04-CHAPTER 4. THE SECOND JOURNEY.

CHAPTER 4. THE SECOND JOURNEY.

ST. PAUL’S second journey took place some years later than the first. The intermediate period he had spent chiefly in Antioch, but partly in a journey to Jerusalem. [Note: It was probably not less than a year after the Apostles had returned when they started forJerusalem; the expression χρόνον ου + ̓κ ὀλγίονis an emphatic expression, which may quite well denote an even longer period. Mr. Lewin, in his singularly useful work, Fasti Sacri, p. 288, No. 1722, argues from the fact that “Paul and Barnabas related theconversion of the Gentiles” during their journey to Jerusalem, that no very long interval had elapsed since their return from their journey in Asia Minor, “as otherwise their success among the Gentiles would have been sufficiently well known.” This argument is incorrect. They are not said to give the first news; it is rather implied by the word selected (ἐκδιηγούμενοι) that the communities on their way had already heard of the fact generally, and took the opportunity of learning the full details from the missionaries. After they returned from Jerusalem, a considerable stay in Antioch is again implied.] He had now old friends in South Galatia to visit, and he went in the first place straight to them. Accompanied by Silas, he passed through Cilicia, crossed Taurus no doubt by the Cilician Gates, and came first to Derbe, and then to Lystra, where he found a disciple named Timothy, son of a Jewess by a Greek father. He resolved to take Timothy with him, and in order to conciliate the prejudices of the Jews, who were numerous in these regions, he performed on him that operation which the Hebrew religion required in the case of all males. This can hardly have been done merely for the sake of the Jews in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, whom Paul already knew to be hostile to him. It implies that he had the intention of preaching in other towns where Jews lived, through whom he would as usual make a beginning. As we shall see, he was evidently thinking of going on westward into the province Asia. The passage Acts 16:4-6 is one of extreme obscurity; but it must be examined, for the decision of the controversy as to the signification of the term Galatia depends on the meaning to be taken out of it. It appears that Paul, after leaving Lystra with Silas and Timothy, spent some time in the country, for it is clearly implied in verses 4 and 5, that they taught and preached in “the cities” on their route. We may then conclude that they visited those cities of the district where Paul had so many friends and converts, Iconium and Antioch; and it was in all probability while they were in Antioch that they were “forbidden of the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia.” The prohibition implies a previous intention on their part, by which Paul’s action hitherto had been guided. When their first plan was thus altered, they turned northwards, with the intention of entering Bithynia, presuming that they would be allowed to preach there. But when they came opposite Mysia, [Note: I understand κατὰ, here in the sense which it has, eg., inActs 27:7,κατὰΚνδον, or in Herodotus I. 76, κατὰ ΢ινώπην-- “when they reached such a point that a line drawn across the country at right angles to the general line of their route would touch Mysia.” In the passage of Herodotus this implies a line from north to south; here it implies a line from east to west. Wendt understands “to the border of Mysia.” This would come to nearly the same result, taking Mysia in the wide sense which it has in Ptolemy and which is mentioned in Strabo as common. I should suppose that about Nakoleia they found that their northward route was prevented; Wendt’s view would involve that they realised this somewhere near Kotiaion. They had two roads possible from Antioch into Bithynia, one by Nakoleia and Dorylaion, which is the shortest and was by far the most important at that time, the other by Kotiaion.] and tried to continue their northward route into Bithynia, “the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.” They were compelled to turn west-wards; and keeping along the southern frontier of Mysia, they reached Troas, whence they sailed to Macedonia. The language of this passage clearly implies that they were forbidden to preach, but not to travel in Asia; whereas they were forbidden even to set foot in Bithynia. Accordingly, when they found about Antioch that they must not preach in Asia, they went straight north through the Phrygian parts of Asia, intending to preach as soon as they reached Bithynia; but of course they understood that the Phrygian country which they crossed was part of Asia, and forbidden to them for preaching. [Note: Lewin, St. Paul, p. 193, not observing that Phrygia is a part of Asia, supposes that they went at this time to Colossæ and preached there. Such a route to Bithynia is impossible except with the wrong conception Mr. Lewin has of the topography of the country; and Colossæ was a city of Asia, and forbidden to them.] This interpretation gives a definite picture of a probable route, which lies fairly in the words. I can find no such picture in any of the other interpretations that have been advanced, and I do not see any other satisfactory possibility. There are two difficulties in the interpretation. First, we have to take certain terms in the Roman sense, and not in the popular sense which is certainly found in the early chapters of Acts. Our fundamental hypothesis of the “Travel-Document” is intended to meet this difficulty; and we have found that hypothesis confirmed by the signs of first-hand acquaintance with the country which appear in chapters 13: and 14: The writer retains the precise words of his authority in 16: 6 and 7, and this authority was a document written, whether by himself at an earlier time or by some other person, under the immediate influence of St. Paul himself. [Note: It was at this point that the idea which is worked out in the first four chapters of this work was first conceived--viz., that great part of Acts 13: ff. was composed under Paul’s immediate influence.]

