The student that is interested in dating the Epistle to the Galatians will undoubtedly be quite baffled turning to recent commentaries written on the epistle. Scholars are divided as to who the original intended audience was and in turn the dating of the epistle leaves many scratching their heads. The major difficulty in dating the epistle is that there is no internal evidence in the letter itself to settle the debate. Without the internal evidence the student of Scripture is then left with moving the attention to the historical record that Luke writes in Acts, word studies, and geographical studies. Until the nineteenth century the theory of the Galatia audience as northern[1] and a later dating held strong. However, most modern English speaking modern day evangelical scholars favor the audience as the southern region of Galatia. This work will attempt to show, relying mainly on Scripture, support for the audience known as “the churches of Galatia”[2] as churches in the southern region of Galatia and therefore argue for a dating of 48 A.D.[3]
The Regions of Galatia
In an attempt to identify who the Galatians are one must determine where these churches were. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians he identifies them as being in Galatia (Galatians 1:2) and also identifies as the ethnic group being Galatians (Galatians 3:1). The term Galatia and its roots are defined by F.F. Bruce:
The Greek word Galatai is a variant form of Keltai or Keltoi, ‘Celts’. When we first meet the Celts, they are residents in Central Europe, in the Danube basin…from Danube basin they migrated in a westerly direction into Switzerland, South Germany and North Italy, and then into Gaul and Britain; they also migrated in a south-easterly direction and settled in North-Central Asia Minor, giving their name to their new homeland as they also did to Gaul (Greek Galatia).[4]
In about 278 B.C. the King of Bithynia gave these people invitation into Asia Minor via Hellespont. Approximately 40 years later the King of Pergamum, after a series of battles, confined them to fixed boundaries – the former Phrygia. In 190 B.C. the Galatians had a weak coalition with the Seleucids which caught the attention of the Romans.
The Galatians were allowed to retain their independence on their pledge to not fight against the Romans.[5] The Galatians did not lose sight of the benefits and wisdom of being on good terms with the Romans. By 36 B.C. Mark Antony had given to Galatia Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia (12 B.C.).[6] The significance at this point should be noted in favor of the South Galatian theory that these are regions Luke says Paul and Barnabas visited on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13; 14:6). As it has been noted, the regions of Galatia originally were situated in the area that would be considered North Galatia. By New Testament times “Provincia Galatia stretched (east to west) from Pontus on the Black Sea to Pamphylia on the Mediterranean”[7] and from Bithynia and Paphlagonia to the north; Cappadocia and Lycaonia to the south.[8] Theoretically Paul’s “churches of Galatia” could have been situated anywhere within these limits. At this point enough is said (there will be more reference to geography in this work) about the region of Galatia.
The Assumption of the North Galatia Theory
As mentioned above the choice of audience when one reads “to the churches of Galatia” is either the people in the northern region of Galatia or those in the southern region of Galatia. The north Galatia theory holds that Paul visited the geographic area of Galatia in the north and established churches there. This would have had to take place “on Paul’s second missionary journey after he left the southern Galatia region and before he came to Troas (Acts 16:6-8).”[9] That is not the only visit however; another is mentioned in Acts 18:23. The northern Galatia theory went unchallenged until the eighteenth century.[10] This position was held even in the patristic day. D. Edmund Hiebert gives some pertinent information:
In the second century (AD 137) Lycaonia Galatica was detached and untied with Cilicia and Isaurica to form an enlarged province of Cilicia, and late in the third century (297) the remainder of South Galatia with some adjoin territories became a new province of Pisidia, with Pisidian Antioch as its capital and Iconium as its second city. The province of Galatia was thus reduced to North Galatia, and when the church fathers, in their study of our epistle, read of ‘the churches of Galatia’, they understood Galatia without more ado in the sense familiar in their day.[11]
If the argument hinges on this however, it ignores how quickly things changed in the time in which the letter was written.
