Paul’s letter to the "Galatians" is topic of great interest and geographical (not theological) debate. The question is not one of doctrine but of time and place. There are essentially two arguments surrounding the issue of who and when. First, who are the Galatians that Paul addresses? Second, when did he write the letter to them? The issue of the apostle Paul’s authorship is not one of debate, but nailing down the answer to the two questions of time and place are. This paper will focus on both of these issues by presenting both sides of the argument. The all-important fact is that the questions of time and place do not have any fundamental bearing on the interpretation of the Epistle.

The general debate surrounding the epistle is whether the letter was addressed to the churches in the north part of Galatia, in which case it would have been written somewhere between A.D. 53 and 58, or the south part of Galatia, in which case it would have been written around A.D. 48. Was it written after Paul’s first missionary journey or after the third missionary journey? The evidence either way is compelling, and whatever conclusion one arrives at, it should not be taken too dogmatically because both sides of the debate present very powerful evidence.

The name Galatia is derived from the barbaric Gauls, or Celts, who settled in Asia Minor after several centuries of plundering the Greek and Roman empires. Sometime during the third century B.C. the Gauls (from France) made their way to Asia Minor and established a kingdom. Two hundred years later the kingdom extended to the areas of Pisidia and Lycaonia which were in the southern part of Asia Minor. When the Romans took over this area they annexed it as part of the province of Galatia. Under Roman rule, the original region of Galatia was made part of a larger province by the same name in central Asia Minor (modern Turkey) that encompasssed an area some 250 miles north to south and up to 175 miles from east to west. "This city was a large city whose population was made up of four elements: the natives, the Greek colony, a Jewish settlement, and a Roman colony. It was a strategic center, a busy city which served a great territory of central Asia. Thus it offered an opportunity for Paul and Barnabas to reach a wide area through their ministry there." The Roman province of Galatia included not only the northern territory, known as Galatia proper, but also portions of Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Phrygia. These cities were all situated on the south. By the third century the southern part of Galatia was detached leaving the northern territory as the sole area known as Galatia. The book of Acts in chapters 13 and 14 tells how Paul traveled to the southern part of Galatia on his first missionary journey, but there is no explicit mention of him visiting the northern part of Galatia. Some believe that Acts 16:6 and 18:23, which both give clear indications that the area being spoken of is in the North, do give evidence that he visited the north and not the South. After all, Phrygia, which is the part of Galatia being referred to in these verses, is in the North. These two views, the North and the South theories, are the two prominent views on the destination of the Epistle to the Galatians.

There are many who hold that the Epistle was written to the inhabitants who lived in the north part of Galatia. Up until the nineteenth century this view was generally universal. One of the problems with the northern theory is that virtually nothing is known of the possible recipients or of the conditions in North Galatia and its assumed churches. It would, however, be odd for the letter to have been written to the north where little is known and not to the south where information abounds. However, there is much evidence to support the "northern theory." The evidence for this belief are presented in the following nine arguments.

First, the term "Galatians" refers to the Gauls who had defeated the Phrygians and had established themselves three cities in the mountainous district: Ancyra, Tavium, and Pessinus. The common term for referring to the Gauls in the North was "Galatia." This was the everyday usage of the term. If Galatia was considered a place in the north part of Asia Minor then it was common sense to believe that was the place where the Epistle was directed.

Second, when Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, calls Antioch "Pisidian" (Acts 13:14) and Lystra and Derbe "cities of Lycaonia" (Acts 14:6) he is using such terms to denote geographic locations. It only makes sense that when he, in Acts 16:6 & 18:23, speaks of "the region of Phrygia and Galatia," it is just understood to mean geographic Phrygia and geographic Galatia -- which equates to North Galatia. So the two districts of Phrygia and Galatia show that Galatia, since it is separated from Phrygia, must be a district all its own and separate from all others. With this bit of information the evidence is strongly in favor of the fact that he founded churches there.

Third, in Acts 13-14, Luke makes no mention of Paul’s physical infirmity. This passage refers to the first missionary journey, which, according to the southern theory, is when Paul preached to the Galatians. The question is now, "Why then would Paul refer to it in Galatians 4:13?" The answer seems simple enough -- Acts 13-14 refer to the first journey in the South, while the letter to the Galatians refers to the third journey in the North.

Fourth, the character of the Galatians, being fickle and superstitious, is very typical of those with a Gallic origin. Being Celts originally, they were designated as "Galate" by the Greeks and "Galli" by the Romans. These peoples had all the character traits that Paul describes in the Epistle. This is in harmony with the fact that Paul tells them, "You are changing so quickly" (Galatians 1:6). However, as Cole points out, "The Corinthian Christians show many of the same characteristics of these "Galatians," whoever they were, and no scholar has ever tried to prove that the Corinthians were Celts." Though this argument was made popular by J.B. Lightfoot, the characteristics, which he seems to give solely to the Celts, are not of one particular people but of all men up to the present day. This could very well be the reason why Paul’s letter is so pertinent to all men today.

