MetaCatholic

I’d like to 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 offer here depend on the reconciliation of Acts and Galatians 2:10, nor on reconstructions of chronology around a solution to that problem.

I am not entirely convinced that Acts 16:6 distinguishes Phrygia and Galatia from the areas surrounding the named cities of Acts 16:1. It is, I think, equally possible to read it as following on and summing up what has gone before, especially if τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν is read as the surrounding countryside, in contrast to named towns. Roman Galatia and Phrygia are more or less contiguous, making it sensible to bracket them together, ethnic Galatia and Phrygia are more-or-less separated by Psidia and Pamphylia.

Generally, Paul does not seem to stray too far from the coastal regions, trade routes and major cities. Ethnic Galatia does not fit particularly well with that pattern. Ethnic Galatia seems a little too far off the beaten track, not only for Paul, but for messages and letters to travel back and forth, and for other missionaries to slip in with a different gospel.

Assuming Acts is giving a fair account of Paul’s travels in the area (and only if it is does any reference to Acts 16:6 have any force) Barnabas is excluded from the party by the time this putative visit to North Galatia may have taken place. Yet the Galatians to whom Paul writes seem to be acquainted with Barnabas, on the most natural reading of what Paul says. That would locate them in the south of the Roman province.

The argument that Paul failed with the Galatians to whom he wrote is highly speculative. Others do not see such large shifts between Galatians and Romans on the one hand, and Galatians and 1 Corinthians on the other. It is both a circular argument, since it depends on the North Galatian hypothesis which it “confirms”, and also an argument from silence. Given how much of our analysis of the situations Paul addressed is speculative reconstruction based on a mirror reading of what he did say, arguing from silence is particularly dangerous here. It is reasonable to infer things from what Paul does mention; it is far less reasonable to infer things from what he does not mention.

I remain unpersuaded: neither location, north or south, has overwhelming evidence in its favour. But there does seem to me to be rather more speculation involved in the assertion of a North Galatian destination for the letter.