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

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.

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.

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).