GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

theory. The crucial passages are Ac 16^ 18^, which are appealed to on both sides. In 16' St. Paul comes from Syro-Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, no doubt by land„through the Cilician Gates [Derbe being mentioned first as being reached first, while in 14' Lystra was reached first and mentioned first], and then 'they went through (v.l. going through) the region of FhrygiaandGalatia.'Ut.'thePhrygian and Galatic region ' [so allj the beat MSS read these last words]. This 'region,' then (probably a technical term for the subdivision of a province), was a single district to which the epithets 'Phrygian' and 'Galatic' could both be apphed; that is, it was that district which was part of the old country of Phr^gia, and also part of the Roman province of Galatia. But no part of the old Galatia over- lapped Phrygia, and the only district satisfying the require-ments is the region around Fisidian Antioch and Iconium; therefore in 16'adetourtoN.Galatia is excluded. Moreover, no route from N. Galatia to Bithynia could bring the trav-ellers 'over against Mysia' (18'). They would have had to return almost to the spot from which they started on their hypothetic journey to N. Galatia. Attempts to_ trans-late this passage, even as read by the best MSS, as if it were ' Phrygia and the Galatic region,' as the AV text (following inferior MSS) has it, have been made by a citation of Lk 3', but this appeara to be a mistake; the word translated there 'Itursea' is really an adjective 'Ituraean,' and the mean-ing probably is 'the Itursean region which is also called Trachonitis.'

In the other passage, Ac 18^, the grammar and therefore the meaning are diiierent. St. Paul comes, probably, by the same land route as before, and to the same district; yet now Derbe and Lystra are not mentioned by name- St. Paul went in succession through ' the Galatic region * and through 'Phrygia' (or '[the] Phrygian [region]'). The grammar requires two different districts here. The first is the' Galatic region ' [of Lycaonia] — that part of old Lycaonia which was in the province Galatia, i.e. the region round Derbe and Lystra. The second is the ' Phrygian region ' [of Galatia], i.e. what was in 16' called the Phrygo-Galatic region, that around Antioch and Iconium. In using a different phrase St. Luke considers the travellers' point of view; for in the latter caae they leave Syrian Antioch, and enter, by way of non-Roman Lycaonia, into Galatic Lycaonia (' the Galatic region'), while in the former case they start from Lystra and enter the Phrygo-Galatic region near Iconium.

All this is clear on the S. Galatian theory. But on the other theory it is very hard to reconcile the Epistle with Acts. The S. Galatian theory also fits in very well with incidental notices in the Epistle, such as the fact that the Galatians evidently knew Barnabas well, and were aware that he was the champion of the Gentiles (2'' ' even Bar-nabas '); but Barnabas did not accompany Paul on the Second Missionary Journey, when, on the N. Galatian theory, the Galatians were first evangelized. Again, Gal 4" fits in very well with Ac 13" on the S. Galatian theory; for the very thing that one attacked with an illness in the low-lying lands of Pamphylia would do would be to go to the high uplands of Pisidian Antioch. This seems to have been an unexpected change of plan (one which perhaps caused Mark's defection). On the other hand, if a visit to Gralatia proper were part of the plan in Ac 16 to visit Bithynia, Gal 4^^ jg unintelligible.

3. St. Paul's autobiography.— In chs. 1. 2 the Apostle vindicates his authority by saying that he received it direct from God, and not through the older Apostles, with whom the Judaizers compared him unfavourably. For this purpose he tells of his conversion, of his relations with the Twelve, and of his visits to Jerusalem ; and shows that he did not receive his commission from men. Prof. Ramsay urges with much force that it was essential to Paul's argument that he should mention all visits paid by him to Jerusalem between his conversion and the time of his evangelizing the Galatians. In the Epistle we read of two visits (l'« 20, the former 3 years after his conversion (or after his return to Damascus), to visit Cephas, when of the Apostles he saw only James the Lord's brother besides, and the latter 14 years after his conversion (or after his first visit), when he went 'by revelation' with Barnabas and Titus and privately laid before the Twelve (this probably is the meaning of 'them' in 2^: James, Cephas, and John are mentioned) the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. We have, then, to ask. To which, if any, of the visits recorded in Acta do these correspond? Most scholars agree that Gal l>8=Ac 9^"-, and that the word 'Apostles' In the

GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

latter place means Peter and James only. But there is much diversity of opinion concerning Gal 2'. Light- foot and Sanday identify this visit with that of Ac 15^ (the Jerusalem Council), saying that at the inter-mediate visit of Ac 113" there were no Apostles in Jeru-salem, the storm of persecution having broken over the Church (only the 'elders' are mentioned), and the Apostles having retired; as, therefore, St. Paul's object was to give his relation to the Twelve, he does not mention this visit, during which he did not see them. Ramsay identifies the visit with that of Ac 11'°, since otherwise St. Paul would be suppressing a point which would tell in favour of his opponents, it being essential to his argument to mention all his visits (see above) ; more-over, the hypothesis of the flight of the Apostles and of ' every Christian of rank ' is scarcely creditable to them. They would hardly have left the Church to take care of itself, or have allowed the elders to bear the brunt of the storm; while the mention of elders only in ll'" would be due to the fact that they, not the Apostles, would administer the alms (cf. Ac 62).

Other arguments on either side may perhaps balance each other, and are not crucial. Thus Prof. Ramsay adduces the discrepancies between Gal 2^ and Ac 152; in the former case the visit was ' by revelation,* in the latter by appoint-ment of the brethren (these are not altogether incompatible facts); in the former case the discussion was private, in the latter public (this is accounted for by the supposition of a preliminary private conference, but that greatly damages St. Paul's argument). On the other hand. Dr. Sanday thinks that the stage of controversy in Gal 2 suits Ac 15 rather than Ac 11. This argument does not appear to the present writer to be of much value, for the question of the (5en tiles and the Mosaic Law had really arisen with the case of Comehus (Ac ll^^-). and from the nature of things_ must have been present whenever a Gentile became a Christian. The Council in Acl5 represents the climax when the matter came to public discussion and formal decision; we cannot suppose that the controversy sprang up suddenly with a mushroom growth. On the whole, in spite of the great weight of the names of Bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Sanday, the balance of the argument appears to lie on the side of Prof. Ramsay.

St. Peter at Antioch. — ^This incident in the autobiography (2"ff-) is placed by Lightfoot immediately after Ac 15"*. Ramsay thinks that it was not necessarily later in time than that which precedes, though on his view of the second visit it is in its proper chronological order. He puts it about the time of Ac 15^ The situation would then be as follows. At first many Jewish Christians began to associate with Gentile Christians. But when the logical position was put to them that God had opened another door to salvation outside the Law of Moses, and so had practically annulled the Law, they shrank from the consequences, Peter began to draw back (this is the force of the tenses in Gal 2^^), and even Barnabas was somewhat carried away. But Paul's arguments were convincing, and both Peter and Barnabas became champions of the Gentiles at the Council. It is difficult to understand Peter's action if it happened after the Council.

4. Date and place of writing. — Upholders of the N. Galatian theory, understanding Ac 16' 18^3 to repre-sent the two visits to the Galatians implied in Gal 4", usually fix on Ephesus as the place of writing, and suppose that the Epistle dates from the long stay there recorded in Ac IQ^f-, probably early in the stay (cf. Gal 1' 'ye are so quickly removing'); but Lightfoot postpones the date for some two years, and thinks that the Epistle was written from Macedonia (Ac 20'), rather earlier than Romans and after 2 Corinthians. He gives a comparison of these Epistles, showing the very close connexion between Romans and Galatians: the same use of OT, the same ideas and same arguments, founded on the same texts; in the doctrinal part of Galatians we can find a parallel for almost every thought and argument in Romans. It is generally agreed that the latter, a systematic treatise, is later than the former, a personal and fragmentary Epistle. The likeness Is much less marked between Galatians and 1 and 2 Corin-thians; but In 2 Corinthians the Apostle vindicates his authority much as in Galatians. The opposition to him

278