> > kashrut, calendar and circumcision would have made sense to the Druids and
> > Brehons.
> And probably to lots of other people/groups. Is that evidence? It can fit his
> theory, but it can hardly be grounds for the theory.
> > 11.The reference to special days etc referred to Lughansa, Samhain etc.
> Similar to the comment on #10.
> > 12. The castration reference in 5:12 is to the galli who were near Pessinus
> > and continued the Phrygian mother of the mountain cultic practice of cutting
> > off genitals.
> Well, it is certainly sarcastic language, and could be understood in such a
> context (especially if the galli were considered weird by the recipients), but
> there are other ways to understand it as well, like the traditional (they teach
> Jewish circumcision, let them cut it all off!)
> > I think the reason that I don't much like Paul is that we have basically only
> > his side of the story. I'd like to know more about his opponents. I know that
> > the Clementine material have some and I thought I saw reference in the
> > Schneemelcher volume to the Gospel of the Ebionites being anti-Paul ( I am
> > trying to locate the reference). I think if I can read both what he says and
> > what others say about him I can get a better understanding of the man
> > (perhaps?). Any other suggestions for this type of research?
> Ah, yes, Auseinandersetzungsgeschichte (study of conflict situations)! Most of
> what we can know of his opponents comes from his side of the discourse, but that
> is not inconsequential. Further, if the Epistle of James is addressing someone's
> understanding and use of Pauline thought, that also might help. There are a few
> other clues -- somewhere he is called "the antichrist from the tribe of
> Benjamin" -- and the problematic materials in the pseudo-Clementines. Hopefully
> we will get to some of this in the course. Nothing dull about Paul's life!
> > Or the references to the "evil eye" of rabbinic tradition and Paul's
> > "blinding" on the road to Damascus and the injury which caused him to stay
> > in Galatia are also interesting. Do you think that this would be a better
> > path?
> The opponents theme is richer and more rewarding, I think, since there are
> sources to squeeze. The eye stuff would involve you in much more conjecture --
> did the sources available to the author of Acts confuse some sort of Pauline eye
> problem and mix it into the call stories? Or was he really myopic or malarial
> or epileptic, etc. I'd rather see you immersed in actual ancient texts than in
> our modern muddlings.
Good point, Doug, and let me use it to move us further into some basic
Much of the discussion, especially the question of dating the letter to the
Galatians, assumes the accuracy of the accounts of Paul's travels in the book of
Acts, at least to the extent of their sequence in his life, if not all the small
details. It also assumes that Paul did not do other things not mentioned in
Acts, although any perceptive reader of 2 Corinthians 11.21-12.10 will recognize
that Paul mentions things there that are not part of the Acts account.
But if Galatians is written to people Paul had already visited (how could it
otherwise?), and if those people live in the "northern" Galatia area, when did
he visit them (according to Acts)? Not until possibly the "second missionary
journey" as mentioned in passing in Acts 16.6 ("the region of Phrygia and
Galatia" near Mysia and Bithynia enroute to the northwest coast at Troas/Troy).
So if Acts is a complete account of Paul's travels (very doubtful), and if
Galatians is written to these people mentioned in Acts 16.6 (why not?), then
Galatians could not be written until after the "apostolic conference" of Acts
15, etc. Note that this dating of Galatians is also significant for attempting
to correlate the details in Galatians 2 with those in Acts 9-15 about Paul's
relationships with Jerusalem and the original followers of Jesus -- a basic
problem to which we will be turning in class!
I suspect that the problems raised by Gal 2 // Acts 11-15 were a significant
factor in the development of the idea that "Galatia" referred not to the area
mentioned in Acts 16.6, but rather to the more southern Roman province that
included sites reached by Paul in the account of Acts 13-14 (check your maps),
and thus Galatians could be written before the events reported in Acts 15 (the
conference), and the serious discrepancies between Gal 2 and Acts 15 are no
Of course, as you point out, for holders of the southern Galatia theory
Galatians need not be written that early (anytime after Paul visited "Galatia"
will do), but it could be that early. And why bother fussing over it if there
isn't more at stake, like dating and accuracy of both Galatians and Acts?
