08-CHAPTER 8. THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY FOR ST. PAUL'S JOURNEYS: VALUE AND TEXT.

CHAPTER 8. THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY FOR ST. PAUL’S JOURNEYS:
VALUE AND TEXT.

1. RAPID SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA MINOR. IN view of the extraordinarily powerful effect which is described in Acts as produced in the country by the preaching of Paul, the question may fairly be put whether any evidence is known which tends either to corroborate or to throw doubt on the account there given. It is very difficult to find any evidence outside of the Christian documents, but anything that is known points to the conclusion that the new religion must have made very rapid progress in Asia Minor during the first century. The testimony of Pliny is, that before 112 Christianity had spread so widely in his province that the pagan ritual was actually interrupted and the temples almost deserted (see p. 198). Various other considerations [Note: E.g., the Montanist quarrel could hardly arise in a small sect.] point to a similar result as having taken place in Phrygia at a very early time. It is probable, therefore, that the new religion spread with marvellous rapidity from the beginning of St. Paul’s preaching in Western Asia Minor. Unless that were so, it is hard to see how the social condition of Asia Minor during the second century could have been produced. On the other hand, no evidence of the early spread of Christianity in the great plains of the Axylon and in North Galatia is known to me; and in regard to part of this region, I have concluded from epigraphic evidence that paganism continued dominant till the third or fourth century. [Note: See a paper on "Phrygian Inscriptions of the Roman period" in Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 1887, pp.383, 398.] With regard to the west coast of Asia, among the great Greek cities like Ephesus and Smyrna, the condition of things was midway between these two extremes. It appears probable that the Christians were both numerous and influential there during the second century; but they do not seem to have had the same dominating influence that we must attribute to them in Phrygia. Can any reason be found for these apparent variations? Where the Greek spirit and education were completely dominant, the new religion spread with considerable rapidity, but a large part of the population was proof against its influence. Where the Greek education was unknown, the new religion seems to have made no progress at all. The regions where it spread most rapidly were those where the people were becoming aware of the beauty of Greek letters and the grandeur of Roman government, where they were awaking from the stagnation and inertness of an Oriental people, and their minds were stirred and receptive of all new ideas, whether Greek philosophy or Jewish or Christian religion. We have seen that St. Paul came into South Galatia just at the time when the Roman spirit was beginning to permeate the country, and that the four places where he is recorded to have founded churches were the four centres of Roman influence.

We cannot fail to be struck with the strong hold that Roman ideas had on the mind of St. Paul. In theory he recognizes the universality of the Church (Colossians 3:2); but in practice he goes where the Roman Empire goes. We therefore feel compelled to suppose that St. Paul had conceived the great idea of Christianity as the religion of the Roman world; and that he thought of the various districts and countries in which he had preached as parts of the grand unity. He had the mind of an organizer; and to him the Christians of his earliest travels were not men of Iconium and of Antioch--they were a part of the Roman world, and were addressed by him as such.

