and therefore we might expect ‘* Lycaono- Galatic and Phrygo-Galatic,” but to avoid this complicated phraseology the writer uses the simple phrase: “the Galatic country,” while Phrygia denotes either Phrygia Galatica or Phrygia Magna, or both,and see Ramsay,Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 77 and 91-93, and Expositor, August, 1898. Dr. Gifford, in his valuable contribution to the controversy between Prof. Ramsay and Dr. Chase, Expositor, July 1894, while rejecting the North-Gala- tian theory, would not limit the phrase “the Phrygian and Galatian region” to the country about Iconium and Antioch with Ramsay, but advocates an extension of its meaning to the borderlands of Phry- gia and Galatia northward of Antioch.— κωλυθέντες: a favourite word in St. Luke, both in Gospel and Acts, six times in each, cf. viii. 36, x. 47. How the hindrance was effected we are not told, whether by inward monitions, or by prophetic intimations, or by some cir- cumstances which were regarded as pro- vidential warnings: ‘wherefore they were forbidden he does not say, but that they were forbidden he does say—teach- _ ing us to obey and not ask questions,” Chrys., Hom., xxxiv. On the construc- tion of κωλνθ., with διῆλθον (see critical notes) cf. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 89; St. Paul, p.211; Expositor (Epilogue), April, 1894, and Gifford, z. s.,
Ῥ. 11 and 19. Both writers point out that the South Galatian theory need not depend upon this construction, whether we render it according to A.V. or R.V.,