The physical characters of Galatia are in great measure similar to those of the adjoining provinces of Phrygia and Lycaonia, the whole region being an elevated plateau or table-land, no part of which is less than 2000 feet above the sea, while the greater part exceeds 3000 feet in elevation. The southern portion, towards Lycaonia, is the most level, and is an alm03t perfect plain, passing gradually into the expanse of salt desert which occupies the frontier lands of the two provinces. The rest of the country consists for the most part of vast undulating downs, affording excellent pasture for sheep and goats, and capable of producing good crops of corn, though at present in great part uncultivated, and almost wholly devoid of wood. Towards the frontiers of Bithynia it becomes more broken, and is intersected by numerous valleys, as well as by several detached ranges of hills, none of them, however, attaining to any considerable height or importance. The lofty range of the Ala-dagh (6000-7000 feet), though frequently termed the Galatian Olympus, is not properly included within the limits of the province, but forms in part the natural boundary which separates it from Bithynia, From its elevated position, the climate of Galatia is naturally one of considerable extremes of heat and cold; and while the summers are burning hot, the winters at Angora are more severe than at Paris, and the snow often lies on the ground for a month together.

The only towns of importance in Galatia were Tavium, the capital of the Trocmi, a small town which speedily fell into decay; Ancyra, the capital of the Tectosages, which under the Romans became the capital of the country, and has ever since retained its importance as one of the principal citiee of Asia Minor (see Angora) ; and Pessinus, the chief town of the Tolistobogii, where a splendid temple was consecrated to Agdistis, the mother of the gods, the divinity who was worshipped at Rome under the title of Rhea or Cybele.

Galatia took its name from a body of Gauls who invaded Asia Minor about the year 277 b.c. They had formed part of the army which invaded Greece under Brennus, but having quarrelled with that commander, had left his standard, and marching into Thrace under generals of their own choice, advanced to Byzantium, whence they were invited by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, to cross into Asia, and help him in his struggle against his brother Zipøetes. After performing the required services, they turned their arms against their employer, and ravaged the western half of Asia Minor. Their success allured other hordes of their countrymen, who readily took service with the Asiatic kings in their ware against each other. No Oriental prince was found able to check them, until Attalus, king of Pergamus, defeated them in a great battle, 239 b. c., and compelled them to settle in that part of the country which after them was called Galatia. They still remained independent, however, and proved a formidable foe to the Romans in their ware with Antiochus. It was found necessary to direct a special army against them, under Cn. Manlius, and the result of the campaign (189 b.c.) was their complete subjugation to the power of Rome. Galatia was not at this time reduced to a Roman province, but the Gauls were still allowed to retain their own government under their tetrarchs. This system, however, gradually gave way, and the whole country passed under the authority of one ruler. The first of these sole tetrarchs was Dciotarus, a contemporary of Cicero and Caesar, who, in return for the assistance which he gave the Romans in their wars against Mithridates, was rewarded with a part of Pontus and Armenia Minor, and was styled king by the senate. It was afterwards united with Lycaonia, Isauria, and several adjoining districts, under a king named Amyntas, at whose death, in 25 b.c., Galatia became a Roman province. Theodosius the Great subdivided it for purposes of government into Galatia Prima, of which Ancyra was the capital, and Galatia Secunda, with Pessinus for its chief town.

The antiquities of Galatia have in recent times been made the subject of special investigation by a French commission composed of MM. Perrot, Guillaume, and Delbet, and the result of their labours published in 2 vols, fol., Paris, 1872; but with the exception of those of Angora, they are not of much general interest.