Then the second difficulty, which lies in the relation of verse 6 to 4 and 5, finds an easy solution. “They passed through the Phrygian and Galatic country” is a geographical recapitulation of the journey which is implied in verses 4, 5. These two verses describe the conduct and action that characterised the entire journey through South Galatia, both the journey to Lystra and Derbe, already mentioned from the geographical point of view in verse 1, and that to Iconium and Antioch. Verse 6 then continues the geographical description from verse 1, and describes the journey from Lystra onwards; [Note: There is much to be said in favour of Wendt’s view, that verses 4 and 5 are an addition made to the original document by the author of Acts, who incorporated in his work the original document. The preceding exposition might have been made clearer by assuming this view; but I have preferred throughout these chapters to start from the received text, though I feel confident that there has been a good deal of editing and contamination in the text as we have it.] it led through “the country which is Phrygian and Galatic,” a single district to which both adjectives apply.

Lightfoot has correctly seen that this is the only possible sense of the Greek words as they are now read. [Note: Σ1F74ν Φρυγίαν καὶΓαλατικὴν χὴραν, so Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Wendt, and almost all modern critics. But Wendt, though he accepts the text, gives a translation which results naturally from the old text, but which cannot be got from the text which he approves of. His rendering is Phrygien und das galattsche Land. Lipsius, in Holtzmann Rand-Kommentar, II. 2: 2, is the only modern critic known to me who quotes the text as τU+IF74ν ΓαλατικU+IF74ν; this is probably only an inaccuracyin quotation, and does not indicate a difference of judgment as to the text, which is determined by the manuscripts.] The description applies to the country round Iconium and Antioch; to make quite clear in brief terms what country he meant, the writer of the original document said “the country which according to one way of speaking is Phrygian, but which is also called Galatic.” The preceding account of the country about Iconium and Antioch has shown how strictly true the description is, and how perfectly it agrees with the expression used in Acts 14:6, which puts the boundary of the Phrygian land between Iconium and Lystra.