In analyzing the northern Galatia hypothesis, Bruce notes that Jerome said that “the Galatians were thus called because of the whiteness of their skin”[12] as though their name was derived from Greek gala which is milk. Several in the early church wrote that the Galatians in the north were “unteachable”[13] and even Jerome said “no wonder the Galatians were called foolish and slow of understanding”.[14] Paul did call them that very thing – “You foolish Galatians…(Gal. 3:1)”; but to say that the unteachable and foolish people were limited to only the northern region of Galatia misses the point of the universality of foolishness and lack of teachability on the part of people in general.
In keeping with many of his predecessors John Calvin held to a north Galatia view. Confusingly though, he held that the letter was written before the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 and even identified Galatians 2 with Acts 11:30 (the famine visits).[15] This work will attempt to reconcile Acts and Galatians, but to hold what Calvin did; the student is left to speculate when Paul and Barnabas evangelized the north. Lightfoot in his monumental commentary on Galatians held to the northern view. He did recognize the vagueness in the phrase “churches of Galatia” but “rejected the view that they were churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe in favor of…Ancyra, Pessinus and Tavium.”[16] His argument is rather simple in that Acts does not say specifically “Galatian churches” with regard to Paul and Barnabas first missionary journey. He preferred the “Galatic region” of Acts 16:6 and 18:23. The heaviest of influence on Lightfoot however, seems to be that of an extra-biblical source that said “the fickleness of the Gaul’s makes the recipients Galatians in the northern region”.[17] That is simply too much impact on the determining factor from an extra-biblical source which is unusual for a scholar such as Lightfoot.
The Assumption of the South Galatian Theory
This theory took flight on the wings of Sir William Ramsey in about 1890[18] and is the one that holds up best in light of Scripture. There is no mention of churches being established in the northern region of Galatia. The writer agrees that there is no mention in Scripture specifically stating there were churches established in Galatia per se historically, however the best fit (without forcing any presuppositions into Scripture) are those cities mentioned in Acts 13 and 14 – Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Anticoch. These are cities in the southern region of Galatia and are the cities Paul and Barnabas visited on their first missionary journey according to Scripture. As one can see in the map below, the cities mentioned in Acts 13 and 14 are located in the southern part of Galatia. The northern region of Galatia is bordered by Bithynia.
Many of the arguments on both sides (north and south) are speculative. Those that hold today to the northern hypothesis, even in light of much modern scholarship in favor of the southern, still hold that the northern hypothesis is “the most probable”[21]. One of the arguments from modern scholarship, which is rather convincing, is that of “main roads”. In his commentary on Galatians, Ronald Fung makes two helpful suggestions regarding “the roads” consideration. First, “what is known of the geographical situation at the time (is that) none of the main roads in Asia Minor even passed through Northern Galatia, so that had Paul wanted to go to preach the gospel there he would not have set out from Lystra (Acts 16:1, 6).”[22] Throughout Paul’s journey’s he seems to prefer for the most part, to stay on the main roads and evangelize cities which would have the greatest impact (port cities; high commerce etc.). Fung goes on to mention secondly, that “it is obvious from Acts that Paul consistently concentrated his efforts on the main roads and centers of communication in the Roman Empire.”[23] It was not until the end of the third century that the northern region of Galatia began to develop more than the southern region.
Reconciling Acts and Galatians
There would be little debate over what is the outstanding problem of reconciling Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. The problem is how Galatians 2:1-10 relates to Luke’s historical account of Acts. Stanley Toussaint asks the big question: Which of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem recorded in Acts is discussed in Galatians two?[24] To reconcile the Acts records and Galatians 2 there are only two possibilities. Galatians two can only be referring to Paul’s second visit (famine visit) or his third visit (Jerusalem council) to Jerusalem.
