(;3) For the S. Galatian theory it is urged that :
(i.) The circumstances of the conversion of the Galatians (4'-'^^) correspond closely to the account of the evangelizing of S. Galatia given by Ac 13''*-14-'-. The arguments of St. Paul's sermon at Antioch in Pisidia reappear in Galatians (Ram- say, Gal., pp. 399-401).
(ii. ) The repeated mention of Barnabas (2^* ®- ^') implies that he was personally known to the readers. But Barnabas was no longer with St. Paul on his second journey.
(iii.) The reference to the circumcision of Timothy, supposed to lie behind Gal 5^', is more naturally understood if St. Paul was Avriting to Timothy's native place.
None of these arguments taken singly or com- V>ined are strong enough to bear the weight of either theory.*
(c) A priori argununts. — Zahn (Introd. to NT, i. 177), who accepts the S. Galatian view of Ac 16" 18^^, brings against the N. Galatian theory of the Epistle's destination two a, prioi'i arguments.
(a) It is not likely that the churches of N. Galatia would have been dismissed so briefly in Acts if they had been the centre of a fierce con- troversy ; nor is it probable that the important churches of S. Galatia should be left with scarcelj" a trace of their subsequent development in tlie NT.
(|3) It is strange that Judaistic teachers from Jerusalem, setting out to oppose St. Paul's in- fluence, should have passed by the cities of S. Galatia without starting any considerable anti- Pauline movement, and begun their campaign in the unimportant churches of a remote district.
The only force such arguments could have would be to strengthen a theory proved independ- ently. By themselves they have little weight.
Sitmmary. — The equal division of opinion even amongst critics of the same school suggests that the evidence is insufficient. Absolute impartiality demands an open verdict. If St. Paul did actually found churches in N. Galatia, it is the most natural — though not inevitable — conclusion that the Epistle was addressed to them. The Apostle un- doubtedly founded the churches of S. Galatia, but the arguments which have been advanced prove no more than the possibility that they were the recipients of the letter.
6. Date and place of writing.— It is generally agreed that St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans from Corinth on the eve of his departure to Jeru- salem at the close of his third missionary journey. Most scholars fix the actual date + A.D. 58. This gives the terminus ad quern for dating the Galatian Epistle (see above, i).
The terminus a quo is not so easily determined.
* Arguments which have been used, but which are now abandoned, are : (a) that the fickle temperament of Ihe Gala- tians of the Epistle points to the X. Galatians, who were partly of Celtic descent (Lightfoot) ; {h) that X. Galatia was not likely to be visited by a sick man (Gal 4^3)^ owing to the ditficulty of the journey ; (c) that the legal terms used in the Epistle would be intelligible to S. Galatians but not to X. Galatians (Ramsay).
436 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
The Epistle itself supplies but few hints. These are : («) More than fourteen — perhaps more than seventeen — years have elapsed since St. Paul's conversion, during ■which he has paid at least tAVO visits to Jerusalem (P^-2'^). (6) St. Paul has paid at least two visits to his readers before writing the Epistle (l» 5-1 4'«).
As to the place of writing, one suggestion alone is given. St. Paul implies that some reason pre- vented him from visiting Galatia when he wrote the Epistle, though he longed for a personal inter- view with his converts (4-").
(a) Date on the N. Galatian theory. — If the N. Galatian theory be accepted, the choice of dates is limited. The Epistle must have been written during St. Paul's third missionary journey, after his second visit to Galatia (Ac 18^), and before the end of his sojourn at Corinth — i.e. either (i.) while the Apostle was on his way from Galatia to Ephesus, or (ii.) during his stay at Ephesus (Ac 19'- '"), or (iii. ) during his journey through Macedonia, or (iv.) early in his stay at Corinth (Ac 20'ff).
There is little to choose between these sugges- tions. The objection brouglit against (i. ) and (ii.), that from Ephesus it would be easy to pay a visit to Galatia, is not serious. The obstacle in St. Paul's way (Gal 4^") need not necessarily have been the length of the journey. On the other hand, Lightfoot's attempt to prove by a comparison of the thought and language of the two letters that Galatians must be later than 2 Cor, cannot be regarded as convincing (Gal.^, p. 49).
(/3) On the S. Galatian theory. — Some supporters of the S. Galatian hypothesis are willing to agree with their opponents as to the date of the Epistle [e.g. Askwith, p. 99 ff.). Others avail themselves of tlie opportunity given by this theory of placing the Epistle earlier in St. Paul's career.
(i.) Ramsay suggests that it was sent from Syrian Antioch just before tlie beginning of St. Paul's third missionary journey (St. Paid the Traveller, p. 189 ft'.). A serious objection to this date is the fact that the Epistle does not suggest that St. Paul is planning a visit to Galatia, but rather the reverse (4'-").