W^M^'$$&k'
\:m.
feiilifiil^^
N>^
^ OF PRimro
BS 2685.4 .A83 ]
Askwith, E. H. 1864-
The Epistle to the Galatians
THE DESTINATION AND DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
AN ESSAY ON ITS DESTINATION AND DATE
WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE VISIT TO JERUSALEM RECORDED IN CHAPTER II.
BEixa AN Enlargement of the Norrisian Prize Essay for 1898 on "The Locality of the Churches of Galatia"
/ BY
E. H. ASKWITH, M.A.
CHAPLAIN, AND FOaMERLY SCHOLAR, OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1899
All rights reserved
<5LASGOW : PRINTKD AT THB UNIVBRSITT PHHS« BY ROBKHT MACLEHOSK AND CO.
PREFACE.
The first five chapters of the present work are substan- tially the Essay on the Locality of the Churches of Galatia, for which the present writer obtained the Norrisian prize last year. That essay dealt only with the Destina- tion of the Epistle to the Galatians, and not at all with its Date, which was outside the limits allowed by the subject as set by the examiners. It has seemed better now to present to the public a discussion of the Date of the Epistle along with the arguments on the Locality of the Churches to which it was addressed. Not that the two questions cannot be kept separate. On the contrary they are quite distinct, and an endeavour has been made to keep them so in the following pages.
But it seemed to the author that, as Professor Kamsay's championship of the South Galatian theory in opposition to the North Galatian theory, as held by Bishop Lightfoot, has been coupled, somewhat to the confusion of the two things, with a new dating of the Galatian Epistle, it was desirable for anyone who
vi PREFACE,
accepted the South Galatian theory to have his ideas clear as to any possible bearing such acceptance might have on the Date of the Epistle. The following pages are intended to give the writer's reasons why he agrees with Professor Ramsay that the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the Churches of South Galatia, and why, at the same time, he cannot agree with the Professor in his attempt to correct the chronological sequence of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, and that to the Eomans as given by Lightfoot. There is no difficulty, as these pages shew, in placing the Epistle to the Galatians in point of time where Lightfoot placed it, and at the same time agreeing with Pro- fessor Eamsay as to its Destination.
It is not easy to state exactly the extent to which originality may be claimed for this essay. In a sense the whole essay is original, if by originality is here understood an independent examination of the bearing of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians on the two problems before us. But nothingj is original, in so far as every thought is evolved from some previous thought suggested by other w^riters. The author has not hesitated to avail himself of the investigations of others, and in particular he owes much, chiefly in regard to his treatment of the question of the Locality of the Churches of Galatia, to Professor W. M. Eamsay, of whose two books —
PREFACE. vii
The Chitrch in the Roman Umjm^e before A.D 170, and St. Paid, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen — he has made constant use. If he has not made equal use of those two other works, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor and The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, it is not because he is indifferent to their vakie. But all reasoning respecting the development of Christianity in Asia Minor, based on the exploration of the country, is purposely avoided in this essay. The special aim of what is here written is to examine the bearing of the Acts and the Galatian Epistle on the two problems.
The present writer regards such evidence as is afforded by Professor Eamsay's archceological discoveries as corroborative rather than as primary. And he felt moreover that a detailed examination of the use of VaXaTLKo^ in Acts xvi. 6 and xviii. 23. had not yet been made by any writer, and that until some such work was done, it would be impossible to reach any final conclusions. The moment for the opening out of the whole question was opportune, for Professor Piam- say's historical knowledge of Asia Minor had suggested a new interpretation of the compound epithet ^louy/ai/ kcxl Va\aTLKi]v in Acts xvi. 6. This interpretation has been of the very greatest value in these pages.
The weakness of Professor Eamsay's argument for the South Galatian theory was in his treatment of the participial (/cwXiy^eVre?) clause in Acts xvi. 6. At one stage in his work St. Paid the Tra.veller he
viii PREFACE,
seems to come dangerously near to making a full stop in sense after oirjXOov t^v ^pvyluv kui TaXaTiKrji/ -^wpav, as for instance on page 178, in his rendering of the first few verses of the sixteenth chapter. But at a later point (p. 212) he comes nearer to a grammatical appreciation of the participle. At the same time one cannot but feel that the difficulty remains a difficulty even after reading his explanations. If in the follow- ing pages any success has attended the writer's efforts to overcome this difficulty, he will feel that he has not written to no purpose. He thinks, and hopes he may convince others, that the predicative interpretation of the participle is the right one. The part of the essay treating of this point has been largely re-written since the ISTorrisian prize was awarded, and to the writer of it the case seems even stronger than when he first proposed it.
There is further added to the argument for the South Galatian theory, which was given in the Nor- risian essay, a new chapter on the bearing of Acts XX. 4 on the theory.
For the part of this essay dealing with the Date of the Galatian Epistle acknowledgment must be made of obligations to Bishop Lightfoot's essay on the subject in his Commentary. The argument he there develops seems, with but few necessary alterations, to hold quite as well for the dating of the Epistle if it be addressed to South Galatians as if it be for Northern Galatia.
PREFACE. ix
Let the ovtm^ Ta-^w<i of i. 6, and the to irporepoi/ of iv. 13 be rightly interpreted, and we have a dating of the Epistle perfectly consistent with the theory of its South Galatian Destination.
The present writer cannot but express his regret that Professor Eamsay should have allowed some of his arguments for dating the Epistle from Antioch ever to have been printed without a more exact com- parison of them with Bishop Lightfoot's already existing arguments for assigning to the Galatian Epistle a date later than that of the second Epistle to the Corinthians. In the seventh chapter of this essay some of Professor Eamsay's arguments have been examined. It is to be feared lest the weakness of the Professor's case, in regard to the Date of the Epistle, may delay a general acceptance of his theory as to its Destination.
It is unfortunate, too, that Professor Piamsay has not been content to establish one point at a time instead of trying to prove three things together. There are three points he is insisting on :
(1) The South Galatian theory.
(2) The Antiochene Dating of the Galatian Epistle.
(3) The identification of the visit of Gal. ii. with
the earlier of the two visits in the Acts. But these are three separate questions, requiring separate treatment. It is by his failure to discriminate these questions that Professor Eamsay alienates many whom he would wish to convince.
X PREFACE.
In conclusion, the author of this work begs the indulgence of his readers. It is his first public venture in Biblical criticism, and he cannot, therefore, hope to have always succeeded in expressing himself as clearly as he may hope to do in later work, if he be permitted to contribute more in this field. He has honestly tried to see both sides of each question he has attempted to treat of, and if his conclusions are wrong it is not because they are hasty.
It is hoped that these pages are fairly free from misprints. If this is so, no small share of the credit is due to the Rev. W. L. E. Parsons, Lecturer in Theology at Selwyn College, who has kindly read over all the proof sheets.
Trinity College, Cambridge,
Ea§tei\ 1899.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE I.
PAGE
Introductory, --------- 1
CHAPTEE II.
The Meaning of TaXari/cos in Acts xvi. 6, when dieXdopres
IS READ, - - - - 7
CHAPTEE III.
The Meaning of FaXaTiKos in Acts xvi. 6, when 8iij\6ov
is read, - - - - 25
CHAPTEE IV.
The Use of TaXarLKos in Acts xviii. 23, - - - 54
CHAPTEE V.
Arguments for the Destination of the Epistle derived
FROM ITS Contents, ------- 67
xii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VI.
I'AOK
The Corroborative Evidence of Acts xx. 4, - - 83
(JHAPTER VII.
Arguments for the Date of the Epistle derived from
Statements found therein, ----- !;9
CHAPTER VIII.
Arguments for the Date of the Epistle derived from A Comparison of it with other Epistles of Known Date, 119
APPENDIX.
The Occasion of the Visit to Jerusalem recorded in
Galatians II., 137
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY.
PAGE
The purpose of the present inquiry twofold, - - - 1
The distinctness of the two problems, . . . . i The right method of a logical solution a matter of
choice, -- -2
The choice made, -------- 2
The nature of the inquiry, 2
The position of the problem since Professor Ramsay's
contributions, - 3
Bishop Lightfoot's opposition to Renan, - - - - 3
The data of the problem, 4
Reasonable to search for churches of Galatia in Acts, - 5
The use of TaXanKos in Acts xvi. 6 and xviii. 23 uncertain, 5
The two passages to be considered separately, - - - 5 No appeal to the Galatian Epistle except, for purpose of
fairness, to Galatians iv. 13, 5
This exception can cause no confusion, - - . - 5 The order will be Acts xvi. 6, Acts xviii, 23, the Galatian
Epistle, other considerations, 6
xiv ANAL YSIS OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER II.
THE iMEANING OF ra\aTt/c6s IN ACTS XVI. 6, WHEN dLeXBbvT^s IS READ.
PAGE
The churches of South Galatia, ------ 7
Acts xvi. 6 fif. — The Revised translation, objections
to it, - - - - - - - - - - 8
The Phrygo-Galatian region, ------ 9
Bishop Lightfoot's and Professor Ramsay's interpretations, 10 A priori objections to both of Lightfoot's suggested mean- ings, --------- 10
Examination of the context necessary, - - - - 11
The general emphasis of the paragraph Acts xvi. 6-10, - 12
The alternative readings dieXdovres and 8ci]\dou, - - - 13
Investigation of meaning of passage with reading dLeXeSvTes, 14
Alternative renderings possible, - - . . . 14
Reasons for preferring one to the other, - - - - 15
^-wXl;^e;/Tes=^ forbidden or hindered, ----- 22
Professor Ramsay's interpretation of the Phrygo-Galatian
region makes good sense, 23
Not so Bishop Lightfoot's, ...... 24:
Conclusion that the dieXdovres reading does not favour
North Galatian theory, ------ 24
CHAPTER III.
THE MEANING OF FaXariKds IN ACTS XVI. 6, WHEN dLrjXeou IS READ.
How far reasoning with reading dLeXBovres applies when
5l7jX6ou is read, -------- 25
KwXvdevres possibly retrospective, ----- 26
In this case North Galatia possibly included in Phrygo- Galatian region, 28
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. xv
PAGE
Eeason for St. Paul going there, 28
The Kw\vju.a of Acts xvi. 6 and the dadeveLa t??s aapKos of Gal.
iv. 13, - - - 29
Are these connected? ------- 29
If we take them to be in effect the same, we are led into
serious difficulties, -.---.. 30 Nor have we any a priori justification for supposing them
to be the same, - 32
So then keep the two distinct, ------ 33
Reductio ad absnrdum, ------- 33
KuiXvdevres clause not retrospective, ----- 34
Participle to be interpreted predicatively, - - - 35
General examination of predicative use of the participle :
(1) In Classical Greek, - - - ._ 3(5
(2) In Hellenistic Greek and especially St. Luke, 37 Examples given from the Acts and third Gospel, - - 37 Two passages in St. Luke's Gospel closely parallel with
Acts xvi. 6, -------- 43
Examination of these, - . 44
Other instances, - - - 45
Force of the participle KOjXvdevres if predicatively ex- plained, --------- 46
E elation of participial clause to ^LrfKdov ttjv ^pvyiav Kai
Td\aTiKr]v xcipaz', -------- 4g
Bearing of predicative rendering of participle on the rival
theories respecting the churches of Galatia, - - 48
The appropriateness of the epithet Plirygo-Galatian to describe a region stopping short at boundary of Asia where preaching was forbidden, ----- 50
Whether dieXdovres or dirj\0ov be read, Acts xvi. 6-10 is a record of Divine guidance to Macedonia, not a record of missionary work, - - - - - - - 51
Objections to Dean Farrar's restriction of Asia to L^dia, - 52
xvi ANAL VS/S OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
THE USE OF Ta\aTLK6s IN ACTS XVIII. 23.
PA«E
The relation of ttjp TaXarLKriv x^P'^^ f^^i- ^pvyi-o-v to r?y ^pvyiay
/cat Ta\aTLKr]v xwpai'j ..-.-.-54 Accounts the rival Galatian schools are able to give of the
difference between these two expressions, - - - 55 North Galatian interpretation of difference, - - - 56
Serious difficulties caused by it, 57
Further, it entirely cuts the ground from under one of
Lightfoot's two interpretations of Phrygo-Galatian
region^ .-..----- 58
And the other interpretation of Lightfoot's does not
account for Tir\v VaXaTLKrju x'^P'^^ where riqv VaXaTtav
would have sufficed, ------- 59
South Galatian interpretation of Acts xviii. 23, - - 60
Different xwpa from that of Acts xvi. 6, - - - - 60
Difference of expression accounted for, - - - - 61
Analysis of phrase t7]v Ta\aTi.Kr]v x'^P"'' '^"■''- ^pvyiav, - - 63
CHAPTER V.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE DERIVED FROM ITS CONTENTS.
The bearing of Galatian Epistle on question before us, - 67 Arguments for North Galatian theory, derived from
Epistle, reduced to four : 68
(1) The dadeveLa ttjs aapKos argument.
(2) The psychological argument.
(3) The TO irporepov argument.
(4) The cD VaXdroLL argument.
All these examined and found wanting, - - - - 76
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. xvii
PAGE
Supposed evidences of South Galatian destination examined :
(1) Allusion to Timothy, - - - - - 77
(2) As an angel of God, 77
(3) Reference to Barnabas, 78
(4) Argument derived from presence of Jewish
emissaries, --.... 79
(5) i-Mtts in Gal. ii. 5, - - - - - - 80
CHAPTER VI.
THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF ACTS XX. 4.
Paley's Horae PauUnae argument, - - - - - 83
The date of 1 Corinthians, 84
The date of 2 Corinthians, .--.._ 85
The date of Romans, 86
The collection for the saints, 88
(1) The Area over which the collection was made.
(2) The AVay in which the collection was made.
(3) The Conditions of its Conveyance to Jerusalem.
The delegates in Acts xx. 4, - 93
Difficulties of text — but general facts seem to stand out
clear, 94
Absence of delegates from Achaia, 94
Relation of present argument to whole question of Destina- tion of Epistle, . _ 97
CHAPTER VII.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE DERIVED FROM STATEMENTS FOUND THEREIN.
The question of Date distinct from that of Destination
of Epistle, 9£
xviii ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS.
I'AOK
Examinatioii of statements in Epistle which have been thought to fix its date :
(1) oiirws raxeois — different interpretations, - - 101
(2) TO irporepov — capable of double interpretation,
and therefore useless to determine date. Must itself be interpreted after date is otherwise determined, - - - - 105 Incidental expressions :
(1) "All the brethren who are with me," —
Professor Ramsay's explanation the exact contrary of Bishop Lightfoot's, - - - lO.) Discussion of these two, - - - - 110
(2) The mention of Titus. Was he known to the
Churches of Galatia ? The ambiguity of "EWrjv wv. — Professor Ramsay's conclusions not borne out by context, - - - - 113 The Epistle does not by itself betray its own date, - - 118
CHAPTER VIII.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE DERIVED FROM A COMPARISON OF IT WITH OTHER EPISTLES OF KNOWN DATE.
Comparison of Galatian Epistle with that to the Romans, - 120
How account for this similarity, . . - . . 121
One natural way — other ways most unlikely, - - - 122 Epistle to Galatians precedes that to Romans — reason
for thinking this, - - - - - - - 124
Relation of Galatian Epistle to the second Epistle to the
Corinthians, - - - 125
Bishop Lightfoot's arrangement of the four Epistles com- mends itself and forms a good working hypothesis, - 126
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. xix
PAGE
The meaning of to irpSrepov and ovtco^ rax^^is on this
hypothesis, 127
The Galatian defection viewed in relation to the assumed
date of the Epistle, 129
" All the brethren who are with us," easily explained, - 130
dX-qdevuv in iv. 16, 131
Interval between Galatian and Eoraan Epistles, - - 131
The Apostle's " much exhortation," 132
Mr. F. Eendall's argument from silence respecting the collection for the saints answered by Bishop Light- foot, - - - 133
The relation of Galatians vi. 1 to 2 Corinthians ii. 6, 7, - 134 Gratitude to Bishop Lightfoot and Professor Ramsay for their respective contributions towards the solutions of the two problems, - - 134
[Appendix,
XX ANAL YSJS OF CONTENTS.
APPENDIX. THE VISIT TO JERUSALEM REFERRED TO IN GALATIANS II.
PAGE
The five visits to Jerusalem recorded in the Acts, - - 137 The argument of Galatians i. and ii.,- - - - - 139
Visit of Galatians ii. one of two, 141
Argument of independence of St. Paul's Apostolic authority not invalidated by the founding of the Galatian churches being prior to visit to Jerusalem recorded in Galatians ii. — rather the contrary, - - - - 142 The purpose of the visits in Acts xi. and xv. respectively, - 146 Reasons for identifying visit of Galatians ii. with that of Acts xi. insufficient and outweighed by those for identifying it with that of Acts xv. :
(1) Missionary labours among Gentiles already
begun.
(2) Principle of non-circumcision of Gentile con-
verts contended for and won.
(3) Recognition by other Apostles of St. Paul's
Apostolic commission, - - - - 150 Why the visit of Acts xi. is omitted by St. Paul, - - 151 The phrase hih. deKarea-adpuiv €tQp, - - - - - 153
CHAPTEE T. INTRODUCTORY
In the New Testament there is an Epistle, generally recognised as Pauline, addressed to the " Churches of Galatia " (rah €KKXt]G-iai9 Tr}^ FaXar/a?). The churches of Galatia, presumably the same, are mentioned by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xvi. 1. The purpose of this Essay is to help to decide first, Where these churches were, and secondly, the Date at which the Epistle was written to them.
It will be well to lay it down at once that these are two distinct problems, and they must be treated separately. Illogical reasoning and argument in a circle are the inevitable result of trying to decide two unknown points at the same time. And I cannot but think that no final solution of the questions of the Destination and Date of the Epistle to the Galatians will be found, except by deciding one without any reference to the other. It does not, of course, matter which of the two questions we take for independent consideration. We may determine the Date of the Epistle without reference to its Destination, and use it when found to determine the Destination. Or
A
2 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
we may, if we prefer it, determine first the Destina- tion independently of any special theory of its Date, and afterwards use, if we wish, what we have so determined, to come at the Date. We shall here adopt the latter alternative. We shall ignore entirely for the present the Date, and of course also the place of origin of the Epistle, and try hy a method of sound argument to answer the question : Where were the churches of Galatia ?
JSTow there are two conflicting theories respecting their locality. The one, having the weighty support of Bishop Lightfoot, places them in Galatia proper, that is, the district of Asia Minor occupied by the Gauls in the fourth pre-Christian century. This is conveniently called the North Galatian theory. The other theory, for a long time little held in this country, has of late found an able champion in Professor W. M. Eamsay. It is that the churches addressed in Gal. i. 2 and mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 1 were not in Galatia proper, but were the churches founded by St. Paul in his first missionary journey at Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe ; these cities being all situated in what was, at the time the Epistle was written, the Roman Province of G-alatia. This, ^with Professor Eamsay, we will call the South Galatian \thcory. According to it, St. Paul uses Galatia in a I political, rather than in an ethnological sense. Which %i the two theories is likely to be the correct one jwe will attempt to discover.
The question is purely a critical one. No doctrine of the faith is affected by either answer we may give. It is not the genuineness of the Epistle which is
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 3
disputed but only its destination. It will not be difficult then, as in purely theological questions it often is, to lay aside prejudice and to approach the subject dispassionately.
Every one who has studied the question of the locality of the churches of Galatia must recognise that some of Professor Earn say's arguments advanced in The Church in the Roman Em2oire before A.D. 170, and St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen are weighty and strong ; and they are the stronger coming, as they do, from one whose acquaintance with Asia Minor in life and history is so close. The present writer feels the force of these arguments to be so great that he cannot but think that, were Bishop Lightfoot now living, he would in the light of them have to re-w^rite his essay on the " Churches of Galatia " in his Commentary on the Galatian Epistle, or, at any rate, that he would have to append a fuller note in oppo- sition to the South Galatian theory than that which appears in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians.^ This is of course only a matter of opinion. The expression of it on the part of the writer may, however, serve to emphasise the important fact that Bishop Lightfoot's advocacy of the Xorth Galatian theory was in opposition to Kenan and not to liamsay.
It is not proposed in this essay to bring forward a number of disconnected arguments for and against each theory. Such a method of proceeding would be both tedious and unsatisfactory. The question must be considered ah initio, on a definite plan, and
1 Pp. 24-28 of that work (6th edition).
4 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the argument must be kept clear, and unconfused by side issues.
It goes without saying that it is nothing to the purpose that St. Peter uses Galatia in its provincial sense.-^ We have to decide in what sense St. Paul uses the word. It is recognised now by both sides in the Galatian controversy that the word Galatia was used as the name of a whole province extending far beyond the country of Galatia, as well as in its limited sense ; so St. Paul may have used the word in one way, St. Peter in another way.
The churches of Galatia addressed by St. Paul were of his own fovmdation. He had visited them certainly once and probably more than once before he wrote his Epistle.^ It is only natural then to try to discover these churches in the pages of the Acts of the Apostles. Turning to the Acts we find that the word TaXarLa is nowhere used, though in two passages the adjective VaXariKo^ is found (Acts xvi. 6; xviii. 23). These two passages must be carefully considered, for they are differently interpreted by the advocates of the two theories. What we have to decide from them first of all is whether St.
1 1 Peter i. 1. This is not, I believe, disputed. Hort says of this verse, "The live names coincide precisely with the five names that make up the titles of the four provinces [four because Bithynia and Pontus formed one province] of the Roman empire into vt^hich Asia Minor, the southern littoral eventually excepted, was divided in and after the reign of Tiberius ; and it would need strong positive evidence to refute the consequent presumption that the territory denoted by the list in the Epistle was the territory of these four Roman provinces." Hort, 1 Peter, p. 157. See also Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 19 footnote (7th ed.).
^Gdatians iv. 13. There is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of to irporepou here. See Lightfoot's note in loc. The question is discussed in chapter v. of this essay.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 5
Paul ever visited North Galatia, and if he did, vi^hether he founded churches there. And while we are attempting to decide this point, it will be best to keep the issue unconfused by unnecessary appeals to the Galatian Epistle. The question we are trying to answer is : Does the narrative of the Acts seem to record a visit to North Galatia ? One historical notice only from the Epistle shall be allowed to intrude itself, namely, that it was on account of an infirmity of the flesh that St. Paul preached to the Galatians formerly or on the former occasion or visit {oi^are Se OTL OL aa-QeveLav t>]9 caoKO^ evrjyyeXicraiuLrjV vjmiv to TTporepov, Gal. iv. 13). To discuss fully the bearing of Acts xvi. 6 without allowing this statement from the Epistle its proper place, would be impossible, and unfair certainly to advocates of the North Galatian theory. Fortunately there is no doubt as to the literal meaning of the acrOeveia rrj? crapKo^, for this is conceded by both sides.^ No confusion then need arise by understanding that it was illness or bodily weakness which first brought or detained the Apostle among those to whom the Epistle to the Galatians is addressed.
All other references to the Epistle will be rigidly excluded until we have exhaustively treated of the two passages in the Acts. Our desire is to avoid arguing in a circle. That is why it is necessary
^Lightfoot in his note on the verse remarks that of the Greek fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuestia slur over the preposition, interpreting the passage in a way more con- sonant with the sense ei^ dadeveig.. But if the right meaning be given to 5ta as is now done, there can be no doubt as to the literal sense of the dadeveia ttjs aapKos. Lightfoot and Ramsay are certainly agreed on this point.
6 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to make clear at the outset what our method of procedure is to be.
Further, in examining the first of the two passages in the Acts, the second had better be excluded. There is no great difficulty in accommodating Acts xviii. 23 to either interpretation that may be given to Acts xvi. 6.
After we have examined Acts xvi. 6 ff. we shall do well to consider in connection with our results the passage in chapter xviii., where VoKaTiKo^i occurs. And then we will test briefly the consistency of our conclusions with the contents of the Epistle to the Galatians. Any other considerations derived from other sources can then find a place.
OHAPTEE II.
THE MEANING OF TaXanKds IN ACTS XVI. 6, WHEN 8ie\d6pT€s IS EEAD.
We read in Acts xiii. and xiv. of the first preaching of the Gospel in the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconiiim, Lystra, and Derbe. When Paul and Barnabas returned from their missionary journey they left a church in each of these cities, and elders in every church (Acts xiv. 23). Now these four cities were all contained within the limits of the great Eoman province of Galatia/ and there would be no impropriety in calling the Christian communities, duly organised in them, as we gather from the Acts they were, " Churches of Galatia." That St. Paul does so address them is the contention of the supporters of the South Galatian theory. But no hint is given by the author of the Acts in the two chapters recording the founding of these churches that the cities were Galatian, and the epithet TaXaTiKog does not appear in the narrative until later (Acts xvi. 6). When it does appear, there is some doubt as to its application, and it is here that
^This is conceded by those who hold the North Galatian theory. See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 18 (7th edition).
8 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the advocates of the two contlicting theories respecting the locality of •"' the churches of Galatia " find them- selves opposed. It becomes necessary then at once to examine the use of the term TaXarLKO^ in the first of the two passages where it occurs, and this we must do at some length.
The text of Acts xvi, 6. 7, 8 according to ^Yest- cott and Hort runs thus : XirjXOov Se ttjv ^pvyiav Kai YaXaTLKtjv ywpav, Kw\vO€VTe^ viro tov ayiov irvev- jULaTO^ \a.\T]a-ai tov \6yoi' ei Tt] 'A(Tia, eXOoiTe^ Se KaTa Tfjy ^Lua-iav e—eipcu^ov eig Tt]V ^Swiav TropevOtjicu Kcu ovK elaa-ei' aiTOv^ to Trvevjua 'Ifjcov' TrapeXOoiTe^ Se Ttji' ^Lva-iav KaT€J3t](Tai' eig TpccdSa.
The translation as given by the Eevised Version, whose text is in this particular case in agreement with that of Westcott and Hort, is this : " And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia; and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia ; and the Spirit of Jesus sufiered them not ; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas."
A few remarks may here be made in criticism of this rendering.
The translation differs from that of the Authorised Version in certain particulars, but the changes are mainly due to a difference of reading in the Greek text. There is certainly one correction of what was before a mistranslation, kuto. tijv ^Ivcriav being now rendered over against Mysia instead of to Mysia as before. But the differences in the text are the cause
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 9
of the more important changes in the transla- tion. Thus SiijXOov is substituted for SieXOovres, so introducing an extra principal sentence which the Eevisers have thought to necessitate a retrospective rendering of the participial clause KcoXvOevre^ viro Tov ayiov 7rvevjuaT09 XaXtjarai tov \oyov ev t>/ 'Ao-ia. Further, t>]u is omitted before Ta\aTiK)]v ■)((j)pav. This omission and the change of ^LeXQovreq into SirjXOov have a preponderance of authority in their favour.^
Deferring discussion on any change in the interpre- tation of the passage that the reading SifiXOov may require, we may reasonably express regret that the Eevisers have not rendered Tt]v ^pvylav kcu TaXaTiKtjv ywpav by a phrase more free from ambiguity than the region of Phrijgia and Galatia. This might stand for Triv ^pvyiav -^wpav Kai rr/v TaXarlav or for Tf]v ywpav rfjg ^pvyiag koi Trji/ TaXarlav ; but neither of these is what St. Luke wrote. He speaks of a passing through the Phrygo-Galatian region. This translation alone is adequate, preserving as it does the adjectival form of both ^pvyiav and VaXaTiKi]v, and bringing out the force of the double epithet applied in the original to the one ^(copa.
