02-CHAPTER 2. LOCALITIES OF THE FIRST JOURNEY

CHAPTER 2. LOCALITIES OF THE FIRST JOURNEY

PAMPHYLIA

IT was about the year 48 or 49, probably, that Paul, Barnabas, and Mark landed at Perga. They had sailed some miles up the Cestrus in the ship which had brought them from Paphos in Cyprus. The feat seems so remark­able in view of the present character of the river, even duly considering the small size of the ship, as to show that much attention must have been paid in ancient times to keeping the channel of the river navigable. Similarly it is a well-attested fact that Ephesus was formerly accessible to sea­borne traffic, and the large works constructed along the lower course of the Caystros to keep its channel open as far as Ephesus, can still be seen as one rides from the city down to the coast. The only incident recorded as having occurred during their stay, obviously a brief one, at Perga, has no relation to the state of the country, and therefore we need not spend time on it at present. At a later point in our investigation it will be possible to acquire a better idea of the relations among the three travelers and their separation, which took place at Perga. At present we cannot gain from the narrative any idea even of the time of year when they were at that city.

Conybeare and Howson indeed in their Life and Epistles of St. Paul [Note: I need not quote the pages of this excellent and scholarly work, partly because it is published in editions of various form, partly because any one who desires to verify my references to it can easily do so. As I shall often have occasion to refer to the book, I shall, for the sake of brevity, do so by the authors’ initials C. II. In this particular point C. H. are followed by Canon Farrar.] argue that Paul and Barnabas came to Perga about May, and found the population removing enmasse to the upper country, to live in the cooler glens amid the mountains of Taurus. In this way they explain why the apostles arc not said to have preached in Perga; they went on to the inner country, because no population remained in Perga to whom they could address themselves. But C. H. can hardly be right in supposing that a general migration of the ancient population took place annually in the spring or early summer. The modern custom which they mention, and which they suppose to be retained from old time, is due to the semi-nomadic character of the Turkish tribes that have come into the country at various times after the twelfth century. Even at the present day it is not the custom for the population of the coast towns, who have not been much affected by the mixture of Turkish blood, to move away in a body to the interior. [Note: The rule is universal: such migrations occur only where the Turkish element in the population is supreme, and where therefore the nomadic habit has persisted. Yaila and Eishla denote the summer and the winter quarters respectively.] The migrations which take place are almost entirely confined to certain wandering tribes, chiefly Yuruks. A small number of the townsmen go up to the higher ground for reasons of health and comfort and this custom has in recent years become more common among the wealthier classes in the towns, who, however, do not go away from the cities till the end of June or July. But a migration en masse is contrary to all that we know about the ancient population. The custom of living in the country within the territory of the city is a very different thing; and this was certainly practised by many of the people of Perga. But it is practically certain that the territory of Perga did not include any part of the upper highlands of Taurus; and there can be no doubt that the festivals and the ceremonial of the Perga an Artemis went on throughout the summer, and were celebrated by the entire population. The government was kept up during summer in the same way as during winter.