Fifth, in Galatians 1:21 Paul writes, "Later I went to Syria and Cilicia." Now if he established churches, namely the Galatian churches, at that time there is no mention of it. However, due to the fact that Syria and Cilicia were not in the province of Galatia, this argument appears to be unrelated. It would appear 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). Why would Paul not just say, "Then I went to Syria, Cilicia, and to you?"

Sixth, the Epistle to the Galatians gives no indication that Paul had any conflict of interest with the Jews when he preached in the Galatian cities. The Judaizers were following Paul and trying to thwart his message, but there is no indication of that here.

Seventh, most likely, Paul would not have addressed Lycaonians or Pisidians as "You foolish Galatians." Even Paul’s contemporaries made distinctions between Galatians and neighboring peoples.

Eighth, in various other passages in the New Testament Paul very often mentions an area by its regional rather than political name. This being the case, and with Galatia being in the north, then it makes perfect sense that he was speaking of the North. Paul’s words are as consistent as his post-salvation character.

Finally, it has been revealed through archaeology that there were Jewish colonists in the northern cities. This is evidenced by the tombstones which have been discovered there. The fact that Jews at one time lived there during Paul’s lifetime give positive, if not conclusive, evidence that he was in the North preaching the Word.

Therefore, to conclude the northern theory, the order of events, according to its adherents would be fourfold: 1) Paul takes his first missionary journey, 2) Paul attends the Jerusalem Council, 3) Paul takes his second missionary journey, 4) Paul writes his letter to the churches in Galatia which were in the North.

The southern theory assumes that the Galatians addressed in the letter are those groups in the south of the Roman province who had been evangelized by Paul and Barnabas on thier first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14) and revisited by Paul and Silas on their second missionary journey (Acts 15:36 -- 16:6). The Galatians would then be the converts of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Pisidian Anticoh, and other small places whose names are unrecorded. The New Testament gives convincing proofs that these cities were evangelized. There was a Jewish opposition to this evangelization (Acts 13:50; 14:19) as well as other pertinent details in the Galatian epistle that attest to this. The arguments in favor of the "south Galatian" theory are as follows.

First, in Paul’s day the name Galatia was used for the original smaller region as well as the province. On the first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas established four churches in the southern part of the province, in the cites of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13 - 14:23), and those churches apparently came to form something of a regional body of believers. The Galatian epistle is not specific in naming these churches, but it is evident they were churches in which Paul had personally ministered as seen in Galatians 4:13-15.

Second, 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." Those who hold the North Galatian view believe this to be two separate areas and phrase it "Phrygia and the Galatian territory." Dr. F.F. Bruce concludes that the expression can mean only "the territory in which Iconium and Pisidian Antioch were situated." Supporting this conclusion is the similar expression found in Acts 18:23 which appears to have the same meaning. Dr. Donald Guthrie claims that Acts 16:6 and 18:23 should read "Phrygic-Galatic" region. Obviously this makes these two words equal one place and not two. "Phrygia" works as an adjective describing "Galatia." If this is correct then it is referring to the South and not the North. Sir William Ramsay came to this conclusion in his study of the North and South theories, and this alone, according to this wording, makes it impossible for Paul to have visited the North.

Third, Paul had a normal habit of using Roman imperial names for provinces rather than using ethnic or linguistic titles which might be more exact. Thus, "Galatians" would be the logical way for him to refer to people in Lycaonia and other districts. The problem with this is that though Paul usually employs this habit he does not always do so. Whatever the case may be, the term "Galatians" would also include the ethnic Gauls in the North. The name "Galatians" was simply used as a handy common term to cover them all. This terminology certainly allows for the Epistle to be directed toward the South, although it does not give conclusive evidence. Paul’s pattern of describing churches by the districts they were in can be seen when he refers to the churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Thessalonica as Achaia, Asia, and Macedonia respectively. This being the case, it can also be assumed that Galatia meant the same thing by referring to the churches in the south. Luke, in Acts, may have used geographic locations, but there is no reason to assume that Paul did the same thing. Even when Paul did specify his locations in Galatians 1:21 as Syria and Cilicia one can assume that there is a distinction because it is here that he is tracking his specific movements.

