does galatians post-date 1 corinthians?

Mark Goodacre has proposed that 1 Corinthians predated Galatians on the basis of comparison of particular statements in the letters (be sure to read his whole post here; also a response by Loren Rosson here and a follow-up by Mark here). Let me play "devil's advocate" and attempt to provide an alternative reading of these passages...

(1) The lack of mention of Galatia in either 2 Corinthians 8-9 or Romans 15 regarding the collection need not imply that Paul had an irreconcilable falling out with churches in that region. Paul does not mention Asia either, yet he certainly established churches there, there's no reason why he would not have initiated collections there, and there's no evidence of a falling out with the Asian churches. Rather, the mention of Macedonia in the letter to the Achaians (2 Corinthians) reflects Paul's playing off a common and ancient regional rivalry to stimulate generosity, and the mention of Macedonia and Achaia in Romans 15 is because it is those collections Paul has in hand and plans to accompany back to Jerusalem (cf. 15:25), with collections from other regions presumably going to Jerusalem another way.

(2) The mention of Galatia in 1 Corinthians 16 regarding the collection is explainable because that is the region Paul has recently left with explicit instructions about how to manage the collection, or perhaps because they were the first churches on this tour and thus became the initial pattern for managing the collection.

(3) The phrase "keeping the commands of God" in 1 Corinthians 7:19 need not imply a pre-Judaizer/agitator stage in Paul's thought, for two broad, inter-related reasons.

(a) Positive statements on the Law or divine commands, even ones that could potentially be misunderstood, are present in the midst of the two letters most associated with these issues: Romans 2:13 ("it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified"), 7:12 ("the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good"), and 13:9 ("The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet'; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'"); and Galatians 5:13-14 ("through love become slaves to one another, for the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'") and 6:2 ("Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ"). Of course this gets into difficult issues on Paul and the Law, but these reflect Paul's perspective of the Law (Torah) as in some way fulfilled in or reoriented as the law/command of Christ/the Lord (a Christotelic view of the Law).

(b) The statement in 1 Corinthians 7:19 must be understood in the light of similar statements in 1 Corinthians, such as 9:21 ("To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law") and 14:37 ("Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord"; cf. 7:10-11). In fact, that Paul has in mind a Christotelic understanding of "keeping the commands of God" in 1 Corinthians 7:19 is evident from the verse itself: the contrast is with circumcision, something that was a command of Torah and not a matter of ambivalence vis-a-vis Torah. In light of this I actually wonder if this formulation of the slogan even grew out of the Galatian crisis, as it forces the reader/hearer to wrestle with the question of circumcision vis-a-vis "the commands of God," the question that had been the major concern in Galatia.

Within a more "Acts-based" chronology, then, you have the following sequence:

• Paul's letter to the Galatians was successful in winning back at least a significant segment of the Galatian churches.
  
• Paul goes through Galatia on his way to Asia (Acts 18:23), establishing procedures for managing the collection, in doing so "remembering the poor" as he had promised the Jerusalem pillars and had implicitly reminded the Galatians (Gal 2:10).
• Paul goes to Asia, establishing a missionary base in Ephesus (Acts 19). From there Paul deals with the Corinthian crises, writing 1 Corinthians as part of this developing situation (cf. 1 Cor 16:8). Having recently established collection procedures in Galatia, he encourages the Achaians to follow these procedures (1 Cor 16:1-4).
• Paul goes to Macedonia, and from there writes 2 Corinthians (Acts 20:1; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:5). He encourages the Achaians in their generosity for the collection by playing off the common and ancient regional rivalry between Achaia and Macedonia (2 Cor 8-9).
• Paul goes to Achaia, staying in Corinth for the winter (Acts 20:2-3). He writes Romans, describes the extent of his ministry in the northeast quadrant of the Roman Empire, and indicates his plans to return to Jerusalem with the collection before going to Rome (Rom 15:14-33). He specifically mentions Macedonia and Achaia because it is those collections he has in hand and he plans to accompany them back to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25-26). In the end, however, he is forced to go by land back through Macedonia and Asia, so he may have accompanied the Asian and Galatian collections as well (Acts 20:3-4).

Update (09/18): Richard Fellows also responds to Mark's post on Stephen Carlson's blog here.

Update (09/19): Mark Goodacre continues his series on Galatians post-dating 1 Corinthians here. Mark is certainly producing a strong cumulative case on this: individual passages may be explained differently (as my post attempts to do), but the total picture Mark is presenting is stronger than its individual parts. Perhaps I've gotten myself into a hole too deep for me by disagreeing with a scholar like Mark (and my former doctoral supervisor even!), but now that I've dug the hole I've got to try to bail out the water...

On this last post (comparing Gal 1 and 1 Cor 15 on the origin of Paul's gospel) my initial reaction is first that particular circumstances of each letter determine Paul's rhetorical approach (as Mark says), and I can imagine particular circumstances at any stage in Paul's career that could occasion either a human or divine emphasis on the origin of Paul's gospel. Furthermore, Paul does admit even in Galatians that he had relatively early contact with the Jerusalem apostles and that he even brought his gospel to them at one point for some sort of assessment (1:18-19; 2:2). Also, I've always been intrigued by Paul's distinction between what he calls "my gospel" (and similar phrases) and "the gospel," and I'd suggest that "the gospel" is that which is received and transmitted by all the apostles (1 Cor 15:1-11), and "my gospel" is Paul's particular interpretation of the basic framework found in "the gospel" based primarily upon his revelatory experience of the risen Jesus near Damascus (Gal 1:11-17). One can note especially Paul's prominent use of this sort of "my gospel" language in Galatians and Romans, the most distinctively Pauline letters with their use of "justification" to flesh out the meaning of "the gospel." Thus, the two origins of "gospel" are not in conflict, a fact Paul had confirmed by the Jerusalem pillars as described in Gal 2:2, and Paul could emphasize either at any time in his career, always being rhetorically sensitive to particular circumstances.