PISIDIA AND AYO PAVLO. The apostles, starting from Perga, apparently after only a very brief stay, directed their steps to Antioch, the chief city of inner Pisidia, a Roman colony, a strong fortress, the centre of military and civil administration in the southern parts of the vast province called by the Romans Galatia. There can be no doubt that there existed close commercial relations between this metropolis on the north side of Taurus and the Pamphylian harbours, especially Side, Perga, and Attalia. The roads from Antioch to Perga and to Attalia coincide; that which leads to Side is quite different. There can also be no doubt that in Antioch, as in many of the cities founded by the Seleucid kings of Syria, there was a considerable Jewish population. Josephus mentions that, when the fidelity of Asia Minor to the Seleucid kings was doubtful, 2,000 Jewish families were transported by one edict to the fortified towns of Lydia and Phrygia. [Note: Joseph., Antiq.Jude 12:3. It must be remembered that, though Antioch is generally called of “Pisidia,” yet the bounds were very doubtful, and Strabo reckons Antioch to be in Phrygia. It was doubtless one of the fortresses here meant by Strabo.] Being strangers to their neighbours in their new home, they were likely to be faithful to the Syrian kings; and special privileges were granted them in order to insure their fidelity. These privileges were confirmed by the Roman emperors; for the imperial policy was, from the time of Julius Cæsar onwards, almost invariably favourable to the Jews. The commerce of Antioch would in part come to Perga and Attalia; and in all probability the Jews of Antioch had an important share in this trade. Paul therefore resolved to go to Antioch; and the immediate result was that one of his companions, for some reason about which we shall offer some suggestions later, abandoned the expedition, and returned to Jerusalem. The commerce between Antioch and Perga or Attalia must of course have followed one definite route; and Paul and Barnabas would naturally choose this road. C. H. seem to me to select a very improbable path: they incline to the supposition that the Apostles went by the steep pass leading from Attalia to the Buldur Lake, the ancient Lake Ascania. Professor Kiepert, who has drawn the map attached to Renan’s Saint Paul, makes the Apostles ascend the Cestrus for great part of its course, and then diverge towards Egerdir. C. H. also state unhesitatingly that the path led along the coast of the Egerdir double lakes, the ancient Limnai, the most picturesque sheet of water in Asia Minor. But the natural, easy, and direct course is along one of the eastern tributaries of the Cestrus to Adada; and we must suppose that this commercial route was the one by which the strangers were directed. Adada now bears the name of Kara Bavlo. Bavlo is exactly the modern pronunciation of the Apostle’s name. In visiting the district I paid the closest attention to the name, in order to observe whether Baghlu might not be the real form, and Bavlo an invention of the Greeks, who often modify a Turkish name to a form that has a meaning in Greek. [Note: For example, they have transformed Baluk hissar, “Town of the Castle,” into Balikesri, “Old Cæsareia.” Baluk, as I am informed by Kiepert, is an old Turkish word, not now used in the spoken language, meaning “town” ; it is a very common element in Turkish names, and being now obsolete is commonly confused with other words. C. H. quote a report heard by Arundel about the existence of Bavlo (or Paoli, as he gives it); but they suppose it to be on the Eurymedon, and far away east of the road which they select.] But I found that the Turks certainly use the form Bavlo, not Baghlu. The analogy of many other modern Turkish names for cities makes it highly probable that the name Bavlo has arisen from the fact that Paul was the patron saint of the city, and the great church of the city was dedicated to him. It was very common in Byzantine times that the name of the saint to whom the church of a city was dedicated should come to be popularly used in place of the older city name. In this way apparently Adada became Ayo Pavlo. Now such religious names were specially a creation of the popular language, and accordingly they were taken up by the Turkish conquerors, and have in numerous cases persisted to the present day. [Note: Various examples are given in Hist. Geogr., p. 227 note; e.g., Aitamas (i.e., Ayi Thomas), Elias, Tefenni (i.e., εἷ?Σ]τε¦άνου), etc.] It is impossible not to connect the fact that Adada looked to St. Paul as its patron with its situation on the natural route between Antioch and Perga; the church dedicated to Paul probably originated in the belief that the Apostle had visited Adada on his way to Antioch. There is no evidence to show whether this belief was founded on a genuine ancient tradition, or was only an inference, drawn after Adada was Christianized, from the situation of the city; but the latter alternative appears more probable. It is obvious from the narrative in Acts 13: that Paul did not stop at Adada; and it is not likely that there was a colony of Jews there, through whom he might make a beginning of his work, and who might retain the memory of his visit. It is possible that some reference may yet be found in Eastern hagiological literature to the supposed visit of Paul to Adada, and to the church from which the modern name is derived. If the belief existed, there would almost certainly arise legends of incidents connected with the visit; and though the local legends of this remote and obscure Pisidian city had little chance of penetrating into literature, there is a possibility that some memorial of them may still survive in manuscript. Rather more than a mile south of the remains of Adada, on the west side of the road that leads to Perga, stand the ruins of a church of early date, built of fine masonry, but not of very great size. The solitary situation of this church by the roadside suggests to the spectator that there was connected with it some legend about an apostle or martyr of Adada. It stands in the forest, with trees growing in and around it; and its walls rise to the height of five to eight feet above the present level of the soil. One single hut stands about half a mile away in the forest; no other habitation is near. Adada itself is a solitary and deserted heap of ruins; there is a small village with a fine spring of water about a mile north-east from it. So lonely is the country, that, as we approached it from the north our guide failed to find the ruins; and, when he left us alone in the forest, we were obliged to go on for six miles to the nearest town before we could find a more trustworthy guide. After all, we found that we had passed within three or four hundred yards of the ruins, which lay on a hill above our path. The ruins of Adada are very imposing from their extent, from the perfection of several small temples, and from their comparative immunity from spoliation. No one has used them as a quarry, which is the usual fate of ancient cities. The buildings are rather rude and provincial in type, showing that the town retained more of the native character, and was less completely affected by the general Graeco-Roman civilization of the empire. I may here quote a few sentences which I wrote immediately after visiting the ruins. [Note: Athenœum, July 1890, p. 136, in a letter written in part by my friend and fellow-traveller Mr. Hogarth; the description of Adada was assigned to me.] “With little trouble, and at no great expense, the mass of ruins might be sorted and thoroughly examined, the whole plan of the city discovered, and a great deal of information obtained about its condition under the empire. Nothing can be expected from the ruins to adorn a museum; for it is improbable than any fine works of art ever came to Adada, and certain that any accessible fragment of marble which ever was there has been carried away long ago. But for a picture of society as it was formed by Graeco-Roman civilization in an Asiatic people, there is perhaps no place where the expenditure of a few hundreds would produce such results. The opinion will not be universally accepted that the most important and interesting part of ancient history is the study of the evolution of society during the long conflict between Christianity and paganism; but those who hold this opinion will not easily find a work more interesting and fruitful at the price than the excavation of Adada.” C. H. are right in emphasizing the dangers to which travelers were exposed in this part of their journey:” perils of rivers, perils of robbers.” The following instances, not known to C. H., may be here quoted. They all belong to the Pisidian highlands, not far from the road traversed by the Apostles, [Note: If the road was frequented by commerce, it would of course be more dangerous. Brigands must make a living, and go where most money is to be found.] and, considering how ignorant we are of the character of the country and the population, it is remarkable that such a large proportion of our scanty information relates to scenes of danger and precautions against violence.

