28 DEBBIE HUNN assuming Paul responds to a direct attack, begs the question. This does not prove that Paul is not responding to accusations but simply that the burden of proof for any particular allegation lies upon the one who suggests it. Lyons offers much solid criticism of mirror reading, including criticism of specific points 11. For example, scholars who mirror read commonly conclude from 1,1.11.12 that in chaps. 1–2 Paul seeks to prove his independence as an apostle because he had been accused of dependence upon Jerusalem. However, Lyons notes that 2,1-10 makes this highly unlikely. Why would Paul include either his concern in 2,2 that Jerusalem could destroy his work among the Gentiles or his concession to the apostles in 2,10 if his point were to prove his independence? Both particulars would be better left unstated 12. Concerning other accusations, if Lührmann is correct that false rumors circulated about Paul’s visit to Peter, Paul’s silence about their interaction does little to dispel them. His defense against stories that disciples in Damascus instructed him is even weaker — he admits to a three-year stay in Arabia and Damascus but omits any mention of the disciples. This would do more to confirm than to refute any stories in the minds of his readers. In addition, although Paul does write to deny that he received his gospel from any human source, it does not follow that he was accused of receiving it from the Jerusalem apostles. In fact, he says that it is because the Galatians were turning to another teaching that he would show his gospel to be from God (1,6.11-12), and thus he renders such a charge superfluous. Furthermore, as discussed in the previous section, it is not Paul’s purpose to defend his apostolate; and therefore he is not countering attacks on it. This analysis thus discredits two of the major contentions of mirror reading — that Paul answers accusations that he is dependent upon Jerusalem and that his apostolic credentials are lacking — and some minor ones as well. See LYONS, Pauline Autobiography for a thorough critique of mirror 11 reading, and pp. 79-121 in particular for a detailed response to mirror reading in Galatians. J.M.G. BARCLAY, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case”, The Galatians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (ed. M.D. NANOS) (Peabody, MA 2002) 367-382, also argues against the idea that Paul answers charges later in Galatians. LYONS, Pauline Autobiography, 83-86. 12