1. The Identity of the Galatians
3. Authorship, Date and Place of Writing
4. The Epistolary and Rhetorical Structure of Galatians
The book of Galatians stands out in Christian history—and thus in the history of the Western world—as of major importance. This little book (149 verses) helped to launch the Protestant Reformation, as in it was rediscovered by Martin Luther and others the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. As a result of its message and its influence, it has been called “the Magna Carta of Christian Liberty,” and this expression sums up well the theme of the book.
In Galatians Paul confronts “another gospel,” an alternative interpretation of the significance of the person, word, and work of Jesus Christ. Those objecting to Paul and his gospel worked to undermine his message of salvation in Jesus Christ by demanding that converts to Messiah Jesus must also become “practical Jews” (cf. Ac 15:1, 5); that is, in addition to, or as an expression of, faith in Jesus, converts must also maintain the ritual expression of the Jewish faith consisting of the “works of the law.”1 For Paul, the “gospel” is the good news that God has intervened in and through the person, word, and work of Jesus Christ by means of his death, burial, and resurrection, to undo the damage done to humanity and the cosmos through human sinfulness (cf. 1Co 15:3–4). For Paul’s opponents, this definition apparently was not enough. Their “gospel” also included a form of Jewish identity for soteriological priority. This perversion of the freedom believers have in Jesus threatened Paul’s Galatian converts, as these “missionaries” who opposed Paul’s “Jesus-only” message caused confusion and consternation among them. Evidently, many of the Galatians were being swayed to turn from Paul’s gospel and follow after these “Judaizers” (cf. 2:15). The book of Galatians is Paul’s answer to this threat, which bristles throughout with rhetorical flourish.2 The polemical thrust of his writing is intended to eviscerate the opponents’ message and move his beloved Galatian converts back to the truth of the gospel message.
The church of Jesus Christ needs the message of Galatians now as much as perhaps any time in its history. Alternative gospels abound within the realm of Christendom. Western Christianity in particular is at times shallow and individualistic, cast in terms that are more anthropocentric, existential, and serendipitous than being explained biblically in terms of self-denial and taking up one’s cross.
The simplicity of the truth of the person, word, and work of Jesus Christ is today under siege in various places and in diverse ways. The premise of Galatians—salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ—must be reclaimed as the church’s indispensable bedrock on which to stand and to build.
To whom was this epistle written? This question arises due to the fact that at the time Paul wrote there were two uses of the term “Galatians.” Ethnic Galatians (Lat., Galli; Gr. Galatia),3 were descended from Celtic peoples who had migrated south into North-Central Asia Minor and gave their name to their new territorial home, as they had earlier to Gaul. They continued to expand their influence and their kingdom, augmenting their territory southward in the second century BC. As the Romans increased their power and influence in the region, the Galatians worked to maintain good relations with Rome, and eventually the expanded kingdom was reorganized as a Roman province by Augustus in 25 BC.4 As a result, “Galatia” came to represent the political region that now included areas that had never been ethnically Galatian and stretched all the way south to the Mediterranean Sea.5 Thus, the term “Galatia” might refer to Celtic peoples of northern Asia Minor (the ethnic use of the term) or to the Roman province of Galatia (the political use). Did Paul write this circular letter expressly to churches made up of ethnic Galatians (the “North Galatian” hypothesis) or more broadly to political Galatians (the “South Galatian” hypothesis)?
For much of the early history of the church, the North Galatian view held sway, partly due to the fact that early in the second century AD, the Roman province of Galatia began to be diminished until it entailed little more than the original territory of the ethnic Galatians. It was natural, then, for the early church to understand “Galatia” in terms of its own day, and little was made of the question of the identity of the Galatians until the eighteenth century.6 Throughout the major period of the history of Christianity, then, the view that Paul wrote to the North Galatians has been the “default” position. Many modern interpreters continue to understand the letter on this basis.