2. DISTINCTION OF AUTHORSHIP.

Throughout these chapters a distinction has been drawn between the author of Acts and the writer of the original document describing the journeys of St. Paul, which we assume to have been worked into the book as it has come down to us. This distinction seems to be proved, both by other reasons which do not come within our present purpose, and by the variation in Acts in the use of names denoting the districts of Asia Minor. The original document employs these names in the Roman sense, while in the earlier part of Acts the names are used in the popular Greek sense which was common in the century before and after Christ. There was at that time great uncertainty in the usage of the names denoting the great territorial districts of Asia Minor. Not merely were the boundaries of several of these districts very uncertain (so that, for example, the difficulty of drawing a dividing line between Mysia and Phrygia was proverbial) ; but also several of them had, according to the Roman provincial system, an extent different from that which they had according to older history, ethnical facts, and popular usage. The only source of diversity which concerns us here is the latter. There is no distinction of practical consequence in the extent of Lycia, Pamphylia, Bithynia; Pontus and Cilicia also do not afford any criterion. Galatia and Asia are the two provinces in regard to which very serious difference of usage existed. [Note: In Greece a similar difference existed in regard to the names Achaia and Macedonia; which to the Romans meant two large provinces, and to the Greeks two much smaller districts.] The use of these names in the Travel-Document has appeared very clearly in the preceding discussion. It appears to agree with the practice of St. Paul’s Epistles. It is not possible to demonstrate that in the Epistles every name is used in the Roman sense, where the Roman and the popular sense differ ; but in some cases there is no room for doubt, and the invariable presumption that the Roman sense is intended, is fully admitted even by Wendt, though he is an advocate of the North-Galatian theory. [Note: So in the latest edition of "Meyer s Commentary," 1888. In the previous edition, Wendt held that the Epistle to the Galatians was written to the churches of Antioch, etc. But even in the latest edition he still admits that Paul used the provincial names according to the Roman sense. He admits this even in the case of Galatia as it is used in1 Corinthians 16:1(see Comm. onActs 13:9) ; and why he should deny that in the Epistle to the Galatians, Galatia is used in the same sense as in 1 Corinthians, it is difficult to see.] In Acts 2:9 the enumeration, "Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia," is distinctly popular and Greek in style. According to the Roman fashion Phrygia was included in Asia, except a small part which belonged to Galatia. In making such an enumeration a Roman would not have omitted Galatia, nor would he have mentioned Phrygia, for to a Roman Phrygia had no political existence. Mysia and Phrygia and Lydia were in the Roman sense merely geo graphical terms denoting parts of the province of Asia, which he might sometimes feel himself obliged to use (as, e.g., in Acts 14:9), in order to specify more distinctly some exact position within the province, but which he would not employ in an enumeration of countries and provinces like Acts 2:9ff.

Asia is a term about which it is very difficult to decide. The Roman province Asia had been formed in 133 B.C. and the name seems to have soon come into popular use, because there was no other term to denote the Aegean coast lands. But during the first century before Christ, the province was greatly increased in size, and it is very difficult to determine after this time whether the name Asia is used in the popular sense of the Aegean coast lands, or denotes the entire Roman province ; in short, whether it includes Phrygia or not. In Acts 2:9 Asia is pointedly used in the popular sense, excluding Phrygia. In Acts 6:9 the use of the term Asia is quite consistent with either the Roman or the popular sense. The Jews in question are probably those educated in the rhetorical schools of Smyrna and Pergamos; the Phrygian Jews would be less likely to have received a philosophical education and to engage in subtle discussions, but they were numerous, and may be included.

There are only these two verses from which any inference can be drawn as to the usage in Acts 1-11; but even one clear example is a sufficient proof that some parts of these chapters use a geographical nomenclature different from that which is employed in the Travel-Document and in the Epistles. On one point of great interest this theory perhaps throws some light viz., on the abrupt ending of Acts in the middle of St. Paul s imprisonment. Probably the original Travel-Document was composed in the sphere of his influence during that imprisonment? If that be so, the author of Acts stopped where his chief authority stopped: perhaps he intended to complete the tale in another work, using different authorities.