Fourth, Paul speaks of "the Galatian churches" as included among the contributors to his collection for the believers in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1), and in Acts 20:4 he lists a Berean, two Thessalonians, two South Galatians, and two Asians, who look very much like the group bearing the gift, but Luke does not actually say so. At any rate, there isn’t a single Corinthian in the list, so it is possible that it may be incomplete.

Fifth, the northern part of the country was not nearly as accesible as the South. In the South was strong business and trade, which meant easy passage. In contrast, the North was mountainous, difficult terrain, and the climate was more contributory to malaria. It is very unlikely that Paul preached to this part of Galatia "because of an illness" (Galatians 4:13). A man in his condition would most likely look for a place that had a more conducive access. If the church developed along the great lines of communication, as Ramsay has argued, and these went through the sourthern parts of Galatia, then the North would be a non-factor. Furthermore, it appears the Judaizers were on Paul’s heels attempting to discredit all that he taught, and their trailing him into the difficult northern territory is contrary to expectation. It should also be noted that their activity is what sparked the council at Jerusalem, and that date seems firmly established as A.D. 50. With this in mind, and the fact that Paul journeyed through here on his first missionary journey, it seems likely that this is referring to the South. Sixth, since Barnabas is mentioned three times (Galatians 2:1,9,13), it appears that Paul’s audience knew who he was. If they did not then his point that "even Barnabas was led astray" makes little impact in Paul’s argument. If Barnabas was known by the recipients of the Epistle, and if Barnabas traveled with Paul on his first missionary journey, then it makes sense that Paul is speaking with the churches he and Barnabas established in the South while on their first missionary journey. The point being made by Paul is that Barnabas’ behavior would have been thought of as an atrocity by the recipients, whoever they might have been, given his known character.

Seventh, the complete scarcity of information regarding churches in the North makes no sense if the Epistle was written to them. However, it makes great sense for the Epistle to have been directed to the South given the fact that so much is known about the churches there. While it is agreed that the book of Acts allows for the possibility that Paul went into North Galatia, there remains the problem that absolutely no church or churches are mentioned there. This fact is even more compelling when one considers the fact that such an important issue arose among them that brought such a heated reprimand by Paul. Once again, the churches in the South fit much better in this case. It is also worth noting that Luke devoted considerable attention to those churches which were a part of Paul’s early ministry, and they were in the South. One would expect to have names and places if the letter was intended for the North. When one considers the fact that no North Galatian churches are mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, and that the delegates from Galatia, Gaius and Timothy, who accompanied Paul on his financial mission to Jerusalem, seem to have come from the south of the Roman province (Acts 20:4), it becomes almost conclusive.

Finally, in the Epistle Paul makes no reference to the Jerusalem Council or its momentous decision regarding the Judaizing controversy, a decision that would have given great additional weight to his argument against Judaistic legalism. Such an omission strongly suggests that the letter was written before the council convened, which was shortly after Paul’s first journey (Acts 14:24 thru 15:6) and therefore before he had opportunity to travel in northern Galatia. According to that chronology, the letter would incur an early date somewhere between A.D. 48 and 51.

Therefore, according to the southern theory, the order of events would be fourfold: First, Paul takes his first missionary journey. Second, Paul writes his letter to the Galatians. Third, Paul attends the Council in Jerusalem. Fourth, Paul takes his second missionary journey. Paul would have addressed his first letter to the churches in the South not long after his first missionary journey but just prior to attending the Jerusalem Council. The reference in Galatians 2, which the northern theory sees as a visit to the Council, is more likely a famine relief visit which is also mentioned in Acts 11:27-30.

The date of the Epistle to the Galatians is dependent upon its destination. Finding the "who" will give the reader a "when." Given the above information concerning the two theories it is obvious that the date of the letter will be disputed as highly as its destination. Both dates will be given so as to be fair to both theories.