1.    A dedication and thank-offering by Menisson of Daos to Jupiter, Neptune, Minerva, and all the gods, and also to the river Eurus, after he had been in danger and had been saved. [Note: Abbé Duchesne in Bulletin de Corresp Hellen., vol. 3:, p. 479. The name of the river is uncertain, Eurus or Syrus; I tried in vain to find the stone in 1886, in order to verify the text.] This inscription records an escape from drowning in a torrent swollen by rain. There is no river in the neighbourhood which could cause danger to a man, except when swollen by rain.

2.    An epitaph erected by Patrokles and Douda over the grave of their son, Sousou, a policeman, who was slain by robbers. [Note: Professor Sterrett in Epigraphic Journey in Asia Minor, p. 166.]

3.    References to gens d’armes of various classes (?ρο-Φ??ακἐς, παρα?ν?κ?) occur with unusual frequency in this district. Very few soldiers were stationed in Pisidia; and armed policemen were a necessity in such an unruly country. [Note: Historical Geography of Asia Minor, pp. 177 ff.]

4.A stationarius, part of whose duty was to assist in the capture of runaway slaves (often the most dangerous of brigands), is also mentioned in an inscription. [Note: Mittheilungen des Instituts zu Athen, 1885, p. 77. Examples might be multiplied by including the parts of Taurus farther removed from the road. On the whole subject see the paper of Professor O. Hirschfeld in Berlin. Sitzungsber., 1891, pp. 845 ff., on “Die Sicherheitspolizei im römischen Kaiserreich.”] The roads all over the Roman Empire were apt to be unsafe, for the arrangements for insuring public safety were exceedingly defective; but probably the part of his life which St. Paul had most in mind when he wrote about the perils of rivers and of robbers, which he had faced in his journeys, was the journey from Perga across Taurus to Antioch and back again.

Between Adada and Antioch the road is uncertain. One of the paths leads along the south-east end of Egerdir Lake, traversing the difficult pass now called Demir Kapu, “the Iron Gate.” But I believe there is a more direct and easy road, turning from Adada towards the north-cast, though further exploration is needed before it is possible to speak
confidently.