3. TEXT OF CODEX BEZAE ASIA MINOR. In addition to the points which have already been noticed, it will be convenient to examine some other passages bearing on the antiquities of Asia Minor, in which Codex Bezoe differs from the received text of Acts, and thereafter to examine some of the variations in the narrative of St. Paul’s adventures in Greece. The radical change of text in Acts 16:9-10, is very remarkable. The scene is described with a vividness and completeness of detail that almost incline us to think that Codex Bezoe gives here the original text. But perhaps the reading of this Codex may be best explained as an alteration founded on a tradition still surviving in the churches of Asia, "And [in] a vision by night there appeared to Paul [as it were] a man of Macedonia, [Note: The changes in Codex Bezoe are marked by square brackets. ] standing [before his face], beseeching him and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. [Awaking, therefore, he related the vision to us, and we perceived that] the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them in Macedonia: and [on the morrow] setting sail," etc. In Acts 18:24 Codex Bezoe has ’Aπολλώνιος for the common Aπολλώς. The latter is the familiar diminutive or pet-name of the former. The same person may be spoken of by both names, as in an English book the same person might be spoken of sometimes as Henry, sometimes as Harry. A similar example occurs in the case of Prisca, as she is called by Paul in Romans 16:3, but who is generally known by the diminutive Priscilla. [Note: Many examples of two forms applied to one person are collected by O. Crusius in Jahrbilcher fur Philologie, 1891, p. 385 if. Such Kosenamen imply familiarity, sometimes even vulgarity: my friend JVIr. Neil thinks that those in as are contemptuous.] Apparently the reviser was offended by the use of the familiar Apollos in a passage of serious and lofty tone, just as in a highly wrought passage of Burke one would be offended by a reference to Will Shakespeare. Accordingly he substituted the full name Apollonius. In Acts 19:9 the addition ἀ㰎+03BF̀ὤραςἐἔως δεκάτης can hardly be explained except as a deliberate impertinence (which is improbable), or as founded on an actual tradition, which was believed by the reviser to have survived in Ephesus from the time of St. Paul’s residence there. It is quite probable that this tradition is true. The school would be open for Paul s use after the scholars were dismissed. Now schools opened at daybreak, both in Greece and in Rome. Martial was wakened before sunrise by the noise of a school (ix. 68, xii. 57), and Juvenal describes, in his exaggerated style, the teacher at work from midnight onwards, and the scholars, with their lamps, standing round him (vii. 222-6, see Mayor’s notes). It is, therefore, not strange that school should be over one hour before midday. In Acts 19:14 Codex Bezoe reads νκνὶ τινύς ι + ̔ερέως, in place of the accepted text Σκευα + ̑ ’ουδαίου ἀρχιεέως ὲπτὰ υι + ̔οα. ́The reviser thought it impossible that Sceva should have been high-priest, [Note: The word may mean ’belonging to a high-priestly family.’] and Acts 19:16 seem to imply that there were only two sons. Codex Bezoe here gives a text which is intelligent, consistent, and possible: the accepted text is badly expressed, and even self-contradictory. The context makes it clear that Sceva was a Jew even though his nationality is not explicitly stated in Codex Bezoe. In Acts 19:28 Codex Bezoe adds a detail, which may probably be taken as true to fact. Demetrius had gathered the craftsmen together and inflamed them by a skilful speech. According to the received text, "They shouted out saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians; and the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed with one accord into the theatre." The reviser considered that the first meeting was held in some house or building, whether private or public, and that therefore before they rushed into the theatre they must have gone forth into the street. Accordingly he says, “When they heard [this] they were filled with wrath, [and ran into the street,] and kept crying out, saying, Great Diana of the Ephesians; and the whole city was thrown into confusion [Note: συνεχύθη ὅλη ἡ πόλις αἰσχύνης.] ; and they rushed, etc." The addition increases the individuality and the local colour; and possibly an actual tradition, surviving in Ephesus, fixed the house or public stoa where the preliminary meeting was held, and the street along which the artisans ran invoking the goddess. The use of ναοκόρον (Codex Bezae) for νεωκόρον in Acts 19:35 is remarkable: nothing otherwise is known to suggest that this form was used in Ephesus. Coins and inscriptions have ναοκόρος invariably. May we therefore conclude that the reviser did not belong to Ephesus, but to a district where the strange form ναοκόρος was actually in use? In Acts 20:4 Codex Bezoe reads Ἐφέσιοι for ’Aσιαοί. In the case of Trophimus, we know from Acts 21:29 that the change is accurate, and we need have no hesitation in admitting that a local tradition made Tychicus also a native of Ephesus; for the references in 2 Timothy 4:12, Titus 3:12, Colossians 4:7, Ephesians 6:21, are favourable to this view. The desire to give due honour to Ephesus in this case would favour the idea that the reviser belonged to, or was closely connected with, that city. But proofs abound of his intimate acquaintance with the topography and circumstances of the South-Galatian churches; and we are bound to conclude that close relations and constant inter communication were maintained between the church of Ephesus and the churches that lay along the road towards South Galatia and Syria. Hence it docs not appear safe to infer more than that the reviser was intimately acquainted with that whole group of churches, and jealous of their honour. [Note: Contrast with his desire to give due honour to Ephesus his desire to state clearly the fault of Bercea. (See p. 160.)]

