Introduction

Paul addresses “the churches of Galatia” in Gal. 1:2. The question before us is: whom does
Paul refer and where were these churches? Should we locate them in the territory of the
former kingdom of Galatia or somewhere else in the more extensive Roman province of
Galatia (which included the former kingdom and much additional territory)? Were the
recipients of the letter to the Galatians were geographical destined or administration scene?

1. Geographical Region of Galatia

Galatia was also known as Gallia in Latin. The Celts were staying in central Europe, in the
reign called the Danube. From the Danube, they migrated to west direction into Switzerland,
South Germany, Gual, and Britain. They also migrated to the south-eastern direction and
settled in north-central Asia Minor. As they came and settled, they retained Celtic elements in
giving new names to the places as they did to Gaul. The Celtic who took south-eastern
direction invaded up to Delphi in Achaia, but in 279 BCE they were pushed out from this
reign. Nicomedes, the king of Bithynia received these people, thinking that these people
could be used against his enemies. Thus, they were threatening to the neighbouring kingdoms
until a series of defeats by Attalus I, the king of Pergamum (230 BCE). After the defeat they
were limited to the land which was formerly belonged to Phrygia and this territory was
occupied by three tribes (Tolistobogii, Trocmi, and Tectosages). Along with these three
tribes, Celtic also consisted. Galatians were overlords over the population of Phrygia. Though
they adopted Phrygians religion and culture, they did not take their language. Thus, the
Galatian language survived longer until Greek became the language of commerce and
diplomacy. Although there were several wars had happened, in 64 BCE Pompey took control
over the Galatian region.

Under the Roman government, Galatian went through expansion beyond the original
1
limit. Galatia stretched from Pontus on the Black Sea to Pamphylia on the Mediterranean,

For example, Mark Antony in 36 BCE gave Iconium, Lycaonia and Pamphylia to Amyntas who was
1

ruling Galatia. Sometime later Augustus reduced its territory and gave Eastern Lycaonia and Cilicia Tracheia to
the king of Cappadocia. Likewise in 6 BCE Paphlagonia and some areas in the north-eastern part (Pontus

1
therefore, Paul’s ‘churches of Galatia’ must have situated within these territories. The
question is where are these churches situated whether in the original Galatia (North Galatia)
or Phrygia Galatica or Lacaonia Galatica (South Galatia)? Acts 13:4–14:26 records several
places in Galatia where Paul and Barnabas ministered which includes southern Galatia—
Phrygian cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe—but
Luke does not mention theses places as Galatia. But when Luke records the second and third
missionary journey of Paul, he mentions “Phrygia and Galatia” (Acts 16:6 and 18:23).2 Thus,
Carson and Moo explain, “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.”3

2. An Overview of the Debate among Scholars

For centuries, scholars have divided on this topic. The reason is due to the simple fact that
some of the inhabitants of Gaul migrated to the inner plateau of Asia Minor and established a
kingdom during the third century BCE. which included the southern reign such as Pisidia,
Lycaonia, and Derbe. However, at the end of the third century BCE, the southern area was
detached from the north leaving only the northern sector of the Gauls to be classified as
“Galatia.” Therefore the basic question raised in among the scholars is that what did Paul
mean when he used the term Galatia? Scholars in the same publication divide themselves on
this topic. For example, Mitchell takes South Galatia view while Betz preferred north Galatia,
and Ramsey takes the south and Findlay a northern view. 4 According to the hypothesis we
choose for the study of the letter to Galatians brings a lot of changes in date, place, recipient,
etc... The Southern view will place the letter as the earliest letter of Paul, while some other
scholars of southern view argue that the letter was written in a later date. 5 But northern view
would require a later date, after the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 (around 55?).

Scholars adopted the North Galatian Hypothesis because it typically places the letter
later in Paul’s life. Robert Jewett assumes with “Lightfoot, Goguel, Schlier and others that
Paul’s letter was addressed to the North Galatian congregations.” 6 Conservative scholars such
as J. G. Machen, E. F. Harrison, and R. H. Stein and others have argued for a North Galatia
view.7 Jerusalem council of Acts 15 and Gal 2, the similarities between Galatians and
Romans are the pivotal points of northern view.

Galaticus) which was belonging to Pontus were added to Galatia.