Probably the most persuasive proponent of this view in the modern period has been J. B. Lightfoot, who championed the North Galatian hypothesis in his 1865 commentary on Galatians. Lightfoot believed that Paul could not have written this epistle to churches in southern Galatia, mainly because the churches planted on Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey are not identified by Luke in Acts as “Galatian” churches. He also believed that both Paul and Luke commonly used popular, geographical, or ethnic language when referring to people or regions, and not official or provincial Roman designations. Thus the terms “Galatia” as used by Luke (Ac 16:6; 18:23) and by Paul (Gal 1:2) and “Galatians” as used by Paul (Gal 3:1) should be understood as referring to ethnic Galatians. Added to this is Lightfoot’s suggestion that it would have been unusual for Paul to have referred to Christians of Phrygia and Lycaonia as Galatians when they were not ethnically Celtic but were considered “Galatians” only politically. The final and convincing piece of evidence for Lightfoot for the truth of the North Galatian hypothesis was what he considered the “affinity of style and subject matter” between Galatians and the other letters Paul wrote on his third missionary journey (i.e., Romans and 2 Corinthians). Lightfoot’s considerable biblical expertise reinforces the position of the North Galatian view of the letter’s destination for many.7 Those evangelicals who part with Lightfoot and take a South Galatian destination view do so largely due to the difficulty of joining the record of Acts with Paul’s epistles with regard to Paul’s chronology (see “Galatians and Acts” below).
The South Galatian hypothesis, though not unheard of in earlier church history, did not gain traction among biblical scholars until the work of archaeologist Sir William Ramsay. Though Ramsay began this work firmly convinced of the North Galatian destination for the letter, his explorations throughout Asia Minor in the decades of the 1880s and 1890s convinced him, on historical and archaeological grounds, that Paul must have written to the political Galatians of southern Asia Minor rather than to the ethnic Galatians of the north. Ramsay’s investigations led him to conclude that the whole administrative structure of the Roman Empire demonstrates beyond question that both Luke and Paul used the term “Galatia” in political, and not ethnic, terms. As well, he argues that very early on, the Phrygian origin of the majority of the population of the Roman province of Galatia was forgotten, and the entire state and its people were simply considered to be “Galatians.” Thus, anyone in the Roman Empire in Paul’s day speaking about this region would think of the people of the province as “Galatians,” regardless of ethnic origin.
Ramsay’s position found solid biblical footing through the exegetical work of Ernest de Witt Burton in his commentary on Galatians. Burton demonstrates that Paul’s use of identifying terminology in all of his epistles is political, and not ethnic. So when Paul writes to the “Galatians,” it is the political use of the term he has in view. In addition, Burton suggests that only the term “Galatians” would fit the letter in this historical time period in that Paul could not have used a more inclusive term for churches from such a large geographical area.8
Following Ramsay and Burton, most conservative scholars today adopt the South Galatian hypothesis. This view is considered by many to better support the biblical record both in Galatians and Acts (though not all who hold a high view of the reliability of Acts hold to a South Galatian destination for this epistle) and also to fit best the historical evidence to this question.
The issue of the recipients of this letter from Paul is extremely complex. And the answer to the question of destination affects one’s interpretation of the letter, especially with regard to how Luke and Paul use terminology and how the biblical record is to be reconciled with the historical record. However, as we have seen, the evidence may be read in various ways. Each interpreter must weigh the arguments made and determine which presentation of evidence is most convincing or most reliable; in the space available here, the necessarily detailed analysis of all the evidence and argumentation for various positions is not possible. Those interested in further information should pursue the works referenced above. Nevertheless, when all factors are considered, it seems that the South Galatian view is preferable to the North Galatian view—and thus I adopt in this commentary the South Galatian hypothesis.9
Paul’s visits to Jerusalem factor large in the message of Galatians, particularly since his opponents suggest that he is somehow subservient to the Jerusalem apostles and that his message is inferior to theirs (cf. 1:11–2:10).10 In his letter Paul will insist that his visits to Jerusalem had a different purpose than to bring him into the “apostolic orbit” of those who were apostles before him, as charged by his opponents, and that his gospel was in fact not so much “approved” by them as they recognized the validity of what he taught.