Codex Bezoe differs widely from other MSS. in the difficult passage, Acts 20:4-6. There can be no doubt (1) that its text is clear, consecutive, self-consistent ; (2) that it gives the proper and necessary sequence of events which the text of the other MSS. is intended to describe ; (3) that none of the other MSS. give a clear and well-expressed version of the facts. The conclusion then is either that Codex Bezoe gives the original text, or that it represents a revision made with great skill and success. In Acts 20:15, and Acts 21:1, two interesting little additions are made in the text of Codex Bezae. In the former passage Paul is said to have stopped in Trogylia on his voyage between Samos and Miletus. In the latter he is said to have touched at Myra after leaving Patara on his last voyage to Jerusalem. The first of these details is in itself highly probable, for the promontory of Trogyllion or Trogylia projects far out between Samos and Miletus, and the little coasting vessel would naturally touch there, perhaps becalmed, or for some other reason. [Note: It might appear probable that this reading was in the text used by St. Willibald, who sailed along the same coast on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem about A. D. 754. He visited Ephesus, and walked thence to Pygela; from Pygela he sailed to Strobolis, and thereafter to Patara. The name Strobolis has puzzled the editors (see the edition of the Hodaæporicon, § 11, in the "Palestine Pilgrims Series"), who suggest Hierapolis of Phrygia. Strobolis is for (εἰ)σ Τρώγυλιν --a form in accordance with a common analogy ; and some cursive MSS. of Acts read Στρογυλίω + ̨ or Στρογγυλίω +. Willibald, however, would use a Latin Bible, and this word seems not to have penetrated into the Latin versions. Even if we do not suppose that Willibald’s selection of Strobolis and Patara was due to recollection of the narrative inActs, his voyage is at least an apt illustration of St. Paul’s voyage, as showing that these points are natural halting-points for a small coasting vessel. ] The second detail is also natural and probable in a coasting voyage, and geographically accurate. Moreover, the addition of Myra seems to have been made before the extant edition of the Acta of Paul and Thekla was composed, and a general consent exists that that edition was in its main outlines composed about A.D. 170 to 190, though personally [Note: I hope to discuss this interesting work fully elsewhere (v. c. xvi.).] the present writer is inclined to date soon after 130 the enlargement and revision of a much older text of the Acta.