It is fortunate that Bishop Lightfoot and Professor Eamsay^ are agreed as to this last point, but they disagree in their understanding of what x^P^ ^^ meant by Trjv ^puyiav Koi TaXariKrju yoopav. Indeed it is on the interpretation of this expression that the solution
^ W. and H. do not even mention the reading of the A. V,
-See Lightfoot's Gcdatiam, p. 22, footnote; cf. Ramsay's Chioxh ill the Roman Empire, p. 78.
10 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATJANS.
of the problem of the locality of the churches of Galatia depends.
Lightfoot says:^ " The form of the Greek expression implies that Phrygia and Galatia here are not to be regarded as separate districts. The country which was now evangelised might be called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia. It was in fact the land originally inhabited by Phrygians but subsequently occupied by Gauls : or so far as he travelled beyond the limits of the Gallic settlements, it was still in the neighbouring parts of Phrygia that he preached, which might fairly be included under one general expression."
The first explanation here given, for it must be noticed that we are invited to choose between two, is hardly satisfactory. For to speak of a country or district, which had once been part of Phrygia and then became Galatia, as Phrygo-Galatian is surely not quite natural. If St. Luke meant to say that St. Paul went through Galatia, that is Northern Galatia, why did he not say rhv TaXariav ? A suggestion of Phrygia seems quite out of place. Have we any reason to suppose that the land occupied by the Gauls was, after it became Galatia, known also as Phrygia ?
Again there is a serious objection to Lightfoot's alternative explanation, though it seems better than the first. One would hardly call a district Phrygo- Galatian, if only 2xc7't of it were Phrygian, and part Galatian. The compound epithet would be more appropriate were the district all of it both Phrygian and Galatian.
Now Professor Eamsay contends that there was such
^ Oalatians, p. 22.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. \\
a district.^ Phrygia was partly in the Eoman province of Asia and partly in that of Galatia.^ That part of Phrygia, then, which belonged to Galatia, or, to put it the other way, that part of the Province of Galatia which ethDologically was Phrygia, could most appro- priately be called Phrygo-Galatian. The word x^i^" may, as Professor Eamsay thinks it is, or may not be used as a technical equivalent of regio. That is a point we need not discuss and we can afford to leave the question open. On a priori grounds, that is apart from the context, the Phrygo-Galatian x^pa seems more likely to mean what Professor Eamsay says it means, than what Bishop Lightfoot suggests it may mean.
But a priori conclusions are sometimes precarious. We must therefore take up the context and examine the appropriateness of the different interpretations. What we have really to determine is whether the Phrygo-Galatian region is new or old ground to St. Paul. According to Bishop Lightfoot it is new ground; according to Professor Eamsay it is ground already covered in the first missionary journey when Barnabas was St. Paul's companion. Our inquiry then is directed to this : Does the context suggest old or new ground ? Unfortunately we are not absolutely sure what the context is, for there is the alternative reading SLe\Q6vTe<s, and when we have decided between SiijXOov and Sie\06vT€<i there is still difference of opinion as to the relation of the participial clause KcoXvOei/reg k.t.X.
^ Church ill the Roman Empire and St. Paul the Traveller.
'^See maps in St. Paul the Traveller and Church in the Roman Empire.
12 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to what has gone before. It will be well then first to examine the whole paragraph in its general sense. What effect, we will ask, is prodncecl on the mind by reading Acts xvi. 6-10 ? What is the emphasis of the paragraph ? Here is Bishop Lightfoot's answer:^
" This portion of St. Luke's narrative is emphasised not by any artifice of the writer, but by the progress of the incidents themselves, which all converge to one point. St. Paul having passed through the country of Phrygia and Galatia is driven forward under the divine guidance and in spite of his own impulses towards the shores of the Hellespont. Attempting to diverge on either side, he is checked and kept in the direct path. He first looks wistfully towards the country on his left, wishing to preach the Gospel in the populous district of Proconsular Asia. ' The Holy Spirit forbids him' to do so. He next turns his steps towards Bithynia situated on his right, doubtless with the same purpose. This attempt is as futile as the former. ' The Spirit of Jesus will not permit it.' Thus hemmed in on either side, he has no choice but to go forward, and so he arrives on the coast of the JEgean. Here at length the meaning of those strange hindrances, which had thwarted his energetic purpose, became apparent. God's providence has destined him for a nobler mission- field. While at Troas gazing on the sight of the opposite shores of Europe, he receives an intimation which decides him. He sees a vision in the night. A man of Macedonia stands before him and entreats him : ' Come over and help us.' He considers this as an indication of the will of God, and
1 Biblical Essays, p. 237.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 13
in obedience thereto he crosses the narrow sea which separates Asia from Europe. In this way St. Luke forces upon our notice the importance of this visit to Macedonia.''
The italics are the present w^riter's. It will be understood that he does not quote this passage in full because he adopts all its statements in detail, but because the whole passage recognises that the emphasis of Acts xvi. 6-10 is on the visit to Macedonia. And Professor Eamsay acknowledges no less than Lightfoot that the stress lies here. He says : ^ "It is not easy to account on strictly historical grounds for the emphasis laid on the passage to Macedonia. Lightfoot, in his fine essay on " the Churches of Macedonia," recognises with his usual insight that it is necessary to acknowledge and to explain that emphasis ; but his attempts cannot be called successful."
Here we have a distinct point of agreement which extends further to a readiness on the part of both the Bishop and the Professor to adopt the reading of the inferior MSS., viz. Sie\66vT€<i for the SitjXOov of the great MSS.^ This reading is thought to heighten the effect of the paragraph which they both describe, and to have the advantage over SirjXOov on the ground of transcriptional probability. The reading SiriXOov Lightfoot says, " is open to suspicion as an attempt to simplify the grammar of a sentence rendered awkward by the accumulation of participles." ^
1 St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 198, 199.
2 Biblical Essays, p. 23 i]\dov is read by t^ABCl
^ Biblical Essays, p. 23'/
^Biblical Essays, p. 237 note ; St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 195 ff., 8LT]\dov is read by t^ABCDE.
14 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
We must not of course summarily dismiss the reading SirjXOov in favour of the participle.^ Our only honest course is to inquire into the meaning of v. 6 with each reading in turn ; the meaning, that is, so far as it affects the solution of the problem of the locality of the churches of Galatia.
Let us then first suppose that SieXOopre^ is what St. Luke wrote. We are then confronted by three participial clauses before we reach the finite verb eirelpaXov {eh rrjv l^iOunav iropevQrjvaL). The first two of these clauses are linked together by no copula, so that there arises an uncertainty as to the dependence of the second on the first. Two possible translations of the passage suggest themselves :
(A) And having jJcissed through the Phrygo-Galatian region, hecausc they were forhidden hy the Holy Ghost to speak the luord in Asia, and having come over against Mysia they were assaying to go into Bithynia, etc.
(B) And having passed, through the Phrygo-Galatian region, {andY having heen forhidden hy the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia, and having come over against Mysia they were assaying to go into Bithynia, etc.
In (A) the participial clause is retrospective, and in (B) it is not. It is proposed now to show that the second rendering is likely to be correct.
And logic requires that we should now admit no
^ For our own part we see no reason why dieXdoures may not have been substituted for dLTjXdov instead of the reverse. Our reasons will appear later. See chapter iii.
2 We can of course do without the copula if we render "And being forbidden by the Holy Ghost after they had passed through the Phrygo-Galatian region to speak the word in Asia, etc."
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 15
argument in favour of (B) if such argument is based on any special interpretation of the phrase rhv ^pvylav kqi TaXariKrjv yuipav. It is true that the present writer thinks (B) better than (A) on the ground that (B) gives a reasonable interpretation of this disputed phrase, more reasonable, that is, than (A) can give. But were he to base his preference for (B) on this, he would be guilty of unfairness, and the argument would be nothing advanced. He has already said which interpretation of rriv ^pvylav Km TaXaTiKt]v yoopav he would prefer on a priori grounds. The point now is : How far does such interpretation compare with others in harmonising with the context ? Of course the writer's preferred interpretation will suit the context admirably and better than any other, if the context be taken to be (B) rather than (A), on the ground that (B) gives the very interpretation to the disputed phrase he wishes it to have 1 Unless then (B) is to be preferred to (A) on other grounds we are no nearer to the solution of the original problem.
But this exclusion of a special interpretation of the Phrygo-Galatian region does not require that we should write this phrase an absolutely unknown x. We must remember that the special interpretations of .the phrase, though they are opposed one to the other, may yet have something in common which it is permissible to give the phrase. This reservation will be understood shortly.
We propose now to argue that (B) is to be preferred to (A) on these grounds :
1. Because the rendering (B) is in accordance with St. Luke's general use of two participles without a
16 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATL4XS.
copula, and, in particular, that it can be paralleled by the rendering of another passage similar to this one, and about which there is no ambicfuitv.
2. Because, had (A) been what St. Luke meant, it is likely he would have expressed it differently.
3. Because the emphasis which the whole passage is admittedly designed to express, is better expressed by (B) than by (A).
-i. Because (B) takes account of verbal distinctions in the passage which are confused by (A). These four propositions must now be justified.
1. A long quotation has already been given from Bishop Lightfoot's Biblical Essays, which makes it clear that he recognised that there is no special emphasis laid on the passing through the Phrygo- Galatian region ; and obviously this fact is even less emphasised if ^/eX^oVre? be read according to our present hypothesis, instead of SiJJXOov. Can we then find another passage in the Acts, in which the writer hurries over ground to give emphasis to some point he is working for, to reach some place where he would pause ? Such a passage, if it could be found, should by preference be contained in that part of his narrative which deals with the missionary journeys of St. Paul. Here is what we want :
Acts xviii. 22, 23. koI KareXOcoi' ezV Is^aiaraplav, avajBa^ kul aG-na<TaiJ.evo<; Trji/ eKK\t](Tiai', KaTeStj ei^ 'Ai^Tio-^eiav, Koi ironjcra^ -^ovov tlvol e^tjXOei', Siep-^6- fxevo? KaOe^jj^ rrji' TaXaTiKi]v y^wpav kui ^pvyiai', (TTtjpLi^aiDv TrdvTcig tov? /uLaO}]Td9. This passage is chosen for its first sentence only. The meaning of
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF G ALALIA. 17
VuXaTLKo^ in the latter verse has nothing to do with our present purpose. This will be considered in chapter iv.
The interest of the third missionary journey, which is here entered upon, centres in Ephesus. It is thither St. Luke is hastening us. He sums up very briefly the movements of the Apostle between his second journey and the third, and his movements on the third journey until he has reached Ephesus. Now verse 22, above quoted, resembles xvi. 6, 7, in the use of three participles, which are related one to another similarly in the two passages. There is no copula to link the second with the first in either case.
But besides this particular case where we have three participles, there are several instances in the Acts of two participles being used without any copula, and in each case, the second of the two, so far from explaining the first, follows it in point of time, or adds some simultaneous action to that expressed by the first. In no case, that is, is the second participle retrospective. Thus : 6 ^e IlafAo? erf ir poa fxe'iva'^ >]ixepa^ IKUU'.'? T019 aSeXcpoh aTroTa^djuievo^ e^ewXei eig T}]v ^vpLuv (Acts xviii. 18a).
" And Paul, having tarried after this many days, took his leave of the brethren and sailed thence into Syria."
It will be noticed that this particular verse occurs not many lines before the one with the triple par- ticiple already quoted. It may be said to belong to the same paragraph, a paragraph which is characterised by a summary treatment of its subject.
B
18 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Again in xxvii. 13, we have: \\)iro'Kvkva-avTo^ Se uoTOu] S6^avT6? TrJ9 irpoOecrecog KeKpartjKepai apavTe<i dcrcrov irapeKeyovTO Trjv Ivpy'jTtjv.
" Supposing they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and sailed along Crete, close in shore."
A very good instance and one that occurs in a passage characterised by some excitement is to be found in xiv. 14. aKova-ai^re? Se ol airoarToXoi ^ap- vd^a9 Kcxi. UavXo'?, Siapp^'j^aureg to. l/uLOLTia kavToav €^€7r})Sr]arav e(V tov o')(\ov, KpouCpvTeg kul Xeyovre^ k.tX.
" And when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments and sprang forth among the multitude, etc."
And a quieter instance occurs in xx. 1. julctu. Se to TravcracrOai tov Oopv^ov jULeraTreiuyf/a/uievog 6 JlauXo'? T0V9 /maOijTag Kai TrapaKaXea-ag ctcrTracra/xevo? e^ijXOev TropeueaOaL eiV M^aKeoovlav.
" And after the uproar was ceased, Paul having sent for the disciples and exhorted them, took leave of them and departed for to go into Macedonia."
Lastly xviii. 23, quoted already, has Siep^^o/mepog and orrrjpl'^cov not coupled together except by the obvious sense of the verse, cmjpi'^^ooi/, it is true, does not express an action following on that expressed by Siep-)(^6iuL€i/o9 in point of time ; rather, the two actions are simultaneous ; yet the second participle is in no sense retrospective.
On the other hand, is there a single instance where two participles are used without a copula, the second being intended in explanation of the first ?
2. Had St. Luke meant (A) he v/ould have ex- pressed himself differently. In support of this state-
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 19
ment witness : Keipd/mepo? ev K€V)(^peah rhv /ce^aX>/i/, €Lxev yap ev^yv. (xviii. 18). The expression of this leads one to think that we should have had for xvi. 6, SieXOovre'? Se t?V ^pvyiav koI TaXaTiKi]v )^copav, eKW- XvOrjcrav yap viro tov aylov Trvev/ixaTog XaXrja-ai tov \6yov ev Tij 'Aa-ta, eXOovTC^ Se Kara rhv Mucr/aj/ eirelpa^ov k.t.X.
We may notice that the words quoted above from xviii. 18, in which an explanation of the conduct expressed by the participial clause K€ipd/Li€Po<; ev K.ev)(^peaig t}]v K€(paX}'jv is given by means of the parenthetical el-^^ev yap ev')Q']v, and not by another participial clause such as e^oiv ev^]v, form the latter part of a verse of which the former part has been already quoted to illustrate the use of two participles not connected. The difference of expression in the one verse is so striking that it may be quoted in full : 6 (^e XlauXo?, eTL Trpocimelva^ Jjjmepa^ LKavdg TOig dSeXcpoh a7roTa^a/uL€uo9 e^eTrXei eig Ti]v ^vplai'. . .Keipajuepo^ ev l^ev^peah Trjv KeCpaXi'jv, ely^ev yap ev^i'jv.
3. Next, (B) must be preferred to (A) on the ground that it better suits what is recognised to be the main emphasis of the passage. What that emphasis is, Lightfoot and Eamsay are agreed. It is to Macedonia that St. Luke hurries us. The Apostle's course was divinely ordered, and so clearly marked at each stage that he could not fail in the sequel to observe how providential all had been. St. Luke realises this, and would have his readers realise how divinely ordered were all the circumstances which led the Apostle on from the scenes of his first missionary labour to a new sphere ; hurrying him
20 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
through Asia (or perhaps past it)/ forbidding him to preach there, checking his intentions of entering Bithynia, directing him westward rather than north- ward, and, when his face was turned towards the west, urging him not to stay in Mysia, but to continue without delay to the sea, which a vision directed him to cross.
This emphasis seems to be better maintained by making the three participles express the sequence of events in rapid succession rather than that one of the participial clauses should make us pause to look back. Had we been meant to look back some more sure way of inviting us to do so would have been found.
4. Lastly, (B) takes account of verbal distinctions in the passage which are confused by (A). For according to (A) the prohibition of the Spirit against preaching the word in Asia is given as the cause of passing through the Phrygo-Galatian region. In this case then St. Paul and his company did not enter Asia at all. This of course follows whatever be meant by Tr\v ^puytav koi TaXariKrjv "xy^puv ; for without giving any special interpretation to the phrase, which we are precluded from doing (p. 15), we are yet permitted to assume that it was no part of Asia. So then if St. Luke says that the missionary band passed through the Phrygo-Galatian region because they were forbidden to speak the word in Asia, it is plain that the sense of the statement is that they went through some district not Asia because they
^It would be unfair to intrude any South Galatian conclusion, until we have established it. That is why this bracket is inserted.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 21
were forbidden to speak the word in Asia. In this case the Holy Ghost's prohibition against preaching in Asia, is taken by St. Paul and his companions to mean that they ought not to enter Asia at all. No real distinction is made between speaking the word in and entering Asia. That is to say, the distinction which is marked in the narrative between the pro- hibition in regard to Asia and Bithynia respectively — for, while sjjeciking the icord only is forbidden in Asia, they may not enter Bithynia at all — is wholly dis- regarded if we adopt (A).
On the other hand (B) preserves the distinction. For it does not make the prohibition imposed by the Holy Ghost a reason for their going through the Phrygo-Galatian region. But the prohibition, at least so far as obedience to it on their part is concerned, followed the passage through the ^pvylav koi TaXariKt]!/ ■)((x)pav. That is to say, while the prohibition may have become known to them as they were passing through this region, it only affected their conduct eifter the region was passed. And the way in which it affected their movements was that they abstained from preaching in Asia but not from entering it. The sense of the paragraph is in this case :
After they had passed through the Phrygo-Galatian^ region they were forbidden to speak the word in Asia and so had to go forward without preaching, (or having been forbidden to speak the word in Asia, they had to go forward without preaching,) which they did
^The participial KuXvOeures may as suggested before be retained in translation if we render : A^id being forlndden hy the Holy (Utost after they had yone through the Phrygo-Galatian region to speak the word ill A'iia, etc. and having come over agaim^t Myda they icere, etc.
22 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
until they came over against Mysia. Here they were assaying to journey to Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not ; and passing by Mysia (where they could not preach, for it was part of Asia in which speaking the word was forbidden), they came to Troas.
Exception may be taken to the rendering forbidden for KcoXvOevTeg, which might mean hindered. The nature of this prohibition will be considered later. The word might mean hindered, and in this case the hindrance must be understood to hold good when the travellers came over against Mysia. Otherwise there is no accounting for their conduct in regard to Mysia. The narrative clearly implies that they did not go through Mysia for preaching, which would have been expressed by ^Le\66vTe<i ; for it says that they passed it by, that is, left it out, as we say.^
This consideration that the prohibition against speaking the word in Asia seems to have held good when the travellers were Kara rrjj/ Mva-lav, and that yet it did not deter them from crossing Mysia, which was itself part of Asia,^ strengthens our impression that there was a real distinction between the Spirit's prohibition in regard to Asia and Bithynia respectively. If the distinction were not intended, this fourth
^St. Paul the Traveller, p. 196, "neglecting Mysia." "Leaving out " seems better, but only because there is a suggestion of moral delinquency in neglect. " Passing liy " is quite good, though am- biguous.
2 Dean Farrar makes Asia = Lydia and not the whole of proconsular Asia. I have assumed with Lightfoot, Ramsay, Conybeare and Howson, etc. , that proconsular Asia is meant. See Farrar's Life and IVork of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 464. I have returned to this point at the end of chapter iii.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 23
reason for preferring (B) to (A) would be non-existent. But our argument is that it is real, and that (B) preserves it while (A) ignores it.
We claim now to have made good our proposition that if ^lekQovTe^ be the correct reading, the clause ATcoXu^ei/re? /c.r.X. is not retrospective. It remains then to discover what is meant by the Phrygo-Galatian region : that is, we have to decide between one of Lightfoot's two suggested interpretations, and the one that Professor Ramsay offers.
There cannot be the least doubt that Professor Ramsay's explanation gives excellent sense. According to it the clause oieXOovTeg tyjv ^pvy'iav kol TaXariK^v XO)pciv sums up the journey over the old ground after Lystra was left and Iconium reached. It is remark- able that in his account of the first missionary journey, St. Luke (Acts xiii. 49) speaks of the spread of the word throughout all the region about Antioch (Si€(pep€TO Se 6 Xoyog too Ivvplov Si' oXrjg rtj^ X^P^^)' This X'^P^' called Phrygo-Galatian in xvi. 6, would include Iconium and Antioch, which places, it is to be noticed, have not been specially mentioned in the opening verses of chapter xvL, except in an allusion to the brethren in Iconium, in connection with the choice of Timothy. When then St. Luke wrote SieXOovre? Trjv ^pvy'iav koi ToXaTiKrjv X^P^^ ^® might quite well mean : When they had completed their journey over the old ground. This makes good sense of xvi. 6 and connects it properly with what has gone before.
24 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
On the other hand,whatof Lightfoot's interpretations? According to both of these, the Phrygo-Galatian region was new ground, inckiding, in either case, some part of Galatia proper. Now it is acknowledged by supporters of the North Galatian theory that this was an unlikely route to take,^ and one that we should not have expected to be taken unless there were some special reason. No reason is given in the Acts ; for we have decided that the KcoXvOepre^ clause is not retrospective. A reason may be found in the words of Gal. iv. 13 ; and it is suggested that St. Paul went into Galatia on account of illness. But we may ask whether any reason can be assigned why a sick or weak man should diverge from his natural route to go to an out-of-the- way and semi-barbarous region. That St. Paul having once gone to North Galatia might be cletained there by sickness, it is reasonable enough to believe ; but that he should ever go there first of all because of a bodily ailment or weakness is highly improbable.
For the present then we are impelled to the conclusion that on the hypothesis that ^LeXQovre^ is what St. Luke wrote, this passage does not give any foundation for the theory that St. Paul visited North Galatia on his second missionary journey.
We next inquire into the force of the reading
^ See Dean Farrar in footnote of pages given above.
CHAPTEE III.
THE MEANING OF Ta\aTiK6s IN ACTS XVI. 6 WHEN OLrjXdop IS EEAD.
OuE hypothesis now is that SirjXOov is what St. Luke wrote, and our first concern is to try to determine the relation of the participial clause KwXvOevre^ k.t.X. to the context. We want to decide whether it is re- trospective or not ; whether or not it gives the reason why the travellers passed through the Phrygo-Galatian region.
Now it will be understood at once by those who have followed the argument given above in favour of the non-retrospective character of the /cwXu^eVre? clause when Sie\06vT€^ was taken to be the true readinQ- that, of the four reasons there given for refusing to consider the participle to be retrospective, the first two do not apply now. These depend for their cogency entirely on the reading SieXOovre^, which is now excluded. On the other hand, the other two reasons there given hold now as then. That is to say, if grammar will permit of the non-retrospective interpretation of the KcoXuOevreg clause, such interpretation is to be preferred on the ground that it preserves the distinction between the
26 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
prohibitions of the Spirit in regard to Asia and Bithynia respectively, and that it is congenial to the main tenor of the passage. It becomes necessary now to in- vestigate this point of grammar, and this must be done with a due regard for St. Luke's general usage.
That, as a matter of grammar, KoAvOei^reg may be taken retrospectively cannot be denied. It is true that St. Luke's general habit is to place his participial clauses before the finite verb of their sentence, when such clauses express an action preceding in point of time that which the finite verb is intended to express, but such usage is certainly not without exception, as witness Acts xv. 40, 41. IlayXo? ^e eTriXe^dimei^o? S/Xai/ e^rfKOeif irapaooQei^ Trj "yapLTL tou kvoiov vtto twv aSeXcjjwv. In this sentence one naturally supposes that TrapaSoOeh k.t.X. precedes in point of time St. Paul's going forth, though, it is to be noticed, that it is in no way suggested that the commendation of him to the grace of the Lord on the part of the brethren was the cause of his going forth. We might even paraphrase and say that he went forth with the blessing of the brethren upon him. Further, one cannot but think that had eTriXe^djuieuog been absent from the sentence, TrapaSoOeh k.t.X. would have preceded e^rjXOeu}
At the same time it must be acknowledged that the participle is used after the finite verb even when no other participle has preceded it in the sentence, and that too retrospectively. An example is to be found in Acts xii. 2 5 : Bapvd/Bag Se ko.). XavXo9 v-jrecrTpe^ai' e^ 'lepova-aXi]ju ttXt] puxravTeg Trjv SiaKOviav, crvvirapoXa- /SovTeg 'Icoavrji' tov eiriKXtjOevTa MdpKOv.
^ Compare xiii. 4,
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATL4. 27
If we thus read e^ before 'lepovcraX^jiuL there can be no doubt that the fulfilment of the SiuKoula expressed by irK>]pod(TavTe<i k.tX. precedes in point of time the return expressed by the finite verb virea-rpe^av. It might even be taken as the cause of the return. The clause introduced by a-uvirapaXa^ovreg would seem rather to add a new fact to the return than to express an action preceding it. If ei9 be read for e^ it is not so clear that 7r\i]pcocravT€^ is retrospective, but it is unnecessary to discuss this. It is likely that Hort's suggestion is correct and that the real reading is t>;j^ ek 'lepov(Ta\t]iui irXt] pwcravTeg SiaKOvlav.
In xxiv. 22 we have an example of a retrospective participial clause about which there can be no doubt. ave^dXero Se avrov^ 6 ^tjXi^, aKpi/Secrrepov eiSm to. Trep). rrj^ oSov, eiirag k.t.X. Here the more accurate knowledge that Felix had is clearly given as the reason for his action as expressed by ai/e^dXero which has in the order of the sentence preceded the participial clause. At the same time it is doubtful whether eiScog would have followed the finite verb if 6 ^ijXi^ had not done so too.
We need not now give other instances. They are not numerous in comparison with participial clauses preceding the verb in the sentence, but we have enough to go on to show that the KcoXvOevre^ clause of xvi. 6 may quite well, as a matter of grammar, and in accordance with St. Luke's occasional usage, be retrospective. Taking it as such we may render thus :
And they passed through the Phrygo-Gcdatian region because they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to speak
28 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the ivord in Asia, and tvhen they came over against Mysia they were assaying to go into Bithynia, etc., etc.
Wq have arrived at this rendering on purely grammatical grounds, as a possibility but by no means a certainty. It becomes necessary now to examine the sense of the passage. What we want to come at is the meaning of the Phrygo-Galatian regio7i. On our present hypothesis of the retrospective force of kcoXv- Oei'Tcg this region was entered by St. Paul and his companions because they might not preach the word in Asia. This being so we cannot now argue that North Galatia was an unlikely region for the travellers to go to, as, however out-of-the-way it was, it was not entered upon without some reason. As one mission field was denied them they went to another. Moreover, as we have now a finite verb SirjXOov in place of a participle SieXOopTeg, it is altogether more likely now than before that new ground may be intended by the Phrygo-Gcdatian region. We may then, for the purpose of the argument, allow that this region includes North Galatia.
