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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11