Paul wrote this letter to “the churches of Galatia” (cf. Gal. 3:1).  In an ethno-geographical sense, “Galatia” referred to the regions of north-central Anatolia (modern Turkey) largely inhabited by Celts.  Acts 18:23 mentions that Paul ministered in “the Galatian region and Phrygia,” and 16:6 contrasts “the Phrygian and Galatian region” with Asia.  Many scholars have used these texts to argue that the epistle was written to converts in the northern, ethnic territories (the “North Galatian” theory).  This view must fit a side-trip through “North Galatia” between the “Jerusalem Council” in A.D. 49 (Acts 15) and Paul’s arrival in Corinth around A.D. 50/51 (Acts 18).  On the other hand, “Galatia” in a political sense referred to a large Roman province which included the south-central cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe.  Acts 13-14 describes the church planting of Paul and Barnabas in these specific towns.  

Proponents of the “South Galatian” theory point out that the letter’s recipients seem to have been acquainted with Barnabas (Gal. 2:1-13), who separated from Paul in Acts 15 (though see 1 Cor. 9:6).  Paul himself asserts that he first came to Galatia because of a physical infirmity (Gal. 4:13), perhaps fitting a “southern” destination more than a “northern” one.  Moreover, Paul himself consistently used the political designation of Galatia, rather than the ethnic area (Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:1, 8.1, 9.2; Gal. 1:21; cf. 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Tim. 4:10).  “North Galatian” supporters respond that “Galatia”/“Galatians” more naturally referred to the ethno-geographic area, and Acts often refers to similar regions (Phrygia, Pisidia, Pamphylia, and Mysia).  Although Barnabas is discussed in Galatians 2, he is not explicitly associated with the founding of the churches.  

“North Galatian” adherents often date the letter in the mid to late 50s, approaching the composition of Romans with its similar (yet more developed) themes.  Some “South Galatian” theorists date the composition to the early 50s (cf. Gal. 4:13 and Acts 16:1), but many favor a date as early as 47-49, just prior to the “Jerusalem Council.”  Timothy, whom Paul encounters in Lystra in Acts 16:1, is not mentioned in the epistle.  The northern view was the general consensus through the late nineteenth century, but the “South” view has justly gained considerable ground since then.  Galatians does not cite the “Jerusalem Council” rejection of the necessity of circumcision, an omission suiting an early, “South” theory.  On the other hand, Paul’s emphasis in Galatians was upon the divine origin of his message and commission.  All views must decide which Acts material, if any, corresponds to the Jerusalem visit in Galatians 2:1-10 with its charge to remember the poor (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1-4).  In Acts 20:4, the entourage bearing the collection toward Jerusalem included representatives from southern Galatia, but none from the north.

On the whole, the arguments for the “North” and “South” hypotheses are fairly balanced, and dogmatism is unwarranted.