Assuming then that Acts xvi. 6 does make possible a visit to Galatia proper, and that too for preaching, we must face the following question: Is the prohibition of the Spirit spoken of here the same as that which is referred to by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians as an infirmity of the flesh ? That is to say. Was the hindrance to preaching in Asia due ultimately to sick- ness which St. Paul was brought to look upon as a direct guidance from heaven ? Or v;as it independent of any such bodily hindrance? It w^ill be well to clear the ground on this point.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 29
Dean Farrar certainly seems to identify the two causes, what we may call the KcoXvp.a of Acts xvi. 6 and the aorOeveia rrjg arapKo? of Gal. iv. 13.^ It is not however clear whether such an identification is intended by all supporters of the North Galatian theory. The present writer cannot refrain from a suspicion that this school does find some sort of agree- ment between the statements of St. Luke and St. Paul in regard to the cause of the Apostle's first preaching to the Galatians. Whether this is so or not the confession of one of them makes an examination of this point necessary.
Let us then first suppose that St. Paul, on account of sickness or bodily infirmity, which was interpreted by the Spirit to be a reason for not preaching the word in Asia, turned .aside into Galatia proper. What we have now to inquire is : Where did he turn aside ? By what route did he reach Galatia ? Did he visit* Pisidian Antioch or not on his second missionary journey ? If he did not visit Antioch we should naturally expect from St. Luke some explanation ivhy he did not, seeing that the Apostle had proposed to visit the brethren in every city in which he had proclaimed the word of the Lord (Acts xv. 36). It is true that the breach with Barnabas occurred after this proposal had been made, yet when the two separated, Barnabas to go one way and Paul another, it would seem that Antioch would naturally fall to St. Paul. If then he did not go there now, we have a right to expect a reason from the historian. It may be said
^ This seems clear from his footnote on p. 4(34 of Life and Wo7'k of Sf. Paul, vol. i.
80 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
that the Koi)\vOePT€<t clause gives the reason. Be it so. St. Paul understood that he was not to preach the word in Asia, and so he did not go to Antioch, for then he would have had to go into the part of Phrygia which belonged to Asia, so he passed from Iconium to Galatia. We look at a map and we find that to get from Iconium to Pessinus, it would have been necessary for the travellers, if they went by the high road, to go to Philomelium first ; and Philomelium was, according to Pamsay, in Phrygia Asiana.-^ That is to say, that Antioch, having been avoided because of the prohibition concerning Asia, St. Paul would yet go into Asia. This is clearly absurd.
Well then, it may be said, St. Paul did not go by the high road. " He would not be deterred by any rough or unfrequented paths." This last sentence is Lightfoot's. Be it so. St. Paul went over the moun- tains because he was forbidden to preach the word in Asia. He went over them, because when he got over them he would be where he might preach. We ask whether this is consistent with our present hypothesis that the prohibition was due to sickness. A sick man diverging from the main road to travel over rough and unfrequented paths ! No ; on the hypothesis that the KcoXvjuLa of Acts xvi. and the aaOeveia rrj^ crapKOS were one in effect, there is nothing for it but to allow that St. Paul did go to Antioch.
Let us then follow his course from Antioch. The visit to Antioch itself is included in xvi. 4, 5, not, of course, in SirjXOov t^v ^pvyiav Kai TaXariKrjv -^copav, which is accounted for on our present hypothesis by
^ See map, Church in the Roman Umpire.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 31
the retrospective KooXvOevre? clause. In v. 6 we enter on new ground. A new X'^P^' which we are supposing to include North Galatia, is entered on, presumably for j^recccJmig, for Asia is forbidden them for preaching.
We take then this Phrygo-Galatian region to mean first the one and then the other of Lightfoot's sugges- tions. First let it stand for Galatia proper, once Phrygia now so no more. How did St. Paul get there from Antioch ? He must have gone through the part of Phrygia which belonged to the province of Asia. He cannot have preached in this part, for the prohibi- tion is upon him not to preach the word in Asia — the prohibition, that is, which the Holy Spirit interpreted his sickness to mean — so he hastens on to Pessinus, where he will no longer be in Asia, and so not forbidden to preach. Now it may be unhesitatingly said that this is most unlikely. So unlikely is it that a sick man should take so long a journey and into the " semi-barbarous regions of Phrygia and Galatia," that the present writer must refuse to follow him there.
So then we try Lightfoot's other suggestion, and interpret the Phrygo-Galatian region to be a district part of which was Phrygian and part Galatian. And it must be remembered that this is reached from Antioch where we have seen St. Paul must have gone. Which then was the Phrygian part of the ywpa"^. Not any part of Phrygia in Asia, for the prohibition against preaching the word in Asia holds good. And no other part of Phrygia will do.
Our conclusion then is, that even if KcoXvOevre^ be retrospective and the North Galatian theory be correct,
32 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the acrOei/eia rfjg arapKo^ is not the same as the prohibi- tion of Acts xvi. 6.
We have not, in our consideration of the possible identity of the prohibition of the Spirit and the acrOeueia Trjg orapKog, allowed any a jy^'iori reasons to intrude themselves. But now that we have, on in- dependent grounds, decided that they are not the same, it may be permissible to state emphatically that we had every reason a priori to expect that they would not prove to be the same. To the present writer it seems a misuse of language to speak of an illness as a prohibition of the Spirit. At any rate he does not think that St. Paul, and in consequence St. Luke, would have so regarded it. The Apostle was more likely to have looked upon it as a hindrance from Satan (1 Thess. ii. 18 with Lightfoot's note and 2 Cor. xii. 7). When then we find St. Luke speaking of the missionary band as K(jo\vdevTe<i viro rov aylov Tn/evjuarog \aXrja-ai tov Xoyov ev Tt] A(Tia, we prefer to give to the words a more literal and natural meaning, and to plead justification for so doing by a reference to Acts xxi. 11. The warning of Agabus delivered in the name of the Holy Spirit (TaSe Xeyei to irveufxa to dyiov) would seem to suggest the manner in which the prohibition of the Holy Spirit against preaching the word in Asia was made known to St. Paul. And it is worthy of remark that Silas, who was St. Paul's companion on his second missionary journey, was, like Agabus, a 7rpo(p7jTt]9 (Acts XV. 32).
It remains for us then, still allowing KwXvOei/reg to be retrospective and still taking " the Phrygo-Galatian
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 33
region " to include North Galatia, to keep the pro- hibition distinct from the aa-Qeveia rrj^ (lapm. The prohibition against preaching the word in Asia was one thing ; the sickness or bodily infirmity which took the Apostle to Galatia, or detained him there, was another thing.
Here again the question confronts us : Did St. Paul visit Antioch on his journey, or did he diverge at Iconium ? Let it be supposed first that he went off at Iconium, and that, because he was forbidden to preach the word in Asia. The inference is that he avoided Asia altogether and went over the mountains. There is no objection to this journey over an un- frequented path, now that we have distinguished the aarOiveLa rrj^ (rapKo? from the KcoXvjma of the Holy Spirit. But if the Apostle avoided Asia because he might not preach there, he must have gone into the Phrygo-Galatian region on purpose to preach. How, we ask, is this to be reconciled with the statement of Gal. iv. 13, that it was on account of an infirmity of the flesh that he preached to the Galatians ?
So then we must take the Apostle to Antioch. From there he enters the Phrygo-Galatian region because he might not preach the word in Asia. This region then cannot mean Phrygia and Galatia, because the Phrygian part was in Asia. It must then mean Northern Galatia, once Phrygia. There St. Paul goes with the deliberate intention of preaching because he might not speak the word in Asia. Need- less to say, this cannot be reconciled with St. Paul's statement in Gal. iv. 13.
There is nothing for it then but to give up in-
34 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
terpreting the KcoXvOevreg clause as retrospective. If it be so taken, the passage leads to no sense or fails in consistency with Gal. iv. 13. The retrospective interpretation of the participle certainly does not favour the South Galatian theory, but neither does it work in consistently with the opposite theory. Grammatically the construction is possible, but it will not bear the test of a close examination from a logical point of view.
It becomes necessary now to inquire whether any other interpretation of the KcoXvOepre^ clause is gram- matically possible. Adhering strictly to the order of the Greek we get this rendering. " And they went through the Phry go- Galatian region forbidden hy the Holy Ghost to speak the vjord in Asia, cicr It will be noticed that this differs from the rendering of the Ee vised Version in an important particular ; for it omits all use of auxiliary verbs to translate KcoXvOevreg, which in the Revised Version is rendered having been forbidden. The sense of the statement as given in the Eevised Version would remain the same if we wxre to invert the order of the participial clause and the finite verb in translating. Thus if we read, And having betn forbidden by the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia, they went through the Phrygo- Gedatiecn region, we apprehend the same fact as if we read. And they ivent through the Phrygo-Galeitian region, having bee7i forbielden of the Holy Ghost to speech the luord in Asia. But if, as is now suggested, we omit the auxiliary words having been, and take the
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 35
sentence to be : " They went through the Phrygo- Galatian region forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia," we may understand the participial clause to be predicative, and the predication made by the finite verb SirjXOov to be incomplete without it. The participle is grammatically in agree- ment with the subject of the finite verb, but logically it is an extension of the predicate. Further, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the participle precede or follow the verbal predicate. We see at once the difference between, They went through the Phrygo-GaloMan region forbidden to preach the word in Asia, and, Forhidden to 'preach the word in Asia, they went through the Phrygo-Galatian region. In the latter rendering the participle is an extension of the subject; in the former, though in agreement with the subject grammatically, it is, as we have already remarked, logically part of the predicate.
That the participle is used predicatively even in classical Greek is recognised by Greek scholars. For example, Curtius speaks of that usage " in which the participle serves to supplement a verbal predicate, and forms as such an essential part of the predica- tion." And he adds : '' This widely ramifying use to which the Greek language is especially partial is of supreme importance to the pupil." ^ In his Gram- mar of the Greek Language he gives examples of the predicative participle ; such participle, as he says, serving " to complete a v^erb by attributing to a word contained in the sentence something which is not
^ See Elucidations of the Student's Greek Gramma)- hy Curtius, translated by Evelyn Abbot (London, 1870), pp. 223, 224.
36 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
a mere addition, but an essential part of the state- ment." ^
Perhaps the simplest and most familiar instance of this is the use of Xav^avijo with the participle. Thus (pouea eXdvOave /Boo-kmv, — he was entertaining a murderer unaiuares. " The real predicate here is /SocTKcoi/ and eXdvOave is in effect but an adverb. The predication is incomplete without both the finite verb and the participle. We may compare (palveTai avrjp aya0o9 cov, which means He manifestly is a hrave man, a different statement from that contained in the words (paiveraL avhp ayaOog elvai, which would only mean He is considered to be a hrave man. Again, in 'irv^ov TrpoQ-eXOcov dvSpl the participle is essential to the predication, the finite verb by itself being meaning- less. We might here again render ervyov adverbially and say, By chance I met a man. Indeed Curtius well says concerning this : " In translating we fre- quently change the participle into the principal verb and render the principal Greek verb by an adverb." ^
It is unnecessary to multiply instances. The reader may refer to Curtius Grammar, where these are numerous. Enough has been said to show that at an early stage of the language there is already a tendency for the participle to become predicative.
And this tendency is specially marked in later Gh-eek, as any reader of Hellenistic Greek must have observed for himself. We might almost say that with the historical writers of the New Testament it has become
1 Curtius' Greek Grammar (Smith's edition, 1867), p. 319.
These examples are borrowed from Thompson's Greek Syntax. ^ Greek Grammar, p. 320.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 3/
a settled habit to use the participle predicatively. Here are some examples selected more or less at random. KaQ' rifxepav ev tm lepcp eKaOe^ojurjv SiSolctkcov (St. Matt. xxvi. 55), where the participle SiSdcrKCfW is logically inseparable from the verbal predicate eKa6eXoiJ.r]i'. In St. Luke iii. 3 we have : kol rjXQev eh iracrav irepi-^Mpov rod 'lopSdvov Kijpva-crwu pdirTLG-iia juLeravola? k.t.\. Here the participial clause Krjpva-awv K.T.X. is the main part of the predication, the verbal predicate and its adjunct defining the locality in which the preaching took place. Again in Acts xv. 24 we read : eireiSt] rjKOV(TaiJ.€v otl rivh e^ I'jjucop erdpa^av vjixag \6yoi9 avacTKevd^ovTeg ra? xf^iy^a? vjuloov. In this passage dvacrK€vd'(^ovT€9 k.t.X. is part of the predicate. We do not contend that in this case the participial clause is the main part of the predication, but it is supplementary to and explanatory of erdpa^av vjuLug Xoyoi'i. And in the 35th verse of the same chapter we have: UauXog Se kui Bapvdl3a<^ Sierpi/Bov ev AvTio^eia oioaa-KOVTeg kui evayyeXi^onxei/oi k.t.X.
Nor is this usage confined only to the active and middle participles. An instance of a passive participle used predicatively occurs in Acts ix. 31, where we read ; >J /mev ovv eKKXtjcla kuO' oX;/? t^7? 'lou^a/a? koi VaXiXaiag koi 'Eajuapiag elyev elpijvi^v oiKOoojuLov/j.ev>] k.t.X.
Here it seems reasonable to take oiKoSofxovfxev)] as part of the predicate. It being a present or imperfect participle, and passive withal, it is impossible to render it in English without an auxiliary, and we must say being edified if we would translate it literally. But when we have got a literal translation, viz. The Church had peace being edified, we ask whether this is really
38 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
English, and whether it conveys the meaning intended by the historian. Is not e/^ej^ eipy'jvrjv oiKoSojuLovjUievr] well nigh equivalent to eyovcra €Lp}]pj]v (pKoSojuieiro ? The Church had peace and so ivas being built up. It was a season of edification in the literal sense of the word because one of peace. Our language is too poor to make the one predication as the Greek can do in the words el^ev eip}]vi]v oiKoSojULovjuiep}']. But our in- ability to render the same in English need not blind us to the force of the Greek idiom.
A similar instance of a passive present participle predicatively used is to be found in St. Luke iv. 1, Kai 'i]<yeTO ev rw irvevixarL ev Tt] epi'/f/xp i]jtAepa^ recra-epd- Kovra 7reipaCp[j.evo^ viro rou Sia/36Xou. If we translate literally, And he was led in the Sioirit in the wilderness during forty days being tempted of the devil, there can be no doubt that any one reading this English rendering would understand what was meant. At the same time it is questionable whether this is proper English, though it is a form of English to which we have become somewhat accustomed as the result of literal translations from the Greek of the New Testament. But at the same time there cannot be the least doubt that ireLpaXoiJ.evo<s is predicatively used. Our Lord's being led in the Spirit in the wilderness and His temptation by the devil are so inseparably connected together that the two are expressed in Greek by but one sentence. The meaning is better expressed in English, as I venture to think, by the omission of the auxiliary being. And he vms led in the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days tempted of the devil.
Nor again is it present participles only that are
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 39
predicatively used by St. Luke. There are several instances of aorist participles so used. One of the most striking is to be found in Acts xxv. 13, where we have these words : 'H/xe^wi/ ^e Siayevoiuevcop tlvwv 'A'ypi7r7ra<f 6 ^aa-iXeu^ kcu 'Bepi'iK)] KaT)jvT}]G-av ek l^aio-apiav acrTracrajUiepoi tov ^T^cttov.
" xsTow when certain days were passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and saluted Festus."
The reading aa-Tracro/uLeuoi of the Authorised Version has been discarded, the documental authority for aa-TracrdiuLevoi being, as Hort says, absolutely over- whelming ; and he adds : "As a matter of transmission -ojuei'oi can be only a correction." Hort suspects there is some prior corruption ; but ao-Traa-ajULevoi stands in the text on as sure grounds as does SujXOoi^ in xvi. 6 ; indeed, according to Lightfoot, on surer grounds, for probabilities of transcription as well as documental authority favour ao-Tracrd/uLei'oif whereas the former are in Lightfoot's opinion, wanting for SirjXOov} Con- sistently then with the retention of SitjXOov we must keep ao-Traa-aiuLevoi and endeavour to interpret it. And no interpretation of it, so far as the present writer can see, is possible, unless we take it as part of the predicate, and understand that Agrippa and Bernice paid a Festus-saluting visit to Caesarea. That is to say, their visit to Caesarea and saluting of Festus are conceived of as one thing, though it is practically impossible to translate the Greek sentence into English without the use of two finite verbs. It is not that Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to salute
^ Biblical E^isays, p. 237, footnote.
40 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Festus. The words KaTrjvTrjarav eig ILaia-aplav aa-iraao- ^evoL Tov ^rjarov would have told of a visit paid to Caesarea for a purpose, but would not have expressed, as the text succeeds in expressing, the carrying out of that purpose.
Very similar to this use of aa-Traa-djuievoi is that of eiVa? in Acts xxii. 24 where we have: eKeXevcre}/ 6 X'^^^PX^^ ^^(^(^y^'^Oai avTov eh t^v irapeiJ-^oKiffv, e'lirag lnacTTL^iv civeTaYecrdaL k.tX.
" The chief captain commanded that he should be brought into the castle, and said that he should be ex- amined by scourging."
The Eevised Version has lidding for efVa?. But of course it does not explain the participial construction to translate eiirag hiddiiig or saying, any more than aa-iraa-a^evoi is explained by translating it saluting. If we wish to preserve the participial construction in translation in each case, we must of couse render by a 2)Tcscnt participle, but, by so doing, we have not got over the grammatical difficulty of the participial construction.
Indeed in our common usage of the participle saying in so simple a sentence as They came, saying etc., which has become so familiar to us as the result of a literal translation of the Greek, we are in reality employing the participle predicatively, though our very familiarity with this usage blinds us perhaps to its significance. There is really no difference in principle between translating the sentence in Acts xxv. 13, Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea, scduting Festus, and rendering e'/vra? /aao-ri^iv averd'^ea-Oai by Melding thcd he should he examined hy seoiirging. We cannot express an aorist
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 41
active participle literally in English by one word, so in order to retain the participial form we have to sacrifice the aorist, which we are more ready to do with eLira^ than with aa-Traa-djuievoi. The present writer fails to see why corruption should be suspected in the case of acTTraa-diuLei'OL more than in that of e'lirag}
And we have yet other aorist participles predicatively used by St. Luke. Thus in Acts xi. 3 0 we find : o koi €7roit](Tav diro(TTei\avTe^ irpog tou^ irpecr/BuTepov^ ma ')(€ioo9 Jjapvd^a koi llduXou.
" Which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."
This is the translation of the Eevised Version. It is not easy to understand why the Eevisers were so scrupulous about their marginal translation of ciTraad- HievoL in xxv. 13 {having saluted) when they are ready to render diroa-TelXavreg by sending in this other passage. To the present writer the two cases seem to be on the same footing and should be so treated. If sending will do here why not saluting there ?
To come to an examination of this verse. We may reasonably say that diroG-TeiXavre^ k.t.X. is a part of the predicate and enlarges on what is expressed by o Koi. €7roLr](Tav. At first sight it may seem that it only explains o kui eiroujaav and that it does not add anything to it. . But, though diroa-TelXavTeg by itself may add nothing to what is already expressed by o Kai eirolrjcrav, yet the whole participial clause certainly goes further. The preceding verse states the determination
^ It is almost amusing that Blass dismisses the aairaadixevoi. reading as corrupt ( " corrupte paene omnes graeci") and adopts the vulgate reading da-iraaofMei^oL. See his Acta Apostolorutn.
42 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of the disciples to send relief. The words o Km eTroirjo-av tell of the carrying out of their purpose, and the participial clause adds a further statement describing how the purpose was carried out.
So then, though it is possible, without making aTrocrre/Xai/Te? into a finite verb and translating and tlicy sent, to render it participially hy sending, it still remains true that the ciTrocrTelXavTeg clause is a part of the predicate, and cannot be properly explained otherwise.
We may compare with this last instance the use of the participle ypd^l^apreg in xv. 23. If we supply o KOI e'Troir](Tav before this otherwise ungrammatical participle the two cases become exactly parallel.
One more example of an active aorist participle predicatively used shall be given. It must be the last. In Acts xii. 4 we have: ov kcu Tridarag eOero ek (pvXuKiji^, TTCxpcxSovg Te(T<jap(TLv rerpaSiGig a-TpariooTcov (puXdara-eiv avTOv, /SovXojUiei/og jULeTci to irda-ya dvayajelv avTOV ro) Xacp,
In this passage irapaSov? is rendered predicatively even in the Eevised Version, where we find and delivered him. We may remark too that ^ovXo^evog is also predicative and is practically equivalent to and it was his intention. We cannot explain the j3ovX6- /u.evo'? clause as giving the cause of Herod's action expressed by eOero eig (pvXaKi'jp, though it may give the reason why he did not Jdll Peter at once.
It is to be feared that, to some readers, the setting forth of these many instances at length may seem tedious. But to the present writer it has seemed important to illustrate the point for which he is
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 43
contending by showing that the predicative use of the participle is natural to St. Luke.
It will be well now to return to our KwXvOevre^ clause, and to examine whether the predicative sense we seek to attach to it can be supported by other passages resembling it in form. Let it be noticed that we have here an active verb followed by a passive participle. SiijXOov Trjv ^pvyiav Kai Ta\aTiKr]v -^copav KcoXvOeuTeg vtto tou ayiov TTi^ety/xaro? XaXfjcraL top \6yov ev Ti] 'Acr/a. We say that this may mean : They ivent through the Phrygo-Galatian region forbidden by the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia. That is to say, we seek to render it, so as to lay the main stress on the prohibition against preaching the word in Asia. Is this a fair rendering? Can we find a parallel to it? To these questions we give an affirmative reply and adduce in evidence two passages taken from the third Gospel, a work generally agreed to be by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles.
It will be best first to quote these two passages and then to comment upon them.
1. Kca avT09 eotoaarKev ev Toig avvay(jdyai<s avTwv So^a^ojuevog vtto iravTcov (St. Luke iv. 15).
2. KaTe/Sr] outo? SeSiKaiwimei/o^ €19 tov olkov avTou Trap' €K€ivov (St. Luke xviii. 14).
Let us look at the first of these two. " He was teaching in their synagogues glorified of all." The participial clause is an essential part of the predication.
44 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Leave out this clause and the meaning of the statement is gone. He was teaching in their synagogues is not what St. Luke says. The emphasis, so it seems to me, is not on the fact of His preaching but on the reception He met with. A fame went out concerning Him throughout all the region round about. And He taught in their synagogues to the admiration and approval of all. He was welcomed, approved, admired, glorified as He taught in their synagogues.
It would be nothing to the purpose to object that ^o^aXJ>iJ.evo<i is an imperfect participle whereas kwXv- Oevre^ is aorist. For, of course So^a'(^6iuL€vo<i is im- perfect just because eSlSucTKev is imperfect. " He was teaching in their synagogues glorified of all." The participle is predicative.
And if it be an error to suppose that the emphasis of the sentence is on the participle in the first of these two cases — though we do not allow that it is — there can at any rate be no mistake as to the emphasis in the other case. This man went clown to his house justified rather than (or, in comparison with) the other. The fact that the publican went down to his house is of no importance whatever ; but, that he was justified in comparison witli the Pharisee is the whole point of the teaching of the parable. Yet the fact of justification is expressed by a participle only, while the verbal predicate is that he went down to his house, a fact of trifling importance in comparison with the other. Every one would be ready to allow that the sense of the passage would be lost, if the participial clause were allowed in translation to precede the statement contained in the verbal predicate.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 45
Being justified in comparison luith the other he toent doiun to his house, certainly does not convey the same meaning as do the words He went cloiun to his house justified rather' than the other. This latter rendering treats the participial clause as part of the predicate but not so the other. If we put the participle first in translating we lay stress on the unimportant fact of the publican's return to his house, whereas if we keep the order and say he luent doiun to his house justified, we emphasise the fact of justification which no one can refuse to allow to be the emphasis intended in the parable.^
A parallel use of the participle is to be found in the Septuagint rendering of 2 Kings v. 27, where we read : km e^rjXOev e/c irpoa-ooirov avrov XeXeTTjOajyueVo? wa-ei ^f(oi/. Here the finite verb and participle to- gether form one predicate, and the participial clause is of as much (if not of greater) importance to the predication as is e^rjXOev ck irpoa-wirov avrov.
We may compare also the words aTrrjXOev Xvirovjuievog in St. Matt. xix. 22 and St. Mark x. 22. In this case both words airrjXQev and XviroviJLevo<i are essential to the predication. Invert the order and translate Being sorrowful he ivent away, and the meaning is lost or at any rate rendered ambiguous.
Similar instances, though not exactly parallel, are St. John ix. 7, ijXOev jSXeirwv, and 2 Kings xviii. 37
•^ The use of TreLpa^o/xevos (referred to above) in St. Luke iv. 1 is singularly parallel with that of dediKaLWfMtPos here. I only refrained from coupling this instance with the two now given because the verbal predicate in iv. i. (ijyeTo) is passive. I do not myself think there is any real difference of principle, but I sought for passages with an active verb coupled with a passive participle.
46 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
(LXX) Kai eicfjXOep EXza/cJ/x uto? XeX/cfoi' o oikovojuo^ /c.T.X. Sieppt]-)(^6Teg to. L^dria. I say these are not exactly parallel instances because the participle is an active one, but certainly in the case of a verb used intransitively, such as pXeirwv, there is no essential difference between active and passive. It is the new condition of the once blind man who now sees to which attention is drawn, not any particular action on his part. He came with his sight restored is the sense. His sight was already restored when he re- turned.^
Our attempts to interpret the KcoXvOevreg clause causally and retrospectively having failed, and sufficient reasons having now been given for thinking that the participle may be here predicatively used, it will be well so to understand the sentence. And they went thro2igh the Phrygo-Galatian region forbidden hy the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia.
Now it must be noticed that the passive participle KwXvOevre^ directs no attention to the act of prohibition on the part of the Holy Ghost, but to the state of the travellers in regard to its imposition. Further, the whole sentence, SirjXOov tvjv ^pvy'iav kul TaXariKriv "^wpav KcoXvOei'Te^ viro tov aylov irvf.viJ.aTO<i XaXfjcraL Tov \6yov ev rij 'Acria, gives no clue as to when the prohibition was given, whether before the passage through the Phrygo-Galatian region or during the passage, or at its close. The one thing made clear
^ So also the participial clause diepp-^xores ra ifiaTia placed after the verbal predicate directs attention to the (^tafe rather than to the action of those spoken of. The Hebrew is nn:3 ^p^np, the participle being passive.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 47
is that when they were at the end of that region they knew they were not to preach the word in Asia. How long they had known this is not told us. Had St. Luke written (^feX^oVre? <^e rnv ^pvyiav koi TaXaTiKrjv ■ywpav €Kw\ijOt](Tav viro tou ayiov 7rpeu^aT0<; /c.T.A. we should have understood that the participial clause SieXOopreg k.t.\. marked the point of time when the prohibition was made. And the finite verb €Ka)XvO}]G-av would have drawn attention to the fact of prohibition at a definite time. As we understand the sentence, the emphasis is on the fact that there was a prohibition imposed on the travellers and not at all on the fact that they went through the Phrygo- Galatian region, which fact, according to our interpre- tation, only points to the time or place ivhere the prohibition would take effect, not where it was given.
