Foolish Galatians
The worst argument I have ever heard for the idea that Paul wrote Galatians to the North Galatians, the ethnic Galatians, rather than to the southern Roman province was this: “It would have been quite insulting – and ethnic slur – for Paul to refer to those living in the Roman province as “Galatians”. (I won’t reveal who said this, in order to spare their blushes.)
Quite apart from how certain this assertion is, I was always under the impression that “You foolish Galatians!” – Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται (Gal 3:1) was intentionally insulting, not so much because he called them Galatians, but because he called them stupid.
On a more serious note, is there anyone out there who is persuaded by the North Galatian hypothesis who can offer me a good argument for holding to it? I’d like to hear the arguments from a believer, rather than someone summarising a view they don’t hold.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Hello Doug:
Not being a “believer” (I’m undecided), I won’t summarize his argument, but you might be interested to know that Francis Watson in his recent revision and expansion of Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles provides a reasonable argument in favour of the North Galatian hypothesis (pp. 108-110).
January 16th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
It’s on my get-hold-of-a-copy (and find the time to read it) list, Nick, so thanks for the pointer. I’m still hoping there might be a blogger or commenter who is a believer, and might leave some thoughts here, or post on their own blog.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Doug,
I think the North Galatian theory is preferable. If we assume that after the Jerusalem conference (Gal 2:1-10 ~ Acts 15, though the issues decided in the apostolic decree are either unhistorical or happened later, like at Acts 18:23) and Antioch incident (Gal 2:1-14) Paul went to the region of Phrygia and Galatia (as reported in Acts 16:6 (which distinguishes these regions from the “South Galatian” places he just visited), and later wrote to the Galatians in between the writing of I & II Corinthians (Mark Goodacre makes a persuasive case for this), then the theory works fine and makes perfect sense.
The South Galatian theory raises my hackles because it derives from an agenda to save Luke’s testimony and chronology as much as possible (for instance by equating Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 11:27-30 rather than Acts 15) and thus downward dating Galatians as early as possible. There are serious problems with confining Paul’s activity to the regions of Syria and Cilicia for a 14-year period (prior to the conference, as Luke would have it), followed by Herculean accomplishments across Greece and Asia Minor during the closing years.
I’m a “believer” in the North Galatian theory (and may blog on this later), but I don’t know that I can offer what you would consider a “good argument” any more than anyone else ever has. Our conclusions must depend on how we reconstruct other aspects of Pauline chronology, because nothing in Galatians itself specifies what region Paul is “really” referring to. I agree with you that the argument about the supposed ethnic insult is ridiculous. Someone doesn’t understand the dynamic of ethnic insults in honor-shame cultures too well.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Thanks, Loren. Would it be putting it too strongly to say that this whole debate is an argument about Acts carried on in the guise of an argument about Paul? I’ll take a look at your post, see if anyone else pops up, and hopefully blog some more interaction later.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Would it be putting it too strongly to say that this whole debate is an argument about Acts carried on in the guise of an argument about Paul?
From many, yes, especially those who advocate South Galatia. But for me, it’s more about Paul. As I mention at the end of my blogpost (just posted here), the answer largely depends on appreciating that Paul failed in Galatia.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
[...] thank Loren Rosson for offering his argument in favour of the North Galatian hypothesis in response to my question. For a variety of reasons I am not persuaded. I don’t think any of these counter arguments I [...]
January 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Here are some further arguements for south Galatia:
1. Galatians seems to have been written in response to a situation in Galatia that resulted from the events in south Galatia of Acts 16:1-5. Paul circumcised Timothy and then delivered to the Galatians the decision of the elders that circumcision was not necessary. The Galatians concluded that Paul believed that circumcision was necessary (Gal 5:11), and that the only reason that he delivered the decision of the elders was that he wanted to please the Jerusalem leadership. This is why Paul responds by saying that in speaking against circumcision he is not trying to please the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 1:10); that his apostleship is independent of theirs (Gal 1:11-16); that he had preached his gospel before he had had much contact with them (Gal 1:17-24); and that their authority meant nothing to him (Gal 2:6).
2. Paul’s Acts 15 visit to Jerusalem can be dated to ~49, and his arrival in Corinth can be dated to ~51. His journey from Antioch to Corinth would have been a little rushed if he had made a diversion north to ethnic Galatia.
3. Gal 2:10 says that Paul and Barnabas were asked to remember the poor. This was probably because Judea had not recovered from the famine and was in the sabbatical year of 48/49 when agricultural productivity was low or non-existant. This urgent situation required an immediate response from Paul and he confirms that he was indeed eager (2:10). Therefore, Paul’s resonse to the request of Gal 2:10 cannot have been his collection from Achaia and Macedonia, which was delivered for the next sabbatical year, seven years later. The only collection that could have been Paul’s response to the request of Gal 2:10 was the collection from Galatia, mentioned in 1 Cor 16:1-3. The collection from Galatia was therefore probably immediately after the visit of Gal 2:1-10 (=Acts 15), and must therefore have been from south Galatia. I have argued that Titus, being a representative Gentile with Paul in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-3) was appropriately renamed “Timothy” (honouring God), and was then sent by Paul to south Galatia to organise the collection. Timothy (whether he was Titus or not) cannot have been a native of Lystra, for a number of reasons, and Luke does not say that he was. His presence in Lystra when Paul arrived is explicable if he had been sent there to organize the collection in response to the request of Gal 2:10.
4. The Jews in south Galatia seem to have been quite big on circumcision, since they required that Timothy be circumcised. It is thefore to be expected that they would put pressure on the south Galatian Christians to be circumcised too. Paul seems to have written Galatians in response to this type of pressure. South Galatia therefore fits the bill.
5. The undisputed letters mention no churches that Paul founded that are not mentioned by Luke. It cannot be proved that the Galatians fell out of communion with Paul or that Acts would for that reason not mention their existance.
By the way, it is argued that Luke refers to the single region of Phyrgian Galatia in Acts 16:6. This IS different from the region of Lycaonian Galatia, which contains the towns mentioned in Acts 16:1-3. It is the other half of SOUTH Galatia. Isn’t that how the argument goes?
Michael, why do you assume that the Gal 2:1-10=Acts 15 view is incompatible with the south Galatia theory? I hold both hypotheses and find that they have a great deal of synergy.
Richard