How many visits does Acts record of Paul to Jerusalem? According to the record of Luke, Paul went to Jerusalem five times after his conversion on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-6). After his conversion Paul continued on to Damascus. He was met by Ananias there, was baptized, and “he preached Christ in the synagogues (9:20)” there. Then there appears to be a lapse of a period of time between Acts 9:22 and 23; “and after that many days were fulfilled”. This seems to coincide with Galatians 1:18 where Paul writes that he “went away to Arabia for three years and then went back to Damascus” and then went back to Jerusalem. This is his first visit to Jerusalem. The writer then concludes that Acts 9:26-30 corresponds clearly with Galatians 1:18-20. The second trip was the famine visit which Luke records in Acts 11:27-30 and 12:25. The third visit to Jerusalem recorded by Luke is the trip for the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15:1-30. The fourth visit followed the second missionary journey which Barnabas did not accompany him (Acts 18:22) – “and after he landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church and (then) went down to Antioch.” Some may disagree that this is a visit to Jerusalem, however “the going up and going down refer to going to and leaving Jerusalem’s higher elevation.”[25] The fifth and final visit to Jerusalem by Paul is the one that brought about his imprisonment (Acts 21:15-23:35).
The Jerusalem Council and Galatians Two
The view that Galatians two is referring to the Jerusalem Council cannot be easily dismissed. Many competent scholars[26] and godly men have held and do still hold to this view. One of the strongest argument in favor are “the issues which are discussed are the same in both passages…the question revolves around the necessity of circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic Law.”[27] Also, Jerusalem and Antioch are considered in both passages. Galatians 2:4 mentions “false brethren” which can fit well with the “some men that came down” of Acts 15:1. According to Toussaint, some even argue from the similarities of Galatians and Romans that the two were written at the same time. The lack of space allotted in this work, although there are other arguments in favor of this view, these few will suffice.
There are several suggestions in favor of Galatians 2 being the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15; there are also many objections. First and foremost the absence of the official pronouncement of the church council would be quite curious to say the least. S. Lewis Johnson says well that “although Paul’s reliance on the council’s decision would subject himself to human authority, Acts 15:30-16:5 indicates Paul did use the decrees of the council…in the face of opposition from the Judaizers.”[28] It should be noted that adherents to the Acts 15 and Galatians 2 view respond saying that Paul does not mention the famine visit in Galatians. This is a good point, however, if Galatians 2 refers to the council and 1:18-20 refers to Paul’s first visit, then Paul purposely leaves out his second visit to Jerusalem. The omission objection is answered by saying that Paul did not see any apostles in the famine visit and he only saw elders.
This is an assumption that is difficult to prove…in Acts 8:1 during a time of persecution, all were scattered except the apostles. In fact, Acts 12:17 strongly implies James and the brethren were in Jerusalem at the time of the persecution and Peter certainly was. How then do we account for the lack of mention of apostles in Acts 11:30? It was simply a matter of responsibility…the work of distributing funds was not that of the apostles (Acts 6:2-4)…Acts 11:30 does not say Paul saw no apostles…to say, therefore, that Paul omits any reference to the famine visit in Galatians tends to make his defense in Galatians 1:17-2:10 rather inaccurate.[29]
The Famine Visit and Galatians Two
In Galatians it appears that Paul is stating in chronological order his contacts with Jerusalem. He begins with his first trip after his conversion. Naturally the famine visit, his second trip to Jerusalem would follow in Galatians 2. Textually one can see that Barnabas went with his (2:1). This would have been either the second or fourth trip. With textual consideration one also can note that he went to Jerusalem by revelation (2:2). This revelation appears to fit very comfortably with Agabus revelation recorded in Acts 11:27-30. The council trip would seem to be by invitation rather than revelation.
It must be acknowledged, however, that Paul also could have gone to Jerusalem by revelation but Luke does not mention this fact. In Acts 9:29-30, Luke states Paul fled from Jerusalem because his opponents were seeking his life. Nothing is said of revelation. However, Paul in Acts 22:17-21 testifies that he left Jerusalem because of a vision. It is therefore possible for Luke to have omitted any reference to a special revelation in Acts 15. Nevertheless the prominence given to revelation in both Acts 11:27-28 and Galatians 2:2 argue for their identification.[30]
It would then seem that if he were called to Jerusalem by revelation in Acts 15 that there would have been some mention of this by Luke as he does it on other occasions.