Paul writes to Galatian churches that are under siege by those who not only oppose him but also preach a different gospel from the one he preached. The character of the conflict between Paul and his opponents is such that the issue of the timing of the Jerusalem Council relative to when Paul wrote Galatians becomes significant. The Gentile issue addressed by this Council as recorded by Luke in Acts appears to be the counterpart to the Judaizing problem represented by Galatians, specifically in 2:1–10. The difficulty that arises from this mirroring of situations is in determining which came first and which, if either, then reflects the other. Determining which of Paul’s Acts visits to Jerusalem is equivalent to Galatians 2:1–10 will help resolve this difficulty.
The Acts references to Paul’s visits to Jerusalem have been helpfully categorized by A. J. Mattill Jr.11 These references may be laid out as follows:
A number of options have been proposed to resolve the difficulty of which of these visits to Jerusalem corresponds to Galatians 2:1–10. There are, however, only two views that take seriously the texts of both Acts and Galatians and attempt to reconcile the accounts accordingly. The first of these views (usually called the “traditional” view) holds that Galatians 2:1–10 is the Jerusalem Council visit of Acts 15:1–30 (A3 = G2). Acts 9:26–30 is understood to be the “acquaintance visit” of Galatians 1:18–20. According to this view, the Acts 11:27–30 famine visit is not mentioned in Galatians because Paul considered discussion of that visit either to be unimportant to his argument at that point or unrelated to the question addressed there. Most who break with this traditional position do so because of Paul’s apparent omission of the Acts 11:27–30 visit in Galatians 1–2, when he had strenuously defended his truthfulness in his communication with them (1:20). Nevertheless, this view notes the striking coincidence of circumstances that exist between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (cf. Lightfoot, 123), and is argued from that degree of coincidence.
The second position holds that Galatians 2:1–10 is the famine visit of Acts 11:27–30 (A2 = G2), with the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15:1–30 occurring after Galatians was written (and thus not to be identified as G2, as in the above reconstruction). The acquaintance visit is still identified as A1 = G1. This view hinges on the identification of the Galatian churches as those of southern Galatia (the “South Galatian” hypothesis). It also obviates the necessity of explaining how Paul could have left out a visit to Jerusalem as he enumerates those visits in Galatians 1–2. The weight of this argument is especially felt when it is remembered that Paul has in very strong language assured the Galatians that he is being truthful with them as he relates this information. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of this position, however, is the fact that it is difficult to imagine Paul failing to mention the decree of the Jerusalem Council to his converts if Galatians had been written after that Council. If Paul had written after the Council, he would naturally have mentioned the Council’s decision to approve Paul and Barnabas and “their” gospel (thus defending his apostolic status as well) and the decision to accept Gentiles into the church as Gentiles with no necessary “Judaizing” on their part. The fact that Paul does not do so would seem to indicate that the Council had not yet occurred when he wrote Galatians. And the fact that the Jerusalem Council was still necessary even after Paul had written Galatians suggests that his opponents continued their attacks on him and his gospel and that the church as a whole had to deal with these same issues later.
On balance, it seems best to understand that the appropriate correspondence between Acts and Galatians is the A2 = G2 position. This position protects the integrity of the biblical text and makes sense of all the evidence that exists for resolving this question. In what follows, this information will be assumed and will inform the interpretation of the text of Galatians.
The question of the authorship of Galatians is as settled as that for any New Testament writing. The letter begins by naming Paul as its author (1:1), and the theology, argument of the letter, use of Scripture, the author’s passion in writing, the letter’s vocabulary, and the style of writing are all widely recognized as thoroughly Pauline. Paul’s authorship of the letter has been accepted almost without question from the very beginning.
With the advent of higher criticism in the nineteenth century, however, some began to cast doubt on Paul’s authorship. Driven by a skepticism toward the biblical documents and the traditional understanding of those documents, higher critics dismissed Pauline authorship of Galatians on the basis of supposed inconsistencies, obscurities, contradictions, logical fallacies, and historical improbabilities.12 However, these denials of Paul’s authorship are not accepted by most scholars today. The consensus remains that the apostle Paul is the author of the letter, though through the assistance of an amanuensis.13
The date and place of writing for this epistle is far less certain than authorship. Indeed, these factors cannot be determined with any certainty. However, if the reconstruction of the relationship between Galatians and Acts given above is correct, then Galatians was written after Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey (Ac 13–14) and ahead of the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. That Council is recognized to have occurred in AD 48 or 49, making Galatians the earliest extant letter of Paul we have.14 Though this remains a minority position within New Testament scholarship, it is the most satisfactory explanation given all the data available. These questions relate to the chronology of Paul’s entire life and ministry, and again, there is not sufficient space to enter into thorough discussion of the issues surrounding these matters. It is sufficient to note that the letter was written before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and from an undetermined location, though perhaps even from Jerusalem.
