A number of fallacies are committed with respect to this issue in an attempt to be decisive on a point which is not of any real importance. The message of the book is not affected either way. Some of the older commentators could maintain it was written from Rome and arrive at the same interpretation as those who maintain it was written prior to the Council.

Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 2:2 could not have been the visit recorded in Acts 11. Paul says he went up "by revelation" for the purpose of clearing away differences in doctrine, whereas in Acts 11 he was sent by the church for the purpose of providing relief. It is likely that the 2:2 visit is unrecorded in Acts.

The idea that Paul would have mentioned the Council as a definitive answer on the issue is presumptuous. Most of the letter is concerned with the way the Galatians now stood disaffected towards Paul's apostleship. From an historical perspective, Paul played second fiddle to the "pillars" at the Council. If the letter was written post-Council , his choice to include the confrontation with Peter was far more germane, as it showed apostleship itself was bound by consistent commitment to the truth. To simply state the decision of the Council would foster the feeling of pride which the false teachers had in the apostles as ones who knew Jesus after the flesh.

I think it is best to state one's case tentatively, and not make the interpretation of the book rest on this incidental fact. There is a natural desire to tie up loose ends, and create a definitive timeline of Paul's movements and letters, but it was never the intention of the Holy Spirit to minister to our historical curiosity in providing us with the infallible Word.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."