6I What were the Churches of Balatia ? BY SIR WILLIAM M. RAMSAY, LL.D., D.D., D.C.L., EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN. II. 1. THE ALTERNATIVE.- The general question has Yet, while 8tEXOc-ty never implies the foundation it seems - in the lapse of years narrowed itself down to of churches, regularly to imply preaching this : Were the churches of Galatia, to which Paul and teaching in the country whose name is added wrote and which he mentioned as an example and to the accusative ; and the context sometimes model to the Corinthians (i Co 16l), the four specifies what took place. So, for example, in churches in South Galatia which were converted I53 the progress through Phoenice and Samaria was a matter of some and organized on his first journey (Ac 13 and 14), consequence, and its nature or certain other churches in the territory of the is described ; but the foundation of new churches three Gaulish tribes who dwelt around Ancyra, is excluded. Paul visited and taught the disciples Pessinus, and Tavium? If the latter view is who were already there ; but he did not form new correct, then either the formation of those churches churches. Similarly in 823. is not mentioned in the Acts, or it is briefly alluded The fact is that the foundation of a new to in Ac r6~~, ‘ he traversed the Phrygian and church was a matter which needed time, teach- Galatic region,’ though the formation of churches ing and training of officials, proper organiza- is there not described. The discussions from tion, etc. We are not justified by anything re- many sides of this general question show indis- corded in Acts in beiieving that the formation of putably that there is no other alternative. a church was the result of a whirlwind mission Zahn argues that these words do not imply, but and nothing else. The evangelization of Antioch actually exclude the supposition, that the forma- was truly a whirlwind mission : Paul came, spoke, tion and organization of new churches took place and had the city at his feet. I failed in earlier on this part of the journey. It is difficult to find books to appreciate this fully; but the evidence fault with his reasoning. In order to estimate of Galatians and Acts is coincident and conclusive fairly the meaning of 166a take a parallel case. ( The Cities of St. 7~/, p. 31 off.). The effectt The same Greek expression occurs in 14 24, 8~B~o~ produced on the city was attained in a few days TYIV IIto-f.8~. I have always been accustomed and two Sabbaths. That, however, did not make to infer that any preaching in this final stage of the church. Zahn seems to distinguish rightly the first journey was quite ineH’ective : there was the conversion of disciples from the formation of no ‘ open door.’ So far as I am aware, every a church. The church at Antioch was the result scholar and commentator agrees. The contrast of a much longer residence, during which the between the full description of the four new new disciples were taught and disciplined ; and churches and the brief allusion to the progress even then the sudden attack which was made on through Pisidia does away with all doubt. If a Paul and Barnabas expelled them before they had theory were proposed that Paul at this time properly organized the disciples, and they had to founded a group of churches in Pisidia, and con- return later (14 22f. ) and complete the constitution tinued afterwards to take a warm interest in them, of the church (as described there, v.2’ disciples,’ and addressed to them the so-called letter to the V.23 church’). Ephesians (whose destination remains an enigma), We find, therefore, that in Ac x6 6a Luke can the suggestion would be regarded as ridiculous ; hardly have attached any importance to churches and at the very least it would be obvious that the formed in this way and at this time ; for he does author of the Acts either esteemed the Pisidian not employ the term ’ ‘ traversed’ (BceJ~9Eiv with churches as of no account or was ignorant of their accusative of the region) to describe the founda- existence ; and therefore the same applies to tion of new churches, such as those which Paul churches whose foundation has been supposed speaks about and to which he wrote. It is, of to fall under r 6~. course, quite possible, by the supposition that the Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Bibliothekssystem der Universitaet Giessen on June 24, 2015 62 author of the Acts wrote inaccurately, carelessly, but by Strabo probably as in Caria. The ex- be or ignorantly, to make his language in 166 COM- pression