88 Journey of Barnabas and Saul. Chap. IV.
The marvellous is indissolubly interwoven — for good or for bad — with this narrative, and cannot be eliminated. Do the marvellous adjuncts discredit the rest of the narrative, or does the vividness and accuracy of the narrative require us to take the marvels with the rest and try to under- stand them ? Every one must answer the question for himself.
I. PAMPHYLIA. (XIII 13) AND PAUL AND HIS COM- PANY SET SAIL FROM PAPHOS AND CAME TO PERGA IN the province PAMPHYLIA. AND JOHN DEPARTED FROM THEM, AND RETURNED TO JERUSALEM; (14) BUT THEY WENT ACROSS FROM PERGA AND ARRIVED AT PISIDIAN ANTIOCH.
The phrase " Perga of Pamphylia " is not intended to distinguish this Perga from others (cp. XXI 39) : there was no other city of the same name. Nor is it a mere piece of geographical information : this historian has no desire to teach the reader geography. The sense is " they proceeded to Pamphylia, to the special point Perga " ; and the intention is to define their next sphere of work as being Pamphylia. This sense would have naturally been understood by every one, were it not that no missionary work was actually done in Pamphylia, for the next fact mentioned is that John left the party, and the others went on to Pisidian Antioch ; and the conclusion has sometimes been drawn hastily that Pamphylia had never been contemplated as a mission -field, and was merely traversed because it lay between Cyprus and Antioch. But the plain force of the words must be accepted here, for it lies in the situation that Pamphylia was the natural continuation of the work that had been going on,
(89)
90 Foundation of the Churches of Galatia. Chap. V.
first in Syria and Cilicia for many years, and next in Cyprus. They went to Pamphylia to preach there, and, as they did not actually preach there, something must have occurred to make them change their plan. Further, the reason for this change of plan must have been merely a temporary one, for they preached in Pamphylia on their return journey.
We are justified in connecting with this change of plan the one fact recorded about the missionary party in Pamphylia: John left them in circumstances that made a deep and painful impression on Paul, and remained rankling in his mind for years (XV 38). The historian places together in a marked way the departure of John and the onward journey of the others without preaching in Pamphylia. Now, as we have seen, it does not lie in this historian's manner to state reasons ; he rarely says that one event was the cause of another, but merely states the facts side by side, and leaves the reader to gather for him- self the causal connection between them.
Other reasons, which need not be repeated here, point to the same conclusion, that a change of plan was the reason why John abandoned the expedition. He conceived that the new " proposal was a departure from the scheme " with which they had been charged, " carrying their work into a region different in character and not contemplated by the Church ".
Further, we observe that the country between Perga and Pisidian Antioch is not mentioned ; the journey is not even summed up briefly as the Cyprian journey between Salami's and Paphos was described (XIII 6): it is simply said that " they went across (the intervening mountain lands of Taurus) to Antioch," as in XVIII 27 A polios
Sec i. Pamphylia. 91
"conceived the intention to go across (the intervening yEgean Sea) to Achaia". On our hypothesis that the narrative is singularly exact in expression, and that the slightest differences are significant, we gather that the journey to Antioch was a mere traversing of the country without preaching, with the view of reaching Antioch. On the other hand, it is stated that the return journey some years later from Antioch to Perga was a preaching journey, though no marked effects are recorded on it.