Paul and Barnabas carried the light of the Gospel into the regions of Galatia at a very early period; and it appears from the epistle which the former subsequently wrote to the churches in that country, that they had at first received it with great joy, Gal. iv, 15. But some Judaizing teachers getting access among them soon after the Apostle’s departure, their minds became corrupted from the simplicity that was in Christ Jesus; and, though mostly Gentiles, they were beginning to mingle circumcision, and other Jewish observances, with their faith in Christ, in order to render it more available to their salvation. This occasioned Paul’s writing his epistle to those churches; and his object throughout nearly the whole of it is to counteract the pernicious influence of the doctrine of those false teachers particularly as it respected the article of justification, or a sinner’s acceptance with God. And in no part of the Apostle’s writings is that important doctrine handled in a more full and explicit manner; nor does he any where display, such a firm, determined, and inflexible opposition to all who would corrupt the truth from its simplicity. He begins by expressing his astonishment that they were so soon turned aside “unto another gospel,” but instantly checking himself, he recals the word and declares, “it is not another gospel,” but a perversion of the Gospel of Christ. “And though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” There are in his epistle several other things equally pointed and severe, particularly his expostulation on the folly and absurdity of their conduct in subjecting themselves to the Jewish yoke of bondage, Gal. iii, 1. “The erroneous doctrines of the Judaizing teachers,” says Dr. Macknight, “and the calumnies they spread for the purpose of discrediting St. Paul’s apostleship, no doubt occasioned great uneasiness of mind to him and to the faithful in that age, and did much hurt, at least for a while, among the Galatians. But in the issue these evils have proved of no small service to the church in general; for by obliging the Apostle to produce the evidences of his apostleship, and to relate the history of his life, especially after his conversion, we have obtained the fullest assurance of his being a real Apostle, called to the office by Jesus Christ himself; consequently we are assured that our faith in the doctrines of the Gospel, as taught by him, (and it is he who hath taught the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel most fully,) is not built on the credit of a man, but on the authority of the Spirit of God, by whom St. Paul was inspired in the whole of the doctrine which he has delivered to the world.”

11. 7), and induce them to that conformity with certain parts of Jewish ceremonial which was even at that time described by the word “Judaizing” (ίουδαίξαν, Gal. ii. 14). Even among those whose leanings were towards the spiritual religion of the Old Testament, Jewish habits of thinking and feeling could never fail to assert themselves with considerable strength; and there were also elements peculiar to the old pagan religion of the district which were fitted to predispose even the heathen mind towards that ceremonialism and “making a fair show in the flesh” (eυπpoσωπησaι εv σαρκί) which the apostle deprecated. How or when these tendencies had first begun to manifest themselves in the way of deliberate rebellion against the teachings which Paul had left behind him, can only be a matter of pure conjecture; but it would appear that,⅛ven if the revolt had been originated by Palestinian Jews, it had at least been fomented by other agitators who were Gentiles by birth (v. 12; vi. 13); nor does it seem improbable that they had begun their work very soon after the time of the apostle’s first visit. The second visit, mentioned in Acts xviii. 23, which must have taken place about 55 a.d., and have occupied very little time, appears to have been on the whole a pleasant one; the apostle was still received with due respect (iv.

12, 18), and may well have left Galatia with the impression that the disciples had been “strengthened” by him, and that they “were running well ’’ (v. 7). But shortly after his departure tidings reached him that, though the influence of the Judaizers had for the time been neutralized by iis presence, it had begun to reassert itself with greater force than ever almost immediately after he had gone, and that his disciples had been so “bewitched” that, after “having begun in the spirit,” they were now endeavouring to be “made perfect by the flesh.” He also learned that the reactionary doctrines had been supported by a suggestion that he himself was no teacher of independent authority, but merely a subordinate, and that a treacherous one, of the original apostles and pillars of the church, whose “gospel” was emphatically “of the circumcision.” Immediately on receipt of this intelligence, he wrote the present epistle.

Contents. —It consists of three parts, in which the personal, the doctrinal, and the practical elements respect ively predominate. (1.) After an expression of surprise at the instability displayed by his Galatian converts, the author proceeds to establish the divineness of his message by an historical proof of the wholly divine character of his commission to be its messenger. He urges that he had received his apostleship directly from God; and that, far from proceeding from men, it had been tardily, and so far reluctantly, acknowledged by them only after it had become an altogether patent and undeniable fact. His first visit to Jerusalem had been three years after his conversion. If it had not resulted in his recognition as on a footing of equality with the apostles, it at least had not led to his taking any position of subordination; while on his second visit to Jerusalem he had met the apostles and deliberated with them on terms of undisputed parity. On the third occasion of his coming into contact with an apostolic person so distinguished as Peter, he had openly withstood him and vanquished him in argument, thereby even establishing a superiority. (2.) He proceeds to state and defend the doctrine of justification by faith in the crucified Christ. After alluding to it as a truth already established in their Christian consciousness (iii. 1-5), he proceeds to show that the same truth had been embedded in the whole Old Testament revelation, and was capable of being deduced from the entire course of the past history of the church. The religion of Abraham had been a religion of faith, and his justification had not been a justification by works (iii. 6-18). The law which came later is misunderstood if it be regarded as superseding the promise which had been the foundation of the religion of the patriarch. Its relation to the promise was manifestly of a subordinate and temporary kind. To regard it as having been otherwise would be as absurd as to suppose that a Hagar and an Ishmael could ever have taken that place in the family which belonged of inalienable right to Sarah and to Isaac (iii. 19—iv. 31). (3.) He exhorts to a continuance in the life of faith which is also the life of freedom, and warns against any relapse under the yoke of Judaism (v. 1-12). He explains that Christian freedom is a freedom conditioned by morality (v. 13—vi. 10), and concludes with a recapitulation and the benediction.

