The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (96 page)

Map 10.2: The Province of Galatia

significant either due to an allusion to the saying of Jesus preserved in Matt 16:16-20
²³
or to the identification of Peter as “those recognized as pillars,” since pillars were typically carved from stone.

Galatians 2:7b-8 is fully explicable without suggesting that it is an interpolation. None of the extant manuscripts of Galatians lack the text or express any suspicion that the verses are a later scribal addition to the letter. Thus the large majority of scholars affirm the integrity of the letter as well as its authenticity. In addition, an interesting theory has been proposed by E. R. Richards, who has argued that suspected interpolations in Paul's letters that are not indicated by variants in the ancient manuscripts may well be interpolations by the amanuensis which were inserted between Paul's original draft and the final copy and that were approved by Paul.
²⁴

Provenance

The provenance of Galatians is inextricably related to the identity of the addressees and the date of authorship. Most NT introductions and commentaries do not even venture a guess as to the place of authorship. However, if one affirms the South Galatian theory (see below) and accepts a date of authorship between the first missionary journey and the
Jerusalem Conference, Paul probably wrote the letter either from Antioch, Jerusalem, or some location in route.
²⁵

Destination

While Paul's authorship of Galatians is widely accepted, scholars differ in their opinions regarding those to whom the letter was addressed. It is clear that the letter was addressed to the Galatians (1:2; 3:1), but precise identification of the Galatians is difficult. The term
Galatia
could be used in the first century in either an ethnic sense or a provincial sense. The issue is complicated but the study is worthwhile. Pinpointing the precise location of the Galatian churches addressed in the letter is crucial for determining its date.

In the ethnic sense, the term
Galatia
could be used to describe the area inhabited by the Gauls or Celts who invaded north central Asia Minor from Central Europe in 278 BC and were of the same ethnic origin as the Celts of France and Britain. If Paul intended this sense in his address, he was writing to churches in northern Galatia, possibly in such cities as Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium. The theory that Paul addressed his letter to churches in these northern cities is called the North Galatian theory.

If Paul's address refers to the Roman province of Galatia, he could be writing to churches in southern Galatia. In
64
BC, Pompey rewarded the Galatians for their support in his battle against Mithradates V by making them a client kingdom. Over the next several decades, the kingdom was enlarged toward the south and the east. In 25 BC, Augustus reorganized the area into a Roman province. During Paul's time, the province extended from Pontus on the Black Sea to Pamphylia on the Mediterranean. The Roman province included cities such as Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. Paul visited these cities during his first missionary journey. The theory that Paul addressed the letter to the churches in these cities is called the South Galatian theory.

Evidence for the North Galatian Theory
The North Galatian theory was the view of the early church fathers, medieval commentators, and the Protestant reformers. The theory was championed by J. B. Lightfoot in the nineteenth century, by J. Moffatt in the early twentieth century, and most recently by H. D. Betz.
²⁶
While the evidence from the early church fathers is impressive, they may have imposed their own contemporary geography on Paul's address. In the year 74, Vespasian detached most of Pisidia from the Galatian province. In the year 137, the Lyconian portion of the province was transferred to Cilicia, and in c. 297, the remaining southern portions were transferred to a new province of Pisidia. When the early church fathers read the word
Galatia
, geographical boundaries had changed, and the prominent Galatian cities that Paul visited during his first missionary journey were no longer considered Galatia.
²⁷
Reading the geography of their day back into
the NT would have been an easy mistake. This would be much like interpreting Louisiana in the Louisiana Purchase to refer only to the small area contained in the present state rather than the vast lands of Louisiana in 1803.

Map 10.1: North Galatian Theory.

Some argue that Luke's usage of the term
Galatia
in Acts suits the North Galatian theory. In Acts 16:6 and 18:23, Luke wrote of the region of Phrygia and Galatia. Since Galatia is distinguished from Phrygia (a regional district but not a province), one might conclude that Luke was referring to the Galatian district excluding the districts of Pisidia and Lycaonia.
²⁸
But in Acts 16:6 Luke used a grammatical construction that appears to mean “the Phrygio-Galatic territory.” F. F. Bruce has argued convincingly that Luke was referring to the section of the Galatian province that was inhabited by Phrygians,
²⁹
and Acts 18:23 speaks of the same area even though slightly different terminology is used.

Scholars who affirm the North Galatian theory have also appealed to Acts 13:13,14; 14:6. In these passages Luke identified locations based on geographical regions rather than Roman provinces.
³⁰
Antioch is described as in Pisidia rather than Galatia, and Lystra and Derbe are described as cities of Lycaonia rather than Galatia. Thus the terms in Acts 16:6 are regional rather than provincial. While Luke often used regional rather than provincial
descriptions, when Paul described the location of the churches that he founded, he normally did so by province: “the churches of the Asian province” (1 Cor 16:19); “churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor 8:1); “Achaia” (2 Cor 9:2). Moreover, the reference to “Galatia” in 1 Pet 1:1 appears to support the provincial use since Galatia is named along with Anatolian provinces.
³¹

Some scholars have argued that there is no hint in Galatians of the strong opposition that Paul faced when he preached in the churches of South Galatia. But there are some hints in Gal 5:11; 6:17, and in Paul's reference to the suffering of the Galatians in 3:4. Moreover, since Paul was persecuted in virtually every city that he visited, mention of persecution does not appear to be a helpful means to narrow the possible parameters of Galatia.