Further, this interpretation of the sentence in question both preserves the character of the whole paragraph as intended to take us on step by step to Troas en route for Macedonia, and it has this great advantage over the other rendering whereby the participial clause is made retrospective and causal, that it makes a distinction between the two prohibitions imposed on the travellers, which distinction seems to be intended in the original. For of Asia it is said they might not speak the vjord there, but Bithynia they might not even cnicr.
We therefore understand the passage thus :
And they went through the Phrygo-Galatian region
forbidden by the Holy Ghost to speak the word in
Asia ; and when they came over against Mysia they
were assaying to go into Bithynia and the Spirit
48 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of Jesus suffered them not ; and passing by Mysia they came down to Troas.
Our inquiry must now be directed to the bearing of the rendering, to which we have been led, on the rival theories respecting the locality of the churches of Galatia.
The North Galatian theory has it in its favour that the connection of the finite verb SirjXOov and its sentence with what has gone before might suggest that the Phry go- Galatian region is here new ground to St. Paul. The Se of verse 6 answers to the /mev ovv of verse 5. In the earlier verse is summarised the result of the Apostle's re-visit to the churches founded during his first journey, and then the historian passes on to tell of progress through lands not until now visited by St. Paul. But there are serious difficulties to this interpretation of verse 6. In the first place, it is recognised by those who favour the North Galatian theory that the route into Galatia proper was an unlikely one in itself and one that would only be taken for some special reason. St. Luke does not, according to our understanding of his language, give any reason for this route being chosen, and no reason can be given except that it was through illness that St. Paul went to Galatia. But in regard to this point there are the same difficulties that we encountered when we read ^teXOoWe?. We can under- stand that illness might detain the Apostle in Galatia if once he had gone there for other reasons ; but that it should take him there, we find it difficult to believe.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF G ALALIA. 49
Then again, how are we to explain the summary way in which this visit to Galatia is recorded ? If St. Paul visited the principal cities and founded churches in them, how is it that not a single city of North Galatia is mentioned by name? It is St. Luke's habit when he is narrating the Apostle's travels over new ground to mention the names of the cities and to record what happened in them. But when he goes over the ground again, unless for some particular purpose he wishes to detain his readers at some city to tell of something specially important (as for example in the case of Timothy at Lystra), he sums up the district as briefly as he can.^ It is certainly ditficult to account for silence as to events in the cities of North Galatia, and still more difficult to say why there is no mention of the cities by name, if St. Paul did, as those who hold the North Galatian theory contend, visit the country on his second journey.
It may be answered that St. Luke is hastening on to Troas and so to Macedonia. But if, in his zeal to take his readers across the Aegean, he forgets or neglects to record in any detail the founding of the important churches of Galatia, we cannot reconcile this with his usual practice.
Moreover, no emphasis is laid on the actual journey through the Phrygo-Galatian region. Apart from the fact that we have here an aorist (SiijXOoi^) and not an imperfect (as in xv. 3 and 41) whereby the progress of a missionary journey through new country would be more naturally expressed, we have already
1 A good instance is Acts xviii. 23, which will be considered in the next chapter.
D
50 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
given reasons for thinking that the real emphasis of the sentence is on the participial clause which we have decided to interpret predicatively. The passage through the Phrygo-Galatian region marks only the poiut at which the prohibition imposed by the Holy Ghost against speaking the word in Asia applies. This particular region was not the prohibited region but the one preceding it. In fact Professor Eamsay's explanation of t^v ^pvylav koi TaXariKrji/ ^wpav, which defines it to be the Phrygian part of the province of Galatia, suits the context admirably. After summing up the work of the Apostle on the old ground in the words : at juei^ ovv cKKXtja-laL ecrrepe- ovvTO T>; TTLCTTeL Kui e7repi(Tcr€vov T(p aptOfjicp kuO' rj/mepai', the historian is going on to tell of work on new ground; and that new ground is not Asia nor Bithynia, but Macedonia ; and why it was Macedonia is made clear in the paragraph xvi. 6-10.
It may be objected that St. Luke did not call the X'^P'^ about Antioch (xiii. 49) Phyrgo-Galatian before, nor even hint that it belonged to Galatia. But the answer to this is that according to our interpretation of the KwXvOevreg clause, there is more emphasis on the prohibition against speaking the word in Asia than there is on the passing through the Phrygo- Galatian region. We may therefore expect that the choice of the epithet Phrygo-Galatian will have some connection with this prohibition, and such we contend it has. Had the historian called the X^P^ ^^^® Phrygian region, or Phrygia, his meaning would have been lost because Phrygia was partly in Asia. The epithet as we have it exactly describes a x^/>«
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 51
which stopped short at the boundaries of Asia where speaking the word was forbidden.
The conchision to which we have come then is this, that whether we take ^leX^ovre^ or SitjXOou as the true readino- in xvi. 6, ToXariKo^ is used in a political sense in the phrase ttjv ^pvylav kui TaXaTiKiju ■)(oopav. This gives consistency to the wdiole passage, which then explains naturally how it was that step by step the Apostle was led to labour in Macedonia after passing over districts where he would, but for the Divine intervention, have more naturally gone. The whole paragraph xvi. 6-10 is a record of Divine guidance. We venture to understand it thus :
Either while they were passing through the Phrygo- Galatian region, or after they had got through it, they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia ; that is to say, that by the time they got to the boundary of the province of Asia they understood they were not to preach in that province, so they did not preach there but struck north intending to go to Bithynia ; but at a point of their journey opposite Mysia they were made to understand that they were not to enter Bithynia, so they turned westwards, passing by Mysia, and not preaching in it (for as Mysia was in Asia it was prohibited ground for preaching), and so they came to Troas on the coast, where a vision made it clear that God had called them to cross to Macedonia to preach the Gospel there.
In Macedonia the missionary work begins again,
52 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and is recorded by St. Luke in his accustomed detail.
It is worth while to notice that our interpretation of this paragraph gives to Kara rrjv MvcrLav its full meaning. For taking the words to mean ove7' against Mysia, we understand that Mysia lay at right-angles to the direction of the course they were pursuing. Such would be the case if the travellers were journeying due north towards Bithynia. One province being forbidden them for preaching, they were intending to go into another. To this they directed their steps but, when they were over against Mysia, a further prohibition was imposed. The missionary band is forbidden to enter Bithynia ; so they turn at right angles to their previous route, and, still travelling through a part of the province of Asia, viz. Mysia, in which, however, they did not preach (such seems to be the force of TrapeXOopre^), they came to the sea coast at Troas, where fresh guidance was granted to them.
It seems to the present writer that a fatal objection to Dean Farrar's interpretation of Asia as Lydia and not the whole of the lioman province of that name, lies in this : that such interpretation fails to account for the conduct of the travellers in regard to Mysia. That the travellers " passed by " Mysia cannot mean of course that they did not enter Mysia at all, for they came to Troas which was itself in Mysia. And this is acknowledged most unmistakably by Dean Farrar.-^ Making TrapeXOovre^ equivalent
^ Life and Work of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 476, footnote.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF G ALALIA. 53
to a(p€VTe? (" neglecting ") he says this " cannot be translated 'passing through/ which would be SieXOovre^, though a glance at the map will show that they must have passed through My si a without stopping." But Dean Farrar gives no other reason for this neglect of Mysia except that "in its bleak and tliinly populated uplands it offered but few opportunities for evangelisa- tion." Of course if the Dean is sure for other reasons that Asia means Lydia, and so the prohibition imposed by the Holy Ghost against speaking the word in Asia did not hold good in Mysia, some such attempt as he has made to explain the " neglect " of Mysia may be called for. But is it not more natural to find the reason for the " neglect " in the context ; which we at once do if Asia be the province of that name ?
Enough has now been said to show that the inter- pretation of the KoAvOevre^ clause 'for which we have been contending makes the paragraph xvi. 6-10 perfectly consistent with itself and explanatory of itself. This is surely a great gain. But it becomes necessary now to examine whether the conclusions to which we have thus far come are consistent with the use of TaXariKog in Acts xviii. 23. This inquiry will form the subject of the next chapter.
CHAPTEK IV. THE USE OF TaXarcKos IN ACTS XVIII. 23.
Kaf KureXOcov eiV Kaicrapiav, avafiag koi aariraad- fi€V09 Tt]v €KK\}]G-iav, KUTe^t] ek 'AvTLoyeiav KOI 7roi}'/cra<? "^povov TLva e^rjXOev, 8iepy6iJievo<i /ca^e^jy? rr]V VaXaTLKrjv yypav Kai ^pvyiap, crTtjpL^cov iraprag rovg /uLaOrjrdg.
In the two preceding chapters of this essay we have concluded that Acts xvi. 6 does not seem to record a visit of St. Paul to Galatia proper on his second missionary journey. In our examination of that verse and of the passage in which it occurs we have purposely abstained from any reference to the meaning of TaXariKog in the passage now before us. We have, it is true,-^ quoted xviii. 22, 23 already, but the use we made of it was quite independent of any special interpretation of rtjv Ta\aTiKt)u x^P^^ '^"^ ^pvylav. For of course it is allowed by the North and South Galatian schools alike that old ground is covered in verse 23, though a difference of opinion necessarily must exist as to what the old ground was. According to the South Galatian theory the
iSee p. 16.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF G ALALIA. 55
country here summed up in t^v TaXariKyv Xiji^pav kul ^pvylav was first visited on the first missionary journey of St. Paul, whereas according to the advocates of the opposite theory it was on his second journey that the Apostle first visited it.
AVhat we have now to do is to examine whether xviii. 23 can be interpreted consistently with the interpretation we have given to xvi. 6, or whether there is anything in the form of the expression rr]v VoKaTLKrjv x^pav koI ^pvylav, which should lead us to think that we were wrong in our previous conclusions. To this inquiry we at once proceed.
And first it will be well to state that it is not necessary that the Galatian region of xviii. 23 should be the same as " the Phrygo-Galatian region " of xvi. 6. For we must be careful to notice the position of Km ^pvylav in the verse now before us. In xvi. 6 there can be no doubt that ^pvylav is used adjectiv- ally, but it is by no means clear that in the later passage the word is so used. Indeed the difterence between the two expressions, rriv ^pvylav km TaXariKrjv ywpav and Trjv TaXariKyji/ yo^pav kui ^pvyiav, is so remarkable that any interpretation of them which does not take this into account, or which fails to give it its proper value, would be wrong.
We may then lay this down : that if the South Galatian theory is able to give a better explanation of the difference of expression in the two verses than is afforded by the North Galatian theory, then the likelihood of its correctness is increased. If, again, the explanations given by supporters of the rival theories are evenly balanced in value, we stand where
56 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
we were at the end of the previous chapter, and this verse really adds nothing to the argument. But if the advocates of the North Galatian theory can give the better account of the difference of expression in xvi. 6 and xviii. 23, then (we readily acknowledge it) our position reached after the examination of xvi. 6 is not so strong as it was.
The real point of difference between the two rival theories in their explanations of the difference of ex- pression in T^v ^pvylav Kal Va\aTLKt]v x^pav and T)]v TaXariKrjv x<Mpav koi ^puyiav is this. The South Galatian school interprets the X'^P^ ^^ ^^^ ^^® verse to be different from the X'^P^ ^^ ^^^® other, whereas the rival school makes the two expressions mean the same thing but accounts for their difference of form by saying that the order of the Apostle's route was re- versed.^ Those who take the South Galatian view contend that Trju ^puylav koi Ta\aTiKr]P X^P^^ ^^ xvi. 6 is included in t^v TaXaTiKrjv X'^P^^ '^^' ^pvylav of xviii. 23, but that this latter expression takes in more than the Phrygo-Galatian region of xvi. 6. In fact each school can interpret xviii. 23 consistently with the theory it supports. Before setting forth the South Galatian interpretation it will be well to inquire whether the explanation the North Galatian school gives of xviii. 23 is such as to weaken or strengthen their case.
Let it be allowed that the North Galatian theory is
^ Blass certainly takes this view. See his commentary on xviii. 23. It is not quite clear whether Lightfoot does so or not, but his pote 3 in Galatiavs, p. 22, seems to mean that he does,
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF G ALALIA. 57
correct, that St. Paul did visit North Galatia on his second missionary journey. This being so, we readily allow that he visited it again on his third journey, and we interpret t^v Ta\aTiK})v -^^wpav kuI ^pvylav as equivalent in extension to Tt-jv ^pvylav kg.} TaXariKrjv ■^(jopav.
iSTow at once this question forces itself upon us : How are we to account for the external position of ^pvylav ? Why is the expression employed in xviii. 23 not Tr}v Ta\aTiKi)v koI ^pvyiav -^wpavl
To the present writer it seems that ^pvylav in xviii. 23 must be taken to be a noun, whether the North or South Galatian theory be adopted. Grammar seems to require it ; and in any case, if it be an adjective, on no account will grammar permit of its being under- stood as a part of the epithet VaXariK^^v, so as to have a compound epithet as in xvi. 6. So then there can be no doubt as to the translation of Tr]v TaXarLKrip ■^(jopav Koi ^pvyiav. We must render " the Galatian region and Phrygia." If ^pvylav were taken as an adjective we should have to translate " the Galatian region and a Phrygian one " ; and this would not be satisfactory to either side. If any would make a compound adjective and interpret rrjv TaXariKrjv XO)pav Kou ^pvylav as equivalent to Tt]v TaXaTiKrjv Km ^pvylav x^p^^y ^V6 can only reply with a non possumus.
Well, then, St. Paul on his third journey goes through the Phrygo- Galatian region of xvi. 6 in the reverse order. Why then does the writer not say ttjv TaXarlav KOI ^pvylav ? It may be said that he called it a x^P^ in xvi. 6 therefore he must do so now. Yes, but there it was a compound X'^P^ — ^ Phrygo-Galatian region.
58 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Tr\v TaXartKrjv x^P«^j if it means t>V TaXarlav, seems to be circumlocution.
And here too we must come back to the alternative interpretations of " the Phrygo-Galatian region " of xvi. 6 given by Lightfoot.^ If we understand that this region means Galatia proper, once a part of Phrygia, the argument as to the order of TaXariK^v and ^pvylav in the two passages becomes meaningless. And further, the mention of ^pvyiav in xviii. 23 is wholly unintelligible, for if some part of what was then Phrygia is not included in the phrase Trjv ^pvylav kol TaXariKrjp x^P^^y then Phrygia cannot be old ground on the third missionary journey, and surely no one will question that the narrative implies that it is old ground. There really is no place for Lightfoot's explanation of "the Phrygo-Galatian region" as Galatia proper, once Phrygia, when we come to this new expression of xviii. 23, unless we are going to do violence to the grammar and render Kal ^puylav as equal to " and this region was once Phrygian," which surely no one is prepared to do. We were obliged in chapter ii. of this essay to admit both of Lightfoot's alternative interpretations of t»V ^pvylav koi TaXariKrjv Xf^poiv as possible because we preferred not to compli- cate the argument by an appeal to xviii. 23 ; but now we say unhesitatingly that for the reasons just given we think it a wholly untenable interpretation that the epithet should mean " Galatian once Phrygian " even on the hypothesis of the truth of the North Galatian theory.
Lightfoot's other interpretation of rriv ^pvylav koi
1 Galatians, p. 22. See chapter ii. of this essay.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 59
VaXaTLKhv x<^paj/ is not open to the same objection, for it includes some part of what was still Phrygia in the X^/oa. We have in chapter ii. objected on a priori grounds to a x^P^ being called Phrygo-Galatian because ^:><X7'^ was Phrygian and part Galatian. P)Ut waiving that objection as one that may be insufficient, we must examine xviii. 23 in the light of the only explanation of ti-jv ^pvylav koi Ta\aTiKr]v -x^pav left to those who take Lightfoot's view.
To the present writer the phrase t^v TaXaTiK}]v X<^pGLv is a serious stumbling-block in the acceptance of the Xorth Galatian theory. Granting that such a phrase as rrjv ^pvyiav koli VoXanKiiv x^pav might be a convenient one for summarising a district partly Phrygian and partly Galatian and so might explain the absence of t^v TaXarlav, he yet feels that the Tr]v TaXaTiKrjv x^P«i^ of xviii. 23 is wholly unlikely on the North Galatian theory as being circumlocution. The only way to get over the difficulty would be to take Trjv Ta\aTiK}]v x^P^^ '^^^ ^pvylav as equivalent to T>V Va\aTLK}]v Kai ^pvylav xoopav, which of course we refuse to do.
The conclusion to which we have come thus far in this chapter is that granting a North Galatian visit in xvi. 6, and interpreting xviii. 23 so as to accord with such a visit, we have not an adequate explanation of the phrase r/V TaXaTiKrjv x^P^^ '^^'- ^p^y'«^- Further, the explanation that is given of the variation of this phrase from that used in xvi. G is such as to cut the ground from under the possible interpretation of " the Phrygo-Galatian region " suggested by Light-
60 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
foot, that the region is to be understood as Galatia proper, once Phrygia.
It remains now to interpret xviii. 2 3 according to the other theory, and to determine whether the phrase t^v VaXaTiK^v ywpav koll ^pvyiav is capable of justification.
As has been already said, the South Galatian inter- pretation of rrjv TaXariKrjv x(£)pav understands it to be a different x^P^ from that called Triv ^pvyiav koi TaXariKriv x^jpai/ in xvi. 6. Nor is there any reason why the two should not be different seeing that the epithet is different in the two cases. One thing only have we a right to expect and that is, that raXar/zco? should be used in the same sense each time. If it is employed politically in xvi. 6 we should reasonably conclude that it is so used in the later passage. This consistency is assured by the South Galatian inter- pretation. In saying this we do not suggest that a like consistency does not obtain in the opposite school, which interprets Va\aTiK6<s ethnologically each time it occurs. Neither side has any advantage then in this regard.
The Roman province of Galatia was at this time very extensive, so that there is nothing improbable in the South Galatian position in interpreting the x^P« of xviii. 23 as different from that of xvi. 6, seeing that the latter is described by a twofold epithet while the other is simply Galatian.
There is not the least doubt that xviii. 23 is meant to take us over old ground, so that t^v TaXariKtjv Xwpav must be some x^P« with which we are already familiar, though we may not know it by this name,
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 61
Again rrjv TaXariKt^i/ x^P^^ '^^tl ^pvylav would seem to be intended to take us over all the old ground until new ground is reached in xix. 1, viz. ra avwrepiKu. p.ep}], through which St. Paul passed to Ephesus, which was the city of the third missionary journey — for the Apostle had hardly visited it on the former journey (xviii. 19). That all the ground is intended to be covered would seem clear from the two words TrdpTag and Kadepi^. We expect then that this phrase Trjv TaXariKrji/ ^wpav kcu ^pvylav will include certainly all the churches from Derbe to Antioch.
It would be difficult otherwise to account for the omission of churches so important as those of Derbe and Lystra on this journey westwards. It is true indeed that at the beginning of the Apostle's second missionary journey we have mention of Syria and Cilicia and of St. Paul €7ri(TT}]pL^(jov tu9 e/c/cX/^cr/a?, whereas there is no mention of Syria and Cilicia or of their churches now that he starts on his third journey. It cannot of course be said that Syria and Cilicia are included in t)]i^ TaXariK^jp xuopav. So if churches visited on the second journey are now omitted, why should not Derbe and Lystra also be left out ? But it must be remembered that the churches of Derbe and Lystra were of St. Paul's own founding and that their members were specially his disciples. It is not impossible that the attention to Syria and Cilicia on tlie second journey arose from the desirableness of delivering to the churches the decrees of the Jerusalem Council. This might account for mention beins made of these churches in connection
62 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
with the second journey, while there is no mention of them in the third. But that the Apostle should omit to visit his disciples at Lystra and Derbe because he had already visited them once since their conversion to the faith, we find it difficult to believe, and the more so as his natural route to Ephesus lay that way. Seeing then that Lystra and IJerbe were in the province of Galatia we fail to see why they should not be comprehended in t}]v VaKaTiK)]v yuipav.
But we must take account of the objection that, in the narrative of the first missionary journey, Lystra and Derbe are called cities of Lycaonia. {KaTe(pvyov eig Tag iroXeig rijg AvKaovla? Kvarrpav koll Aep/Btjv Kai Trjv 7repLX<j^pov, Acts xiv. 6.) It may be urged that St. Luke would have said in Acts xviii. 23 Tr}v AvKaouiau Kai ^pvylav and not have introduced the epithet Va\aTLK6<i to apply it to a district he had not so described before. Professor Eamsay has given a sufficient answer to this objection.-^ Lycaonia was not wholly in the province of Galatia, but the part of it containing Lystra and Derbe did belong to the great province. Professor Ptamsay lays stress on the need for some distinctive name in Acts xiv. 6 so as to indicate that from Iconium the Apostle passed to another x^pa where he would be free from the molestation he had suff'ered at Antioch and Iconium. He was already in the Galatian province in these two cities, so that some name whereby the two parts of the province could be distinguished was a necessity for the understanding of the narrative. It was not " into Lycaonia " that the persecuted travellers went
^St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 110-112.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF G ALALIA. 63
bufc " to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the region round about."
While then Lystra and Derbe were called cities of Lycaonia to distinguish them from Antioch and Iconium in the narrative of the first missionary journey, no such distinction is required in this setting out on the third journey.
But we must come to close quarters with this phrase t}]v TaXariKtji/ ^oopav kul ^pvyiav. Supposing that this is meant to cover the old ground and to include Lystra, Derbe, Iconium and Antioch, we must still inquire which part of the phrase is applicable to the different parts of the route.
Professor Eamsay understands ti]v Ta\aTiK)]v x'^P^^ to be Lystra, Derbe kui rijv irepix^^pov. Just as there was a Phrygo-Galatian region, so, he tells us, there was a Lycaono-Galatian region. Lycaonia was partly in the province of Galatia and partly in the Eegnum Antiochi. Trjv TaXariKJjv x^P^^ then means the Lycaono-Galatian region, this being the first Galatian region the Apostle would come to as he passed from East to West. And Professor Pamsay argues that it would seem more especially Galatian, rather than Lycaonian, to one coming from that part of Lycaonia which was in the kingdom of Antiochus. This might explain why the epithet Lycaonian is not applied here.
Then Professor Pamsa}' understands ^pvyiav to be practically the same as Tr}v ^pvylav kui TaXaTiK)}^ Xu)puv of xvi. 6, the lengthy expression not being used here as its use would have made a cumbersome phrase,
64 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of meaning no clearer than that of the phrase actually employed.
Exception may of course be taken by supporters of the North Galatian theory to this interpretation of ^pvylav. Had the same region been called Phrygia before in xvi. 6 the objection would not hold, but the phrase rrjv ^pvylav Kal VaXaTiKrjv x.'^pav was made use of then and it is reasonable to ask why ^pvyiav is sufficient now. But it must be remembered that in juxtaposition with the SiyjXOou rrju ^pvylav Km Ta\aTiK}]v x^/>«^ of xvi. 6 was the clause KcoXvOevre^ VTTO Tov ayiov TrveujuaTO^ XaXijcraL tov \oyop ev r/; Kcrui, the force of which we have inquired into in chapter iii. of this essay. The mention of this prohibition against speaking the word in Asia would make it practically impossible for the writer to put Si^XOop rriv ^pvylap, for Phrygia was partly in the province of Asia. There is special point in the epithet TaXariKog being used in connection with ^puyLog, for, surely, unless our reasoning in the foregoing chapter be quite wrong, the point of the verse is that the application of the prohibition to speak the word in Asia followed at once on the conclusion of their passage over the old ground. It was in the Galatian part of Phrygia that they were allowed to preach as they did before, but when they came to the Asiatic part of it they were prohibited.
But now in this new verse, xviii. 23, there is no such prohibition. Asia, and in particular Ephesus, is the Apostle's destination ; and thus, even though a part of Phrygia was in Asia, there is no serious objection to the use of ^pvyla for what the reader
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 65
may quite well understand has been called Tr]v ^pvy'iav KUL Ta\aTLKi]v x<^pav in xvi. 6. The Apostle's preaching does not now stop when he gets out of Galatian Phrygia. He may speak the word in Asiatic Phrygia too.
This expression of what was called t;)i/ ^pvylav kol TaXariKijv x^P^^ ill ^'vi. 6 by the simple ^pvylav in xviii. 23, may then help to corroborate the interpre- tation of the Kco\vOevT€^ clause which we laid down in the preceding chapter.
To the writer of this essay, Professor Eamsay's interpretation of ^pvylav as equivalent to rrjv ^pvylav Koi. TaXaTLKijv x^P^^ seemed at first the least satis- factory part of the South Galatian theory. But a closer examination of the point of difficulty has tended rather to a confirmation of the theory in his mind, and he thinks that what has weighed with him may weigh with others also. To him it seems that we must either explain the phrase Trji> TaXariKijp x^^P^^ KOI ^pvylav as we have just done, referring n^v Ta\aTLK}]v x'^P^^ to Lycaono-Galatia and ^puylav to Galatian Phrygia, or else x^P« must be interpreted less technically and more generally and the whole phrase r^jv ToXutlkjjp x^P^^' '^^' ^pvylav be taken to mean the Galatian region including Phrygia, i.e. its Phrygian part. An objection to this rendering would be that kul ^pvylav is superfluous if rrjv Ta\aTiK)]v x^P^^ already takes in the whole of the south part of the Galatian province. But, though in one sense it is superfluous, in another it is not, for it helps to define the full extent of the journey before the new part is reached.
E
66 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
While then the difficulty of an exact analysis of the phrase t^v Tu\utik>)p x^P^^ '^"' ^pvylav must be acknowledged, there is good reason for understanding VaXaTLKo^ in a provincial sense. While the North Galatian school are able to fit in this phrase with their theory, the doing so only creates further diffi- culties for them to solve ; for either they must take ^pvylav adjectivally, which is to violate the grammar, or else, taking it as a noun, they have to explain the circumlocution involved in rrjv Ta\aTiK))v x.'^pav, for which, on their theory, ti]v TaXarlau ought to suffice.
We have next to examine the contents of the Epistle to the Galatians. To this investigation we proceed in the next chapter.
CHAPTEE V.
AKGUMENTS FOE THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE DERIVED FEOM ITS CONTENTS.
In the three preceding chapters we clami to have shown that the two passages in the Acts in which the epithet TaXariKog occurs do not favour the North Galatian theory. In examining the first of the pass- ages we admitted into our criticism of it the statement made by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians that it was on account of an infirmity of the flesh that he preached the Gospel to them to irporepov. It was right and fair to make use of this statement, because at first sight it seemed that there might be some connection between the detention of the Apostle on account of sickness, and that which is described by St. Luke as a hindrance or prohibition imposed by the Holy Spirit. But the admission of this hypothesis led to a reductio ad absurdum and there was nothing; for it but to abandon the hypothesis altogether.
It remains now to examine the Epistle to the Galatians more generally in order to ascertain whether its contents are consonant with the conclusion that
68 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
has been reached respecting the meaning of VaKariKoq in Acts xvi. and xviii. If that conchision be correct then St. Paul did not visit North Galatia at all, and consequently his Epistle, being addressed to churches of his own founding, must have been intended for the churches of South Galatia, the churches of Lystra and Derbe, Iconium and Antioch.
