to Michael BG,
Jerusalem is in Palestine or Judea if you prefer. Paul says he went to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18).
Does not matter, Paul did not preach in Palestine or Jerusalem then (and that was a short visit), so he was unknown by face to the Churches of Judea in Christ.
I have not read in Palestine, but you are reading in Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia. Paul states where he has been. If he had been to Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia then some Galatians should have already known about it and would have thought it odd that he didn’t mention them. The logical conclusion is if he had gone there he would have named them and so as he didn’t name them he didn’t go there until after the split with Barnabas.
Actually, at that time, Paul did not go to Northern Galatia yet. That would explain it.
Yes he went there after the split with Barnabas, Peter and the Churches of Antioch and James' men, after his visit to Jerusalem for the council (Gal 2:1).
BTW, Paul's converts were in Northern Galatia, the homeland of the (celtic) Galatians. One argument: "Luke" did not consider the so-called Southern Galatia as Galatia. "Luke" indicated that Galatia was further North (as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html
According to Paul, Titus is a Greek, therefore he could be from Antioch, some place in Syria, or anywhere in the region where Greeks had settled in the previous 700 years. The first reference Paul gives to Titus is that he was not at Troas, so Paul went to Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:12-13). It seems he was in Corinth (2 Cor. 7:5-6). Paul doesn’t write that he converted Titus
Titus appears late in Paul's epistles (in 2 Corinthians), after earlier mentions of Timothy and Sylvanus as Paul traveling companions. Paul was expecting to meet Titus in Troas after Titus' visit to Corinth, but that was after Paul had already gone to Corinth (twice). Titus was only active in Achaia & Macedonia. And since Paul was the first to make converts in Macedonia & Achaia, it is highly probable that Titus was one of those converts.
Sure, Paul had gone to Corinth already: 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians were addressed to Corinthians, whom Paul knew already.
You keep assuming that Luke did not write history
You keep assuming that Luke is writing history and he isn’t. It is possible that the only correct historical reference in Luke-Acts comes from Mark and refers to Jesus being crucified when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. It seems you have assumed that Titus was the companion of Paul when he went to Jerusalem and when he was in Macedonia. However, there is no evidence that these events happened close to each other in time. It is possible that Titus went to Jerusalem with Paul, then worked with others and then later joined Paul.
. Yes she did, concerning Paul's trips (sequencing & places where he preached), because I did not see major conflicts between Acts & Paul's epistles on this matter (except she misplaced for a purpose the time of the council of Jerusalem).
Why talk about possibility, when Acts tells what happened? Anyway, according to Galatians, after Titus went to Jerusalem with Paul, there was the big split in Antioch, leading Paul to complain that the understanding from the earlier council of Jerusalem had been betrayed by James' after-thought (probably under pressure from the members of his Church).
Then why would Paul narrate what happened in Jerusalem during the council with a few pillars?
Most likely, Paul wanted to be known to his Galatians, before making converts there
, he had the OK to preach to Gentiles his gospel (which did not included any attempt of Judaization).
Silas is only mentioned in Acts. Silvanus was with Paul when he wrote 1 Thessalonians maybe from Athens and with Paul when he wrote 2 Corinthians maybe from Macedonia. All of this is after the break with Barnabas
Sylvanus is most likely the same person as Silas, his shortened name.
Thanks to Acts, I do not have go through "maybe". Silas was the companion of Paul (with Timothy) during the second journey (to Macedonia and Corinth for the first time). And that's what appears in 1 Thessalonians, with mention of Sylvanus and Timothy.
BTW, according to Acts, the initial break with Barnabas was caused by a disagreement about to bring (or not) John Mark along (for the 2nd journey), not really a break. The big break (Gal 2:13), under the influence of James' men, will happen later (at the start of the 3rd journey).
Paul while at Athens sends Timothy to Thessalonica and he is still there when Timothy returns.
OK, my bad.
It is extremely unlikely that Paul went to Jerusalem, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Galatia all in one year. This is why Paul can’t be in Ephesus in 52 CE if he went to Jerusalem from Antioch in the spring of 52 CE.
According to Acts, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth (all for the first time) was during the 2nd journey (which lasted about 2 years: 50 to early 52). Northern Galatia was part of the 3rd journey, right before Paul stayed in Ephesus starting in 53 (after a short visit in 52 on his way to Jerusalem from Corinth). I don't see any problem here. Acts, with the Pauline epistles, solved that for me.
BTW, the first journey was in Cilicia, Southern Galatia and Cyprus
Why only one year for Paul preaching in all Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia, I wonder?
And why Paul had to be in Ephesus in 52?
As I said we are both using Acts to date Paul’s conversion and Acts in not reliable enough for us to have any confidence that Paul was even present when Stephen was stoned assuming that Luke didn’t make up the story.
I got 35 for Paul's conversion by going backward from the dispute under Gallio's rule in Corinth (I did not addressed for my dating the fact that Paul was (or was not) present during the stoning of Stephen. I did not need it).
52 is the year when Paul went to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the pillars after the dispute between Paul and Jews in Corinth. Subtracting from 52 (14 + 3 = 17) give me 35 for Paul's conversion.
Paul does not tell us that he “persecuted” the “Christians” in Jerusalem and he implies he didn’t even persecute the churches in Judea as they had never seen him and he was only known to them via hearsay.
Paul did not say. But because the "Greek" proto-Christians were in Jerusalem then, that's where the persecution had to start. During that persecution, these proto-Christians fled to cities in Judea and beyond. All of that is in Act (8:1 & 11:19).
We agree that the “Council of Jerusalem” was 17 years after Paul was converted. Therefore for there to be enough time between “Council of Jerusalem” and Paul being at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) before Pentecost, Paul will need to have at least visited Philippi, Thessalonica (from 1 Thess.), Corinth (maybe Athens) and Galatia before going to Ephesus. If you assume that Paul covers a province in a year and not just a city then you need four more years.
I addressed that already. Why only one year? By that time (referring to 1 Cor 16:8) Paul had been in all the places you mentioned, but it was during a 3 years period (from 50 to 52).
1 Cor 16:8 is part of the third uncombined (original) letter to the Corinthians written in early 55. Anyway that's what I concluded from data from Paul's epistles and Acts.
49-50 Achaia (Corinth and Athens)
48-49 Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica)
Spring 48 “Council of Jerusalem” and later the break with Barnabas at Antioch
31 Paul converted
I don't see how you can venture with this timeline when you work from the combined (canonical) epistles to the Corinthians and you consider Acts being all trash.
And why would Acts be all trash? Because of some obvious historical errors that you (and myself) found in the first half of it (not concerning Paul's travels).
That is certainly not enough for me to reject Act as not providing good data about Paul's trips.
Furthermore, this data, with the ones from the uncombined Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, fit very well together. And my 7 years theory would even cement my finding about Paul's trips even more.