text: In addition, the exclusion of any mention of the letter of Acts 15 is seen to indicate that such a letter did not yet exist, since Paul would have been likely to use it against the legalism confronted in Galatians. Finally, this view doubts Paul's confrontation of Peter (Gal. 2:11) would have been necessary after the events described in Acts 15. If this view is correct, the epistle should be dated somewhere around 47, depending on other difficult-to-date events, such as Paul's conversion.
  Kirsopp Lake found this view less likely and wondered why it would be necessary for the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to take place at all if the issue were settled in Acts 11:30/12:25, as this view holds. Defenders of the view do not think it unlikely an issue of such magnitude would need to be discussed more than once. Renowned New Testament scholar J.B. Lightfoot also objected to this view since it "clearly implies that his [Paul's] Apostolic office and labours were well known and recognized before this conference."
  Defenders of this view, such as Ronald Fung, disagree with both parts of Lightfoot's statement, insisting Paul received his "Apostolic Office" at his conversion (Gal. 1:15–17; Acts 9). Fung holds, then, that Paul's apostolic mission began almost immediately in Damascus (Acts 9:20). While accepting that Paul's apostolic anointing was likely only recognized by the Apostles in Jerusalem during the events described in Galatians 2/Acts 11:30, Fung does not see this as a problem for this theory.