4. TEXT OF CODEX BEZAE: EUROPE. To appreciate the force of these results, let us compare a few of the discrepancies between Codex Bezoe and the received text in the narrative of St. Paul’s travels in Europe. In Acts 16:12, according to the received text, Philippi is the "first (i.e. leading) city of its division of Macedonia, a colonia”; but in Codex Bezae it is “the head of Macedonia, a city, a colonia." [Note: ἤτις ἐστὶν κεφαλὴτη + ̑ς Μακεδονίας πόις κολωνία.] The latter description is not expressed in the proper terms, does not cohere well together, and is actually incorrect. The term "first" was commonly assumed by towns which were, or claimed to be, chief of a district or a province; and Philippi either boasted, or was believed by the reviser to boast, of this distinction; but he is wrong in assigning to it the pre-eminence over the whole of Macedonia. Philippi was merely first in one of the districts into which Roman Macedonia was divided, but not in the whole province. While the received text is right, Codex Bezae shows an alteration made without knowledge of the country and its circumstances, and without proper comprehension of the text. The reviser, unfamiliar with the constitution of the province, understood Μακεδονίας as genitive in apposition with μερίδος, whereas it is really partitive genitive depending on it; and he was therefore dissatisfied with the term μερίδος as applied to a province. He might have substituted province (ἐπαρχίας) for district (μερίδος), but he attained the same end by simply omitting the latter word, for "Macedonia" and "the province Macedonia" are synonymous. For "first" he substituted the term "head," which is less technically accurate. [Note: In this and various other cases Codex Bezoe agrees with some Syrian texts. I refrain from noticing these agreements, as leading too far into textual criticism. The constant intercourse maintained along the line Antioch-Iconium-Ephesus would naturally result in a close relation between Asia Minor and Syrian texts.] Now the term “first" was familiar to him in the usage of Asia Minor. [Note: It is not known to have been used in Macedonia or Achaia, whereas it is frequent in Asia and Cilicia. Smyrna, and Ephesus, and Pergamos vied in claiming the title "first city of Asia, Nicomedeia and Nicaea that of first of Bithynia, Tarsus and Anazarbos that of first of Cilicia, or first of the three provinces Cilicia, Isauria, Lycaonia. Tralles claimed the title “first of the Greeks" on a coin published by M. Babelon in Revue Numistn., 1892, p. 124.] The reason lay in the ambiguity of the phrase, which is still a noted difficulty and a cause of disagreement among scholars. In order to prevent readers from taking the phrase in the sense of “the city nearest in its district and which they first reached," the reviser altered the expression and substituted an unmistakable term for a doubtful one. In all probability, the person who made this change was aware that the interpretation of which he disapproved was advocated by some, and desired to eliminate the possibility of mistake. Whether he was right in his view is even at the present day a matter of controversy; but his attitude towards the passage is clear, and his change is instructive as regards the principles on which he treated the text of Acts. The erroneousness of the reading in Codex Bezae would be still clearer if we accept Lightfoot’s view, and understand the received text as "the first [i.e., first at which they arrived] in the district, a city of Macedonia, a colony." If this was the meaning intended by the writer, then the reviser completely misinterpreted the topographical term, taking it in the sense that was common in Asia Minor and therefore familiar to him. [Note: I do not like Lightfoot’s interpretation: I share the reviser’s objection μερίς in the sense of province. It is most naturalthat there should be subdivisions of the large province Macedonia, and this passage may be taken as a proof that there were. Even if the original division into four was obsolete (which I cannot agree with Lightfoot in thinking that Leake has proved, Northern Greece, III., p. 487), another division was very likely to come into use. Still less acceptable is Dr. Hort’s remedy. He maintains that μερίς was not used in the sense of "division of a province," and proposes to alter the text to πρώτη τη + ̑ς Πιερίδος. But μερίς is, in Egypt at least, a technical term in the sense of "subdivision of a large district, or nome, or province." For example, the title of one of the two Strategoi of the Arsinoitic Nome was στρατηγὸς τη + ̑ς Ἠρακλείδου μερίδος (see Wilcken as quoted in Berlin Sitzungsberichte, 1892, p. 815). I would accept the phrase of the Travel- Document as an addition to our knowledge of Macedonia, and infer that (1) in the first century the province was sub-divided into μερίδος: (2) Philippi was the capital of a μερίς: (3) the phrase in Acts shows local knowledge: (4) the thought is Pauline, for Paul here and always presses on to the chief centre ofcivilization, and the writer emphasizes this principle.]

Another case in which the reviser has misunderstood the text before him occurs in the Corinthian narrative, Acts 18:7. Paul had “reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath," but when the Jews opposed him, "he departed thence, and went into the house of a certain man named Titus Justus," etc. The meaning is that Paul left the synagogue, and held his meetings for the future at Justus house. But the reviser thought that a change of Paul’s residence was described, and that he ceased to live with Aquila (Acts 18:3), and migrated to the house of Justus. Accordingly, to make the meaning quite clear, he remodeled the words, and wrote, “departing from Aquila’s, he went into the house of a certain man named Justus."[μεταβάςἀπὸτου +̑’Aκύλα, εἰση +̑λθεν, κ.τ.λ.] In the European narrative, also, we find several places in which the received text contains short passages wanting in Codex Bezae: in Acts 17:34 a "woman named Damaris " is not in the Codex [Note: μεταβάς ἀπὸτου + ̑ ’Aκύλα, εἰση + ̑λθεν, κ.τ.λ.] in Acts 18:3 it omits "for by their trade they were tent-makers " (may we presume that this fact had perished from the Asian tradition? Paul worked with his hands in Ephesus, but the trade is not stated, Acts 20:34); and in Acts 17:18 it omits "because he preached Jesus and the resurrection." The last omission is contrary to the usual practice in this Codex, which generally lengthens and emphasizes the allusions to teaching. [Note: On this point see below, viii., § 5.] There is certainly nothing in the teaching described which would be thought unsuitable in the Asian churches; in fact, an Asian document, which is commonly attributed to the second century the Acta of Paul and Thekla (see pp. 155-6) insists on this character in St. Paul’s teaching. Where anything is added in the European part of the narrative to the text of Codex Beza: it is either easily gathered from the context (as in Acts 18:2, Acts 16:35-Acts 16:39-40), or it further emphasizes the character of Paul’s preaching (Acts 18:4), or the intervention of supernatural guidance in his course (Acts 17:15). In a few cases the insertion is of more complicated type: e.g., in Acts 16:15 Codex Bezoe adds, "And he passed by Thessalia, for he was prevented from preaching the word unto them." The reviser is struck with the fact that Paul omits Thessaly; he recollects that on his second journey Paul passed by Phrygia and Mysia without preaching there, and he applies the same explanation to this case. He did not observe that in this case Paul probably sailed direct from the coast of Macedonia to Athens. In none of these additions to the language is anything really added to the general sense of the passage, with the single exception of Acts 16:30, where the added sense is of very dubious value. The jailer at Philippi, " trembling for fear, fell down at the feet of Paul and Silas, and brought them out [after having secured the other prisoners], and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? The clause in brackets, which is added in Codex Bezoe, has an almost comic effect. The jailer carefully looked to his immediate interests before he attended to his future salvation.