We must inquire whether there is anything con- tained in the Epistle to mark its destination. It has been thought by some that though the evidence of the Acts in favour of a visit to North Galatia is somewhat uncertain, yet the point can be decided in favour of such a visit by an appeal to the Epistle. What then are the contents of the Epistle which are supposed to favour the North Galatian theory ?
Eoremost is the statement of iv. 13. It was thought that the illness of the Apostle explained quite naturally why he should have gone out of his more natural course, and have passed into a wild and semi- barbarous region. This statement of the Epistle would, it is true, help to explain such a circuitous course if lue had otliQi' evidence that such a course ivas taken.
But the value of such evidence has broken down under examination. Those who hold the North Gal- atian theory must show in detail how Gal. iv. 13 is to be reconciled with Acts xvi, 6, and not fancy that the statement of the Epistle is in agreement with that of the Acts, just because there is in each mention of something of the nature of a hindrance or check on an otherwise determined course. The present writer has given his reasons for thinking that there is no connection whatever between the acrOeveia ryj?
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 69
a-apKog of the Epistle, and the prohibition of the Acts. And sufficient reasons have been given for refusing to read the aa-Oiveta t;7? (rapKog into Acts xvi. 6, as the
explanation of- J''\ n '^ rhv ^pvylav koi TaXariKrjv ^ I dieXtlovTeg > r /
X(opav. So then the aaOei/eia must be looked for on
some other occasion in the Apostle's travels.
Professor Eamsay, in his St. Paul the Traveller
and Roma,n Citizen, has made a not unreasonable
suggestion, that the Apostle was afflicted with a
serious attack of fever on his first missionary journey,
when he was in the lowlands of Pamphylia/ The
present writer does not enlarge on this suggestion as,
after all, it is a matter of conjecture pure and simple.
The suggestion may, or may not, appeal to critics.
But it may be said that at any rate it is as reasonable
an attempt to fix the aa-Oeveia in point of time, as
is that of North Galatians, who place it in Acts xvi. 6
as the explanation of SujXOov Tt]v ^pvylav koi TaXar-
LKi]v x^P«^' Unless the arguments of chapter iii. of
this essay be utterly wrong, the KwXvOevreg clause
of Acts xvi. 6 cannot have any connection with what
is called an aaSeveia ri;? crapKog in Gal. iv. 13. So
that, in either case, whether we hold the North or
South Galatian theory, we must allow that St. Luke
says nothing about the sickness or bodily weakness.
Another argument derived from the Epistle in favour of the North Galatian theory, is St. Paul's mode of address to the Galatians in iii. 1. He writes: w av6y]T0L VaXoLTaL Tig vjuLug e/BacTKauev k.t.X.] Does not
^ Sf. Paul the Traveller, ch. v.
70 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
this appellation VoXaTai suggest that those to whom the Epistle was addressed were nationally Galatians ?
Let it be conceded that this is a good argument for the North Galatian school. Indeed it may be said to be the strongest argument of all. Yet to the present writer it seems that Bishop Lightfoot has carried it too far. In his footnote in Colossians, p. 26, he says: "Even granting that the Christian com- munities of Lycaonia and Pisidia could by a straining of language be called churches of Galatia, is it possible that St. Paul would address them personally as ' ye foolish Galatians ' ? Such language would be no more appropriate than if a modern preacher in a familiar address were to appeal to the Poles of Warsaw, as, ' ye Eussians,' or the Hungarians of Pesth as 'ye Austrians,' or the Irish of Cork as 'ye Englishmen.'"
Now these illustrations are not fair. To single out Poles, Irishmen, and Hungarians, and to compare an appeal to them as Ptussians, Englishmen, and Austrians with the appeal to the Christians of the province of Galatia as Galatians, is to ignore the fact that while Poles and Irishmen notoriously hate their rulers, whom they regard as despotic, and while Hungarians are so specially proud of their nationality that even the monarchy which they own must acknowledge itself to be Austro-Hungarian, and not simply Austrian, there is no evidence that the people of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, objected to be reminded of their connection with the Eoman Empire.
But though Bishop Lightfoot carries his argument a little too far, the case is really stronger than might at lirst appear. We have lately had an opportunity
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF G ALALIA. 71
of observing the unreadiness of one nation to accept the name of another nation, with which its political destinies are closely linked. Thus Scotchmen, loyal to the throne which is the throne of England as of Scotland, have shown that they dislike to be called Eno'lishmen : and if some name is needed to include English and Scotch alike, it must be one that declares no preference for either people, and includes them both. This the epithet British seems to do, though Englishmen might reasonably object to this as being more applicable to Scots than to the English. But no exception is taken to this name by Englishmen, because England has never considered herself to cease to be British in spite of her admixture of other blood. In the case before us a common epithet is needed for the inhabitants of the whole of Southern Galatia, for Lycaonians and some who were Phrygians. It is clear then that no mode of address will be suitable unless it be neutral in regard to both peoples. Neither group of inhabitants being Galatian by blood, yet both being of Galatia as members of the Eoman province of that name, we have in the address TaXdruL a word suited to both without a preference for either, and it would be difficult to find any other name of which this could be said.
So then, while ready to acknowledge that the address, w upojjtol TaXdrai, seems specially appropriate to North Galatians, the present writer does not feel the force of Bishop Lightfoot's comparisons, and cer- tainly he does not think this argument an insuperable difficulty to the South Galatian theory. In conceding that the address is suitable to North Galatians, we do
72 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
not allow that it is vmsuitable for South Galatians, unless it can be shewn that some other name would be more appropriately applied to them. It is not easy to find any other collective name by which St. Paul could have addressed the Christians of South Galatia, suppos- ing him to be addressing them.^
Again, Bishop Lightfoot makes much in his Com- mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians of the naturalness of the Galatian defection.^ The Gauls, he reminds us, have always been fickle, and so he argues that their apostasy from the purity of the Gospel is characteristic of the people.
This psychological argument is really worth nothing to determine the destination of the Epistle, Were its destination known certainly from other sources to be North Galatia, then Bishop Lightfoot's explanation of the naturalness of the Galatian apostasy would be of interest. But it is too unreliable a form of argument in the absence of any such knowledge.^ To the present
^ Since this was written I have read Professor Ramsay's arguments in The Expositor, August, 1898, under "Galatians and Gauls." To these attention may be drawn.
2 See his first Essay in his Galatians.
^ See article in Smith's Diet, of Bible (2nd ed.) on "Epistle to Gal." The contrast between this article and that of the old edition is striking. See also Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 105, 6. Professor Eamsay's smiles can be seen through his words as he writes : "It is certainly a sound principle to compare the qualities implied in St. Paul's Epistles with the national character of the persons addressed ; but national character is a very delicate subject to deal with, and the Celtic faults and qualities are certainly over- stated by some of the commentators. The climax of imaginative insight into national character is reached by some Germans, who consider the population of North Galatia to be not Celtic but Germanic, and discover in the Galatians of the Epistle the qualities of their own nation."
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 73
writer it does not seem worthy of any further con- sideration.
Lastly, there is the argument based on the use of TO Trporepov in Gal. iv. 18. Bishop Lightfoot^ under- stands TO irporepov to mean on the former occasion, and so concludes that, when the Epistle to the Galatians was written, the Apostle had visited Galatia twice, and twice only. Further, according to Lightfoot, the Epistle to the Galatians was written between the first Epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Romans. So, then, as these two were composed on the third missionary journey after Ephesus was reached, and as, before the Epistle to the Galatians St. Paul had only visited Galatia tioice, whereas, according to the South Galatian interpretation of FaXaTf/co? in the Acts there must have been three visits to Galatia before Ephesus was reached on the third journey, therefore the South Galatian School is lodged in a contradiction which tells against their theory.
But in answer to this it may be said that those who locate the Churches of Galatia in South Galatia do not hold themselves bound by Lightfoot's date of the Epistle to the Galatians. For example Piamsay, who also interprets to irpoTepov as Lightfoot does, dates the Galatian Epistle from Antioch before the third missionary journey began. With this, however, the present writer does not find himself in agreement. He thinks that Bishop Lightfoot's chronological arrange- ment of the Epistles is correct, for reasons to be
^ See his note in Galatians.
74 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
stated in later chapters ; but he ventures to differ from both Lightfoot and Eamsay in their inter- pretation of TO irpoTepov ; and he will now proceed to give his reasons for thinking that to irpoTepov is used in Gal. iv. 13 in the sense oi formerly, and that the expression does not imply the exact number of two visits to Galatia prior to the writing of the Epistle.
Lightfoot in his note in loc. says that to irpoTepov cannot be simply equivalent to irdXai, " some time ago." This one must agree with. He then goes on to say that it may mean " formerly," with a direct and emphatic reference to some later point of time. In this sense it is certainly used in Joh. vi. 62 ; ix. 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 13. Or it may mean "on the former of two occasions." He prefers this latter interpreta- tion because it is difficult to explain the emphasis implied in the use of the article to if we assign to ivpoTepov the other meaning. But, with all defer- ence to Lightfoot's opinion, the emphasis is clear enough if only we read verses 14 ff. with 13. It is not that the Apostle says simply : " Ye know that on account of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel to you to irpoTcpov" We must not break the sense but read right on : " And that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not nor rejected, but ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where, then, is that gratulation of yourselves ? For I bear you witness that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. So,
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 75
then, am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth ? "
Here surely is the explanation of the emphasis. It is a contrast between then and now. Then (to irpoTepov) though he was afflicted with bodily weak- ness, they were ready to sacrifice anything for him — 71010 ^ he is become their enemy. To disregard the connection of vv. 14-16 with what is gone before is to lose the sense of the whole passage. As well stop at TO. KoXa epya in our Lord's words in St. Matt. v. 16, thereby entirely missing the point of His exhortation, which is that God may have glory and not that men may see our good works, as check the sense of this passage in the Epistle by disconnecting vv. 14 ff. from V. 13^.
It is surprising that Bishop Lightfoot missed this point. Maybe the explanation is to be found in the fact that the North Galatian theory already seemed to him so strong, and the interpretation of to irporepov to mean on the former occasion to agree so exactly with it, that he did not see the force of the other rendering.
It may even be questioned whether the rendering " on the former of my visits " is admissible here. For if the comparative force of the adverb be insisted on, the sentence strictly means : Through an infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel on the former of the two occasions ichen I lyreacliecl the Gospel. And it is open to very serious question whether a second visit
^ The word "now" does not, it is true, occur, but may well be implied in ye^ova. In effect it is there though not in actual act.
76 THE EPISTLE TO THE GA'LATIANS.
could be called preaching the Gospel in New Testament language.^ Evangelizing would be the work of the first visit, " confirming " WT)uld be the purpose of the later visits. So that the Apostle would hardly speak of himself as 'preaching the Gospel a second time in the same place.
It does not seem to the present writer that the expression to irporepov need be interpreted on the former occasion even on the North Galatian hypothesis. The rendering formerly accords better with the sense of the passage in which it occurs.
So, then, of the four arguments derived from the Epistle in favour of its North Galatian destination, viz. :
(1) The acrOei/eia rrj^ crapKog argument.
(2) The psychological argument.
(3) The TO irpoTcpov argument.
(4) The w TaXarcxL argument.
The last only seems to have any real value. And this is indeed a slender thread on which to hang so heavy a conclusion.
On the other hand there are not wanting in the Epistle evidences of its South Galatian destinatiou. Thus, for example, that Gal. v. 11 has reference to St. Paul's conduct in regard to Timothy (Acts xvi. 3) is recognised even by Lightfoot.^ " But I, brethren, if I
^ I allow that St. Paul's words in Rom. i. 15 may be thought to tell against me. But they were written before St. Paul himself had been to Rome. Moreover, the phrase vfuv Toh kv 'F(J}/J.ri is general.
^ Note on Gal. v. 11.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 77
still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted ? " Here, doubtless, there is an allusion to the argument used by the Judaisers that Paul had himself recognised the validity, and perhaps, also, the necessity of circum- cision by having Timothy circumcised. Timothy was of Lystra in South Galatia. Certainly the point of the attack on St. Paul is sharpened if we suppose that the Epistle was addressed to those who had themselves known Timothy, and who knew too how St. Paul had acted in regard to him.
And we cannot be accused of unfairness if we say that we see a reference in Gal. iv. 14 to the events recorded in Acts xiv. 1 1 ff. The words, " As an angel of God ye received me," certainly gain in point if they were addressed to the Christians of Lystra among others. And it is worth while to notice that this reference does not stand alone, but we have just such another in Gal. i. 8, 9, " But though we, or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any gospel other than that which is preached unto you let him be anathema."
It cannot fairly be argued, as has been done by members of the South Galatian school, e.g., Eenan and Eamsay,^ that the mention of Barnabas in the Epistle betrays the fact that he was personally known to the Galatians. It may, I think, reasonably be said that the manner in which Barnabas is introduced proves him to have been known at any rate by name. But
^ It is due to Professor Ramsay to say that he does not see any " great value in this argument." The Church in the Roynan Emjnre, p. 97. It would be fairer to say that the argument is invalid as is here demonstrated.
78 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
beyond this we cannot go, as Bishop Lightfoot has clearly shewn by his reference to the allusion to Barnabas in 1 Cor. ix. 6.^ We have no more right to argue that Barnabas was personally known to the Churches of Galatia than we have to say that St. Paul's reference to him in 1 Corinthians proves him to have been known to the Corinthians. We have not the least reason to suppose that Barnabas was personally known at Corinth. In fact we have every reason to think he was not, for he was not with St. Paul on his second missionary journey when Corinth was first evangelised.
While then we have reasons for considering that Barnabas was known by name to the Churches of Galatia we must not therefore assume any 'personal acquaintance between them. James and Cephas and John are introduced in the Epistle to the Galatians as those with whose names its readers would be well acquainted. But no one is likely to argue that these three were personally known in the churches of Galatia. That their names were familiar is of course most natural, for tlie Judaising teachers who were troubling the Galatian churches, had, as we can see from St. Paul's own reference to the Three as ol SoKovi^re^ G-TvXoi elpai, been extolling them as the true pillars of the Church ; this metaphor, according to Lightfoot,^ being commonly used by the Jews in speaking of the great teachers of the law. St. Paul's Apostolic author- ity on the other hand was disputed by the Judaisers, and it would seem to follow from the connection of the name of Barnabas with that of Paul in 1 Cor. ix. 6
1 Colossians, p. 28, footnote. ^See his note on Gal. ii. 9.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 79
that Barnabas, like St. Paul, was represented by this party as one of inferior authority, he being known as a prominent champion of Gentile freedom from the bondage of the Jewish law (Gal. ii). So then even if the churches of Galatia be in North Galatia, whither the Judaisers have penetrated, the name of Barnabas might quite well have become familiar to the Galatians there.
But (and this is a point of some importance) the presence of Jewish emissaries presupposed in the Galatian Epistle is more natural and probable in South Galatia than in the " semi-barbarous " regions of the North. For, even granting the North Galatian contention that St. Paul visited North Galatia because of special divine guidance thereto, and in spite of the fact that the route thereto was an unnatural one to take, the same cannot be said of the Judaisers, who would naturally follow the more ordinary line of com- munication leading into Asia. It is contended by Professor Eamsay that " the development and import- ance of the territory on the northern side of the plateau — i.e. Northern Galatia and Northern Phrygia — belong to the period following after 292 A.D., and result from the transference of the centre of govern ment, first to Nicomedia and afterwards to Constanti- nople. Under the earlier Eoman Empire, the southern side of the plateau was far more important than the northern side." This argument, which Professor Eamsay has worked out at length in his Historical Geography of Asia, Minor, is really a very valuable piece of corroborative evidence. It does not of itself
80 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATL4NS.
prove anything to do with the present inquiry absolutely, but it is a strong confirmation of con- clusions reached on other grounds.
The present writer has purposely abstained from any attempt to develop this line of argument in this essay, for he does not pretend to have made it his own. But Professor Kamsay's suggested interpretation of Ty]v ^pvy'iav koi TaXariKt]p X^P^^ (^^ interpretation, be it noticed, derived from an acquaintance with the history of Asia Minor) appeared so natural and likely, that it seemed to have become necessary to examine its bearing on the meaning of Acts xvi. 6 ff. resulting from it. Hence the development of the present essay.
There is yet one more allusion in the Galatian Epistle which has seemed to favour the South Galatian theory. It is said that the use of r'/xa? in Galatians ii. 5 points to a South Galatian destination for the Epistle. This is worth examining.
The visit to Jerusalem which forms the subject of the second chapter of the Epistle is difficult to identify with certainty. Professor Ptamsay calls this " the greatest historical problem of St. Paul's life." The disputed point is whether this visit to Jerusalem is to be identified with the visit of Acts xi. 30 or with the later one recorded in Acts xv. It is not necessary for our present purpose to discuss this question. A consideration of it is reserved for the Appendix. But we may notice that on either hypothesis the visit to Jerusalem preceded the second missionary journey. At that time the churches of Galatia, on the North
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 81
Galatian theory, were non-existent ; for their found- ation was a result of the second journey. So then it is argued that St. Paul could not have spoken of his resistance to the demands of the Judaisers as being " that the truth of the Gospel might continue loith you " (Iva r) aXijOeia rod evayyeKlov Sia/memj Trpos
I must candidly confess that I do not feel that this is necessarily correct, for by i^/xa? St. Paul may only mean you Gentiles. The use of uyua? need not of necessity imply that the Galatians were already Christianised when the conference at Jerusalem took place. The reference to them as of the number of those for w^hose benefit St. Paul was contendinej mioht be explained by understanding that the Apostle's claims on their behalf were prospective and not yet actual. It was a matter of princijjle that St. Paul was contending for, and not any special converts. He would not have the Gentiles entangled in the yoke of Jewish bondage.
It does not then appear that the use of vjuag is fatal to the North Galatian theory.
For, again, if it were fatal to the North Galatian theory, it would be equally fatal to the opposite theory if it could be proved independently that the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. ii. is to be identified with the visit of Acts xi. 30. Now, it is interesting to observe that Professor Eamsay does so identify it,^ so that according to him v/uug is prospectively used even on the South Galatian theory. When, then, in touching on the i^m"? argument as one in favour of the
1 St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, chap. iii. F
82 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
South Galatian theory and adverse to the other theory, he says, " This is a good point, though slight," ^ I must confess he seems to me guilty of inconsistency. I fear lest such inconsistency should retard the acceptance of his South Galatian theory, which, in itself, is a per- fectly consistent one, and, as I have tried to show, the correct one.^
^ Church in Roman Emjnre, p. 101.
2 It is much to be regretted that Professor Ramsay tries to prove more than one thing at a time. See Preface to this essay.
CHAPTEE VI.
THE CORROBOEATIVE EVIDENCE OF ACTS XX. 4.
At this stage of the argument it may be well, before passing on to investigate the elate of the Galatian Epistle (to which inquiry we shall come in the next chapter), to educe an interesting and not unimportant piece of corroborative evidence afforded by the list of names given in Acts xx. 4.^
But it will be necessary to institute a preliminary inquiry into the dates of three of St. Paul's Epistles. This must not be looked upon as digression; for it is, as will presently appear, a necessary part of the argu- ment.
There can be no reasonable doubt that St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Ephesus towards the close of his three years' sojourn there on his third missionary journey (Acts xix.). That this Epistle dates from Ephesus is now generally recognised to be a conclusion from St. Paul's own statement in the Epistle : '' I will tarry (or am tarry-
^ It is hardly necessary to acknowledge how writers subsequent to Paley are indebted to him for his Horae Pauliuae.
84 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
ing, eiTLfjievoo) at Ephesus until Pentecost ; for a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries" (1 Cor. xvi. 8, 9). That these words do not point to an intended visit to Ephesus still in the future, in the same way that the words " I do pass through Macedonia " (NLaKe^ovlav yap Siep-^ojuat, 1 Cor. xvi. 5) express only a future intention of the Apostle in regard to Macedonia, seems clear from an earlier reference in the Epistle, where St. Paul speaks of his " fighting with beasts at Ephesus " ; ^ an expression which shows him to be already there.
And as the Epistle dates from Ephesus, the three years' stay there recorded in Acts xix. seems to be the only likely occasion when the Epistle could have been written, for the Apostle's visit to that city on the second journey was very short. Further, that the three years' stay was drawing to a close is suggested by St. Paul's expressed intention of shortly leaving the city to visit Achaia by way of Macedonia — an intention which is also recorded in Acts xix. 21.
It is fortunate then that so close an approximation to the date of the first Epistle to Corinth can be obtained.
Nor is there much difficulty in approximating to the time when the second Epistle was written. For, from the contents of this Epistle we can gather that it was written not long after the first, and that it was the result of the information brought by Titus as to the effect produced by the first Epistle on the Corinthian Church. That St. Paul had awaited news
1 1 Cor. XV. 82.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 85
of the effect produced by his letter with anxiety is clear from his words in 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13: "Now when I came to Troas for the Gospel of Christ, and when a door wtis opened unto me in the Lord, I had no relief for my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother ; but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia." Here the relief came, as the following verses imply, but not at once ; for in 2 Cor. vii. 5 ff. we read : " For even when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no relief, but we were afflicted on every side ; without were fightings, within were fears. Nevertheless He that comforteth the lowly, even Cod, comforted us by the coming of Titus; and not by his coming only, but also by the comfort wherewith he was comforted in you, while he told us your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me ; so that I rejoiced yet more."
The relating of these personal experiences on the part of the Apostle brings clearly before us the cir- cumstances of the writing of the second Epistle. After despatching the first Epistle, St. Paul had concluded his stay at Ephesus, possibly abruptly, and had then gone to Troas, where he hoped to meet Titus with news of the Corinthians. Titus was not there ; and the suspense endured by the Apostle was greater than he could bear. He left Troas in spite of the fact that " a door was opened " to him there, and crossed to Macedonia, where, after further anxiety on the Apostle's part, Titus at length met him. Eelieved in part, though still weighed down by care, as the Epistle itself shows, St. Paul wrote the second Epistle to the Corinthians.
86 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,
Both Epistles to Corinth then were compositions of the third missionary journey. So also was the Epistle to the Romans, as the following considerations show.
From the second Epistle to the Corinthians we learn that, at the time that letter was written, there was going on in the churches of St. Paul's founding a collection of alms intended for the poor Christian Jews in Jerusalem. That the collection was one already in progress is shown by St. Paul's words in 2 Cor. ix. 1, 2 : "For as touching the ministering to the saints {rri^ SiaKoviag rrjg eig tov? ayiov^), it is superfluous for me to write to you : for I know your readiness, of which I glory on your behalf to them of Macedonia, that Achaia hath been prepared for a year past." And that the offering was meant for Jerusalem is made clear by a previous reference to this collection in the first Epistle to Corinth (xvi. 1 ) : " Now concerning the collection for the saints (irepl Se rrjg Xoyia^ Trj^ eig Toug aylovg), as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. And when I arrive, whomsoever ye shall approve by letters, them will I send to carry your hounty unto Jerusalem : and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me."
We know further that St. Paul afterwards decided that it was meet for him to go to Jerusalem ; and we find him writing to the Ptomans (xv. 25, 26): "But now I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints {SiaKovwv roh ayioig). For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 87
certain contribution (Koivcoviav) for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem."
It is not likely that any one will question that the KOLvwvia here spoken of is in effect the same as the SiaKovla of 2 Cor. ix. 1, for the identification is secured by the words Siukovwu roh aylot^. Further, both in
1 Corinthians and Eomans the contribution is one intended for the " saints " in Jerusalem.
We may then assume that all three Epistles are dealing with the same collection, or ministering, or hounty ; and we see then how the expressed intention of St. Paul in writing to the Eomans to go now {vwl) to Jerusalem fixes the Koman Epistle later than
2 Corinthians. Whether it was written from Corinth or not, it too is a composition of the third missionary journey.
But we may further lay it down as all but proved that the Eoman Epistle was written from Corinth itself. For, as Dr. Sanday and Mr. Headlam have argued,^ " The bearer of the Epistle appears to be one Phoebe who is an active, perhaps an official, member of the Church of Cenchreae, the harbour of Corinth (Eom. xvi. 1). The house in which St. Paul is staying, which is also the meeting place of the local church, belongs to Gains (Eom. xvi. 23); and a Gains St. Paul had baptized at Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14). He sends a greeting also from Erastus," who is described as ' oeconomus' or 'treasurer' of the city. The office is of some importance, and points to a city of some import- ance. This would agree with Corinth ; and just at
^ See "Romans" in International Critical Commentary, p. xxxvii. 2 Rom. xvi. 23.
88 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Corinth we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 20 that an Erastus was left behind on St. Paul's latest journey — naturally enough if it was his home."
What we have so far said is necessary for our present argument, and much of it will be useful in a later chapter when we come to discuss the date of Galatian Epistle. But the dating of that Epistle has nothing to do with us now. That remains an open question.
Eeturning then to the " collection for the poor saints," we may remark now on (1) the Area over which the collection was made, (2) the Way in which it was made, and (3) the Conditions of its Conveyance to Jerusalem.
1. The Area over loliicli the collection was made. We might suppose from the Epistle to the Romans that the contribution came only from Macedonia and Achaia. For St. Paul makes mention only of them when he says : " For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem."-^ But it is clear from St. Paul's words to the Corinthians (xvi. 1), that it was part of his original intention that the churches of Galatia sliould contribute ; for he writes : " Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia so also do ye." There is no mention, however, anywhere in the three Epistles of contributions actual or intended from Asia. But it would be most unreasonable to assume
1 Rom. XV. 26.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 89
from this that Asia was not asked. For St. Paul was in Asia when he first wrote to the Corinthians about the collection, and he had then already given orders in the churches of Galatia respecting it. We, therefore, could not argue that because Asia is not mentioned by name, it was not asked. On the contrary it is incon- ceivable that Asia should not be asked. And, being asked, was Asia likely to refuse ? If it be thought that for any reason or other the churches of Galatia might fail to contribute at the last, is it likely, or is it reasonable to suggest that the explanation of St. Paul's silence about Asia and Galatia in Ptom. xv. 26 is that loth failed to send contributions? A very simple explanation of the mention of only Macedonia and Achaia would be that the Apostle had already when he wrote to Eome got the offerings of these churches together, that he knew the result of their collection, for he had passed through Macedonia to come to Achaia, but that he did not yet know what Asia and Galatia had contributed. There seems to be in the Apostle's words, rjvSoKrja-av yap MaKeSovia koI 'A')(aia KOLVMVLuv TLVU 7ronj(Ta(T0ai ek Tovg TTTCo-^ovg tcov ay'ucv Tcov ev 'lepova-aXij/uL, an expression of satisfaction at the readiness with which Macedonia and Achaia had responded to the appeal for alms.
We conclude then from these three Epistles that Macedonia and Achaia were asked and contributed, and that Galatia was asked to contribute. Whether Galatia refused we cannot tell, nor whether Asia was even asked can we tell. But St. Paul's words in the Epistle to the Eomans need not mean that Galatia and Asia both failed to send contributions.