2
F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problem: North-South Galatian?,” (Manchester: John Rylands Library, 1969),
243-47.
3
D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 458.
4
Stephen Mitchell, “Galatia,” ABD 2:870–71; Hans Dieter Betz, “Epistle to the Galatians,” ABD
2:872–75; W. M. Ramsay, “Galatia,” ISBE 2:1154-55; George G. Findlay, “Epistle to the Galatians,” ISBE
2:1159–62.
5
Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 22–31.
6
Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” in The Galatians Debate:
Contemporary Issues in the Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nano (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 2002), 335–47.
7
Timothy George, Galatians (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 38–46.

2
 The vast majority of commentators and scholars today seem to take a southern view.8
One can more easily harmonize the historical narrative in Acts with the dating and events of
Galatians. The lack of real support for the North Galatia hypothesis and the internal and
external evidence seems to favour the South Galatia Hypothesis. Some surrender the fight
and take a neutral stand that the letter is written to the churches in the entire area, north and
south.9

3. Galatians Hypothesis
3.1. North Galatian Hypothesis

Northern Galatian Hypothesis is a traditional theory of locating the Galatian churches in the
Northern part of the Galatian reign. This theory dominated until the eighteenth century. The
early church fathers did not take it seriously because they were familiar to the territorial
adjusting. Thus, the main strength of this theory was the early church fathers opinion. In the
nineteenth century, the South Galatian Hypothesis by the French scholars has questioned the
North Galatian Hypothesis.

In the third century BCE, some of the southern Galatian territories became new
provinces (Pisidian Antioch and Iconium), thus Gatatia reduced to northern Galatian. After
the defeat by Attalus 1, Galatians was geographically limited to the north-central Asia Minor.
Therefore, the theory assumes that “Galatia” refers to the original ethnic Galatians who were
located in the northern plateau of Anatolin, today’s Turkey. These ethnic Galatians were
Celts (Gaul) who invaded this area in the third century BCE. They were called “Gallo-
Graecians”.

John Calvin in his commentary on Galatian followed his forerunners in holding the
northern Galatian view. He says Paul wrote this letter before the Jerusalem council in Acts
15. He notes the reference of Jerusalem council in Gal. 2:1ff as Paul and Barnabas’s
Jerusalem visit with the famine relief (Acts 11:27–30). If this is the case then the question is
when Paul evangelized Galatians.

J. B. Lightfoot was the prominent scholar who argued for Northern Galatian Hypothesis
among many others.10 He recognized the uncertainty in the phrase “churches of Galatia” but
he rejected the possible southern places where this phrase would refer. He argued that
8
Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), 214–
16; F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 178–79; William M.
Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001), 88, 145; Richard
N. Longenecker, Galatians: Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), lxii–lxxii; David
Lipscomb, and J. W. Shepherd, “II Corinthians and Galatians,” in New Testament Commentaries (Nashville:
Gospel Advocate, 1989), 181–82; J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966), 140;
Douglas J. Moo, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 4–8; Timothy George, Galatians
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 38–46; F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems: North or South Galatians,”
BJRL 52 (1970): 243–66; Samuel Ngewa, Galatians (Nairobi, Kenya: Hippo Books, 2010), 2–3.
9
George W. DeHoff, DeHoff’s Bible Handbook (Murfreesboro: DeHoff, 1978), 263.
10
The first scholarly argument was by J. J. Schmidt in 1748 and followed by J. P. Mynster in 1825. In
the nineteenth century, ‘South Galatian Hypothesis’ became prominent by the French scholars, such as Georges
Perrot, and Ernest Renan. See in Bruce, “Galatian Problem,” 248-49.

3
churches established in the first missionary journey are not mentioned as Galatian churches in
Acts. But F. F. Bruce criticized that Luke’s usage is not necessarily Paul’s.11 He argues that
“Galatic reign” of Acts 16:6 and 18:23 refers to the original ethnic Galatians. These two visits
to the reign implied in Gal 4:13. To strengthen his argument he refers to the testimony of
classical authors of the early century (like Caesar). Since both Caesar and Galatian letter
points that Galatians (Gaul) were fickle and superstitious, Lightfoot concluded that Paul’s
recipients were also Galatians. But this argument is valid only if the other nations were not
fickle and superstitious. And Caesar was not a direct witness of Galatians. Lightfoot gives
three reasons why it is ethnic Galatians.

i) Paul and Luke dealt with places that were generally known in the first century and not
with the places in the official record of the Roman Empire. Thus, the word Galatia refers
to the ethnic race in the north Galatia and not the Roman provinces (Gal 1:2; 3:1; Acts
16:6, and 18:23).
ii) Acts 15 is mentioned in Gal 2:1–10 which was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem.
iii)According to James Moffatt, we have two visits of Paul to Galatia (16:6 and 18:23)
which is a clear indication to the places beyond Lycaonium.12

If Paul was writing to the Galatians in the north then the date of this letter would be
much later (around mid 50s) because Luke records the Galatian reign during Paul’s second
missionary Journey with Timothy and Silas. Luke does not identify Phrygian cities of
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe as Galatian reign (Acts 13–
14). Therefore, Paul would have established the churches of Galatia only after the Jerusalem
council.

