05-CHAPTER 5. THE THIRD JOURNEY.

CHAPTER V. THE THIRD JOURNEY. IN St. Paul’s third journey it seems clear that his original object was the province of Asia, and the visit to the churches of the Galatian country was a mere episode by the way. The aim which he had when he started on the second journey, and which he was forbidden by the Spirit when he reached Antioch to carry into effect, was realized in his third journey. The terms in which the country traversed by him before reaching Asia is described are unfortunately very obscure; he “went through the Galatic region and Phrygian” (or perhaps and Phrygia “) “in order stablishing all the disciples” (διερχόμενος καθεξης τἡν Ταλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, Acts 18:23). The difficulty is whether we are to understand Φρυγίαν as adjective or as noun: if the former, the expression is to be understood in the same way as Acts 16:6, “the territory which in one way is called Galatic and in another Phrygian”; if the latter, the expression means “the Galatic territory and Phrygia.” If the former interpretation is correct, the reversed order of the adjectives must be explained as merely accidental, and due to the perfect indifference as to which should come first, the meaning being precisely the same in either case. When we follow that interpretation, the passage must be understood on the analogy of Acts 16:6 and affords no new evidence. But if, on the other hand, we follow the second interpretation, the meaning is not quite clear; for Paul must traverse Phrygia before reaching Asia, by whatever route he traveled. He came from Antioch of Syria through the Syrian and the Cilician Gates; but the line of his route is not indicated until he reached districts which he had previously visited and where he had converts. He traversed this country, systematically visiting every place where there were disciples. Besides being called in Acts 18:23, “the region of Galatia and Phrygia,” the district is briefly described by another expression in Acts 19:1, “Paul, having passed through the upper country “(διελθόντα τὰ ἀλωτεριὰ μέρη), “came to Ephesus,”--i.e., he traversed the country from Cilicia to Ephesus, crossing the great central plateau, and descending to the sea again. He had a choice of two routes, one direct, passing through the churches which he visited on his first and second journeys, Derbe, Lystra, etc., and the other making an enormous circuit through Cappadocia and North Galatia, and omitting all the churches which are known to us by name. Can we, in the face of the word καθεξ῀+ 0̑ς, suppose that he left unvisited every church known to us, and visited only others which are never elsewhere mentioned in this book, [Note: On any interpretation of the words ofActs 16:6, the foundation of North-Galatian churches is not there actually alluded to; St. Paul is merely said to have traversed the Galatian country, but no hint is given that he founded churches. But the churches mentioned in Acts 18:23 are spoken of by the author as if they were already familiar to his readers.] and whose existence is only assumed in order to explain the Epistle to the Galatians? Certainly the writer could not easily have described the journey in a way more calculated to mislead, if his meaning is that Paul chose the northern route through Cappadocia and North Galatia. Why should the narrator, who in other cases describes St. Paul’s route with accuracy, leave it entirely doubtful whether he took the northern or the southern route? The reason is that the northern route never occurred to him as a possibility. The route from Syria by the Cilician Gates to the Aegean coast was a familiar and much frequented one; and unless another route was expressly mentioned, every one would understand that Paul passed through Lycaonia, and not through North Galatia. Moreover, on our theory, the reference to the disciples who were visited in their several places by the way is left in no doubt. After our explanation of the two previous journeys, the third is perfectly clear; it is only on the North-Galatian theory that any doubt about it can exist.

Further, the North-Galatian theory does not explain the words “all the disciples.” If the journey passed through North Galatia, Paul could not visit the South-Galatian churches: why then should the writer be so careful to mention that he visited “all the disciples”? [Note: Moreover καθεξǼ + ̑ς implies“in order from the first to the last, from east to west.”] On the South-Galatian theory he would naturally visit them all, for no congregations existed except those which lay along his route. The account of the third journey is, therefore, not expressed in language which, taken by itself, gives any conclusive argument as to the route followed; but it gives a much clearer and more satisfactory picture, when interpreted according to the South-Galatian theory.