It is perhaps a trait not without significance that Codex Bezoe is decidedly less favourable to the Bereans than the received text: it says (Acts 17:12), “Some of them therefore believed, and some disbelieved." Considering the mutual jealousy between Greeks of different districts which has characterized their history alike in ancient times and at the present day, we may here perhaps see that a native of Asia seizes the opportunity of emphasising the fact that some disbelieved, whereas the received text merely says that “many of them believed." In the latter part of the same verse Codex Bezoe loses a distinctly individual trait, characteristic of Macedonia, viz., the prominent part played by the women. It reads, “And of the Greeks and of those of honorable estate, men and women in considerable numbers believed," instead of " Also of the Greek women of honour able estate, and of men, not a few."

5. CODEX BEZAE FOUNDED ON A CATHOLIC RECENSION. The omission of Damaris in Codex Bezae (Acts 17:34) is specially remarkable. There seems no doubt that this omission is deliberate and intentional. The word ευ + ̓σχμων, which occurs here in Codex Bezae (Διονύσιός [τις] Αρεοπαγίτησ [ευ + ̓σχῷ5μων], καὶ ἔτεροι), seems to be appropriated to women in Acts (compare Acts 17:12, Acts 13:50); and its use is the last remaining trace of the vanished Damaris. The process of change seems to have been that the word ευ + ̓σχμων was added as a gloss to her name under the influence of Acts 13:50, Acts 17:12; and then her name was cut out, and the gloss remained in a wrong place in the text. In the first place the question occurs, why Damaris was cut out. The omission may be compared with the change in the second part of Acts 17:12. The reason for both changes is the same: they are due to dislike to the prominence assigned to women in the accepted text.

Now the prominence of women is, as we have seen, a characteristic of the social system of Asia Minor. This feature in Codex Bezae might therefore seem to be out of keeping with our theory that it is founded on a revision made in that country. But the prominence assigned to women was, firstly, pagan rather than Christian, and secondly, heretical rather than Catholic. It was characteristic of the less advanced and less civilized parts of the country: it lingered longest in villages and small towns in remote and mountainous districts; it was extirpated or reduced to a mere honorary position at an early period in the more advanced cities, under the influence of the Graeco-Roman civilization. Now it was precisely in the educated parts of the country that Christianity first spread. Thus in the second century the situation was produced that the more advanced districts were Christian, while the uncivilized districts retained their paganism and their old mutterrecht, even reckoning descent through the mother.

Further, it is pointed out in chaps, 20 and 21 that various developments of religious feeling, which arose in Asia Minor, were penetrated by the native tone and spirit of the country, and, in particular, were characterized by prominent position and influence of women. In opposition to these provincial types, the Universal and Catholic type of Christianity became confirmed in its dislike of the prominence and the public ministration of women. The dislike became abhorrence, and there is every probability that the dislike is as old as the first century, and was intensified to abhorrence before the middle of the second century.

Under the influence of this feeling the changes in Acts 17:12 and Acts 17:34 arose in Catholic circles in Asia Minor.