Genuineness, Date, and Place.— The genuineness of this epistle has never been disputed. The external evidence is remarkably clear and continuous, while the internal has been such as to satisfy even the most negative school of modern criticism. Its autographic character, also, is inferred by many, including Hilgenfeld, Holzmann, and other moderns, from the expression used in vi. 11; but it is at least possible that the word έγραψα may refer only to vi. 11-18. The question as to its date has given occasion for considerable diversity of opinion. It has been seen that the apostle wrote immediately after he had heard of the change that had come over the Galatian churches, and that this change occurred “soon” (ταχέως) after his second visit. These facts favour a date not much later than 55 A.D. Further, a comparison of the epistle to the Galatians with those to the Romans and Corinthians results, on the whole, in favour of the opinion that it was the earliest of the four, or at all events not much later than the latest, in other words, not later than 59 a.d. It is probably idle to attempt to fix the date much more precisely. The reference in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, which may mean either that friendly relations with the Galatians had been until then uninterrupted, or that they had been already restored, have determined the critics, according to the interpretation adopted, in placing it either early in the Ephesian sojourn or late in the Corinthian. The majority of the moderns is in favour of the former date (55-57 a.d.), but the latter still continues to find supporters. Reference has already been made to the theory of Renan and Hausrath, which leads them to assign this epistle to the period of the second missionary journey. Apart from the considerations which have been indicated in a preceding note, this view is open to the objection that it raises new and gratuitous difficulties in connexion with the history and chronology of the Acts; it has accordingly niet with comparatively little acceptance. According to some older writers, such as Michaelis, Koppe, Borger, the supposed absence of any reference to the council of Jerusalem implies a very early date; English readers, on the other hand, are familiar with the statement derived from some of the later Greek MSS., and supported by the Syriac and Arabic versions, as well as by the weighty authority of Eusebius, Jerome, and Theodoret, that the epistle was “written from Rome.” This view has been advocated in modern times also by C. Schrader; but the general verdict vzill .probably continue to be, as it has for some time been, adverse to a theory which would group this among the letters of the captivity rather than among those of an earlier period.

On the relation of Galatians to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, see vol. i. pp. 124, 125.

Literature.— For an interesting and detailed account of the patristic commentaries on this epistle reference may he made to an excursus by Bishop Lightfoot {Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 1865, 2d ed. 1874). Those belonging to the Reformation period are sufficiently well known, particularly Luther’s, Calvin’s, and Beza’s. Of modem English commentaries the most exhaustive is that of Dr Lightfoot, already referred to; but those of Ellicott (1854), JoWett (1855), and Alford (1857) are also of great value. In Germany one of the latest is that of Wieseler {Commentar uber den Galaterbrief, 1859); and among those who preceded him in this field, W iner {Pauli ad Galatas Epistola lat. versa et perpetua annotatione illustrata, 1829, 4th ed. 1859), Usteri {Comm. ii. d. Galaterbrief, 1833), Rückert (1833), 01shausen (1840), De Wette (1845, 3d ed. 1864), Meyer (1851, 5th ed. 1870), Hilgenfeld (1852), and Ewald {Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus übersetzt und erklärt, 1857) are all worthy of particular mention. Windischmann’s Commentar (1843) is an able and learned exposition from the Roman Catholic point of view. See also Holsten {Inhalt w. Gedankengang des Br. a. d. Galater, 1859), Hofmann {Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend ausgelegt, 1863), Brandes {D. Ap. P. Sendschreiben a. d. Galater, 1869), Sanday (vol. ii. of Commentary ed. by Bp. Ellicott), and Venn {On the Epistle to the Galatians, 1878). Much help in the interpretation of the epistle is to be derived from the various works on the apostle Paul and the apostolic period of church history; also from those on New Testament Introduction, such as Hilgenfeld’s {Einl., 1875) and Bleek’s {Einl., 1875).