Lightfoot, on the other hand, considers that “the Phrygian and Galatic country” is Galatia in the narrow sense, the land occupied by the Gaulish settlers during the third century before Christ, which previously had been part of Phrygia. It seems to me inconceivable and contrary to the evidence, either that the name Phrygia should have remained in popular use to denote the country of the Asiatic Gauls till the time when Acts was written, [Note: Lipsius regularly speaks of North Galatia as der Galaticus. This name has no authority, and is a mere fiction founded on his misunderstanding of τU+IF74ν Γαλατικὴν χU+IF7Dραν; but it might suggest to the unwary reader that his translation agrees with ancient usage. Paul heard the term Galaticus in Iconium, where it was in use at the time to denote the province (p. 14, and C. I. G. 3991). Later, the word changed its meaning (p. 95 ).] or that the author should indulge in a display of pedantic antiquarianism, suitable for Strabo’s learned work, but utterly incongruous here. To make possible the reference to North Galatia which Lightfoot and most commentators seek to derive from this passage, it is necessary to go back to the discarded reading τU+IF74ν Φρυγίαν καὶ ΓαλατιU+IF74ν χU+IF7Dραν, and it is note-worthy that, as we have seen, Wendt translates this text in his commentary, though he rejects it in his critical notes. The objection may be made that I am inconsistent in refusing to admit the possibility that North Galatia could retain in popular language in the first century after Christ the ancient name of Phrygia, whereas I have argued [Note: See above, pp. 37 - 9.] that Iconium continued to be counted Phrygian by its inhabitants at least as late as the second century. But the cases are quite different. In Iconium the old Phrygian population continued to call themselves Phrygian, and probably in part retained the use of the Phrygian language alongside of Greek. But in Galatia the population had changed; the Galatai had conquered the country, and so far from wishing to retain the name Phrygian, they would have treated it as an insult to be called Phrygians. General popular usage throughout Asia Minor had long ago ceased to apply the name Phrygia either to Iconium or to Galatia, though antiquaries and historians recognised that North Galatia was originally part of Phrygia.

There can, I believe, be no doubt what country was denoted by these words, which may in English be most idiomatically rendered the Phrygo-Galatic territory. Abundant analogy may be quoted to show that this phrase was natural and common in the first century, and that it was the most clear and complete and precise description which a writer who was striving after accuracy could select. As this point is a decisive one, and is independent of any theory as to the composition of Acts, [Note: It is the argument which first led me definitely to abandon my earlier belief that the Epistle was addressed to the North Galatians. Arrian, An. 2, 4, 1, uses Galaticus in its natural and strict sense.] it deserves closer examination. The district is not called Galatia, but ἡ ΓαλατικU+IF74 χU+IF7Dρα, 1:e., a district which was connected with Galatia or included in Galatia, but which the writer for some reason or other does not choose to designate by the term Galatia. The adjective Galaticus is actually employed elsewhere as a geographical term. The term Pontus Galaticus [Note: The origin of the term is discussed in Hist. Geogr., p. 253. In literature it is used only by Ptolemy but must be older, for it had ceased to be true in his time. It is employed in inscriptions of the first century, e.g. C.I.L., III., Suppl., no. 6818, which belongs to the years 73-78. ] was already in use during the first century after Christ to denote a large district of Pontus which was added to the province of Galatia a few years B.C. The natural sense of the Greek words, confirmed by this analogy, is decisive as to the sense of ΓαλατικU+IF74 χU+IF7Dρα. Now let us turn to the Roman documents of the first century, describing the extent of the authority exercised by the governor of Galatia. In some inscriptions he is called simply the governor of Galatia, while in others he is styled governor of Galatia, Pisidia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Pontus Galaticus, etc. The district here denominated Phrygia is that which includes Iconium, Antioch, and Apollonia, [Note: See Hist. Geogr., p. 253.] and which might, during the first century, in perfect accordance with analogy, be called by such names as Phrygia Galatica, or ἡ Φργία καὶ ΓαλατικU+IF74 χU+IF7Dρα. [Note: Phrygia Galatica on the analogy of Pontus Galaticus or of Ptolemy’s Phrygia Pisidia--i.e., Pisidian Phrygia, the part of Phrygia reckoned along with Pisidia--(compare Antiochia Pisidia).] This statement of actual facts, as recorded in contemporary documents, seems to be in itself a conclusive and sufficient proof of the meaning of the phrase used in Acts 16:6; and this interpretation proves that the route described in Acts 16: did not touch North Galatia at any point. But as the theory that the route passed through North Galatia is rested on the necessity of accommodating Acts to the Epistle, we must examine this point.