90 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
2. Tlu Way in which the collection was made. We have an insight into this in the latter part of the eighth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians. We gather from this section (vv. 16 to 24) that St. Paul was sending to Corinth Titus, who is mentioned by name, along with one whom, without naming, he describes as " the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches ; and not only so, but who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace (eV rri xupiTL TavTi], yet another word for the SiaKovla) which is ministered by us to the glory of the Lord." And along with these two the Apostle sends yet another whom he describes as " our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things, but now much more earnest by reason of the great confidence which he hath in you."
These three then St. Paul is sending to Corinth, carefully commending them to the church as trust- worthy. " Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner (Koivwvog) and fellow-worker to you-ward (e/9 vjuL(lg (Tuvepyog) ; or our brethren, they are messengers of the churches (a-Troa-roXoi^ e/c/cAj/o-^wi^), the glory of Christ." To them, therefore, are the Corinthians exhorted to give " proof of their love," and of the Apostle's " glorying on their behalf."
What is meant by these expressions the ninth chapter makes abundantly clear. St. Paul had been " glorying " to them of Macedonia, that Achaia had been prepared for a year past in regard to the minister- ing to the saints (2 Cor. ix. ], 2). He asks the Cor-
^ Delegates we might say.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 91
inthians to justify this glorying. So then we conclude that Titus and the two brethren are being sent to collect the Corinthian offering for the saints at Jerusalem.
It is not impossible that it was for a similar purpose that Timothy was sent with Erastus to Mace- donia. These two, being as St. Luke says in Acts xix. 22 ^xjo Tcov ^laKovovvToov avT(p, did St. Paul send to Macedonia shortly before he himself was to leave Asia. And it seems probable from 1 Cor. xvi. 10 that the Apostle had originally intended Timothy to go on to Corinth from Macedonia, but that there was some doubt whether he would get as far. It is certainly worth noticing that the mention of Timothy in this passage occurs just after the instructions respecting the " collection for the saints." That Timothy did go to Corinth ultimately we know, for he sends salutations to Eome (Eom. xvi. 21), and that he went with St. Paul himself is also probable, for he was with the Apostle when he wrote the second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor. i. 1).
It would seem then that the collection of the alms was done by duly accredited persons sent by the Apostle for that purpose. In the case of Corinth we see that two of those sent had already been chosen by the churches to carry the alms to Jerusalem. But we need not suppose that only those chosen by the churches collected the ahns, for Titus does not seem to have been an aTroVroXo? eKK\i](ncov as were the other two brethren in 2 Cor. viii. 23.
3. The Condition of the Conveyance of the collection to Jernsaleni. We learn from 1 Cor. xvi. 3 that the
92 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Apostle's intention before he left Ephesus was to allow the churches (for presumably his intention was the same for all) to choose their own representatives to carry their bounty to Jerusalem. At that time it was uncertain whether the Apostle would go with them in person. But whether he went himself or not, there were to be representatives of the churches.
We can see the reason that prompted the Apostle to adopt this plan of having chosen representatives, underlying his own words in 2 Cor. viii. 20; where he says that he is careful to avoid "that any man should blame us in the matter of this bounty which is ministered by us : for we take thought for things honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men." He would have the churches know and feel that their bounty was minis- tered according to the purpose for which it was offered. There should be no opportunity for suspicion of any misapplication of the great offering of the Gentiles to their Jewish brethren.^
Now it is a remarkable fact that though in the Acts of the Apostles we have no direct reference to this great and important SiaKovia, yet we have an interesting confirmation of some of the details we have gleaned from the three Epistles of the third missionary journey in the list of names given in Acts xx. 4. We may reasonably expect to find, now that we know St. Paul's desire that the SiaKovla should be
^ For the importance attaching to this ofifering, see Romans xv. 30-32. See Hort on this in Prolegomena to Romans, pp. 39 ff. See also an article in The Expositor, 1893, by Mr. F. Kendall on "The Pauline collection for the Saints."
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GAL ATI A. 93
ministered in Jerusalem by those chosen by the churches who had contributed towards it, that the list of names of those who returned with him to Jerusalem will be representative of these churches. And our contention is that such is in fact the case.
It will be well to quote the passage in Acts xx.4, 5. "And there accompanied him ^ Sopater of Beroea, the son of Pyrrhus ; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gains of Derbe and Timothy; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. But these came to meet us (irpoG-eXOovreg), and waited for us at Troas."
When we examine this list we find representatives from Macedonia, from Southern Galatia, and from Asia, but none from Achaia. Now the absence of any names connected with Achaia is easily accounted for. For St. Paul was himself returning from Greece via Macedonia (Acts xx. 2, 3), and the representatives from Achaia would naturally be with him. And this supposition is confirmed by the words of St. Luke's narrative: " And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days." The pronoun of the first person {}]liLeig) here discloses the fact that St. Luke, at any rate, was with St. Paul. And if it be the case that the brother, whose praise in the gospel was spread through all the churches, and who was appointed by the churches to travel with the Apostle and others in the matter of the ministering to the saints, is St. Luke, as tradition declares it is, we have a perfectly clear explanation of why no Achaean representatives are included in the list of Acts xx. 4. For this
^ For the omission of dxpl ri]s 'Aalas, see W. H.
94 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
"brother" had, as we have seen from 2 Cor. viii., been sent to Corinth with Titus and another "brother/' and so naturally any representatives from Achaia would come along with them. It is not here suggested that St. Luke represented Achaia. On the contrary, it would be more reasonable to suppose that he repre- sented Philippi, seeing that he was with St. Paul on the second missionary journey, and it was there St. Paul left him, as is clearly shown by the cessation of the first personal pronoun in Acts xvii. 1.
It may reasonably be objected that we have not accounted for the fact that Timothy and Sopater, who are among those who waited at Troas, had been with St. Paul at Corinth when he wrote his Epistle to the Ptomans, as we see to be the case from Eom. xvi. 21 (if, indeed, we may identify Scoo-iTrarjOo? of Eomans with the llcoTrarpog ILvppou Bepoiaiog of Acts xx. 4).^ But I must confess I see no difficulty in this at all. We learn from Acts xx. 3 that St. Paul's original intention had been to go from Achaia to Syria, but that he altered his plans in consequence of the discovery of a plot against him on the part of the Jews. Someone then would have to inform the Asiatic delegates of this change of plan, and what more natural than that Timothy and others should go across to give this information, and then go on with the delegates they had informed to Troas to meet the Apostle ? But there would be still some of the
^ It is not necessary to discuss whether this identity holds. It is at any rate true that Timothy was at Corinth, and yet afterwards he was at Troas awaiting the Apostle.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 95
delegates with St. Paul, including, as we think, those from Achaia; for he would not, of course, travel through Macedonia unaccompanied. That Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica were already at Troas does not seem to interfere with our theory. For when St. Paul came through Macedonia on his way to Achaia he did not expect to return that w^ay, and he would naturally arrange for the Macedonian delegates who were not accompanying him into Greece to meet him somewhere. And it would be quite natural for these from Thessalonica to cross to Troas with the intention of afterwards coming to Ephesus (or Miletus), where St. Paul would have touched even if he had sailed for Syria from Cenchreae, as he did at the end of his second missionary journey (Acts xviii. 18, 19).
I think there can be little doubt that the impression left on the mind by an ordinary reader reading Acts XX. 4, 5, 6 is that St. Paul's whole party consisted of two detachments. Those named in verse 4 were already waiting at Troas. -^ They had gone to Troas to be joined by St. Paul there, o-vvelirero Se avrw is perfectly general. It seems to mean — Here is a list of those who accompanied the Apostle or who were intending (or tuere ready) to accompany him, for such might be the force of the imperfect. (Compare St. Luke i. 59, eKoXow avro CTn rip Svonxari rov irarpo^ avTov Za^aplav.) And then follow the names with
^ Professor Ramsay (and also Mr. F. Kendall) makes ovtol of v. 5 refer only to Tychicus and Trophimus, but I do not so understand the passage. It is not easy with Professor Ramsay's reading of the passage to account for the Asiatic delegates going to Troas at all. How did they know they were to go there ? It could not be part of the original plan. See St. Paid the Traveller, etc., p. 287.
96 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
an explanation that those named were only those who had gone to Troas and were there waiting. The other detachment was with St Paul himself. No names are given, because St. Luke himself w^as among them, and he never mentions his own name. But seeing that in verses 2 and 3 he has already explained that St. Paul is coming from Greece {via Macedonia because of a plot against him on the part of the Jews), we understand that hfJ-eU need not only mean St. Paul and St Luke, but that it naturally includes all representatives from Achaia.
I have assumed that the true text is without o-xf*- Tr]9 'Ao-/a9. I must candidly confess I can make no sense of the passage if these words are inserted. It is fortunate that we know for certain that Trophimus and Aristarchus, whose names are in the list, went to Palestine ; for we can glean this fact from Acts xxi. 29, xxvii. 2. It seems then reasonable to conclude that the list of XX. 4 gives the names of those who were to accompany St. Paul to Jerusalem, and not simply ^XP^ T>79 'Ao-m?, for these words find no place in i^B}
So then we find accompanying the Apostle repre- sentatives of the churches of Macedonia, of Asia, of Southern Galatia, and (we think) of Achaia too. But what about North Galatia ? From there we have no
^ It will be noticed that the reading -rrpoaekdovTes makes excellent sense. For these did not precede [TrpoeXdovTes) St. Paul ; they came to meet him probably from Ephesus. Blass adopts the reading TvpoeKdovTes, and arbitrarily remarks that irpoaeKdbvTes of i^ABE, etc. is corrupt. On the other hand, W. H. retain irpoaeKdbvTes in text.
LOCALITY OF CHURCHES OF GALATLA. 97
representatives. Yet the churches of Galatia were to be included in the great SiaKovla. There seems to me only one natural conclusion; that is that Gains of Derbe and Timothy were the representatives of the churches of Galatia, and that those churches were the churches of Antioch and Iconium, of Lystra and Derbe.
Those who have already made up their minds that the list in Acts xx. 4 does not contain a list of the delegates of the churches will be ready with objections to our contention that it does. I can foresee that it may be objected that Timothy could not be a delegate from Galatia because he did not come from Galatia, having been in Macedonia and Achaia. But it must be clearly understood that it is not necessary, in order to his being a representa- tive of Galatia, that he should just now have come from there. That the churches of Galatia should have chosen him to represent them long ago when the collection was set on foot is in itself not impossible. And it is to be noticed that it was not necessary that only delegates of the churches should collect the alms. This we have argued above. The churches elected their representatives to see the ministration properly carried out at Jerusalem, but not to make the collection. It may have been a pure accident that the two brethren sent with Titus to Corinth to collect the church's alms were also ciitocttoXoi 6KK\r](Ti()0v. They were not at any rate airoa-roXoi of the church of Corinth ; else would not St. Paul's commendation of them have been necessary. St.
G
98 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Paul does not send them to Corinth for the purpose of collecting because they were airoa-ioXoL cKKXi^criow, but because they were worthy of trust.
It will be well to draw attention to the fact that, even if the argument of this chapter be entirely over- thrown, and the South Galatian theory be deprived of this piece of corroborative evidence in its favour, such loss to the one theory will be no real gain to the other. For on no account can Acts xx. 4 tell in favour of the North Galatian theory, whose advocates, if they would upset the other theory, must show the reasoning of the earlier chapters of this book to be fallacious.
The argument respecting the Destination of the
Epistle to the Galatians is now concluded. In the
next chapter the discussion of its Date will be begun.
CHAPTEE VII.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE DERIVED FROM STATEMENTS FOUND THEREIN.
Haying so far given reasons for agreeing witii Professor Ramsay's interpretation of the " Phrygo-Galatian region," and having given a ready adherence to the South Galatian theory, the arguments for which, it may reasonably be hoped, have been strengthened by the analysis which has been made of Acts xvi. 6, the writer regrets that he must now join issue with the Professor, and place himself in direct opposition to him in regard to the Date and place of origin of the Epistle to the Galatians.
And first it will be well to state clearly that the acceptance of the South Galatian theory does not in itself carry with it acceptance of any particular theory as to the Date of the Epistle. The present writer would indeed be in a predicament if, by admitting the South Galatian theory to be true, he were committed to Professor Ramsay's views as to the Antiochene origin of the Epistle. For if he is convinced, as he acknowledges he is, that the " Churches of Galatia " were the churches of Lystra and Derbe, of Iconium
100 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and Antioch, he is none the less convinced that the Epistle addressed to these churches does not date from Syrian Antioch. He proposes in the following pages to give his reasons for dissenting from Professor Eamsay, and for agreeing in regard to this point with Bishop Lightfoot.
The best method of treatment of the subject will be, not to give the two theories as given by the Professor and the Bishop, but to examine the question in an independent manner, making use of their arguments as occasion shall require and acknowledging indebtedness to their assistance. The reader who wishes for infor- mation as to their respective points of view will find Bishop Lightfoot's case set forth in his Essay on Tlu Bate of the Epistle, in his published Commentary ; and Professor Eamsay's will be found in his St. Paid the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, chapter viii., and in several numbers of The Expositor, dating from. June, 1898. This much premised, we proceed to the subject in hand.
In endeavouring to determine the Date of the Epistle to the Galatians we do not so much seek for the figures of the year in which it was written as for its place relatively to other Epistles of St. Paul. And the data we have for forming an opinion on this point are (1) the contents of the Epistles, includ- ing of course their style and diction, and (2) St. Luke's outline of St. Paul's missionary labours contained in the Acts of the Apostles. It will be well to insist at once on this point that we have no other sources from
DATE OF THE EPISTLE, 101
which to draw. Even if we make use of the opinions of other writers in endeavouring to form our own we must yet remember that we have no authorities other than these two. The conclusions of critics and historians and theologians are only of value in so far as they help us to understand and make use of these authorities. In this, as in so many other things, the precept holds good : iravra SoKijud'^eTe. Everyone has a right to an opinion who is content to support it by an appeal to the Acts and Epistles ; and that opinion will ultimately prevail which takes proper account of all the data these authorities supply. This is, of course, quite commonplace, but it is important all the same. The authority of great names can never be a substitute for ultimate authority.
We naturally turn first of all to the Galatian Epistle itself, and inquire whether there is contained in it any mention of matters of fact, about which we have other information, or from which conclusions can reasonably be drawn.
We have then first the fact of the Galatian apostasy, described in words which show that it had come as a surprise to St. Paul (Gal. i. 6). Oav.ad'C^co OTL OVTC09 Ta'^e(jo<s iLLeTaTiOearOe airo tov KuXecravTog vjULd9 €1' -^apiTi ^pi(TTOu €is cTeoov evayyeXiov, k.t.\., I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from Him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different Gospel. " So quickly removing." Oh ! then the Epistle must have been written soon after the conversion of the Galatians and the founding of the Galatian Churches.
102 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
So we might be inclined to assume, but this would be very hasty criticism. " So quickly" — so quickly after what ? After their conversion ? The Apostle does not say so. The sudden defection of which he com- plained, and at which he marvels, may for anythin^t^ we can tell have taken place years after their hrst acceptance of the Gospel. Say these Galatians have proved false to St. Paul's teaching, and have welcomed the Judaisers in their efforts to supplant the Apostle of the Gentiles, and that this has taken place ten years after their first conversion to Christ ; yet, if St. Paul had known but a little time before that they were still true to what he had taught them, however long ago it was since they first believed it, and then became informed that they had become false and had welcomed the Judaising teachers, might he not say : " How quickly ye are removing from Him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different Gospel"?
Bishop Lightfoot says in discussing this : " Here the point of time from which he reckons is obviously the time of their conversion, not the time of his second visit." ^ But it is not at all obvious. If a man dies suddenly, we need not assume that he has only just been born ! We understand by " sudden death," an unexpected death. And it does not seem at all necessary to understand Ta^ew<i in any other sense than suddenly, rapidly, hastily. ^ Needless to say the words airo rou KaXlaavTO^ v/ulu^ k.t.X. depend on the verb imeTaTiOea-Oe, and we must not allow ourselves to suppose that, because there is here spoken of a sudden defection from Him that called them, therefore this
^ Galatians, p. 42. - Cf. raxi-vw airibXeLav in 2 Pet. ii. 1.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 103
defection takes place soon after the call. There does not seem any necessary suggestion of this in St. Paul's words.
Nor does it seem that Lightfoot's interpretation of oi/Ta)9 rayew^ in reference to the time since the con- version of the Galatians is calculated to improve his own argument. He gets over the difficulty that he creates for himself by saying that quickness and slowness are relative terras, and that the rapidity of a change is measured by the importance of the interests at stake. The mistake, so it would seem, is caused by his rendering of ovtw^ rayeco^ as so soon, -^ which suggests a comparison with some other time, whereas no such comparison is necessarily involved in rayecog.
That rayecog is used with a future reference as equivalent to our English soon is clear from such passages as 1 Cor. iv. 19 {eXevG-ofxai Se rayewg irpog v/ULcig), Phil. ii. 1 9 (eXTr/^w Se ev 'Kvplw 'hjarov TiinoOeov Tayem ireim^aL vfJLii/), Phil. ii. 24 {ireiroiQa Se ev Kvpico oTi KOI avTo<i Tayeo)? eXevaro/uiai), 2 Tim. iv. 9 {(jTrovoacrov eXOeiu irpo? jue Tayecog). But that there is not necessarily inherent in the word any comparison with another point of time, present or past, is shown by St. Luke xiv. 21 {e^eXOe TayeM<; eig rug irXareia? Kol pujuag rrjg iroXecog), St. Luke xvi. 6 (KaOlo-ag rayeo)^ ypdyl/oi' irevTijKOVTo), St. John xi. 31 {otl rayecog avea-rr] koi e^fjXOev), 2 Thess. ii. 2 (eig to ^i] rayecjog a-aXevOtjuai), and 1 Tim. v. 22 (x^ipa^ rayecog ^}]S€v\ €7r LTiOei).
But I cannot agree with Professor Ramsay that
^ Galatians, p. 42, with footnote. In his note on i. 6 Lightfoot speaks in favour of the other meaning for which we plead.
104 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
there is anything " strange " in Bishop Lightfoot's understanding of oi'to)? ra^eco? as so soon after your conrersion} If there is implied in ovrw^ rayem a comparison with some independent point of time, so that the words mean so soon after something or other, we must allow that they may mean soon after their conversion, particularly as the context refers back to their first call in the words depending on jueraTiOea-Oe, viz. airo rod KaXecravrog vjua^ k.t.X. Moreover, Light- foot's interpretation is the less strange as he is careful to guard his meaning by saying that "the rapidity of a change is measured by the importance of the interests at stake." And he says : " I cannot think it strange that the Apostle, speaking of truths destined to outlive the life of kingdoms and of nations, should complain that his converts had so soon deserted from the faith, even though a whole decade of years might have passed since they were first brought to the knowledge of Christ." 2
Professor Eamsay himself interprets oi/Ta)9 ra^ew? to mean so soon after St. FaiiVs second visit? But why ? Why not shortly after a third visit ? There is nothing in the context certainly to suggest any particular visit. I cannot see that the Professor has given any reason for reading after my . . . visit into the words ovtw^ Ta^em. In St. Paul the Traveller, a few pages before he speaks of Lightfoot's inter- pretation of ovTw^ ra^ew^ as strange, he states that the Galatian defection did take place shortly after St. Paul's second visit, but I cannot there find any reason
1 See St. Pan! the Traveller, p. 189.
- Galatiam, p. 42. ^ ^9^^ p^^ii fj^^ Traveller, p. 189.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. lOo
for it. He writes on p. 1 8 2 : " Soon after Paul left the province of Galatia, there came to it missionaries of the Judaising party, who taught the Galatian Churches to take that view of the Apostolic Decree which we have described on p. 172 f/' Now, let it be observed that Professor Ramsay states this as a matter of fact. He does not even qualify his state- ment by saying that this was prohably the case. He says it was so, and he gives this as the explanation of something else unexplained, viz. why no mention is made in St. Paul's letters of the decrees of the Jeru- salem Council !
The only explanation I can find for Professor Ptamsay's suggestion that ol/'to)? Ta)(€W9 means ' so soon after St. Paul's second visit ' is that he is convinced that when the Epistle to the Galatians was written, the Apostle had only visited the Galatians twice. I find this stated by him in The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 108. And doubtless his reason for this is his understanding of to irporepov in Gal. iv. 13, which he talvcs to mean on the former visit, implying that there had been two and only two visits.
But then it is unfortunate for Professor Pamsay that TO irporepov is capable of bearing another mean- ing. Why may it not mean, as in St. John vi. 62, ix. 8, 1 Tim. i. 13, simply formerly^. Bishop Light- foot, in his note on Gal. iv. 13, allows the possibility of that meaning here, but doubts its probability on the ground that there seems to be here no direct and emphatic reference to some later point of time. Peasons have already been given in the last chapter but one (pp. 73 ff.) for dissenting from this, and it is
106 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
needless to repeat them here. It is there argued that there is an emphatic contrast between formerly and noxD, though the latter vjovd does not actually occur in the passage. The context implies it.
It is interesting further to notice that the Eevisers have not thought it necessary to translate to irpoTepov on the former occasion, but have in the text given the first time, relegating former to the margin. This is now mentioned not for the purpose of defending it, for it is doubtful whether it ought to be defended, but in order that attention may be draw^n to the fact that at any rate the Eevisers as a body were not convinced that the words to irpoTepov would tie an interpreter down to the sense of former, to the exclusion of more than two visits. This may, or may not, be tenable.
It must be acknowledged that it is, to say the least, unsatisfactory to base a whole argument on a particular interpretation of a phrase which is all the while capable of a different interpretation. I objected in the last chapter but one to the use of to irpoTepov as an argument for the North Galatian theory, and the objec- tion applies now to its being used for determining the Date of the Epistle. It is to be feared that the inter- pretation of TO irpoTepov to mean on the former visit has affected the views of both Bishop Lightfoot and Professor Eamsay, the one in regard to the Locality of the churches of Galatia, the other in regard to its Date. Thus Bishop Lightfoot seeing (rightly as I think, and as I shall presently argue) that the Galatian Epistle must be placed after the second to the Corinthians and before the Epistle to the Eomans, about the date of which two Epistles there cannot be much reasonable
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 107
doubt, was confirmed in his North Galatian view by the fact that, as he thought, the words to irporepov pointed to the exact number of two visits to the Galatians (not to say Galatia) before the writing of the Epistle ; whereas on the South Galatian theory there would be three visits. And Professor Ramsay, already assured that the South Galatian theory was the correct one, has now, partly to give the words to irpoTepov the same meaning as Lightfoot gave them, and partly doubtless for other converging reasons which it might be hard to analyse, laid it down that the Epistle dates from Antioch. This means that St. Paul wrote the Epistle before and not during his third missionary journey. For, of course, on the South Galatian theory, after Ephesus was once reached on the third journey, the churches of Galatia had been visited three times by St. Paul, the occasion of their founding being counted as one of the three.
I do not think, then, that we can get any assistance towards determining the Date of the Epistle from the statements of the Epistle contained in i. 6 and iv. 13 on account of the uncertainty in the meaning of ovto)^ Ta^ewg and to irpoTepov. At the same time the sudden defection spoken of is a point to be borne in mind. It must be used as a check to conclusions which may be reached by other means. It will be reasonable presently to ask whether the Date we assign to the Epistle on other grounds fits in with the possi- bility of a sudden defection of which St. Paul could have had information. The words to irpoTepov seem to me absolutely neutral.
108 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
So far, then, we have got no real assistance from the Epistle for dating it. Nor can anything of value be had from the allusions made by St. Paul in the first and second chapters to events in his own life and Apostolate. For the problem presented by chapter ii. is in itself one of extreme difficulty, for there is such a decided difference of opinion as to whether the visit to Jerusalem there spoken of is to be identified with that of Acts XV. or with the earlier one of Acts xi. 30.^ Bishop Lightfoot takes the former view. Professor Eamsay the latter. In view of this difference of opinion, it would be illogical to make any use of either special interpretation of the chapter to deter- mine the Date of the Epistle. Eor exactly this reason in the fifth chapter we would not allow any argument derived from a special identification of this visit, in order to decide the Locality of the churches of Galatia, to have any weight. Any conclusion arrived at as the result of an acceptance of one of the two ways of looking at the question would not be convincing to one who took the opposite view, and so the argument would be nothing advanced. Fortunately there are other means of approxi- mating to the Date of the Epistle, nor does it seem that Gal. ii. on either identification can in any way contribute towards its confirmation or the contrary, nor itself be elucidated by the know- ledge of the time at which the Epistle was written. This visit to Jerusalem remains a problem by itself, and had better be kept distinct from other questions.
1 This identification is discussed in tlie Appendix.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 109
We come next to incidental expressions found in the Epistle. First there are the words in the saluta- tion at the beginning of the Epistle ol crvv e/xol irdvreg aSeXipoi Here is Professor Eamsay's comment on these words : "The phrase, 'all the brethren which are with me,' arrests our attention. Paul wrote in some place where there was a considerable body of Christians ; and we may confidently say that that implies one or other of the cities where there were churches. The words used by Dr. Zockler to describe the situation in which Paul wrote are so good, that we may leave it to him to express what is implied in this phrase. As he has been so prominent an adversary of the South Galatian theory, no one will be able to charge me with straining Paul's words to suit my own view." Professor Piamsay then quotes from Dr. Zockler : " The whole body of fellow- Christians who were with him at the time in Ephesus^ (not merely his more pro- minent helpers) are mentioned by St. Paul as those who join with him in greeting the Galatians. He does this in order to give the more emphasis to what he has to say to them. He writes indeed with his own hand (vi. 13) but in the name of a whole great Christianity community. The warnings and exhorta- tions which are to be addressed to the Galatians go forth from a body whose authority cannot be lightly regarded." ^
^ There is here a footnote by Prof. Ramsay. "Dr. Zockler names ' Ephesus' here, without hesitation, conformably to his theory, which is the commonl}'^ received view among North Galatian critics." That the Epistle dates from Ephesus is not the commonly received view among North Galatian critics in this country at any rate.
2 Expositor, June, 1898.
110 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Then after a paragraph in which Professor Eamsay sets forth, not without illustrations of his statement, that in general St. Paul mentions in the preliminary address of his letters only " persons who stood in some close and authoritative relation to the community addressed," he goes on to say : " The Church which here addresses the Galatians, therefore, is one which was closely connected with them, whose opinion would carry weight among them, one which could add im- pressiveness even to a letter of Paul's." There are, according to Professor Piamsay, only two such churches ; the one is Jerusalem, the other Antioch. Jerusalem is out of the question, therefore it was Antioch, which is " from every point of view specially suitable and impressive."
In juxtaposition with this assertion of Professor Ptamsay's we may place Bishop Lightfoot's suggestion that " the greeting from ' all the brethren which are with me ' seems naturally to apply to the little band of his fellow-travellers, and to hint that the letter was not despatched from any of the great churches [of Macedonia or Achaia]"^ and, therefore, of course, not from the great Church of Antioch.