The text of Galatians bristles with intense, emotionally charged language, which indicates a deeply agitated and distressed author. As such, the book includes a great deal of material that may be construed as either pejorative and unfair invective directed by Paul toward those who have invaded his territory or a masterful apology and justification by the apostle of his gospel message as over against the alternative gospel of his Judaizing opposition. Such diverse interpretive possibilities demand some type of interpretive controls to facilitate a proper understanding of these texts. Thankfully, such controls do exist, particularly in epistolary and rhetorical approaches to the study of the text. Meaning of a particular communication is inherently linked to both the form and the content of that communication (see M. Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of “Nomos” in the Letters of Paul [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], 8–10]). Attention must be given, therefore, to the way in which Paul expressed his message as well as to the content of that message.
In general, letters in Paul’s day began with a formulaic opening address or salutation, naming both the sender and the recipient(s) in a standard manner: “A to B, greetings.” This greeting would ordinarily include the word charein (literally “rejoice,” but colloquially “greetings”). Jewish community letters would include a similar expression of greeting, usually accompanied by a reference to a desire for peace (šalôm, GK 8934) and/or health (cf. 2 Macc 1:1, 10). Paul often combines the concepts of these greeting-forms, using a modified form of charein (charis, GK 5921, “grace”) and the Greek eirēnē (GK 1645, “peace”), equivalent to the Hebrew šalôm. In doing so, he appropriated the customary greetings of both his Jewish heritage and his Greek cultural background and applied them in a unique way to his correspondence.
The ending of a Greek letter was also a standard literary device, usually something like “I pray you good health” or simply “farewell.” In Paul’s letters, however, this closing formula is abandoned in favor of a doxology or, as is the case in Galatians 6:18, a benediction (“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen”).
Following the opening greetings of Greek letters, a number of conventional formulas may have been used to lead to the body of the letter. After the initial greeting there would ordinarily be a thanksgiving/prayer/blessing formula. The thanksgiving section of the Greek letter would often summarize and divulge the contents of the letter body, and in terms of its own content, this section would generally include an expression of gratitude by the writer for health, safety, prosperity, etc., either for himself or herself or for the addressee, or both. Most of Paul’s letters contain such a thanksgiving/prayer/blessing formula (though Galatians does not), but the sequence in Paul’s letters is prayer/thanksgiving.
Following the thanksgiving section would appear the letter’s body proper. This was considered the principal portion of the letter, where the sender communicated the content of his or her purpose in writing. Several stock patterns of expression identified as conventional transitional “body-openings” of Greek letters may be found in the NT. Such body-openings may include formulaic disclosure, requests, expressions of astonishment, expected compliance with instruction, verbs of hearing, notification of an impending visit or the desire to visit, a reference to writing, and verbs of speaking. Again, these and similar formulaic body-openings made the transition from the greetings section of the letter to the main body. The letter writer used these and other stock expressions for this transitional purpose so as to introduce the information he or she intended to divulge in the contents of the body of the letter.
From the opening formulas the letter writer moved to the main section of the letter, which often included traditional exhortation and catalogs or lists relative to that exhortation. This traditional material would be adapted by the letter writer for the specific needs of those he or she was addressing and often included a number of otherwise unrelated proverbs or aphorisms strung together to give advice about proper behavior in a particular situation. Paul adapted such traditional material in Galatians for his own use, drawing both from his Jewish Pharisaic background and knowledge of the Scriptures and from his Hellenistic environment. The text of Galatians may therefore be helpfully elucidated by noting Paul’s use and adaptation of these common epistolary elements.15
Biblical letters, again, contain literary devices aimed at achieving communication between an author and his readers or hearers. As communication devices, however, it is important that they be understood not as “private communications to be read in silence, but [as] the spoken word recorded.”16 So while Galatians is a form of written literature, it is at the same time reflective of the style and thought constructs of oral speech. Put another way, the written text reveals the thought of the writer as he would say it or as he thinks it. This being the case, it is necessary not only to analyze Galatians by means of epistolary considerations but also to use rhetorical analysis to help elucidate the meaning of the text.
