Galatians means Celts. They settled in the northern part of the Roman province of Galatia.Based on Paul’s letters, it’s not clear exactly where his Galatian converts were located.
As for the southern parts, Acts (13-14) called their people being from Pisidia and Lycaonia and Pamphylia.
Yes, you are right. And Paul is not said to have companion(s) in Acts 18:23 (which is very explainable by his big split with Peter, Barnabas, the Churches of Antioch & Jerusalem in Antioch (of course not reported in Acts!).I think Paul ended-up preaching to his Galatians because he got sick and they cared for him. If Paul had a traveling companion, they could have found a cheap flop-house to lay low while Paul’s companion took care of him. But no, Paul seemed to be at the mercy of the kindness of strangers.
Asia Minor is not (northern) Galatia. Furthermore there were very few cities (if any: Gordium, very much reduced from its heydays, might have been the only place considered city then) at the time in (northern) Galatia.To speculate here --- if you were a Jew, alone somewhere in Asia Minor in Paul’s day, and got sick, where would you go? I think Paul would have gone to the nearest town and looked for a synagogue --- Josephus, and especially Philo, wrote that Jews were numerous throughout Asia Minor. Paul’s own people would likely provide comfort to a fellow Jew in need. And it would make sense for Paul to have encountered Gentile God-fearers there who cared for him. And in turn, Paul gave them his “good news”.
From my web page http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html:
"Galatia got its name from descendants of Celtic (Gaelic) tribes which migrated in the area around 278B.C.E (about twenty thousand of them). They were known to be, besides former barbaric warriors, pastoral people living in fortified villages. Cities which existed then suffered badly under their occupation. For example, Ancyra, a prosperous city before, was reduced to only a fortresss & village. It will become back a city later, around 150C.E. as related in this Encyclopedic website. Also, under 'Phrygia', from the same site:
"At last Attalus I settled the Gauls permanently in eastern Phrygia, and a large part of the country was henceforth known as Galatia. Strabo [19C.E.] mentions that the great cities of ancient Phrygia were in his time either deserted or marked by mere villages.""
From the same aforementioned web page, I got more arguments for "northern" Galatia. Look there under "Paul and Galatia".
Yes, I think you are right. I also think that in Acts 16:23:Back to the evidence now --- there is no clear evidence in Paul’s letters that Paul himself ever made a second visit with his Galatians.
"And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples."
what I bolded is in error from "Luke". Paul seems to be the first Christian missionary to go in some villages of (northern) Galatia, according to his epistle.
Please note also that I place in time the council of Jerusalem at Acts 18:22, according to clues in Paul's Galatians, for reasons I already explained in a previous post to Michael BG on this thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4964&start=50#p97056. "Luke" moved purposely the time earlier to have Paul having his gospel to the Gentiles (at least tolerated by the pillars in Galatians; but completely approved by the church of Jerusalem in Acts!) before going to Macedonia (especially Philippi).