Let us admit for the moment the possibility that, either by recurring to the now discarded reading in 16: 6, or by some other means, a passage through North Galatia could be made consistent with the narrative in Acts. The question has then to be met, how did St. Paul come to be in North Galatia? What theory can be suggested to explain his route and his plans consistently with the rest of the narrative? Lightfoot and most others do not suggest any reason, nor do anything to introduce coherence into the journey. C. H. say: “The obvious inference is that he was passing through Galatia to some other district (possibly Pontus).” The inference, whether “obvious” or not, is rather a bold one, when we consider how utterly unjustified it is by anything that is related in this or any other part of the Acts about Paul’s travels or his aims. The idea of a proposed visit to Pontus must be rejected. But another account might be suggested as in better agreement with the
record. We may suppose that Paul, after leaving Lystra, went on through Iconium to Antioch. There he was forbidden to preach in Asia. He then went across the continent toward the north with the intention of preaching in the extreme eastern parts of Bithynia, Amastris and the surrounding districts. The direct road to Amastris went by way of Ancyra, the capital of North Galatia. Here or at some other point in his journey he was detained by illness. He postponed his journey to Bithynia, and proceeded to preach in Galatia. Lightfoot names Ancyra, Juliopolis, [Note: Juliopolis, however, was at this time a city of Bithynia, not of Galatia ( Hist. Geogr., p. 196).] Tavium, and Pessinus as probably the earliest Galatian churches in this district. [Note: We may confidently say that no other towns (except Colonia Germa) in North Galatia possessed a Greek-speaking population to which St. Paul could preach; in fact, it is exceedingly doubtful if Tavium could have contained many people who were familiar with Greek at this period. In the rest of the country it seems certain that only a few words of broken Greek were known to the population, whose familiar tongue was Celtic. According to Jerome they retained their native language as late as the fourth century.] Thereafter he proceeded on his way to Bithynia, and when he came “over against Mysia” (or, according to Wendt, “to the frontier of Mysia”), he was forbidden to enter Bithynia, and passing along the southern boundary of Mysia he reached Troas. In the first place we have to object to this account that it does not suit the text. From North Galatia no possible route to Bithynia could be said to bring a traveller to a point “over against Mysia,” still less “to the frontier of Mysia.” A glance at a map (preferably a large map) of the country will make this clear to all. Moreover the phrase “They went through Phrygia, etc., and when they came opposite Mysia,” implies a single definite journey reaching a definite point and there suddenly checked. But on the above interpretation, we have to interpose between the two verbs a tale of months of wandering over Galatia. No person who possessed any literary faculty could write like this. Either the writer of Acts misunderstood the facts entirely, and wrote something which is not correct, and which we must alter in order to introduce the above interpretation; or else his words definitely exclude the supposition that Paul on this occasion traveled in North Galatia. If we cling to the North-Galatian theory, we must abandon the view that this part of Acts possesses the characteristics of an original, genuine, and valuable historical document. But if we adopt the South-Galatian theory, we merely follow the text of all modern critics and translate it according to the meaning which was common in documents of the time.

Secondly, Amastris, in Roman and in common usage, was a city of Pontus, and not of Bithynia. Though it is true that both districts were included in one province, yet the province was always called Bithynia-Pontus or Bithynia et Pontus. The supposition that Amastris was the object of St. Paul’s route from Pisidian Antioch is inconsistent with natural probability; Western Bithynia about Nikomedeia and Nikaia was the district which would be naturally inferred from the expression “to go into Bithynia.” The wealth and the civilization and the administration of Bithynia had their centre there. A connection with Syria and a Jewish population are more probable in Western Bithynia. [Note: Amisos was the only city of Pontus which might naturally have close relations with Syria (see p. 10 ); but it is unnecessary to argue that Paul could not think of Amisos as in Bithynia.] Amastris itself was a civilized city with a considerable Greek-speaking population, but the surrounding country was barbarous and uncivilized and in the last degree unlikely to have attracted Paul. Moreover a very difficult and mountainous country lies south of Amastris, and intercourse between it and the civilized world was maintained almost entirely by sea. When the design of preaching in Asia was frustrated, it seems to have occurred to St. Paul to go on to the country immediately beyond--viz., Bithynia; and the road by Dorylaion to Nikaia and Nikomedeia was a great route. But the design of going from Antioch or from Iconium to Amastris, without any thought of preaching in the intermediate districts, is in itself utterly improbable, and puts an end to all naturalness and consistency in the narrative.