Principles of rhetoric are beneficial for lending clarity to difficult New Testament texts. Understanding the rhetoric of Paul’s day will help to explicate a given text, both in terms of the author’s intention and the rhetorical situation. It must also be remembered, however, that the New Testament was written for the most part as occasion demanded. The epistolary material of Paul in Galatians, therefore, does not necessarily conform strictly to classical rhetorical norms and practices contained in rhetorical handbooks or guides. One must recognize that there are inherent limitations in the application of these principles to the study of the New Testament. Nevertheless, if used prudently as an aid to understanding the New Testament, rhetorical analysis can be a fruitful exegetical and interpretive tool that enhances the interpreter’s ability to grasp the author’s meaning in difficult areas.
Classical rhetoric, as developed by rhetoricians and theorists such as Aristotle (Rhetoric), Cicero (De inventione, De optimo genere oratorum), Quintilian (Institutio oratoria), and the anonymous author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, among others, distinguished three major types or “species” of argumentation: (1) “forensic” (or “judicial”) rhetoric, designed to elicit judgment favorable to the position of the speaker/writer; (2) “deliberative” rhetoric, intended to evoke consensus or bring about a decision; and (3) “memorial” rhetoric, aimed at extolling the virtues of an individual or at demonstrating the value of a particular stance or fostering assent to that stance.
Each of these types of rhetoric employs various mechanisms to advance arguments or to persuade listeners to the speaker’s/author’s position. Such mechanisms include exordium (introduction, in which the speaker acknowledges the rhetorical situation and establishes ethos, including credibility and the right to be heard); narratio (statement of the case to be presented); propositio (proposition, setting out points of agreement and disagreement and the issues to be proved); probatio (confirmation, developing the arguments of the speaker’s view); refutatio (refuting the position of the speaker’s opponents); and peroratio (conclusion, summarizing the speaker’s argument and encouraging a favorable response from the listeners).
In Galatians, Paul uses many of these rhetorical mechanisms to advance his argument against the Judaizers, but again, not always according to the dictates of the rhetorical handbooks. Paul was very familiar with the oratory of his Hellenistic environment but was not held captive to it as he communicated with the Galatians.17 Thus, pinpointing the proper rhetorical genre or classification of Galatians among the major species of rhetoric is not necessary. Identifying specifically what type of rhetoric is represented by the Galatian epistle is less significant than realizing that Paul did in fact utilize rhetorical mechanisms in his composition of the letter. As he wrote to persuade his Galatian converts of the importance of his gospel and their adherence to that truth, Paul used those various rhetorical constructs that were the warp and woof of the (persuasive) communication of his times as a means to help reinforce his message.
Greater clarity in understanding and interpreting the message of Galatians will result, then, if attention is paid to both epistolary and rhetorical constructs used by Paul to communicate his message to his beloved converts. Doing so alters the way both the content and structure of the letter is understood (see Outline). Taking advantage of the information provided by these conventions from Paul’s communicative background will inform our understanding of Galatians throughout this commentary.
The following is a selective list of commentaries and monographs on Galatians available in English, confined for the most part to those referred to in the commentary (they will be referred to simply by the author’s name [and initials only when necessary to distinguish two authors of the same surname]). In instances where the same author has written a commentary as well as (a) book(s) and/or (an) article(s), the commentary will be referred to by the author’s name, and the book(s)/article(s) by the author’s name and short title.
References to resources that do not appear in the bibliography will carry full bibliographic details at the first mention and thereafter a short title.
Barclay, John M. G. Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.
Betz, Hans D. Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Boice, James Montgomery. “Galatians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 10. Edited by Frank E. Gabelein, 407–508. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Burton, Ernest de Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921.
Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Original ed., 1548.
Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries 9. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993.
Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2nd ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962. Original ed., 1865.
Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Dallas: Word, 1990.
Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. Anchor Bible 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Matera, Frank J. Galatians. Sacra Pagina 9. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992.