Finally, let me throw another iron in the fire. If I visualize Acts as a
somewhat artificial organization of sources and traditions gathered by its
author (the author/editor of Luke-Acts, who admits to using various sources --
see Luke 1.1-4), and do not depend on it for such things as geographical and
chronological sequence, the visit of Paul to Galatia (whether south or north or
both) can come at any time up to the point of the writing of the epistle, and
precise reconstructions of Paul's journeys, etc. (based on Acts), are
interesting examples of ancient historiography (or something like it), but are
much less significant than the clues provided by Paul's own writings. Perhaps
the rather fractured or atomistic picture that results from this approach is not
very satisfying, but it is more true to the evidence as we know it. (An early
attempt to follow up on this sort of approach can be seen in John Knox, Chapters
in a Life of Paul, which is on the review list.)
We'll be talking about these issues a lot, so everyone should try to familiarize
themselves with the relevant information in Acts, as well as with the claims
found in the writings attributed to Paul.
On to the weekend. Go Eagles!
> Thanks for the interaction over the Northern and Southern views. Something
the author said got me thinking. It seems that he was saying (#2) that a
southern view would indicate a early date and a northern view would indicate a
later date. Although the second part may be true, the first part is clearly not
the case. Although I have questions concerning his position, Moises Silva
(Explorations in the Exegetical Method Galatians as a Test Case, 129-139)argues
strongly for a southern position, yet a late date. I'm not trying to be picky,
but I did want to offer a clarification.
The subject of who and where the "Galatians" were, to whom Paul wrote,
unanswerable on the basis of current knowledge. So why bother? It was, and
remains, part of a larger issue about the value of the preserved sources.
If we assume that the canonical book of Acts is generally reliable in what
tells us about Paul's travels, and is fairly complete and in correct sequence,
Paul did not reach an area explicitly called "Galatia" until the "second"
journey, after the events reported in Acts 15 ("Jerusalem consultation"). If
Paul's letter is written to those people ("northern Galatian theory," using
"Galatian" in a basically ethnic sense for people whose ancestors came from
Gaul [modern France, more or less]), it has to date after the events of
Acts 15. If Paul, in Galatians 1-2, is giving an accurate account of his
experiences, there are serious problems with the Acts account of the same
If, on the other hand, Paul writes to these "Galatians" prior to
reported in Acts 15, several of the problems between Acts and Paul can be solved
(but not all of them), and there is good evidence that the places reached by
Paul in his "first journey" as reported in Acts were part of an area that was
popularly, if not officially, designated "Phrygia-Galatia" (or similarly) during
the period in question. Thus the "southern Galatia" theory, that Paul writes not
to "ethnic" (and provincial) Galatia as such, but to a broader Galatian area
from a more popular, and perhaps also a different Roman organizational point of
view (how would it appear on Roman maps from the mid 1st century CE?).
I've simplified things, of course. One can hold to either of these theories
without regard to the problems between Acts and Paul's account. Acts may be
inaccurate, for purposes of such details, and/or Paul may be tailoring his
account, or misremembering, in Gal 1-2. But one of the main payloads of the
discussion relates to the historical and chronological problems outlined above.
A few further comments below, in direct response to the queries --
> The recent emails sent to the class listserve were very interesting. =
> One of my favorite subjects in the Classics relates to the study of =
> Barbarians and their interactions with the Roman Empire.
A fascinating topic, directly relevant for trying to understand things in
Palestinian Jewish circles as well. Who are the Herods, and how did they
function? How does Pontius Pilate and his story fit in? Etc. And is the
situation with the ethnic Galatians in any ways similar?