Thirdly, chronology is opposed to this view. The process of preaching in the great cities of Galatia needed in any case a considerable time; an invalid, as St. Paul is supposed on the North-Galatian theory to have been, would require a long time in that vast and bare country. But the period allotted on any of the proposed systems of chronology to this journey, leaves no room for such a great work as the evangelisation of Galatia. We may safely assume that Paul left Antioch on his second journey in the spring. No one who knows the Taurus [Note: See above, pp. 69 - 70.] will suppose that he crossed it before the middle of May; June is a more probable time. Say he passed the Cilician Gates on the first of June. If we calculate his journey by the shortest route, allowing no detention for unforeseen contingencies, [Note: But such contingencies always happen and cause some delay.] but making him rest always on Sabbaths, and supposing a stay of two Sundays each at Derbe, Iconium, and Antioch, and of at least five weeks at Lystra (which is required to select Timothy as comrade, to perform the operation on him, and to wait his recovery), we find that, even if he did not touch North Galatia, October would be begun before he reached Philippi. [Note: For mere walking, we may allow eight days to Derbe, two to Lystra, one to Iconium, four to Antioch, seventeen to Troas; besides a stay of some days in Troas. The shipping season had not come to an end, so that winter was not yet set in when he reached Troas.] Eleven months may fairly be allotted to the events recorded at Philippi, Thessalonica, [Note: The three weeks at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2) must not be pressed : the time is insufficient; but I need not repeat the reasons which are well stated in the Speaker’s Commentary on Thessalonians, p. 711. But the argument there used that Paul could only have had the Sundays for preaching in Thessalonica, because he worked with his hands “night and day” (1 Thessalonians 2:9), depends on a misconception. Paul means by the phrase “night and day” only that he started work before dawn: the usage is regular and frequent. He no doubt began so early in order to be able to devote some part of the day to preaching.] Beroea, and Athens; and then Paul went to Corinth, where he resided a year and a half. He would then sail for Jerusalem in the spring. Thus, three entire years are required as the smallest allowance for this journey, even if it was done in the direct way which our theory supposes. Among the commentators, some assign two years for these events, some three, hardly any one allows four. The usual systems of chronology must therefore be modified greatly, if the evangelisation of North Galatia is to be interpolated in this journey.