Rapa, Robert Keith. The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans. Studies in Biblical Literature. Vol. 31. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.
1. The literature on Paul and his attitude toward the Jewish law and on the meaning and significance of the expression “works of the law,” is vast; here, I take it to mean “the practice of Mosaic legislation consisting of circumcision, observing Sabbath and feast days, and dietary restrictions as a means of soteriological advantage.” For more information, see Robert K. Rapa, The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans (Studies in Biblical Literature 31; New York: Peter Lang, 2001); Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1990); F. F. Bruce, Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); C. E. B. Cranfield, “The ‘Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 (1991): 89–101.
2. I am not suggesting that Paul patterned his writing after Aristotle or self-consciously followed ancient rhetorical handbooks; however, rhetoric was the communicative “coin of the realm” of the Greco-Roman world, and Paul’s thought and writing do reflect that reality; note Lauri Thurén, Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2002); I.-G. Hong, The Law in Galatians (JSNTS 81; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); see “The Epistolary and Rhetorical Structure of Galatians” below.
3. Some Roman historians such as Livy (Hist. Rome 38.12) and Strabo (Geogr. 12.5.1) give Galatia the alternative name Gallograecia (the place of Greek-speaking Gauls).
4. Cassius Dio, Hist. 53.26.3.
5. Ibid., 49.32; Strabo, Geogr. 12.8.13.
6. See Bruce, 6–8.
7. In addition to Lightfoot, representative proponents of the North Galatian hypothesis include John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians (repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965); W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949); H. N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953); and J. L. Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997).
8. Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), xxi–xliv.
9. In addition to Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire Before AD 170 [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893]; A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1899]; The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia [Oxford: Clarendon, 1895]) and Burton (see his commentary on Galatians), representative proponents of the South Galatian hypothesis include F. F. Bruce (The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary [3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990]; The Epistle to the Galatians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982]) and Richard N. Longenecker (see his commentary on Galatians).
10. Some argue that Paul’s apostolic status and the legitimacy of his gospel are not at issue; his concern in Galatians is not to defend himself as over against the Jerusalem church or apostles as much as to defend his converts against the claims of the Judaizers that Gentiles must become “practical Jews” in order to be fully Christian (cf. D. J. Verseput, “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2,” NTS 39 [1993]: 36–58). However, it seems that one is a function of the other: Paul’s apostolic status and his gospel are questioned precisely because he does not require Gentile Christians to “Judaize” (see Rapa, 81–94; Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” NTS 17 [1970]: 198–212; L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992], 2:457–59). This is why Paul’s accounts of his travels to Jerusalem and his contact with those who were “apostles before [he] was” (1:17) are so important to the Galatian churches. His “self-defense” becomes a de facto defense of the truth of the gospel.
11. While Mattill’s surveys of views on this issue is dated (“Luke as a Historian in Criticism Since 1840” [PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1959]), it remains the most comprehensive treatment of this question. Views proposed since his dissertation may easily be placed within his overall framework. The descriptors attached to Mattill’s designations above are as per Longenecker, lxxiii—lxxiv.
12. See the discussion of those denying Pauline authorship in Burton, lxix-lxxi.
13. See Longenecker, lix-lxi, for a discussion of the significance of recognizing that Paul used a secretary for the transcribing of his dictation of Galatians.
14. See the discussion of Bruce, 43–56, who notes that Paul may have written Galatians “on the eve of the Jerusalem meeting described in Acts 15:6ff.” The answers to the questions of date and place of writing center again in the relationship between Galatians and Acts, the timing of Paul’s conversion and the Jerusalem Council, and the rapidity of progress of the spread of the gospel. Much about these phenomena is uncertain. For more information on the questions, see Longenecker, lxxii-lxxxviii, and Burton, xliv-liii.
15. Longenecker, cvii-cviii, has rendered a list of conventional formulas found in Galatians that demonstrate Paul’s familiarity with the letter form of the Hellenistic world (see also W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973]; S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986]).
16. F. M. Young, “Rhetoric,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), 598.
17. Significant work on the use of rhetoric in the NT is still being done; see Rapa, 109–22, and the literature cited there. Of special note with regard to Galatians are H. D. Betz, Galatians (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979); and R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990).