6. RELATION OF CODEX BEZAL TO ASIA MINOR. The explanation just given of the change in Acts 17:34 implies that some at least of the alterations in Codex Bezoe arose through a gradual process, and not through the action of an individual reviser. Possibly all the changes which have been discussed in the preceding pages may have arisen in this way. But some of them are perhaps more naturally explained as the work of a single individual, whom I shall speak of as the reviser. The freedom with which the reviser treated the text proves that he was a person of some position and authority. The care that he took to suit the text to the facts of the day proves that he desired to make it intelligible to the public. The knowledge that he shows of the topography and the facts of Asia and of South Galatia proves that he was intimately acquainted with the churches from Ephesus on the west, to Iconium and Lystra on the east; and the felicity with which he treats the text, in all that relates to Asia, seems to be due to his perfect familiarity with the country, for it deserts him when he tries to apply the same treatment to the European narrative. He shows a certain desire to give Ephesus all due glory, and to deny to Bercea any glory that she is not fully entitled to, which proves his Asian bias. He seems to have known certain traditions still surviving in the churches of Asia and South Galatia, whereas none of his changes imply knowledge of any tradition relating to Achaia or Macedonia.

He belonged to the second century, for he alters first century forms and facts to suit those of later time (Acts 13:14, Acts 14:19). But his knowledge was gained before Lycaonia was disjoined from Galatia between 138 and 161 A.D. As he altered the text freely in order to make it clear to contemporary readers, he would certainly have altered the phrase " the Galatic country," if he had lived so long after the change introduced into the constitution of Galatia and Lycaonia as to have realized the effect upon the nomenclature. It is conceivable that, if he was living in Asia, he might not for some years realize that what he had once been familiar with as the Galatian district could no longer be called so, and that the old phrase was rapidly becoming unintelligible. But even if we allow for this possibility, the revision can hardly be dated later than A.D. 150-160. The reviser treated his text with great freedom. He therefore cannot have had any superstitious reverence for the mere letter. His aim was to make it clear and complete; and for the latter purpose he added some touches where surviving tradition seemed to contain trustworthy additional particulars. Apart from a few cases in which he perhaps had before him a better text than any other MS. has preserved, the value of the reviser’s work lies in his presentation of the interpretation put upon Acts in the schools and churches of Asia Minor during the first half of the second century. The book existed then as a whole, and was studied as a work of antiquity, which needed interpretation and modernization in order to make it readily intelligible. The process of modernizing was performed with skill; it was applied to many passages in which the received text presented real difficulty, and to a few where the received text still defies interpretation. In several cases, chiefly relating to Asia Minor, it produced a text which is really smoother and clearer in expression without actual change of sense; but in some cases, relating to a foreign country, it was guided by ignorance, and misrepresented and constructed a radically false text.

We can imagine what would have been the result if this process of modernization had been applied systematically for centuries. The introduction of surviving tradition about matters of fact (as, for example, the hours when St. Paul taught in Ephesus) is not so dangerous, and is sometimes interesting. But the reviser considered himself equally justified in making additions warranted by the doctrinal tradition current in the Asian churches, and shows a distinct tendency to exaggerate the Divine guidance given to Paul, and to specify more precisely than was done in the text the character of his teaching. We cannot doubt that, in all his changes, the reviser was guided by the general consensus of opinion in the churches of Asia, and not by his mere individual opinion. But the results, even of this first revision, are, as a whole, very serious, and, if the process had been performed a second time a century later, would certainly have been ruinous to the character of the text. In another place I shall try to show what was the effect of such a continued process of revision in the case of a work which was (as I believe) composed in the first century, and revised after the middle of the second century, which was extraordinarily popular in Asia Minor, but which was never protected by the reverence that attached in ever growing degree to the books recognized in course of time as canonical and venerated from the beginning.

If the text of Acts was treated so freely in Asia, the question arises how far a similar freedom of treatment was applied to it in other countries. There is no reason to think that the Asian churches would stand alone in thus treating the text; but there is reason to think that they would be bolder than other churches. During the century following A.D. 70 they had a certain pre-eminence in authority (see p. 171); and they were no doubt conscious of their dignity and weight, and apparently handled the sacred texts more rashly.

POSTSCRIPT: SPITEA’S APOSTELGESCHICHTE.