Finally, it is required by the North-Galatian theory that St. Paul, stricken at Ancyra by the severe illness already described in the words of Lightfoot, took that opportunity to make the long, fatiguing journeys needed in order to preach in Tavium and Pessinus. Those who know the bare, bleak uplands of Galatia, hot and dusty in summer, covered with snow in winter, will appreciate the improbability and the want of truth to nature which are involved in the words, “because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached unto you.” The truth is that no suggestion ever has been offered, and in view of the geography no suggestion can be offered, which will introduce rational coherence into the narrative in Acts on the supposition that on this journey St. Paul evangelised in Northern Galatia. If that be the case, the narrative in Acts is so confused, so self-contradictory, and so unintelligible, that it cannot be written by one who had access to good authorities or who had any opportunity of acquiring knowledge of the facts. The most charitable account of the writer would be that he had no exact record about the first journey made by Paul into Galatia; but he inferred from the Epistle that two such journeys had been made, and mentioned the first in a rather incoherent way at this point in his narrative. In some way or other all particulars of the first Galatian journey had disappeared, and the author of Acts had to dismiss it with a word. How inconsistent is this supposition with the life-like narration in other parts of St. Paul’s journeys! How should the same writer be so well informed about the other journeys in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, while this one was as unknown to him as the Arabian journey? [Note: Most writers who hold the North-Galatian theory speak in very strong terms of the incompleteness of the narrative in Acts. Much of’ the justification for their criticism disappears when the narrative is properly interpreted.] On the South Galatian theory, however, I hope that the preceding discussion has shown in detail the perfect coherence of the narrative throughout the first and second journeys, and its agreement with the allusions in the epistle, and has proved that the combination of Acts and the epistle produces a complete, natural, harmonious, and intrinsically probable picture. In Codex Bezœ the various readings in the description of the second journey, though not of very striking character, are not devoid of interest. The addition to 15: 41 [Note: παραδιδοὺς τὰς ἐντολὰς των πρεσβυτέρων.] is derived from 16: 4 ; it brings out clearly (what is certainly implied in the received text) that the delivery of the decrees to the churches, which is described in 16: 4, and the confirmation of the churches in 15: 41, are both intended to apply to all the churches visited. The clause inserted at the beginning of 16: [Note: διελθών δὲτὰ ἔθνη τατ + ̑τα.] makes the geographical description clearer and more precise, but does not make any material addition to the sense. It is, however, important in its bearing on a later verse, 16: 6, to the opening words of which it is obviously parallel. It sums up the description of the visit to Syria and Cilicia given in the preceding verse. Several other additions belong to classes of variants described by Professor Rendel Harris, [Note: A Study of Codex Bezœ, p. 222.] and need not be enumerated. The substitution of γενόμενοι for ἐλθόντες in 16: 7 is more significant than any other of the variants in this passage. The verb used brings out even more clearly the continuity of the action described in ver. 7 with that described in ver. 6, and the impossibility of supposing that a long residence and evangelisation in North Galatia is to be interposed between the verb διǼ + ̑λθον and the verb ἐπεU+iF77ραζον (ἤθελαν in Codex Bezœ). No one can read the sentence contained in verses 6 and 7 without being struck with the obvious ignorance of the reviser that any process of evangelisation in a new land, hitherto untrodden by the Apostle and unmentioned in the previous chapters, is described in the opening clause of ver. 6. His addition to 16: 1 brings out into marked prominence his conception that the clause in 16: 6, “they passed through the Phrygo-Galatic country,” is a mere geographical recapitulation of the more general description in verses 4 and 5. In
xvi. 1 the clause διελθων, etc., sums up the description introduced by διἠρχετο, and in 16: 6 the clause διǼU + +0311λθον, etc, sums up the description introduced by οιερχόμενοι. We have here a complete proof that the reviser whose work has been preserved to us in Codex Bezœ [Note: The question whether the text of Codex Bezœ is due entirely to this reviser or is complicated by other influences lies apart from our subject. My remarks about it are confined, like my knowledge, to Acts 13:--xii.] understood the passage as we have interpreted it. If the other points about this revision which we attempt in these chapters to establish are satisfactorily proved, the conclusion must be accepted that in the first half of the second century, by a skilful, well-informed, careful, and clear-headed reviser, who was familiar with an independent tradition preserved in Asia Minor, the passage in Acts xvi, 1-6 was interpreted precisely in the same way that we have interpreted the received text. [Note: The account of the journeys which is here given was printed before I had looked into Codex Bezœ. Working at the Thekla-legend for a later chapter of this work, I was struck with the fact that the legend presupposes the reading of Codex Bezœ in 21: 1; and a letter from Professor Rendel Harris, in answer to an inquiry on this point, turned my attention to the wider question. The character of Codex Bezœ is so plainly marked in these chapters that a few hours’ work at it convinced me of its origin and date. The character of this Codex is discussed more fully in Chapter VIII., §§ 3-5.]

It is advisable to notice an argument derived from the syntax of 16: 6. It has been contended that the participle κωλυθέντες gives the reason for the finite verb διǼ + ̑λθον and is therefore preliminary to it in the sequence of time. We reply that the participial construction cannot, in this author, be pressed in that way. He is often loose in the framing of his sentences, and in the long sentence in verses 6 and 7 he varies the succession of verbs by making some of them participles. The sequence of the verbs is also the sequence of time: (1) they went through the Phrygo-Galatic land; (2) they were forbidden to speak in Asia; (3) they came over against Mysia; (4) they assayed to go into Bithynia; (5) the Spirit suffered them not; (6) they passed through Mysia; (7) they came to Troas.