If the Epistle was written to the churches in the South then the date will be an early date -- possibly as early as A.D. 48 to 51. In this case the letter would have been written before the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. Paul visited the churches a second time (Acts 16:1-4, Galatians 4:13) and most likely wrote the letter from Corinth while on his second missionary journey. If this is true, and if the Council of Jerusalem met around A.D. 50, then the Epistle was written around A.D. 48-49. Dr. Donald Campbell says, "Those who identify the recipients of the Epistle as the believers in the southern cities of Galatia generally consider that the epistle was written from Antioch of Syria in about A.D. 48 just before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). While some chronological problems remain with this view, it is prehaps the best of the available options." This makes perfect sense when one considers that after the first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch. At that point Peter came down from Jerusalem, stayed with them, had friendly intercourse with them, and then, true to his somewhat "wishy-washy" character, fell into error when he began to withdraw from the Gentile Christians. As a result Paul rebuked him for his hypocrisy and inconsistent behavior (Galatians 2:11). As this was going on, the Jewish false teachers (Judaizers) were invading the churches in Galatia. They spread a lie that Paul was not a true apostle and that circumcision was essential for salvation. As expected, Paul lashed back at the Judaizers and their false gospel by writing the letter to the Galatians. The last thing he wanted for the Galatians, or any of his other converts, was for them to fall into legalism. He then went to Jerusalem to the Council, and from there these problems were addressed. If Paul had already attended the Council before he wrote the Epistle it seems likely that he would have addressed that issue in the letter. Given that he did not allude to the Council in his address, and if the Council met in A.D. 50, then the date of the Epistle should be placed sometime just before A.D. 50. Dr. Merrill Unger says, "The apostle’s visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-10 is thought to be identical to that alluded to in Acts 11:30. If this is so, Galatians may have been sent from Antioch around A.D. 48, prior to Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem to attend the apostolic gathering of chapter 15. According to this theory, Galatians would be the earliest of the apostle’s letters."

For those who adhere to the North Galatian theory the date of the Epistle must be placed at a later time. If Paul was speaking to the inhabitants in the North, which he did not visit until his second journey on his way from Pisidian Antioch to Troas, the epistle could not have been written until after the outset of the second journey. Therefore, the writing came after the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, which occured before the second journey. This would then make the visit referred to in Galatians 2 the visit to the Jerusalem Council and not a famine relief visit as proposed by the southern theory. Possibly the strongest arguments for the North Galatian theory, with its late dating, are the original restrictions of the term Galatia to the northern territory and the similarity of the statements by Paul concerning justification by faith to what he says in Romans, which he certainly wrote at a later date. The date would then be somewhere between A.D. 53-56. According to Hovey, "The date may be placed without hesitation after Paul’s second visit to Galatia, on his third missionary journey (Acts 18:23), and either during his residence of more than two years in Ephesus (Acts 19: 8, 10, 22), or his visit to Macedonia and Corinth thereafter (Acts 20:1-3)." It would have been during this time that the letters to the Corinthians, Ephesians, and the Romans were written. From this argument more questions arise. "Was the Epistle to the Galatians written in the first part of his residence in Ephesus, or during his visit to Macedonia and Corinth? Was it written before the two Epistles to the Corinthains, or after them?" Following careful examination Hovey concludes that the Epistle was written early in A.D. 58, soon after his arrival in Corinth, or while he was on his way to that city. If the letter is addressed to the North then a date somewhere between A.D. 53 and 58 is feasible because Paul could not have visited there prior to his second (Acts 16:6) or third (Acts 18:23) missionary journeys.

In conclusion, the north and south theories both carry a compelling argument for the destination and date of the Epistle to the Galatians. Respected men from both sides of the debate have done extensive research which demands an unbiased approach from a novice researcher. Who were the Galatians? If one side must be chosen it would appear that the southern theory, with an early date, carries more weight. It would be an absurdity to think that Paul would write a letter to a people in the North where nothing is known of them and not to the South were so much is known due to the fact that Paul had such a close and early relation to them as seen in Acts 13 and 14. Furthermore, as Cole has stated, "All the rest of the ‘Pauline’ letters are written to churches whose early relationships with Paul are clearly spelled out in Acts: witness Thessalonians, Corinthians, Philippians, and the ‘Asian’ letters. Romans is not an exception, for even Rome finds mention in Acts as an intended place of visit, if not of initial evangelism by Paul (Acts 28:16). It would indeed be strange if the Galatians were the only exception to this general rule." The beauty of it all is that no matter what side one chooses the Epistle does not lose any of its theological value. Whether its destination be north or south, its date early or late, Paul’s message remains the same: people are justified by faith. Christian liberty abounds, and it is diametrically opposed to legalism.

Bruce, F., 1982. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Campbell, D. 1983. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. Walvoord, J. & Zuck, R. U.S.A., Canada, England: Victor Books, 588.

Carson, D.A., Moo, D.J., & Morris, L. 1992. An Introduction to the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Cole, R. 1965. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Tyndale House.

Dowley, T. 1997. Atlas of the Bible and Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Gundry, R. 1994. A Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Guthrie, D. 1961. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.

Hester, H.I. 1950. The Heart of the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press.

House, H.W. 1981. Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Hovey, A. 1890. An American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. V. Philadelphia:

The American Baptist Publication Society.

Howard, R. 1965. The Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.

Lightfoot, J.B. 1957. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

MacArthur, J. 1987. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press.

Ramsay, W. 1899. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London:

Hodder and Stoughton.

Ridderbos, H. 1953. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1957. "The Letter to the Galatians." Chicago: Moody Press, pp. 385-87.