3.2. South Galatian Hypothesis

W. M. Ramsay, through his several books, argued against the North Galatian Hypothesis. 13
This theory was scholarly established by Ramsay. In an early stage, he favoured Lightfoot’s
arguments and North Galatian Hypothesis until he found clear evidence for the South
Galatian Hypothesis. He studied the geographical history, archaeology, nature of the people,
and classical literature of the central Asia Minor. All the places became Roman provinces by
25 BCE (especially Phrygian cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lycaonian cities of Lystra
and Derbe) and these places were called Galatia and the people there were also called as
Galatians and regarded as Romans. Therefore, the whole system of Asian Minor in the first
century Roman Empire, it was administration and communications. Since those places were
part of Roman province of Galatia, Paul and Barnabas in the first missionary journey
established the churches and the letter to Galatian was written to those churches in Roman
province of Galatia before or during Jerusalem council (Acts 15 Jerusalem council occurred
in 48-49 CE). Therefore, interestingly Galatians could be the first letter of Paul in the New
Testament.

J. B. Lightfoot, Galatian (London: n.p., 1890), 19ff, cited in Bruce, “Galatian Problem,” 249.
11

Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians: Word Biblical Commentary (Texas: Word Books, 1990), Ixii.
12

13
The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890); A Historical
Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians (1899).

4
Following points are the reasons to support the South Galatian Hypothesis:

i) Traditional theory defined “Galatia” as ethnic, but this theory defines it as

administrative. Paul often used Roman provincial names (cf. 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:1;
8:1, etc.). The Roman province of “Galatia” was a larger area than only ethnic
“Galatia.” These ethnic Celts supported the Roman government and were rewarded
with local autonomy and expanded territorial authority. Therefore, Paul’s first
missionary journey to this large area of “Galatia,” i.e. the southern cities of Antioch in
Pisidia, Lystra, Derbe and Iconium, recorded in Acts 13–14, is the location of these
churches of Galatia.
ii) Galatians were familiar with the Jews religion than the north Galatians.
iii) Acts 13, 14 and 16 we see a great response to the Gospel where ever Paul spoke, but do
not see that in Acts 16:6–18:23.
iv) In the letter to Galatian, Paul talks about Barnabas as someone very close to Galatians.
v) 1 Corin. 16:1 says Paul was doing fund-raising from the churches of Galatia for the
saints in Jerusalem. Acts 20:4 mentions a list of Paul’s companions from different
areas, except north Galatian. If we consider Gaius from Derbe and Timothy from Lystra
(Acts 20:4) was the representatives of south Galatian churches, it supports the South
Galatian Hypothesis.
vi) There is no mention of Paul’s travelling companions in the letter but Barnabas is
mentioned three times (cf. Gal. 2:1, 9, and 13) who was familiar to the south Galatians
and not to north Galatians. This fits the first missionary journey of Paul.
vii) Gal 2:1–5 recodes that Titus was not circumcised (talking about first missionary
journey). This fits best before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.
viii) The mention of Peter (Gal. 2:11-14) and the problem of fellowship with Gentiles fits
best before the Jerusalem Council.14

Ramsay based his arguments on the historical geography and Paul’s concentration on
the main roads and centres of communication in the Roman provinces. He argues that there
were two main lines of roads and none of those main roads led to the ethnic Galatians. 15 On
the contrary, James Moffatt with P. W. Schmiedel questions Ramsay’s arguments, “did Paul
always follows main roads and evangelize principle centres of communication? Then what
led him to Lystra and Derbe?”16 Why didn’t he go to Ancyra in the north Galatia one of the
civilized and rich Roman city? Those who take the interpretation of Acts seriously would say
“Galatic region” is ethnic Galatians, as against Ramsay’s view that the “Phrygian and Galatic
region” of Acts 16:6 is Phrygia Galatia 17 and “Galatic region” of Acts 18:23 Lycaonia
Galatia.