After the preceding chapters were printed, I became acquainted with Spitta’s work, die Apostelgeschichte: ihre Quellen mid deren geschichtlicher Wert (Halle), 1891. His method seems to me excellent; but, even if I had known the book sooner, I should have adhered to the plan of founding all arguments on the received text. Spitta distinguishes in Acts three hands viz., a Redactor, R, of two documents, A and B. A is of very early date, and of the highest historical value. B is not quite so early, and of lower value historically. R, who wrote during the first century, worked them into a single document, making A his foundation, and incorporating in it great part of B: he prefixed the introductory verses 1. 1-3, and wrote junctions between the parts of B and A. The distinction in the usage of geographical names, which I have pointed out, Chap. VIII., 2, corresponds to Spitta’s distinction of documents A and B. Uses names in the Roman sense, B in the popular or Greek sense. The second part of Acts 19:10 must be assigned to the editor, who fused A and B (he is called R by Spitta): the name Asia is used there in the Roman sense. In Acts 19:26-27, Asia is used in the popular or Greek sense; but as it is there spoken by the artisan Demetrius, we cannot quote this as a proof of the character of B. [Note: Hence I did not mention it in Chan, VIII.. 2] It is remarkable how rarely the names of districts in Asia Minor occur in B. The usage of the participle, which is alluded to above, p. 52, seems to belong to R: Spitta’s division makes this necessary in some cases, and easy in all.

Spitta’s solution of the problem connected with the account, given in Galatians, of St. Paul’s visits to Jerusalem is so simple that it carries one away and compels assent, at least for the moment. If it be true, then it follows that the Epistle, which mentions only two visits to Jerusalem, must have been written before that third visit which Paul made at the conclusion of his second journey. This agrees with the date which we have, on independent grounds, assigned to the Epistle (see p. 100): Paul must have sent the letter to the Galatian churches either from Corinth or from Ephesus, where, during his brief visit, he may have heard news from Antioch and Iconium. Wendt’s argument (see p. 106) shrivels away if Spitta’s solution is correct.

Almost every case in which, according to our arguments, Codex Bezae presents a reading superior in individuality and accuracy to the accepted text belongs to B. This is remarkable, and confirms Spitta’s view that B is inferior in value to A: it would favour the view that a text, in which the accuracy of some details relating to Asia Minor had been lost, was deliberately improved in all these cases. But as I have already pointed out, every instance in which we have to attribute to a reviser of the second century such marked improvements in point of individuality and local colour as those in Acts 14:13, Acts 19:28, constitutes a strong proof of my theory that the reviser whose work has been used in the text of Codex Bezoe was intimately acquainted with Asia Minor. [Note: J was very glad to learn from a most generous and kind reviewer in the Guardian, May 1893, p. 796, that my theory was unconsciously a repetition of the view already suggested by Bishop Lightfoot in the new edition of the Dictionary of the Bible.] Many improvements [Note: Some details would have to be cut out entirely, e.g. the argument advanced as the lesser evil on pp. 107 - 8, and the note p. 74.] in the preceding chapters will become possible if Spitta’s theory be accepted; but on the whole it is agreement in the main issues, rather than difference, that strikes me on a first hasty glance into a few of the chapters. In regard to date, Spitta places B after A.D. 70 and R before A.D. 100; while he has apparently no objection to putting an almost as early as I have placed the "original authority for St. Paul’s journeys" (see p. 151). The passage in A, which I have found deficient in clearness, occurs at a junction with B; and the obscurity is probably due to some mutilation of the text (cp. p. 53, and Spitta, p. 171).

Granting Spitta’s general theory, I would take A as written down under Paul’s immediate influence during his imprisonment, A.D. 62-64; whereas B is a narrative that has passed through more than one intermediary. But much of B must ultimately depend on an eyewitness, though the details have sometimes suffered a loss of vividness. The argument of Chap. VII. acquires new meaning, if Spitta be right, and I am glad that it was completed before I saw his work.

I now feel even more confident than before, that Acts 13-21 is an authority of the highest character for the historian of Asia Minor. Formerly I looked on it with much suspicion, and refrained entirely, in my Historical Geography, from founding an argument on it. Now I have learned that those points which roused suspicion were perfectly true to the first century, but were misjudged by me, because I contemplated them under the influence of prepossessions derived from the facts of the second century.