We must therefore interpret the phrase τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, as corresponding on the whole to the similar phrase τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν in Acts 16:6. Why, then, did the author of the “Travel-Document” change his expression? He did so because the phrase in Acts 16:6 would be incorrect in Acts 18:23. The country denoted by the phrase in Acts 16:6 is that which was traversed by Paul after leaving Lystra: it is therefore the territory about Iconium and Antioch, and is rightly called Phrygo-Galatic, “the part of Phrygia that was attached to Galatia.” But the country which is meant in Acts 18:23 includes Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, and could not rightly be called “Phrygo-Galatic.” If the writer wished to carry out this complicated phraseology, he would have had to say “Lycaono-Galatic and Phrygo-Galatic.” He avoids the difficulty by using the simple phrase “the Galatic country.” The sense of ΦρυγǷ7αν still remains doubtful: it may denote either Phrygia Galatica, or Phrygia Magna (which Paul would traverse after leaving the Galatic territory), or both. It must be acknowledged that there is in this journey one difficulty from which the North-Galatian theory is free. St. Paul’s object was the west coast of Asia, and Ephesus was the point at which he arrived. The ordinary and frequented route for trade between Antioch and the west coast passed through Apameia and Colossæ and Laodiceia. But it would appear from the Epistle to the Colossians 2:1 that the Christians at Colossæ and at Laodiceia had not seen his face. On the other hand, his natural route, according to the North-Galatian theory, would not lead him through Colossæ and Laodiceia, but would pass more to the north through Philadelphia.

We may remark on this that, in the first place, the journey, so far as it traversed new country, was evidently rapid and unbroken; for there is no allusion to preaching in new places, but only to the confirming of old converts, until Ephesus was reached. It is therefore quite possible that St. Paul might have spent a night either at Colossæ or at Laodiceia, [Note: If he was going at even a moderate rate, he would not pass a night in each, for the distance between them is only about ten miles. We observe here, as always, that Paul hurries on to the great centres of civilization and education (in this case to Ephesus).] and yet that he might several years afterwards write to the Christians there as persons who had never seen his face. Moreover, though trade and vehicles regularly took the road through Apameia and Laodiceia, foot-passengers might quite possibly prefer the shorter hill road by the plain of Metropolis and the Tchyvritzi Kleisoura, in which, many centuries later, the last serious attempt of the Byzantine Emperors to break the rising power of the Seljuk Turks failed through the headstrong folly of the brave but rash Manuel Comnenus. This path would take them by way of Eumeneia and the Cayster valley, and would save a day’s journey. [Note: The inference fromColossians 2:1that St. Paul’s face had never been seen by the Christians at Colossæ and Laodiceia is by no means universally accepted. For example, Lewin, St. Paul, p. 196, understands from the verse that Paul had been at Colossæ, but not at Laodiceia. I cannot, however, doubt that the inference in the preceding paragraph is right.] The text of Codex Bezœ in this passage is remarkable. It reads in Acts 19:1, “And when Paul was minded according to his own plan to go to Jerusalem, the Spirit bade him turn back into Asia; and having passed through the upper country he came unto Ephesus.” The reviser understood that Paul, after having traversed the Phrygo-Galatic country and stablished all the disciples, began to return with the intention of proceeding to Jerusalem; but thereupon the Spirit ordered him to turn back and go into Asia. The reviser obviously considered, therefore that Paul, when he began to return towards Jerusalem, had not entered Asia; and, if so, he did not understand ΦρυγǷ7αν in the sense ordinarily given to it, for Phrygia, as distinguished from the Galatic territory, belongs to the province Asia, and both North and South-Galatian theories have to start from that fact. The readings described here and on pp. 87ff. are peculiarly valuable; for they give us a slight but yet sufficiently trustworthy indication of the date when the reviser did his work. Previous indications have shown that he worked later than the first century; now we shall see that he worked before the middle of the second century. The reviser, as we saw in the preceding chapter, had no thought that Paul traveled in North Galatia, and understood Γαλατικὴ χω + ́ρα in the sense which we have proved to be common and usual in the first and early second century. He therefore considered that this third journey also led through Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch; and that Paul, after visiting and stablishing all his converts, was returning to Jerusalem, when he was ordered to go into Asia. We have also seen that the reviser adapted the topography of the document to the facts of his own time. It is therefore clear that the cities visited by Paul were still considered by the reviser to be in the Galatic country when he worked over the text. Now great part of Lycaonia was separated from Galatia in the reign of Antoninus Pius, between 138 and 161 A.D.; [Note: See Hist. Geogr, pp. 253, 376. The probability is that the change took place in an early part of the reign ( Ib., p. 376, note), and A.D. 150 may fairly be taken as the latest date.] and we may feel confident that, if the reviser had worked after the change of system had become familiar and had produced a new nomenclature, he would have remodeled the text accordingly. The revision therefore took place before A.D. 161, and probably not later than A.D. 150. The reference to the bidding of the Spirit marks the addition at the beginning of xix. 1 as one of a class of insertions in this Codex, with which we are not directly concerned here. [Note: Rendel Harris, Study of Codex Bezœ, p. 221.] But this passage goes beyond its class in asserting that Paul actually intended to act differently, and that his intention to go to Jerusalem was checked by the Spirit. It seems hardly possible to reconcile this positive statement with the reverence for the text which the reviser certainly felt, except on the assumption that he was acquainted with an independent tradition on the point which he believed to be true, and considered himself justified by its truth in adding to the text.