> Thus, the whole Celts/Galatia issue seems quite fascinating. Upon =
> doing some research online for ancient sources (not including references =
> in Acts/Galatians) and references, I found something interesting. =
> Although it may not directly relate to the previous discussions via =
> email, I would like to know what you think.
> Classical art/representation of Celts (as vanquished people) has been
> found in marble/bronze sculptures from the acropolis of ancient =
> Pergamum. Apparently, after a wave of migrators came around 230 BCE, =
> Attalus I of Pergamum had them slaughtered and then depicted on the =
> acropolis of the city (some of the most beautiful representations of =
> Gauls). The city itself appears to have been more towards Bithynia than =
> southern Anatolia. =20
Exactly. Thus relatively "northern" in the Anatolian landmass (=
Asia Minor, =
> After this, the size of the Gauls was apparently reduced and then in =
> 189 BCE the entire area was subjugated by the Romans. Finally, I read =
> that the province itself (the official one in Turkey that is) was =
> formed in 25 BCE, being named from its inhabitants (as was usually the =
So there is a longish Roman presence, and typical Roman districting (which
also change through the years and regiemes). Out of those developments come the
proposed (or imagined?) relatively more "southern" district of "Phrygia-Galatia"
in the first century. I don't know how much the districting borders may have
changed during antiquity, but my impression is that they tended to slip more to
central Anatolia than staying in the more northern area. Why? Were there
population shifts, or mainly administrative practicalities (it is rough terrain,
and the location of population centers [cities and towns] may have dictated
Roman redistricting and/or popular perceptions. Harnack's map (on my web page)
shows "Galatia" in a northerly location, with Phrygia and Pisidia and Lycaonia
to its south and west. Note that in both Acts passages that mention "Galatia"
(16.6 and 18.23) it is linked somewhat ambiguously with "Phrygia" (is it "the
Phrygian region and the Galatian region," or as southern Galatian theorists
would have it, "the Phrygian-Galatian" region, as a sort of unit?).
> Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, but in light of this, are =
> proponents of the southern view inclined to believe that the Galatians =
> Paul was referring to was a group of people in the south, rather than =
> the northern city/territory?
More or less. I'm not sure that "southern Galatianists" are concerned
ethnic shifts as much as about uses of language/labels. We can see something
similar today in the use of "Yankee" (or "Dixie") -- if I say that I'm going up
to "Yankee land" during spring break, where do you think I'm going and why? (Of
course, it's a poor analogy insofar as I don't think you'll find it on a map.
Think of a better analogy -- for extra credit?!)
And in a followup message:
> I think I've confused myself once more, and thus I have some more =
> questions to ask...when Pessinus, Ankyra and Tavia are mentioned, are =
> these known to be classified within the Northern Galatia territory and =
> within the Roman Province of Galatia?
Yes, at least at some point in the evolution of the terminology. Note that
Ankyra is the only city to appear in "Galatia" (north) on Harnack's map, which
means that as of a century ago, it is the only place in that area for which
there was evidence of Christian presence prior to 180 CE. Harnack's second
volume goes through each district place by place, if anyone is curious to pursue
> I read that after 230 BCE, the three Gaulish tribes Tolistobogioi, =
> Tektosages and Trokmoi settled in this region (in particular those =
> towns), with their own people (retaining language and customs).
> Additionally, one more questions, in Gal. 3.1, when Paul refers to the =
> Galatians, do you think it is an ethnic reference or a geographical one?
I don't think there is any way of telling. The "northern Galatianists,"
perhaps I should say "ethnic Galatianists" would tend to see this as a slur
(Galatians are "ignorant," like modern "Newfie" or "Polish" jokes) as well as a
statement by Paul that his recipients are acting stupidly. But it could be
simply the latter, without regard for ethnic categories or associations. We
don't know enough to know.
Next task: a close comparison of Gal 1-2 with the presentation of Paul in Acts!
Be ready. And thanks for the questions and observations.