See, further, Acts of the Apostles, II. 2 (b).
(6) Galatians mid Romans. — 'Almost every thought and argument in the Epistle to the Gala- tians may be matched from the other Epistle ' (sc. Rom. [Lightfoot, Gal.^, p. 45]). A detailed com- parison of the parallel passages shows that this agreement exists not only in general ideas, but also in unusual turns of exjjressiou and argument such as would not arise inevitably from the nature of the subject [ib.]. More or less consciously the writer must have had the one Epistle in mind when he wrote the other, and there can be no doubt as to which is the earlier f of the two. 'The Epistle to the Galatians stands in relation to the Eoman letter, as the rough model to the finished statue ' (ib. p. 49). Yet it cannot be argued from the close connexion between the two Epistles that they must have been written about the same time. Even after the lapse of several years, it would be quite natural for a writer returning to an old topic to slip into the old arguments and the old expressions.
(c) Galatians and St. James. — The subject of ' faith and works ' is treated in the Epistle of St. James (2»-2C). The same OT illustration (Gn 15^) is used as in Gal., but the conclusion— ' faith is vain apart from works' (2-")— seems to be a direct contradiction of St. Paul's teaching. Yet the con- tradiction is only apparent, for the two writers use the terms ' faith ' and ' works ' in totally different senses. To St. James 'faith' means intellectual assent to a proposition (2^8), ' works ' are the mani- fold Christian virtues. To St. Paul 'M-orks' are acts of obedience to the Law considered as the ground of salvation, ' faith ' is a personal relation to Christ. The statement that ' faith is made com- plete by works ' (Ja 2--) is almost exactly equiva- lent to the assertion, 'by the hearing of faitli ye received the Spirit . . . the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,' etc. (Gal 3- 5").
5. The locality of the Galatian churches.— The question of the identity of tiie Galatian Christians is the centre of a fierce controversy. The point at issue is the meaning of 'Galatia' in 1^ (1 Co 16'). Two rival theories hold the field :
(1) The North Galatian theory — i.e. that 'Galatia' means the old kingdom of Galatia, the region in- habited by the descendants of the Gauls who settled
• This difficulty would disappear if we could accept as original the ' Western ' text of Ac 1529, which by oniittiii;; the words Ka\ nviKrCiv transforms the ' food law ' into a ' moral law ' (see K. Lake, op. cit. p. 48 ff.)-
t The only modern scholar of repute who places Romans before Galatians is C. Clemen (Chronol. der paulin. Briefe. Halle, 1S93). '' '
in Asia Minor in the 3rd cent. B.C. (see Lightfoot, Salmon, Chase, Jiilicher, Schmiedel, etc.).
(2) The South Galatian theory — i.e. that ' Galatia ' signifies the larger Roman province of that name, which included, together with Galatia proper, those portions of the old kingdoms of Phrygia and Lycaonia in which lay Antioch, Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. The Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the Christian conmiunities of these cities (see Ramsay, Zahn, Rendall, Bartlet, Bacon, Askwith, Lake, etc.).
In itself either meaning of ' Galatia ' is admissible. Which one is intended by St. Paul must be decided by the internal evidence of the Epistle itself, and the information supplied by the account given in Acts of St. Paul's travels.
(a) Evidence of Acts. — The Apostle undoubtedly visited the cities of S. Galatia more than once (Ac 13. 14. 16). Have we any grounds for supposing that he ever visited Galatia proper? This is the first question to be faced. The only evidence for such a visit is derived from two phrases of doubtful meaning, which occur in the narrative of the second and third missionary journeys (Ac 16^ 18^).
(a) The meaning of rriv ^pvyiau Kai Ta\aTiK7]i> X w /) a V ( Acl6^). — The crucial point is the exact signi- ficance of Ac 16®. The preceding verses tell how the Apostle passed through Syria and Cilicia (15''^) to Derbe and Lystra (16'). Thence, it seems to be implied, he went on to Iconium (16-^-)- His next undisputed stopping-place was somewhere on the borders of Bithynia 'over against Mysia.' The route by which he travelled thither is concealed in the words, dirjXdov di rrjv <^pvylav /cat TaXaTiKrjv Xi^po.v, KCiAvdevres vwb rod aylov Trvev/j-aros XaXijaai rbv Xayov iv rfi 'Aaig.. What is the district described as TTjv ^pvylav Kal TaXaTtKr]v xoJpai' ?
(i.) It is argued that the participle KwXvdivres must be retrospective. The missionaries went through rrjv ^pvyiav Kal TaXariKriv x'^P"-^ because thej' had received the prohibition against preaching in Asia, and consequently ctfter they had received it. But such a prohibition was not likely to be given before they had actually entered Asia, or were on the point of doing so. It follows, therefore, that the journey through ttiv ^pvylav Kal VaXariKriv X'^po-" began only when the cities of S. Galatia Avere left behind. Since, then, the ' Galatic region ' is dis- tinguished from S. Galatia, it can onlj' be Galatia proper, ^pvyiav must be a noun (cf. Ac 2"* 18^), and the whole phrase t7]v ^pvyiav Kal TaXariKTjv X^pav must mean ' Phrygia (Asiana) and (some North) Galatic region.' The strength of this ex- planation is that it needs no serious straining of grammar or syntax. Its weakness is firstly that it involves an inconsistency : diepxfcrdai in Acts seems to have the special sense of ' making a preaching journey,' and Phrygia Asiana, where ex hypothesi such a journey was made, lay in the region where preaching was forbidden ; secondly, it gives no explanation of the absence of the article before VaXaTLK7]v x^^pav, nor any real reason for the use of TaXaTLKrji' x'^P^v instead of VaXarlav.