We see, then, that Professor Eamsay's interpreta- tion of the phrase ol crvv eu.o\ irdvTeg aSeXcpoi is the direct contrary of that given by Bishop Lightfoot. And it is reasonable to suppose that Professor Eamsay had read Lightfoot's reasons for interpreting ol arvv ejnoL as he does. Yet we find no answer to these, but only a counter statement. Professor Eamsay's reason- ing, if reasoning it can be called, is purely a priori ;
^ Galatians, p. 55.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. \\\
Lightfoot's is, on the contrary, deductive. For he has been careful to point out that in the only other place in St. Paul's Epistles in which the phrase ol (tvv e/mo] aSeXcpoi occurs, namely Philippians iv. 21, "the brethren who are with him " are mentioned separately and as dis- tinguished from the Christians in Rome whence he was writing. Thus we have aa-Trdi^ovTai viuLa<? ol <jvv ejuLo] aSeXcbol. aariraXpvTaL vjULa<^ Trai^re? ol clyioi, jmaXiarTa oe ol €K T^? Ka/o-a^o? oiKLa<i (Phil. iv. 21, 22). Says Lightfoot (note on Phil. iv. 21): "Apparently the Apostle's personal companions and fellow travellers are meant, as distinguished from the Christians resident in Eome who are described in the following verse."
But if Professor Ramsay contends that in the saluta- tion of Galatians the word all in some way alters the meaning of the phrase ol crvv ejmo] aSeXcpoi, we should certainly question his right so to do, for the very position of Tra^re? in St. Paul's phrase is against such a contention. The order of the words is : Those vjith me all brethren ; that is, my companions all of them 'brethren.
It is only fair to Professor Ramsay to say that the paragraph in which he contends that in general St. Paul mentions in the preliminary address of his letters " only persons who stood in some close and authoritative relation to the community addressed " is based on deductive reasoning;; for he illustrates his point by reference to the salutation of 1 Corinthians, in which Sosthenes is mentio-ned by name ; 2 Corin- thians, Colossians, and Philemon, where Timothy is
112 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
mentioned ; and the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, where Silvanus and Timothy join in addressing the Thessalonians. But it may reasonably be questioned whether in any one of these cases the mention of another is meant to add iveight to St. Paul's words. And, certainly, to take the special case of the Epistle to the Galatians, it is a straining of the whole argu- ment of the Epistle to say that in any way the Apostle makes use of any authority but his own. The whole Epistle points exactly the other way. Take such an expression as that in the second verse of the fifth chapter, BeJiold I Paul say unto you that if ye receive circumcision, Christ iviU profit you nothing. He says eyui Jlav\o<s, not eym Hai/Xo? kul ol (tvv e/ulo] iravTe^ aSeXipoL I, Paul, on my authority, not " I, Paul, backed by the church in Antioch."
Bishop Lightfoot, on the contrary, rightly saw that the view of patristic writers and modern commentators, who found in the expression oc crvv ejuloI TraVre? aSeXcpoL a desire on the part of the Apostle to fortify his teaching by the sanction of others, would not hold. " The Apostle, in fact, dismisses the mention of his companions as rapidly as possible in one general expression."^
When, then. Professor Piamsay says that we may "con- fidently" argue that the phrase olavv e/xo) irdvreg aSe\<poL implies one or other of the cities where there were churches, we reply that we have no such confidence, and that those intended by the phrase were more likely St. Paul's " companions in travel." If St. Paul wrote from one of the great churches he did not certainly 1 Galatians, note on i. 2, p. 73.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. II3
fortify his position by the authority of such. He did not even send the church's greetings.
We have next to consider the use made by Professor Ramsay of the manner in which Titus is mentioned in the Epistle (see Gal. ii.), as he employs this also to date the Epistle from Antioch. Here are the Professor's words quoted from the Exioositor, June, 1898: " Titus was evidently unknown to the Galatians. The point of Paul's reference to him turns on his nationality. He is a Greek, and this is carefully explained in ii. 3, so that the readers may not fail to catch the drift of the argument. Had the Galatians known Titus, had he accompanied Paul on a journey and been familiar to them, the explanation would have been unnecessary; and in this Epistle there is not a single unnecessary word."
It is really interesting, not to say amusing, to place by the side of this opinion of Professor Eamsay's that of Dean Howson, as given in the article on Titus in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible: "It is to oar purpose to remark that, in the passage cited above [that is, mark, the very same passage from which Professor liamsay has drawn his conclusion], Titus is so mentioned as apparently to imply that he had become personally known to the Galatian Christians."
Thus the two conclusions drawn from the same passage of the Epistle are directly contrary the one to the other. It will be w^ell then to examine what St. Paul really did write about Titus, that we may form some conclusion of our own.
The first mention of Titus in the Galatian Epistle
H
114 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
is in these words : " Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me" (Gal. ii. 1). Now I do not think there can be any difference of opinion in regard to this ; that if this had been the only mention of Titus in the Epistle, we should have been justified in concludincj that he was known to those to whom the Epistle was addressed ; if not personally known, at any rate known by name. But this is not the only place where Titus is mentioned. The next time his name occurs, only two verses further on, we have an explanatory clause respecting him. This verse is rendered in the Eevised Version : " But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." St. Paul's own words are, according to this, oKK ovSe T/to? o otvp ejuLOi/'EiWrjv cov, rjvayKacrOt] Tre pLTjutjOtjvai.
But these words are capable of a different interpre- tation. We are not bound to put a comma after e/uLoi What St. Paul meant may have been aXX' ovSe TltoS 6 (Tvv ejULol "EXX^p' cov rjvayKaarOi] irepLTjULtjOfji/ai. So Bishop Lightfoot reads the passage, and this has much to recommend it. Clearly, then, this verse requires some further considering.
What is the connection of "EXX^yj/ coi> with the rest of the sentence ? That is the real question.
First, we may punctuate as Westcott and Hort have done, that is we may supply a comma both before and after "EXX^yj/ cop. In this case the words "EXX^j/ 6w would give the reason why Titus was not circumcised. He was not circumcised because he was a Gentile.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 115
This, as I understand it, would mean tliat Titus was wholly Gentile, not, like Timothy, of mixed Jewish and Gentile parentage. As Lightfoot says in his note on this verse : " There seems to be a tacit allusion to the case of Timothy. ' You maintain,' St. Paul seems to argue, ' that I allowed the validity of the Mosaic law in circumcising Timothy (Acts xvi. 1-3). But Timothy was half of Jewish parentage. How did I act in the case of Titus, a true Gentile ? I did not yield for a moment.' "
Now let us ask : Is there any necessary implication here that Titus was unknown to the Galatians? For my own part I cannot see that there is. For supposing Titus to have already visited the churches of Galatia along with St. Paul, must w^e necessarily suppose that the Apostle had given it out everywhere he took Titus that he was a Gentile ? Was it necessary or even likely? Or even if those to whom the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed knew that Titus was a Gentile, would that make it impossible for St. Paul to insert these words, "YXkv]v lov ? The words might mean no more than " because he was, as you know, a Gentile." We have certainly no right to read into them what Professor Kamsay asks us to understand, " because he was, as you do not know, and as I want to inform you, a Gentile."
But we must inquire whether the interpretation of "^\\f]v wv given above is the right one. " But not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, and that because he was a Gentile," is the sense of the verse. Well, then, we ask what is the force of not even ? We could understand that St. Paul
116 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
might write : " But Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, because he was wholly Gentile by parentage." But we have to explain why he said not even Titus. I venture to think that the ov^e can only be explained satisfactorily by the following words : o avv ejuLol. Not even Titus, though he was my comjjcinion, locts compelled to he circumcised} For let it be noticed that 6 o-vv ejuol must not be understood as meaning only " who happened to be with me." St. Paul has already said that Titus was with him in writing awirapaXa^wv koi Tltop. Titus was more than ivith the Apostle. He was his attendant. It might seem, then, that Titus ought to have been circumcised as Timothy had been. For we read in Acts xvi. 3 : " Him would Paul have to go forth with him (ctvv avru) e^eXOeip)] and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts ; for they all knew that his father was a Greek."" " But," St. Paul is thought to say, "the cases were different. Titus was my companion, it is true, but he was entirely of Gentile extraction, so though he was my companion yet because he was a Gentile,
^ 1 cannot but think that the intended meaning of the unfinished sentence of v. 4 was that " because of false brethren, etc., . . . an effort was made to make me concede the point of Titus' circum- cision." But no, " though Titus was in close attendance upon me I would not yield the point. " The sentence of verse 4 remains un- finished because the very word xl/€v8a8e\(pov$ gives a reason for refusal.
- It is not likely then, as I said above, that had Titus not been known to be a Gentile when visiting the Galatian churches. St. Paul would have thought it well to make the fact known. He only circumcised Timothy because they hieiv that he was partly of Gentile parentage. The words imply that he would not have thought it necessary to tell them if they had not known. Indeed, he would not have circumcised Timothy.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. \yj
without admixture of Jewish blood, I would not have him circumcised in spite of all efforts to prove me wrong."
But now let us look at the passage otherwise punctuated. Let us read aXK ovSe T/ro? o crvv ejuol 'EWtjv cov }]uayKdcrOtj irepLTinriO^vaL. We now connect the words ''EXX>/i/ lov more with o crvv ejuol than with }}vayKdcr6}]. "But not even Titus, who was accom- panying me as a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised." This rendering makes perfectly good sense of the passage, and, exactly because it saves the jarring transition from thonr/h he was my companion to Iccause he was a Gentile, I think it is greatly to be preferred to the one we have considered above. Luther, in his translation has coupled "EXX;/!/ wv closely with 6 avv e^ol, but he has given to the participle tou a concessional force. " Aber es ward auch Titus nicht gezwungen sich zu beschneiden, der mit mir war, ob er wohl ein Grieche war." There is really not much difference in the ultimate meaning of the passage whether we take ''EXX//i/ cop to mean ccs a Gentile (being a Gentile) or though he luerc a Gentile. The point is that Titus was with St. Paul, and he was known to be his companion, and known also to be a Gentile (or, as Luther puts it, he was his companion though he was a Gentile). The sense of the verse now is: "Not even Titus, though he was my companion, and though he was a Gentile, and known to be such, was compelled to be circumcised."
If this be the meaning of the passage, and we think it is, the conclusion cannot be drawn that Titus was
118 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
unknown personally to the churches of Galatia. So far from this being the case, the manner of his introduction in the words a-vi/TrapaXaPwv Kai Tltov, without further immediate explanation, would suggest that he was known.
But it would be better not to assume, in determining the Date of the Epistle, either that Titus was known or that he was unknown. But I expect to find when we have come at the Date in some other way that Titus had already been witli St. Paul in the churches of Galatia when the Epistle was written.
I think it will be seen from the above reasoning that it is impossible to determine satisfactorily the Date of the Galatian Epistle from its own statements. In the next Chapter we must approach the question from another point of view.
CHAPTER VIIT.
AEGUMENTS FOR THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE
DERIVED FROM A COMPARISON OF IT WITH
OTHER EPISTLES OF KNOWN DATE.
In the preceding chapter we have seen how hopeless it is to try to determine the Date of the Epistle to the Galatians by any special interpretation of such ambiguous phrases in it as ourcog Tayewg, to irporepov, "EWrjv cov, such expressions as these being capable of bearing different meanings, and there being no consensus of opinion as to which meaning ought to be adopted. Further, we have no information from the Epistle as to who were St. Paul's companions when he wrote. Not one single greeting from any person whose name is mentioned occurs in the Epistle whether at its beginning or at the close. The phrase ol crvv efxo\ Trrij/re? aSeXcpoi in the opening address is too vague and indeterminate to be of much use. We have decided that the phrase certainly does not justify us in dating the Epistle from any great church, or Christian centre, but neither does it in itself necessarily preclude the possibility that it was written from some such centre. From the Epistle itself and by
120 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
itself we can determine nothing certainly, and it will be better to try and approach the problem of the Date in some other way. If a solution can be found, then let such phrases as oi/rw? rayeocxi, to irporepov and ol <jvv ejuoi iravreg aSeXipoi receive their interpretation accordingly. And then let us see if we have a consistent whole. We shall then have no circular argument, and our conclusions are more likely to win acceptance.
What other way then have we by which we may hope to decide when the Epistle was written ? Our immediate answer is : A comparison of the Ejjistle with the other Epistles with which it will hear comparison. Thus, no one will deny the marked similarity in doc- trinal statement between the Epistle to the Eomans and that to the Galatians. This marked similarity of doctrinal statement extends further to actual uni- formity of expressions, which any one can verify for himself. If any one will place side by side parallel passages, as Bishop Lightfoot has done in his argument on the date of the Galatian Epistle,-^ he will not be likely to disagree with the Bishop's conclusion : " It will be unnecessary to add many words on a similarity so great as these passages exhibit. Observe only that it is manifold and various. Sometimes it is found in a train of argument more or less extended, and certainly not obvious : sometimes in close verbal coincidences, where the language and thoughts are unusual, or where a quotation is freely given, and where the coincidence therefore was less to be expected: sometimes in the same application of a text, and the same comment
^ Galatians, p. 45,
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 121
upon it, where that application and comment have no obvious reference to the main subject of discussion." ^
Now, this similarity has to be accounted for. In what ways can this be done ? We might say first of all that it is possible that the two Epistles were written almost at the same time (w& need not at present discuss which of the two is likely to be the earlier), and we should have, to support us in such a supposition, the fact that two other Pauline Epistles — those to the Ephesians and Colossians respectively, which also exhibit strong similarity of doctrinal teaching and expression — were to our certain knowledge written about the same time, and were despatched by the same messenger.^ It would be most reasonable then to try such a hypothesis first of all, and see whereto it would lead us, and whether it would prove consistent with known facts, or whether it was in conflict with statements made in the Galatian Epistle. If we failed to get a consistent theory in this way, we should have to think what other explanations could be given of the striking similarity between the Epistle to the Eomans and that to the Galatians. Will any hold that the two Epistles need not have been composed at times sepa- rated by only a short interval ? Then they must account for the same teaching in both ; and not only for that, but also for the marked similarity in expression and argumentative detail. Do any say " St. Paul was an inspired man, and so the same argument expressed in nearly the same words might be revealed to him at different times in his ministry " ? If any argue so, we part company with them. Such supernatural inter-
1 Galatians, p. 48. '^ Compare Eph. vi. 21, 22, with Col. iv. 7-9.
122 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
vention must not be allowed if a natural explanation can be given. We do not deny St. Paul's inspiration (we have not studied his writings with that result), but we have a higher view of it than to think that it was anything so mechanical as this.
But some seem to think that the similarity between the two Epistles is quite possible on natural grounds, even though the interval between them were a fairly long one. This might be so if we had any reason to suppose that St. Paul kept a copy of his letters and made use of what he had written before to compose again. But we venture to think that this is extremely unlikely, though we acknowledge that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, nor is it " supernatural." We only say that we have no evidence of it. The only thing approaching evidence would be such an argument as that of Bishop Lightfoot on the generali- sation of the Epistle to the Eomans, whereby that Epistle was made to serve as a statement of doctrine for general use as well as for the Christians in Eome.^ But this is by no means proved, if it be not dis- proved.
Let us take for a moment Professor Eamsay's theory that the Epistle to the Galatians was written from Syrian Antioch before St. Paul started on his third missionary journey. Now, let it be remembered that there has to be inserted between the writing of this letter and the Epistle to the Eomans, which we know to have been written at the end of the third missionary
^Biblical Essays, "The Structure and Destination of the Epistle to the Romans,"
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 123
journey/ three years at Ephesus, to say nothing of the time spent in getting there, and in going from Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth. And further, it must be remembered that during this long interval of time in St. Paul's case, he has had much on his mind. Anxiety about the churches, disloyalty of his converts — these we know, from the Corinthian Epistles, to have been his lot. It is most unlikely then that so long an interval of time, in which so much has been done and thought about, should have elapsed between the two Epistles.'-'' We do not say it is absolutely impossible, only that it is extremely unlikely, and it would require very strong evidence of another kind to convince us of it.
Or again, take the theory widely held in Germany at one time, that the Epistle was written from Ephesus at an early stage of St. Paul's three years' stay there. Well, this is possible, in the same way as Professor Ptamsay's theory is possible, but there is very little to choose between the a priori likelihood of the one and of the other.
The simj^lest and most natuial explanation of the strong similarity of style and diction between the Epistles to Rome and the churches of Galatia respec- tively, is that the interval of time between their composition was very short. Such a hypothesis must take precedence of all others, until it is shown to be
^ See chapter vi. of this essay.
2 It does not seem to me that Mr. F. Rendall's words {Expositor, 1894, The Galafian-s of St. Paul and the Date of the Ejihtle), suppos- ing them to be true, find an application in this particular case. *' A man may well repeat the same thoughts and the same expressions at considerable intervals, if the intervening tenor of his life and his environment continue constant,"
^
124 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
impossible or at least unlikely on other grounds. This, then, shall be our hypothesis from this point.
Assuming, as we now do, that the Galatian Epistle is separated from that to Eome by only a short interval, we have next to ask which Epistle ought to take the precedence in point of time. On this point Bishop Lightfoot says : " There can be no reasonable doubt which of the two Epistles contains the earlier expression of the thoughts common to both. The Epistle to the Galatians stands in relation to the Koman letter, as t/ the rough model to the finished statue ; or rather, if I may press the metaphor without misapprehension, it is the first study of a single figure, which is worked into a group in the latter writing. To the Galatians the Apostle flashes out in indignant remonstrance the first eager thoughts kindled by his zeal for the Gospel striking suddenly against a stubborn form of Judaism. To the Komans he writes at leisure, under no pressure of circumstances, in the face of no direct antagonism explaining, completing, extending the teaching of the earlier letter by giving it a double edge directed against Jew and Gentile alike. The matter, which in the one Epistle is personal and fragmentary, elicited by the special needs of an individual church, is in the other generalised and arranged so as to form a compre- hensive and systematic treatise. Very few critics of name have assigned a priority of date to the Eoman Epistle."^
It is only fair here to say, in reference to this last sentence, that Dr. Clemen has in his Chroiiologie der
^ Galatians p. 49.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 125
paulinischen Briefe come to the conclusion that Gala- tians is later than Eomans. But Dr. Clemen's view is only part of a general upset (of his making) of the whole chronology of St. Paul's life, so that it does not seem to me at all likely.^ Dr. Sanday and Mr. Headlam remark : " There is much that is arbitrary in the whole of this reconstruction, and the common view seems to us far more probable that the Epistle to the Eomans marks rather the gradual subsidence of troubled waters than their first disturbing."
We seem, then, to have a fairly general agreement among English scholars that the Galatian Epistle is the earlier of the two ; and the theory that the Epistle to the Galatians is a recension of the Eoman Epistle adapted to a particular set of churches does not find support. It is satisfactory that Professor Eamsay dates Eomans after Galatians.
We shall, then, put the Galatian Epistle a little before that to the Eomans ; and then we have to face the fact that the Epistle to the Galatians must have been written about the same time also as the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,^ and a certain similarity with this Epistle may be expected. And similarity there is — a similarity, as Lightfoot says, " consisting not so much in words and arguments as in tone and feeling." And he quotes Jowett's "just and appreciative criticism": " In both there is the same sensitiveness in the Apostle to the behaviour of his converts to himself, the same
^ I have not gone into Dr. Clemen's arguments. I have seen his book, but have made no study of it.
See argument of chapter vi. above.
126 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
earnestness about the points of difference, the same remembrance of his ' infirmity ' while he was yet with them, the same consciousness of the precarious basis on which his own authority rested in the existing state of the two churches. In both there is a greater display of his own feelings than in any other portion of his writings, a deeper contrast of inward exaltation and outward suffering, more of personal entreaty, a greater readiness to impart himself." And Bishop Lightfoot adds : " If it were necessary to add anything to this just and appreciative criticism, the Apostle's tone in dealing with his antagonists would supply an instructive field for comparison. Both Epistles exhibit the same com- bination of protest and concession in combating the exclusive rights claimed for the elder Apostles, the same vehement condemnation of the false teachers guarded by the same careful suppression of names, the same strong assertion of his Apostolic office tempered with the same depreciation of his own personal merits."-^
The whole of Bishop Lightfoot's reasoning respecting the relative dates of these four Epistles of the third missionary journey, which he thus arranges : 1 Corin- thians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, seems so powerful that it is difficult to understand how it can fail to carry conviction.
We will assume the order which he has by his well arranged arguments decided, and turn to investigate the consistency of this dating with the Galatian Epistle
1 Galatians, p, 44, Bishop Lightfoot's Essay is so exceedingly good that we may be excused for making such long quotations from it. The whole of it deserves careful reading.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 127
and with the results of our reasoning respecting the destination of the Epistle.
Now, let it be noted first of all that the date we are supporting in no way conflicts with the South Galatian theory. For the only way in which, so far as I can see, it can conflict with it is to be found in the two expressions to irporepov (Gal. iv. 13) and ovrcog Ta-^ew9 (Gal. i. 6). I do not see any other single point of conflict. And after all what are these ? Why, even on Lightfoot's own confession we cannot press the meaning of to irpoTepov to be on the former of my visits, implying that there were only two. to TTpoTcpov may quite well mean formerly, the words being intended to mark a contrast between once and 710VJ. I have argued at length in the fifth chapter of this Essay that this is the more likely meaning, prin- cipally on the ground that this makes better sense of the whole passage, the reading of which must not be interrupted at to irpoTcpov, as if the sentence Si acrQeveiav Tr]9 crapKog ewj'yyeXiG-aiuLi]^ v/uliv to irpoTepov could be understood apart from kul tov Treipaa-niov v/ucov K.T.\. ; and partly because the rendering of to irpoTcpov, as on tlie former of my ttvo visits, seems to me hardly admissible logically. For I take it that the natural meaning would be, if the adverb be comparatively used, that " because of an infirmity of the flesh I evangelised you on the former occasion of my evangelising." And I question whether in New Testament language a second evangelisation is possible. But I do not press this last point if others difter from me. I still think that the other rendering is the one that accords best
128 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
with the context, and on that account alone I should prefer it.
Then let us look at ol/tco? ra^^eco?. This expression we have already examined in the preceding chapter, and we have there decided that there is not implied in the words any necessary comparison with some independent point of time. The words may mean so hastily, so quiddy, and need not be rendered so soon. And even if they mean so soon, there is nothing to indicate for certain from what time so soon is to be reckoned.
It will be well to look at the question of this Galatian defection in relation to our present hypothesis as to the date of the Epistle. We are assuming the Epistle to be one of four composed on the third missionary journey. We have already, in chapter vi., been getting an insight into some of the work that engaged the Apostle during that time. We have seen cfoine- on the collection of alms for the saints at Jerusalem, and we have seen the activity necessitated by this — delegates sent to collect, and representatives of the churches coming back with them to go to Jerusalem with the Apostle to minister the gift to those for whom it was intended. All this we have seen. And does not this show us how St. Paul must have been in constant communication with the different churches ? how he must have had news of them ? This is implied in his own words in 2 Cor. xi. 28: ')(wph rwv irapeKTog i) eirLG-TaaLg juol ij KaO' r/^epav rj _j jmepijupa iracrwi/ toov eKKX^jcnon'. Anxiety about all the
churches — may not the Galatian defection be one
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 129
cause of such anxiety? We have seen that this . --^
Epistle to the Corinthians was probably composed '
just before that to the Galatians. May not then, the . ^^^ ^^ Galatian apostasy be already known to St. Paul when '^ ^^'^^ . he wrote of his "anxiety"? May he not have heard of it from one of his ministering agents, who had been ' visiting^ the churches of Galatia in connection with the collection for the saints ? May it not be that this agent had brought news to St. Paul when he was at Ephesus, or at Troas, or after he crossed to Mace- donia ? These are questions we cannot decide ; but we can see how easily possible, under the circum- stances, it was for St. Paul to have had information of the defection of the Galatians from the pure Christian Gospel he had given them ; and we can understand how the news of their apostasy may have startled him, coming as it may have done soon after a report he had had of them of a different character. And we need not wonder if he writes : / marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you, etc.
We can never finally explain ovrm rayeoy^, because we can never know the exact circumstances ; but we can easily see that an explanation is not an impos- sibility.
I see, then, no serious difficulty, but only a necessity to acknowledge ignorance when we read QaviJiaXco on ovTw<i Tay(€m lULeTarlOecrOe k.t.X.
It is worth observing that Lightfoot, who interpreted ouToog Tu-)(€(C9 to mean so soon after your call, yet considered that an interval of ten years might be
I ^-^
f.f-.u.^"-- '"
^v
1.30 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
allowed without a straining of language.^ I cannot, then, see that there is any necessary conflict between the vSouth Galatian theory and the date of the Epistle for which we are contending, even if 0L/Ta)9 Taye(jo<i be interpreted at the greatest disadvantage to the theory of the destination of the Epistle which we have adopted.
Then, as to the greeting from those described as , ol (Tvv ejuiol TTcci/re? aSeXcpoi, we know that at this point in the third missionary journey St. Paul must have been constantly joined by those who were ministering for him in the matter of the collection for the saints, and we can well understand that the Epistle to the Galatians may have been written when he had several of these with him. The mention of Gains, a man of Macedonia, who is coupled with Aristarchus in Acts 'Ckv^^JU xix. 29, and of Erastus along with Timothy in the 6^i ..r 22nd verse, shows that there were others travelling
with the Apostle and ministering for him besides those who were to cjo to Jerusalem with him. And there is no period in the whole of St. Paul's ministry when, so far as we know, such a greeting as that in the Galatian Epistle would seem more appropriate.
It may also be pointed out that if this date be correct, Titus would be known to the churches of Galatia, for it is most probable, as he is with St. Paul and is his messenger to the Corinthian Church, as we have already seen, that he had come with the Apostle from Syria. The reference to Titus, then, in
^ Galatians, p. 42.
J •
^/>
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 131
the Galatian Epistle {loace Professor Ramsay) is naturally explained.
It is quite possible, again, that the words of iv. 16, " So then am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth ?" may have reference to something that St. Paul had said to the Galatians when he visited them on his way to Ephesus. But it is better to acknowledge that we have no real clue to the meaning of the words, which we may reasonably think would be quite intelligible if we knew all the circumstances/
But we may ask what interval of time is possible between the writing of the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Romans on our present hypothesis. To this query I think it would be fair to answer, that the Epistle to the Romans being written from Corinth, that to the Galatians might reasonably be put back to the time just after 2 Corinthians was written in Macedonia, not very long after St. Paul crossed over from Troas in his anxiety to meet Titus. For suppos- ing the Epistle to the Galatians to have been written just after 2 Corinthians, we can well understand how the subject of the Galatian Epistle must have been working itself out to its final conclusion in the Roman Epistle in St. Paul's mind. We can understand how it may have formed the basis of that " much exhor- tation" (TrapaKoXecrai? avTOv<i Xoycp ttoXXo)), which St.
^ I cannot help thinking that it may be possible to interpret these words as applying to what St. Paul had said in the Epistle itself. It is as if he said : "I hope I have not become your enemy now by my plain speaking." For, remember, he has already called them senseless Galatians and said other hard things in iv^ 9, 10.