R. H. Grant says that acts does not assist us in locating Galatian churches, but suggests
that the Spirit prohibition may be a theological expression of Paul’s illness, which according
14
Bruce, “Galatian Problem,” 252-53.
15
“One following the land route by Philadelphia to Troas, and so across to Philippi and the Egnatian
Way, and the other leading north from the Cilician Gates by Tyana and Cappadocian Caesarea to Amisos on the
Black Sea.” See Bruce, “Galatian Problem,” 253.
16
Bruce, “Galatian Problem,” 254.
17
Strabo’s Phrygia is towards Pisidia.

5
to Galatian 4:1, occasioned Paul’s first visit to Galatia. Therefore, he concludes that Paul
wrote to a community near Syria who spoke Lycaonian (Acts 14:11). However, if we record
the journey of Acts 15:41–16:8 on the map, his conclusion is highly questioned. This
argument is no longer probable before Ramsay’s suggestion. He says that Paul went up from
the Pamphylian Coast to the highlands of Pisidian Antioch—which is 3600 feet above the sea
level—because of an attack of malaria (which he identified with the “thorn in the flesh” of 2
Corin. 12:7).18

Willi Marxsen also raised three arguments against the South Galatian Hypothesis.
Firstly, Paul “normally” uses the name of the Roman provinces and not “always”. Secondly,
Gal. 1:21 (then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia) as the parallel to the first
missionary journey of Paul in Acts, but this is not mentioned in Acts. Thirdly, Paul’s
addressing “O foolish Galatians” was a racial term and it was not used to address the
inhabitants of Roman Provinces like Pisidia and Lycaonia.

In the recent year, there has been a correlation between south Galatian esteemed
historical reliability of Acts and north Galatian sceptical to Acts. This was done by R. H.
Fuller. He says south Galatians Hypothesis is acceptable but with the less historical value of
acts. He does not want to make Galatians as the first letter of Paul because Paul had visited
Galatian churches twice before he wrote the letter. Acts 16:1–6 was Paul’s first visit and
18:23 second visit to the Galatian churches. Thus, the date of the letter would be around
Paul’s Ephesian ministry.19

4. North or South: Does it Matters?

One may ask, why all the scholars bother over the location of the Galatian churches. What
difference does it make? The main reason why the location of the Galatian churches is
important because, the location of the recipients to which Paul addressed in this epistle would
affect the date of the epistle composition. If the Northern Hypothesis holds true, the writing
of the book takes place after the Council of Jerusalem, but if the Southern hypothesis holds
true, then the writing of the book takes place before the Council of Jerusalem.20

Conclusion

According to the biblical evidence apart from the external factors, the most natural
conclusion would be to adopt the South Galatian Hypothesis. For instance, according to the
biblical evidence, Carson and Moo make the following observation, “We have information
about people and places Paul knew and visited in the southern region, but none at all in the

18
Bruce, “Galatian Problem,” 260-61.
19
Bruce, “Galatian Problem,” 261-62, 265-66.
20
Thomas D. Lea and David Allen Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd ed.
(Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic, 2003), 370.

6
north (though Acts 16:6 and 18:23 may indicate work in the north, however, neither passage
says that Paul founded churches there).”21 The Northern hypothesis is based primarily on a
particular geographical understanding of two passages (i.e., Acts 16:6 and 18:23); it brings
very little real evidence to the argument to substantiate Northern Galatian Hypothesis.
Ramsay, who is probably the most indisputable defender of the Southern hypothesis, argued
that “the church developed along the great lines of communication, and these went through
the southern parts of Galatia, not the north.” 22 As the paper concludes, I agree to the South
Galatian Hypothesis because of its arguments that well settles with the biblical accounts.

Bibliography

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966.

Bruce, F. F. “Galatian Problem: North-South Galatian.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
52 (1970): 243–66.

_____. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
21
D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 458.
22
Lea and Black, The New Testament, 367.

7
Carson, D. A. and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd edition. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

DeHoff, George W. DeHoff’s Bible Handbook. Murfreesboro: DeHoff, 1978.

George, Timothy. Galatians. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Jewett, Robert. “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation.” In The Galatians Debate:
Contemporary Issues in the Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Edited by Mark
D. Nano. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2002.

Lea, Thomas D. and David Allen Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message,
2nd edition. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic, 2003.

Lightfoot, J. B. Galatian. London: n.p., 1890.

Lipscomb, David. and J. W. Shepherd, “II Corinthians and Galatians.” In New Testament
Commentaries. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1989

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians: Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians: Word Biblical Commentary. Texas: Word Books, 1990.

Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Ngewa, Samuel. Galatians. Nairobi, Kenya: Hippo Books, 2010.

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2001.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1943.