Two other things to be noted with the southern Galatia view presupposed. First, in rebuttal to those that hold Galatians 4:13, “but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time”, indicates a two trips to Galatia before he wrote the letter. Paul is simply restating (retracing) his first journey. Fung would agree, “they could be identified as…the initial visit on the first missionary journey when Paul moved eastward from Pisidian Antioch to Derbe…even a strict interpretation…does not require the conclusion that Galatians was written after the visit of Acts 16:6.”[31] Secondly it would seem natural to assume that the timing aspect Paul notes in Galatians would be from the time of his conversion. This would have been the great turning point in his life, that not only Paul, but all who have been born again would measure things. This assumption makes the timing no problem in the letter.
Conclusion
In summary it seems best to say the chronological order that would be found in Galatians and substantiated by Luke in Acts would be: (1) Paul and Barnabas are dispatched by the Antioch church to Jerusalem to bring relief during the famine; (2) from this trip the two return to Antioch where; (3) they are sent out by that church on their first missionary journey; (4) where they make their way through the southern region of Galatia and establish churches; (5) somewhere on the way back to or in Antioch they receive word that Judaizers are working false doctrine in the churches of Galatia; (6) Paul immediately responds by writing to the church in Galatia.
The silence in the book of Act’s regarding any cities in the north Galatia region is rather compelling. When viewed alongside Luke’s mention of churches in south Galatia it becomes difficult to explain anything other than “the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2)” being churches in the southern region of Galatia. Holding to this view, which Scripture supports, one would then naturally advocate for a date of the writing of the Epistle to the Galatians as being closest to 48 or early 49 AD[32] and that it is Paul’s first epistle. This, along with what has been mentioned above, and not even a hint of the conclusion reached at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, the writer takes the position that the recipients of the letter were the churches of South Galatia – the churches in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe.
[1] There are some good arguments for the northern Galatia theory, but this writer will attempt to show from Scripture that the southern Galatia theory is the strongest.
[2] Galatians 1:2
[3] It is difficult for one to be strict in the 48 AD dating so it should be noted the date is a “give or take” 6 months or so.
[4] Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 3. Some Scholars such as Livy and Strabo give Galatia the alternative name Gallograecia – the land of the Greek speaking Gauls.
[5] Information gathered from various sources noted in the bibliography.
[6] Witherington, Ben. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 7.
[7] Bruce, 8.
[8] Witherington, 2.
[9] Campbell, Donald K. ed. Walvoord and Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Colorado Springs: Cook, 1983), 588.
[10] Johnson, Lewis S. The Great Emancipation. EMJ 9:2 (Winter 2000). Bruce and others agree.
[11] Hiebert, Edmund D. Designation of the Readers of Galatians. Bibliotheca Sacra 135:171, (Jan 1980).
[12] Bruce, Galatians, 6.
[13] Ibid., 7-9.
[14] Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 23.
[15] Calvin, John. Calvin Commentaries: Galatians and Ephesians, (Forgotten Books, 1999), 24.
[16] Bruce, Galatians, 7.
[17] Lightfoot, J.B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 16-19.
[18] Most scholars agree with this assumption. Each of those mentioned in this works bibliography.
[19] Map obtained from www.bible.org. (accessed 5 April 2011).
[20] The first missionary journey is recorded in Acts 13:13-14:28.
[21] Bruce, 8-9. He mentions Betz as one of “the spokes-persons of the northern view”.
[22] Fung, Ronald K. The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 2.
[23] Ibid, 2-3.
[24] Toussaint, Stanley D. The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10. Bibliotheca Sacra, 10:480 (Oct 1963).
[25] Toussaint, Stanley. Bible Knowledge Commentary: Acts Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Cook, 1983), 408.
[26] To mention a few: W.E. Vine, J. Machen, R. Rackham, H. Ridderbos.
[27] Toussaint, The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10, 1.
[28] Johnson, The Great Emancipation.
[29] Toussaint, The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2.
[30] Bruce, F.F. Paul and Jerusalem. Tyndale Bulletin 19:1. (1968).
[31] Fung, Galatians, 197.
[32] If the three years mentioned in Gal. 1:18 is added to the 14 years of Gal. 2:1, the famine visit would have taken place about 15 years after Paul’s conversion – keeping in mind the ancient method of fractional counting.
