DESTINATION
DESTINATION
During the third century B.C. some Gauls migrated to the inner plateau of Asia Minor and established a kingdom. Under Amyntas (first century B.C.) this extended to Pisidia, Lycaonia, and other places in the South, and most of these remained when, on the death of Amyntas (25 B.C.) the Romans took over and made it into the province of Galatia. The problem for us is whether the "Galatians” to which this epistle is addressed refers to ethnic Galatians in the north of the province or to the southerners of various races who were included in the Roman province. Toward the end of the third century, the southern area was detached and the province reduced to the northern sector. Traditionally "Galatia” has thus been understood of the northern area. But was this the way Paul used the term? The apostle visited the southern area on his first missionary journey (Acts 13-14), but he is never explicitly said to have visited the northern area— though many think that this is meant in Acts 16:6 and 18:23.
In favor of South Galatia, note the following ten considerations:
1. We have information about people and places Paul knew and visited in the southern region, but none at all in the North (at best Acts 16:6 and 18:23 may indicate work in the North, but neither passage says that Paul founded churches). This is in striking contrast to his work in other areas. 2 If Paul was writing to people in the North, we would expect some firm indication that he had been there at some time. It would be curious, to say the least, to have no information about churches to which such an important letter was sent.
2. The unusual expression "the region of Phrygia and Galatia” through which Paul traveled (Acts 16:6) is best understood of the area through which the apostle would go when he left Lystra and Iconium (Acts 16:2), that is, "the Phrygio-Galatic territory.” 3 Those who hold the North Galatian theory take this to mean "Phrygia and the Galatian country”: Ernst Haenchen argues that Φρυγία (Phrygia, G5867) is an adjective of two terminations and cannot qualify χώρα (chora, G6001). 4 But C. J. Hemer has shown conclusively that it has three terminations and thus may well qualify χώρα. 5 F. F.
Bruce’s careful examination yields the conclusion that the expression can mean only "the territory through which Paul and his friends passed after leaving Lystra, the territory in which Iconium and Pisidian Antioch were situated.” 6 The similar expression in Acts 18:23 seems to mean much the same.
3. Paul normally (though not invariably) uses Roman imperial names for the provinces, and "Galatians” would be the way he would refer to people in Lycaonia and
other districts. Against this are the facts that Paul’s usage is not invariable; in any case, "Galatians” would include the ethnic Gauls in the North.
4. "Galatians” was the only word available that embraced the people in all the cities: Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that the term might be used of those in the North.
5. Paul speaks of "the Galatian churches” as included among the contributors to his collection for the believers in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1), and in Acts 20:4 he lists a Berean, two Thessalonians, two South Galatians, and two Asians, who look suspiciously like the party bearing the gift. But Luke does not actually say so, and in any case there are no Corinthians in the list, so it may be incomplete.
6. The northern part of the country was not opened up like the southern area, through which a continual stream of commerce flowed. It is unlikely that Paul preached in this difficult mountainous country "because of an illness” (Gal. 4:13). A convalescent would look for a place much easier of access.
7. It is urged that it is unlikely that Paul’s Jewish opponents would have pursued him into this difficult northern country and much more likely that they would have followed him to the southern cities. But how fanatical were they?
8. The words "you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself” (Gal. 4:14) are said to be an allusion to Paul’s being welcomed as Hermes at Lystra (Acts 14:12). This is somewhat spoiled, however, by the fact that afterward the Lystrans stoned him (though this, too, is sometimes taken up into the argument with a reference in Gal. 6:17 to "the marks of Jesus” on Paul’s body). The fact that he was welcomed as an angel is also sometimes used as an argument the opposite way: Paul could not have looked much like an angel when he came to the Galatians as a sick man!
9. Ramsay, who did more than anybody to establish the southern theory, argued that the church developed along the great lines of communication, and these went through the southern parts of Galatia, not the North.7
10. Barnabas is mentioned three times (Gal. 2:1, 9, 13), which seems to mean that he was known to the readers. But he accompanied Paul only on the journey when the South Galatian churches were established. It is objected that Barnabas is mentioned in
1 Corinthians 9:6, though we have no evidence that he was ever in Corinth. We should also bear in mind that Peter is mentioned (Gal. 2:7-8), though there is no evidence that he was ever in the North. The point carries little weight.
Those who favor a reference to North Galatia have advanced at least eight reasons.
1. In the speech of the day, "Galatia” meant the place inhabited by the Gauls in the North. Against this, as we have seen, it was also used of the whole province.
2. In Acts, Antioch is called "Pisidian” (Acts 13:14), while Lystra and Derbe are cities of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6). Luke, it is said, uses such terms to denote geographic locations. Thus when he refers to "the region of Phrygia and Galatia” (Acts 16:6), we must understand him to mean geographic Phrygia and geographic Galatia—that is,
North Galatia.
3. Galatia would not be used of Phrygians and the like because it would remind them of their subjection to Rome. This, however, is scarcely valid. Paul referred to himself as a Roman citizen. In any case, "Galatia” was the only term that covered all the cities mentioned. Some have pointed out that in modern times an audience of Welsh, Scots,
and English people would be addressed as British, with none of them objecting—that is the only term that covers them all. So with ancient Galatia.
4. A similar objection is that "Paul could not possibly have addressed Lycaonians or Pisidians ‘O foolish Galatians’ (Gal. 3:1), particularly since this linguistic usage is generally not attested.” 8 But what usage is attested? As noticed in the previous section, "Galatians” was the only term available to cover all the inhabitants of the province of Galatia.
5. The fickle and superstitious character of the Galatians suits a Gallic origin. But such a description scarcely applied to Galatians only. What of the Corinthians, for example? 9
6. "The region of Phrygia and Galatia” (Acts 16:6; so also 18:23) is understood to mean "Phrygia and the Galatian region,” 10 which is taken to mean that Galatia was quite distinct from Phrygia (and presumably other districts such as Lycaonia). But as we saw have seen, the probable meaning is "the Phrygio-Galatic territory.” It does not prove a distinction.
7. Paul writes, "Later I went to Syria and Cilicia” (Gal. 1:21), on which Marxsen comments, "According to the South Galatian hypothesis he must have founded the Galatian churches at that time, but there is no mention of this.” 11 But because Syria and Cilicia were not in the province of Galatia, this is irrelevant; it appears to refer to a trip different from that on which Paul founded the churches of southern Galatia (one made in the period subsequent to Acts 9:30). 12
8. There is not the slightest hint in Galatians that Paul had experienced strong opposition when he preached in the Galatian cities. But Acts makes it clear that there was persecution in most of the cities the apostle visited.
From all this it appears that there is no final proof for either the North Galatian or the South Galatian theory. But it surely seems that, while the South Galatian theory comes short of complete demonstration, the arguments in its favor are more compelling than those for the North. 13