132 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Luke tells us the Apostle gave in Macedonia as he went to Achaia (Acts xx. 2). Any one who has had to preach much and often, knows how so doing tends to bring into focus some subject which is much dealt with. And the same applies to constant teaching other than that from the pulpit. The Epistle to the Eomans seems to me to be just such a treatise as would result from the Apostle turning over the subject of the Galatian Epistle constantly in his mind, and presenting its argument in many discourses to others. I believe the Epistle to the Galatians to be inspired, and I believe the Epistle to the Eomans to be inspired, because they are the products of an inspired mind, but I believe all the same that the argument of the Epistle to the Eomans is evolved from that contained in the Galatian Epistle, and that this evolution was brought about in a natural way. The most likely way I can conceive of is, that the Apostle thought much and talked much of the subject until it assumed its final form. In all this there is the working of the Spirit of God, but on a man's mind and not on a machine.
The conclusion to which we have come, then, is that the Epistle to the Galatians is to be dated shortly after the second to the Corinthians. That date, suggested by the similarity between the Eoman and Galatian Epistles, taken as a working hypothesis, is perfectly consistent with the contents of the Epistle to the Galatians, and it reasonably accounts for such an expression as all the hrethren who are with me. Such a date, too, synchronising as it does with the much preaching of Acts xx. 2, accounts perfectly well for a
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 133
period of such development of thought as took place between the composition of the Galatian and lloman Epistles respectively.
It has been urged by Mr. F. EendalP as an argument against this dating of the Epistle, that the Epistle is -^
silent as to the collection for the saints ; a fact that is inexplicable if the Epistle was written just at the time when the importance of this collection was clearest to the Apostle's mind. We may set against this objec- tion some words of Bishop Lightfoot's. He writes : ^
" A little later on another passage occurs in which the vehemence of St. Paul's language is quite unin- telligible at first sight. ' Be not deceived,' he says, * God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap. . . . Let us do good unto all men ' (Gal. vi. 7-10). The admonition is thrown into a general form, but it has evidently a special application in the Apostle's own mind. An allusion in the First Epistle to the Corinthians supplies the key to the difficulty. * As I gave orders to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye.' He had solicited their alms for the suffering brethren of Judaea. The messenger, who had brought him word of the spread of Judaism I among the Galatians, had also, I suppose, reported ' unfavourably of their liberality. They had not responded heartily to his appeal. He reproves them in con- sequence for their backwardness. . . ."
And it is a piece of corroborative evidence in favour of this dating that, as Lightfoot has pointed out, the
^ Expositor, 1894, p. 261. ^ Galatians, p. 55.
134 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
opening words of Gal. vi., " Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness ; looking to thyself lest thou also be tempted," receive a natural explanation if we remember that the Apostle had just been writing to the Corinthians concerning the in- cestuous person whose punishment he had insisted on J in the first Epistle : " Sufficient to such a one is this
punishment which was inflicted by the many ; so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow " (2 Cor. ii. 6, 7). The Corinthians, from being indifferent, had turned to harsh- ness and vindictiveness, which the Apostle has here to reprove.
In conclusion, then, we pay our tribute of grati- tude to the great Scholar and Bishop who has proved by arguments so clear and cogent that the Epistle to the Galatians is one of four of the third missionary journey. We do this the more readily because we have had to differ from him in regard to the Destination of the Epistle. But this difference from one from whom so much has been learnt, and yet will be learnt, is not one that need be regretted ; for if Bishop Lightfoot were now alive, he would, we believe, be the first to acknowledge that he was wrong, and that Professor Eanisay deserves the thanks of all Biblical students for interpreting that expression, so impossible to understand without just that historical grasp of Asia Minor which he has won for himself — Ty]V ^pvyiav koi TaXaTiKrjv -^wpav.
APPENDIX.
THE VISIT TO JERUSALEM REFERRED TO IN GALATIANS 11.
It will not be amiss to consider briefly the problem of identifying the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Gal. ii. with one of the visits of the Acts. This is, I venture to think, a question that has been better left until after a thorousfh investis^ation had been made of (1) the Locality of the churches of Galatia, and (2) the Date of the Galatian Epistle. As I have already said, the result of trying to treat three different problems all at once is inevitably confusion. But now that we have given what we believe to be the correct answers to the two questions: Whither and AVhence was the Epistle to the Galatians written ? we may turn to this third question : With which visit recorded in the Acts is the visit of Gal. ii. to be identified?
Now, the historian of the Acts has to tell of five visits to Jerusalem paid by St. Paul after his con- version.
1. The visit recorded in Acts ix. 26 ff. This visit must without question be identified with that referred to in Gal. i. 18, 19 in the words: "Then after three
138 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." It is true that, without St. Paul's own account of his visit, which he declares (with the solemn asseveration. Behold, hefore God, I lie not) to have been iJ.eTa rpla ert], we should have supposed from St. Luke's narrative that the interval between the conversion and this visit was shorter than this. But, of course, the words juera rpla ert] do not imply an interval of three years according to Jewish reckoning, as we know from the quotation of our Lord's words, /xera rpeh ^jmepag eyelpo/uLat (Matt, xxvii. 63), which we compare with rtj TpLTt] ^/uepa eyep- Swerm in Matt. xvii. 23.
2. The visit recorded in Acts xi. 29, 30 in the words: "And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul." That this visit to Judea was in actual fact one to Jerusalem is clear from Acts xii. 25: "And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem,^ when they had fulfilled their ministration, taking with them John whose surname was Mark."
3. The visit of Acts xv. 2 ff.: "And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question " ; the question being, as the first verse explains, whether circumcision was essential to salva-
^ It is unnecessary here to touch on the readings i^ and et'y.
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. IL 139
tion. No less than twenty-nine verses of this chapter are taken up with this visit.
4. The visit implied in Acts xviii. 22, though Jerusalem is not actually mentioned : " And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and saluted the church, and went down to Antioch." No one is likely to question that a visit to Jerusalem is implied in the words, " he went up and saluted the church."
5. The visit after the third missionary journey detailed in Acts xxi. 15-xxiii. 30.
We have no reason to think that St. Paul visited Jerusalem after the date of his conversion more than these five times.
Now, there can be no question that the whole point of St. Paul's argument in the first two chapters of his Epistle to the Galatians is the fact that his Apostolic authority was conferred upon him from above, and that it in no way depended on those who were Apostles before him for its validity. The opening words of the Epistle, "Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead," may be looked upon as the enunciation of a proposition of which chapters i. and ii. are the demonstration. " I did not," St. Paul says, " receive the gospel from man, nor w^as I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus Christ. For ..." and then follows the proof of this statement.
The proof may be summed up thus: (1) He was once a persecutor of the Church of God, and desisted because of a revelation of the Son of God. (2) When
140 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
he was called, he did not confer with man, not even with those who were Apostles before him. (3) Not until ik€.Ta rpla eri] did he go up to Jerusalem; then he did go to visit Cephas, with whom he stayed fifteen days ; but other of the Apostles saw he none, save James the Lord's brother. (4) Then he came into Syria and Cilicia, and remained unknown to the churches of Judaea except by hearsay. (5) Then Sia SeKarea-a-apcov erwv he went up again to Jerusalem, but hy revelation, and conferred with James and Cephas and John, who gave to him (and Barnabas) the right hands of fellowship, recognising the grace that was given to him, and that he had been already entrusted {ireirLo-TeviJLaL) with the gospel of the Uncircumcision as Peter was with that of the Circumcision.
Here is the whole point of the argument. His Apostleship of the Gentiles was independent of those who " were Apostles before him."
Now, it must be noticed that Barnabas plays a prominent part in this visit to Jerusalem of chapter ii. This fact disposes, I think, once and for all of any possibility of identifying this particular visit with any visit recorded in the Acts later than the third of the five enumerated above. After that visit the split occurred between Barnabas and Paul ; and even if the two met as friends again, there is no room for a visit of the two together to Jerusalem in the Acts. To say that this was some visit not recorded in the Acts is to suggest something highly improbable. It is certainly not a hypothesis deserving of any attention unless we can show that the visit of
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. IL 141
Galatians ii. is irreconcilable with those actually recorded by St. Luke.
So, then, the visit of Galatians ii. is likely to be either the second or third visit recorded in the Acts. Our purpose now is to discuss which of these two is the more likely. .
Now, if the visit of Gal. ii. be identified with the second visit of the Acts, then it took place hefore St. Paul's first missionary journey, that is, before he founded the churches of Galatia, which we have seen reason to interpret as the churches of Antioch and Iconium, and Lystra and Derbe.
If, on the other hand, the visit of Gal. ii. be identified with the tliircl visit of the Acts, it took place after St. Paul's first missionary journey, that is, after he founded the churches of Galatia, for whom the argument of his Epistle w^as intended.
The question then arises (and it is well to face it at once) : Does the argument of the Epistle make it necessary that we should suppose that the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Gal. ii. took place before St. Paul became an Apostle to the churches of Galatia? It is important to have an ansv/er to this question. For if we think that the Jerusalem visit of Gal. ii. must precede the founding of the churches of Galatia in order that St. Paul's argument may not become invalidated, we shall, if we have already made up our minds that the South Galatian theory is true, rush to the conclusion that the visit of Gal. ii. must be identified with the second visit of the Acts, mz.\ that recorded in Acts xi. 29, 30.
142 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
It is proposed now to show that the identification of the visit of Gal. ii. with a visit in the Acts is aMolutely independent of the South Galatia.n theory. To prove this, we have to show that St. Paul's argument respect- ing the independence of his Apostolic authority of those who were Apostles before him does not depend for its validity on the visit to Jerusalem, recorded in the second chapter, being prior to the founding of the churches of Galatia to whom the Epistle was addressed.
For let us take it, as a temporary hypothesis, that the preaching of the Gospel by St. Paul in what henceforth became the churches of Galatia preceded the visit to Jerusalem of Gal. ii. What becomes of the argument respecting St. Paul's independent Apostolic authority ? Is it reduced to nonsense, or does it still stand ? My answer to this is that the argument is in no way weakened, but rather strengthened.
For when we come to look at the place in the argument occupied by the visit to Jerusalem, on our present hypothesis, we see that the point of its being mentioned becomes perfectly lucid. In the first chapter of the Epistle St. Paul has made it clear that, at any rate up to the founding of the churches of Galatia, he was independent of those who were Apostles before him. After their founding he goes up, as we read in the second chapter, to Jerusalem along with Barnabas, and confers with " those who were of repute " {Tol<i Sokovq-iv). He confers privately with them. He lays before them the Gospel which he is already preaching (o Ktjpva-a-co) among the Gentiles, but
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. II. 143
privately, lest by any means " he should be running or was running in vain."
We had better lay hold of this remarkable expres- sion. St. Paul recognises here that if he were not an Apostle his work among the Gentiles had been in vain. -^ The work he had already done in founding the churches of Galatia was no true work at all. It was to no purpose {ek Kevov). No subsequent transference of authority committed to him by the Apostles could be retrospective. The work was in vain if he were not already an Apostle. St. Paul does not shrink from this admission.
Was he then an Apostle ? That is exactly his point, that " those of repute " {ol SoKovvre^) who, by the Judaisers, are extolled as the true pillars of the Church, recognised and allowed that he was an Apostle. They did not make him an Apostle by their recognition of him. They acknowledged that he was already an Apostle. Let us quote St. Paul's own words (vv. 6 ff.) : "But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me : God accepteth not man's person) — they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me ; but con- trariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted (ireirlcTTevij.aL) with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles) ; and when they perceived the grace that was given
^ It is, of course, a subject alien to our present one, but these words are not without their bearing on the Apostolic foundation of the Church.
144 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision."
It may, then, be stated emphatically that St. Paul's argument to prove the independence of his Apostolic authority is in no way invalidated, if the founding of the churches of Galatia preceded the visit to Jerusalem recorded in the second chapter of the Epistle.
We might even go further than this and say that the argument is made stronger. For then the visit to Jerusalem, when real conference was held with " the pillars " of the circumcision, had not even taken place when the Galatians were evangelised. A fortiori, then, was that preaching independent of any other Apostolic authority than St. Paul's own. In this case it was only after his larger work among the Gentiles was begun that an interchange of views took place between him and those who were Apostles before him. And that work was recognised by the Apostles at Jerusalem, not in prospect merely, but as a fait accompli. He was proved to be an Apostle by what he had done as much as by what he claimed to be commissioned to do.
And certainly it might be argued that the visit to Jerusalem under discussion was after the founding of the churches of Galatia, because St. Paul uses the word um«? in connection with this visit. He says that, when he was in Jerusalem, he would not yield to the Judaisers in the matter of the
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. 11. 145
circumcision of Titus in order that the truth of the Gospel may continue with yon. I have already said (p. 81) that I do not consider this interpretation of vixa<i as certain. For St. Paul might quite well be speaking prospectively in using the word uyota?. It was, after all, not for the Galatians in particular that he was contending, but for the Gentiles generally who should accept the Gospel.
I hope, then, I may claim to have made good my contention that it is not necessary, for the validity of St. Paul's argument in defence of his independent Apostolic commission, that the visit to Jerusalem in Gal. ii. should have preceded the evangelisation of those to whom the Epistle was addressed. Professor Eamsay has said that " visits paid after St. Paul had converted the Galatian churches did not enter into his argument." ^ I venture to say that this is not proved ; nor can it be proved without deciding the main question of the correct identification of the visit to Jerusalem.
As has been already pointed out, the problem of the identification of the visit to Jerusalem can and must be kept separate from that of the locality of the churches of Galatia. Professor Eamsay has nothing to fear for his South Galatian theory. A general acceptance of that is a matter of time. But unless the Professor will learn to separate from his theory those other theories of his, mz. that the Galatian Epistle dates from Antioch, and that the visit to Jerusalem is the second of the five visits
^ Church in the Roman Empire, p. 109. K
146 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
in the Acts, he must not be surprised if some, who see Bishop Lightfoot's arguments for a different dating of the Epistle and a different identification of the Jerusalem visit to be unanswered, still adhere also to the North Galatian theory.
Seeing, then, that St. Paul's argument does not need for its validity the assumption that the visit to Jerusalem preceded the founding of the churches of Galatia; but that, on the other hand, the argument is valid, whether the visit be before or after the founding of those churches, we will approach the subject independently of any presupposition in regard to this.
Xow, in regard to the first of the two visits to Jerusalem in the Acts with which it is at all likely that the visit of Gal. ii. is to be identified — that is, the second of all the five visits, viz. that in Acts xi. 29, 30 — St. Luke has very little to say. But that little leaves us in no doubt as to the purpose for which Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem. Agabus, a prophet, had signified by the Spirit that there should be a famine over all the world. This famine came to pass in the reign of Claudius. Mean- while, the disciples determined to send to minister to the brethren that were in Judaea {eh SiaKovlav Trejuyp^ai toi? KaTOiKovanv ev tij ^louoala aoeXcpoh). This determination was carried out, and Paul and Barnabas were deputed to take the offering to the elders at Jerusalem. Beyond the fact that they carried out their duties we have no information.
Of the next visit (Acts xv.) St. Luke has much
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. 11. 147
more to say. The purpose of this visit also was definite, and, as far as we can tell, one. Certain men had come down from Judaea to Antioch and taught the brethren, saying, " Except ye be circum- cised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved." With these Judaisers Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning, and it was arranged (era^av — presumably the subject of this is to be under- stood to be the hrethren) that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should o-o to Jerusalem to the Apostles and elders about this question. So was brought about the Jerusalem Council, whose decisions are recorded in Acts xv. 22-29. It will be observed that those decisions have reference to one question, viz. the relation of Christianised Gentiles to the Jewish law.
Let us turn now to what St. Paul says of his visit to Jerusalem in Galatians ii. He does not say definitely for what purpose he went up. He says that he went with Barnabas, taking with him Titus also. He went up Kara airoKoXv^iv, and he laid before them (simply avroh) " the gospel which I am preaching among the Gentiles, but privately to those of repute, lest by any means I should run or was running in vain." And then comes the emphatic statement : " But not even Titus who was with me as a Gentile ^ was compelled to be circumcised."
We notice, then, that, while St. Paul does not say that he came up to Jerusalem to consult with the other Apostles on the subject of the necessity for
^ I have discussed this phrase in chapter vii.
148 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
circumcision in the case of Gentile converts, he implies that the subject of circumcision was one on which he took a very firm ground of his own on this occasion. He would not have Titus circumcised though he was his own chosen Gentile companion.
Well, the whole context implies that St. Paul won his point. Those of repute (ot ^oKovvre^^ imparted nothing to him {ov^\v Trpoa-aveOevro) ; but, on the con- trary, they saw (ISoure^) that he had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision as Peter was with that of the Circumcision ; they recognised (yvovre^) the grace that was given to him, and so they — James and Cephas and John — gave to him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, " that we should go to the Gentiles (ra eOv)]), and they to the Circumcision." And then follow these words: " Only they would that we should remember the poor, which very thing I was also zealous to do."
Now, Professor Eamsay has used these last words to prove that the visit of Gal. ii. must be identified with the earlier of the two visits in the Acts, which was undertaken, as we have seen, for the very purpose of ministering to those whom the predicted famine had reduced to want. Professor Kamsay further fortifies his position by his understanding of the words Kara airoKaXvy^iv (ii. 1) which he thinks are explained by the prophecy of Agabus spoken through the Spirit {Sia tou irvevij.aTO'i).
On the other hand, Bishop Lightfoot contends strongly for the identification of the visit with that of Acts xv.,^ and the particular objections he makes to
^ Qalatiana, pp. 123 ff.
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. II 149
the identification, now advocated by Professor Eamsay, are : ( 1 ) that chronologically it is wrong, as it would put back the Apostle's conversion to too early a date ; and (2) that " the account in the Epistle clearly implies that his Apostolic office and labours were well known and recognised before this conference."
With the second of these two objections I find myself in agreement. With the first not so strongly, for exact chronology is always a matter of great difficulty.
I must confess that it seems to me extremely unlikely that so severe a struggle as there evidently was over the question whether Titus should be circum- cised should have taken place during the visit of Acts xi. 29, and yet nothing have been said about it by St. Luke, for it is on this very subject of circumcision that he enlarges later in chapter xv. The question was felt by St. Luke to have been an important one. It does not seem likely that if the principle for which St, Paul was contending had been won, as it clearly was won in the visit of Gal. ii., at the stage of Acts xi. 29, it would have come up again as a new question in Acts XV.
On the other hand, it is not at all difficult to under- stand that, when the agreement was made in regard to the mission to the Circumcision and Uncircumcision respectively in GaL ii., the Apostles in Jerusalem might insist on the necessity for remembering the poor Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, a thing which St. Paul says he was himself anxious to do — a thing, too, which he later on proved himself very diligent in doing.^
^ See chapter vi. of this essay on collection for the saints.
150 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATJAlVS.
Further, although nothing is said by St. Luke which can be interpreted as Kara airoKakvy\nv, we still feel that there is room for such " revelation " in between the lines of the narrative of the Acts. We are not told the steps by which the brethren at Antioch arrived at their decision to send Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem. But that there may have been " revelation " by prophets, as in Acts xiii. 2, is not at all impossible nor unlikely.
Nor, again, does the narrative of Acts xv. make impossible a preliminary private conference between Paul and Barnabas, on the one side, and the other Apostles on the other. The purpose of St. Luke's narrative in the Acts is to explain how the critical question that had arisen was settled by universal con- sent in the Jerusalem Council. St. Paul's purpose in the Epistle to the Galatians is to set forth his inde- pendence of those who were Apostles before him. Both accounts, then, may be perfectly true and consistent, but to record the private conference would have been alien to St. Luke's purpose.
It seems to me, then, that these three considera- tions in favour of identifying the visit of Galatians ii. with that of Acts xv. greatly outweigh the arguments that have been given for the other identification :
1. St. Paul's account of the visit clearly implies that his missionary labours among the Gentiles had already begun. This was the case at the time of Acts XV., but not of Acts xi. 29.
2. The principle of non-circumcision of Gentile con-
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. IL 151
verts was plainly contended for and won in the visit of Gal. ii. This was just the purpose and result of the visit recorded by St. Luke in Acts xv.
3. The account given by St. Paul of his visit shows how on the occasion of it the other Apostles became convinced of his mission to the Gentiles. They saw (l^ovTGfi) that the Gospel of the non-circumcision had been entrusted to him. With this fact we compare St. Luke's statement that Barnabas and Paul rehearsed " what signs and wonders {crrjijLela kol repara) God had wrought among the Gentiles by them";-^ such signs and wonders serving, as the context shows, to bring conviction to such as heard.
But, then, it is argued that, if the visit of Gal. ii. be identified with that of Acts xv., St. Paul becomes guilty of omitting to mention one of his visits to Jerusalem. And this visit he was bound in all honesty to allude to.
To this an immediate answer can be given. The purpose St. Paul had in mind in referring to his visits to Jerusalem at all was to show how little or how far he had had communications with those who were Apostles before him. He is not enumerating visits to Jerusalem, but interviews with the other Apostles. Now, there is nothing in the narrative of Acts xi. 29, 30 to lead us to conclude that on his second visit after his conversion he had any conference with Apostles. The " relief " for the brethren in Judaea was sent to the elders. The time was one of persecution, and, as Bishop Lightfoot has suggested, it is quite likely that the
1 Acts XV. 12. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 12.
152 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Apostles were not just then in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17). Professor Eamsay does not approve of this suggestion, and thinks that the Apostles would not desert their post, seeing that concerning the earlier persecution against the Church, at the time of St. Stephen's death, the historian tells that they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria except the Apostles} But then it must be remembered that the turn of the Apostles for direct persecution came later, when James, the brother of John, was killed with the sword and Peter was put into prison. Such was the state of things when Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem with the offerings for the famine-stricken city (Acts xii). It is not at all unlikely, then, that Paul and Barnabas had no opportunity for any inter- view with the Apostles on this occasion. ^
I cannot, then, see that St. Paul's argument respect- ing the independence of his Apostolic authority is rendered unfair by his omission to mention a visit to Jerusalem, in which no conference with Apostles seems to have taken place. And it has already been shown that the argument is not invalidated but rather
^ Acts viii. 1.
^ It is worth while to observe that Dr. Hort took the same view as Bishop Liglitfoot in regard to this matter. (See The Christian Ecdesia, pp. 61, 62). At the same time I am bound to acknowledge that there is a serious discrepancy between the view of Dr. Hort in the above place and that given by him on p. 35 of his Prolegomeiia, Romans and Ephesians, where, speaking of this relief sent to Judaea, he says : " By this act the new Syrian church gave practical acknow- ledgment of obligations to the original church at Jerusalem, and St. Paul himself was brought into personal friendly relations with the original Apostles." Needless to say, I am not accusing Dr. Hort of inconsistency, for his works are posthumous and not revised by himself. No doubt the The Christian Ecdesia gives his later view, these lectures being subsequent to the others.
VISIT TO JERUSALEM OF GAL. II. 153
strengthened by taking the visit of Gal. ii. to be subsequent to the founding of the churches of Galatia.
My conclusion, then, is that the visit to Jerusalem recorded in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians is to be identified with that of Acts xv. And such identification seems to me to be a corroboration of, and certainly in no way an impediment to, the South Galatian theory.
Nothing has been said above of the phrase ^la SeKarea-G-dpcov ercov. We have not discussed whether the fourteen years are to be reckoned from the con- version or from the third year after the conversion when the visit to Jerusalem of Gal. i. 18 took place. Such discussion has been purposely avoided, because it seemed that either of these two interpretations was admissible. The actual figures of a chronological table must come after, and not before, a general discussion of identification. And in constructing a chronological table I think that either interpretation of Sia SeKarea-a-apcov eriJov is permissible as a working hypo- thesis.
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MAt'LEHOSE AND CO.
Macmillan &^ Co.'s Theological Works
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.
By BISHOP LIGHT FOOT.
St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text, with Intro- ductions, Notes, and Dissertations. Tenth edition. 8vo. 12s.
Notes on Epistles of St. Paul from Unpublislied Commentaries. 8vo. 21s.
St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. A Revised Text, with Intro- duction, Notes, and Dissertations. Ninth edition. 8vo. 12s.
St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon. A Revised Text, with Introductions, etc. Ninth edition. 8vo. 12s.
By ARCHBISHOP BENSON. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. 8vo. {In the press.
By THE VERY REV. G. J. V A UGH AN. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The Greek Text, with English
Notes. Seventh edition. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d. St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. With Translation, Paraphrase,
and Notes for English Readers. Cr. 8vo. 5s. The Epistles of St. Paul. For English Readers. Part I. containing
the Eirst Epistle to the Thessalonians. Second edition, 8vo.
Sewed. Is. 6d. »
By THE REV. F. J. A. HORT. Prolegomena to St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
By THE RE V. J. LL. DA VIES. The Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Philemon. With Introduction and Notes. Second edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
By THE REV. G. W. GARROD. The Epistle to the Colossians. Analysis and Examination Notes.
Cr. Svo. 3s. net. The first Epistle to the Thessalonians. Analysis and Examination
Notes. Cr. Svo. 8s. net. [Shortly.
By THE REV. J. ARM IT AGE ROBINSON, CANON OF WESTMINSTER. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Greek Text, with Introduction and Commentary. Svo. {In the press.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED, LONDON.
Macmillan ^ Co.'s Theological Works
THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.
The Epistle of St, James. The Greek Text, with Introduction and Notes. By Rev. Joseph B, Mayor, M.A. Second edition. 8vo. 14s. net.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Epistles of St. John. By Rev. F. D. Maurice. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d. The Epistles of St. John. The Greek Text, with Notes. By the
Right Rev. Bishop Westcott, D.D. Third edition, 8vo.
12s. 6d.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER.
The First Epistle of St. Peter I. 1, II. 17. The Greek Text, with Introduction and Commentary by the late Professor Hort. Revised and completed by Rev. F. H. Chase. 8vo. 6s.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
The Epistle to the Hebrews in Greek and English. With Notes.
By Rev. F. Randall. Cr. 8vo. 6s. The Epistle to the Hebrews. English Text, with Commentary.
By Rev. F. Rendall. Cr. Svo. 7s. 6d. The Epistle to the Hebrews. With Notes. By the late Very Rev.
C. J. Vaughan, D.D. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The Greek Text, with Notes and
Essays. By Right Rev. Bishop Westcott. 8vo. 14s.
BOOK OF REVELATION. An Exposition of the Book of Revelation. By Archbishop Benson.
8vo. [In the press.
Lectures on the Apocalypse. By Rev. F. D. Maurice. Cr. Svo.
3s. 6d. Lectures on the Apocalypse. By Rev. Prof. W. Milligan. Cr.
8vo. 5s. Discussions on the Apocalypse. By Rev. Prof. W. Milligan. Cr.
8vo. OS. Lectures on the Revelation of St. John. By Very Rev. the late
C. J. Vaughan, D.D. Fifth edition. Cr. 8vo. lOs. 6d.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED, LONDON.
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries
1 1012 01185 0197