Evidence for the South Galatian Theory
The South Galatian theory was popularized by W. Ramsay in his
Historical Commentary on Galatians
published in 1899. More recently, the view has been championed by F. F. Bruce and R. Longenecker. Scholars point to the following evidence to support this view.

First, Paul obviously knew the Galatian readers personally (Gal 1:8; 4:11-15,19). Acts contains large amounts of information about Paul's work among the churches of South Galatia, and yet no information exists (unless Acts 16:6 and 18:23 are exceptions) about his work in North Galatia. Some scholars argue that this argument is weakened by the fact that Acts does not record the founding of the Colossian church either.
³²
But the circumstances with Colossians are different since the Colossian church was apparently founded by Epaphras (Col 1:7-8; 4:12-13), a coworker of Paul, rather than Paul himself. Thus the silence of Acts regarding a Pauline ministry in North Galatia does seem significant.

Second, the route described in Acts 16:6 and 18:23 seems to be a South Galatian route as discussed above.

Third, “Galatia” was the only word that would have encompassed Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe. Antioch was in the region of Pisidia; Lystra and Iconium were in Lycaonia. Moreover, Paul normally used Roman imperial names for provinces.
³³

Fourth, in 1 Cor 16:1 Paul referred to the Galatian churches as among the contributors to the collection for Jerusalem. Acts 20:4 mentions a Berean, two Thessalonians, two south Galatians, and two Asians who appear to represent the churches presenting the gift. This suggests that the Galatian churches Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians were South Galatian churches. If Paul used the term
Galatia
consistently, then the letter to the Galatians was addressed to South Galatians. The argument is weakened by the fact that the list may be incomplete. No Corinthian representatives are mentioned either.
³⁴

Fifth, Barnabas is mentioned three times in Galatians (2:1,9,13). Barnabas accompanied Paul only on the first missionary journey through cities in South Galatia. He did not accompany Paul on the second or third journeys, the supposed occasion of a visit to North Galatia. This evidence is not conclusive, however, since Barnabas is referred to in 1 Cor 9:6, though no evidence exists that he was known by the church.
³⁵
Still, the prominence of Barnabas in Galatians seems to imply that he was known by the Galatian churches.

Conclusion
Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses. Neither can be proven or disproven conclusively. The balance of the evidence weighs in favor of the South Galatian theory.
³⁶
Perhaps most importantly, there is no biblical evidence that Paul ever visited the North Galatian cities, while Acts records Paul planting churches in South Galatia. Also, as discussed, the reference to the Galatian churches in 1 Cor 16:1 and the repeated mention of Barnabas in Galatians (2:1,9,13) also seem to favor a South Galatian destination.

Date

The date for Galatians depends largely on three factors: (1) the question of destination; (2) the relationship of Paul's two visits to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians (1:18; 2:1—10) with the four visits to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts (Acts 9:26-30; 11:30; 15:1-30; 21:15—17); and (3) the number of visits to the Galatian churches made before the letter was written as implied in Gal 4:13. The determination of destination makes the greatest difference in date. Those who espouse the South Galatian theory normally affirm a relatively early date for the letter: either shortly after Paul's first missionary journey or just before or shortly after the Jerusalem Council. Those who accept the North Galatian theory typically affirm a later date, usually during Paul's third missionary journey.
³⁷

Evidence for a Late Date (North Galatian Theory)
Those who espouse the North Galatian theory normally date Galatians during Paul's third missionary journey (c. 53—57).
³⁸
A date at least as late as the second missionary journey is necessary since the letter must have been written after Paul's first visit to Galatia described in Acts 16:6 and possibly the second visit described in Acts 18:23 (depending on how one treats Gal 4:13). Some interpreters argue from the use of the word
quickly
in Gal 1:6 that Galatians was written soon after the Acts 18:23 visit and probably during the early stages of Paul's
three-year ministry in Ephesus. J. B. Lightfoot argued that similarities between Galatians, Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthian suggest that they were written in the same period of the apostle's life. He argued that one could trace the development of an increasingly sober and mature response to Jewish legalism through 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. This development placed the authorship of Galatians between 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans. Thus Paul wrote Galatians from Macedonia or Achaia in late 57 or early 58.
³⁹

Evidence for an Early Date (South Galatian Theory)
Paul lists two visits to Jerusalem in the first two chapters of Galatians. The visit mentioned in Gal 1:18 corresponds with Acts 9:26. The visit described in Gal 2:1—10 could correspond either with Acts 11:28-30 or Acts 15:1-20. If Gal 2:1-10 corresponds with Acts 11:28-30, then the letter was written before the Jerusalem Council. If Gal 2:1-10 corresponds with Acts 15:1-20, Galatians was written after the Jerusalem Council.

Post-Jerusalem Council Date
Some who espouse the South Galatian theory identify the Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1—10 with the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:1—20. If this is so, the date of composition for Galatians is likely sometime between the years 50 and 57.Scholars appeal to several pieces of evidence to support this equation.