PISIDIAN ANTIOCH. The city of Antioch was the governing and military centre of the southern half of the vast province of Galatia, which at this time extended from north to south right across the plateau of Asia Minor, nearly reaching the Mediterranean on the south and the Black Sea on the north. Under the early emperors it possessed a rank and importance far beyond what belonged to it in later times. This was due to the fact that between 10 B.C. and 72 A.D. the “pacification” --i.e., the completion of the conquest and organisation--of southern Galatia was in active progress, and was conducted from Antioch as centre. Under Claudius, 41-54 A.D., the process of pacification was in especially active progress, and Antioch was at the acme of its importance. In the Roman style, then, Antioch belonged to Galatia, but, in popular language and according to geographical situation, it was said to be a city of Phrygia. Even a Roman might speak of Antioch as a city of Phrygia, if he were laying stress on geographical or ethnological considerations; for the province of Galatia was so large that the Romans themselves subdivided it into districts (which are enumerated in many Latin inscriptions), e.g., Paphlagonia, Phrygia, Isauria, Lycaonia, Pisidia, etc. [Note: See note appended to Chap. 1:] It is commonly said that Antioch belonged to Pisidia, but, for the time with which we are dealing, this is erroneous. Strabo is quite clear on the point. [Note: See pages 557, 569, 577. Ptolemy mentions Antioch twice, 5: 4. 11, and 5: 5. 4 ; in one case he assigns it to the district Pisidia and the province Galatia, in the other to the district Pisidian Phrygia (i.e. the part of Phrygia which had come to be included in Pisidia) and the province Pamphylia. This error arises from his using two authorities belonging to different periods, and not understanding the relation between them. He makes the same mistake about several other places: e.g., Olba, Claudiopolis, etc. (Hist. Geogr., pp. 336, 363, 405, 447).] But after the time of Strabo there took place a gradual widening of the term Pisidia to include all the country that lay between the bounds of the province of Asia and Pisidia proper. It is important to observe this and similar cases in which the denotation of geographical names in Asia Minor gradually changes, as the use of a name sometimes gives a valuable indication of the date of the document in which it occurs. The accurate and full geographical description of Antioch about 45-50 A.D. was “a Phrygian city on the side of Pisidia” (ꀺ6ρυγία πόλις πρὸς Πισιδία). The latter addition was used in Asia Minor to distinguish it from Antioch on the Mæander, on the borders of Caria and Phrygia. But the world in general wished to distinguish Antioch from the great Syrian city, not from the small Carian city; hence the shorter expression “Pisidian Antioch” (Αμτιόχεια η Πισιδία), [Note: Compare Ptolemy “Pisidian Phrygia,” quoted in the preceding note.] came into use, and finally, as the term Pisidia was widened,” Antioch of Pisidia” became almost universal. The latter term is used by Ptolemy, 5: 4. 11, and occurs in some inferior MSS. in Acts 13:14. “Pisidian Antioch,” however, is admittedly the proper reading in the latter passage. [Note: Codex Bez£, reads “Antioch of Pisidia” , which is one of many proofs that it is founded on a modernisation of the text made not earlier than the second century by an intelligent and well-informed editor. This editor introduced various changes which betray the topography of the second century.] From these facts we can infer that it would have been an insult to an Antiochian audience, the people of a Roman Colonia, to address them as Pisidians. Pisidia was the “barbarian” mountain country that lay between them and Pamphylia; it was a country almost wholly destitute of Greek culture, ignorant of Greek games and arts, and barely
subjugated by Roman arms. Antioch was the guard set upon these Pisidian robbers, the trusted agent of the imperial authority, the centre of the military system designed to protect the subjects of Rome. “Men of Galatia” is the only possible address in cases where “Men of Antioch” is not suitable; [Note: “Phrygians” was also an impossible address, for Phrygian had in Greek and Latin become practically equivalent to slave.] and “a city of Phrygia” is the geographical designation which a person familiar with the city would use if the honorific title “a city of Galatia” was not suitable. These accurate terms were used by the Roman Paul, and they are used in the original document employed by the author of Acts, though in one case the looser but commoner phrase, “Pisidian Antioch,” is used to distinguish it from Syrian Antioch.