Phrygian Antioch,’ therefore, would patible with a prolonged and successful missionary obscure, because it might readily be understood tour, but this can be done only at the sacrifice of as Antioch on the Maeander, close to the entrance the author’s claim to be regarded as a good and from the west into the land of Phrygia.2 trustworthy narrator, whose language can be The testimony of the best authorities, Luke and pressed to the full limit of its natural force and’ Strabo, that Antioch the Pisidian was not in Pisidia meaning. but only a guard against Pisidia, is clear. Local But this negative argument is not likely to evidence, however, may reasonably be desiderated convince any one whose mind is swayed in the In an unpublished inscription found at Antioch in North-Galatian direction by other reasons. I pro- 19is, Sagalassos is styled First of Pisidia.’ That pose to collect and examine the geographical and title occurs on its coins about 260 A.D., and cor- topographical evidence that can be gathered from responds to its importance at that period,3 provided Luke and Paul, and to show that this is decisive. that Antioch be reckoned as outside of Pisidia. Historical evidence has been emphasized enough If, however, Antioch was in Pisidia, then beyond elsewhere by others, and I shall not devote any all doubt or question, Antioch, not Sagalassos, was attention to it at present. ’First of Pisidia.’ There were, of course, many II. THE REGION PISIDIA.-It is clear from the cases in which several cities claimed the title of comparison of Ac 14 24 with 13 14 that Antioch ’ First’ in their province or region (see examples in the Pisidian-such is the best text : Antioch of section vii.). But in such cases the rivalry was real Pisidia’ is a corruption perhaps later than 295 and strong. Nicomedia would not have admitted A.D.,’ about which time Antioch was made the to a public place within its walls an inscription in capital of a newly instituted province Pisidia- ¡ which Nicaea claimed to be ’first of Bithynia.’ was not a city of Pisidia. After leaving Antioch I But here Antioch admits the claim of Sagalassos on his way home to Syria, Paul traversed Pisidia to be ‘first of Pisidia,’ and therefore was not a and came to Pamphylia. Luke therefore re- claimant of that honour. garded Antioch as outside of a region which he Moreover, an important double inscription on calls Pisidia. His view agrees exactly with that two sides of one large basis at Antioch has long of Strabo, who in 19 A.D. describes Antioch as a been known, but the correct text was first pub- city towards Pisidia,’ but not in Pisidia ; compare lished in the present writer’s First Christian Cen- his words quoted above about Phrygian Ancyra tury, p. 160. The inscription on one side calls ’towards Lydia.’ In fact, Strabo treats it as a Antioch a metropolis, and implies that it was city of Phrygia. It is clear that both Luke and metropolis of a Regio. In the inscription on the Strabo regarded it as near, though outside of, the other side, the Region joins in honouring the same Pisidian frontier. The epithet ’ ‘ Pisidian’ was person ; and the name of the region is given as derived from this situation, and from the fact that Mygdonia, a poetic term for Phrygia. the city was a garrison to defend the plain from Marquardt rightly speaks of Antioch as a city the incursions of the mountaineers (Strabo, p. 5 ~6). of that Phrygian district which was included in Both these authorities knew a region Pisidia, and the province Galatia (Stadtsverzvaltzmg, i. p. 359) ~ outside of this region a city Antioch ’ towards but G. Hirschfeld, in Pauly-~’Vissowa,Real t~’ncyclop., Pisidia’ or ‘ the Pisidian.’ wrongly describes it as a city of Pisidia.4 Some epithet was needed in common use to III. THE Two R~ciorrs.-From the text of distinguish this from the numerous other cities of Luke it is evident, as we shall now show, that on the same name ; but, if so, why not call it 2 Phrygian Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, chap. i. ’The Gate of Antioch ? That epithet was unsuitable, because Phrygia.’ 3 there was another Antioch on the south-west According to Strabo, p. 569, Selge was the greatest frontier of Phrygia, reckoned by some as Phrygian, Pisidian city about the time of Christ ; and it had a rich old coinage ; but it sank to secondary rank. 1 This is a mere obiter and no 4 dictum, has bearing on the Ptolemy (in one of his references) and Pliny speak of Galatian There is still much question. investigation to do Antioch as in Pisidia. They are inadequate authorities.