St. Paul then uses the term Galatia as a Roman citizen would use it, while St. Luke employs the phraseology common in the /Xgean land amongst his contem- poraries; he does not speak of Galatia, by which term he would as a Greek mean North Galatia, but of the “ Galatic territory’? or of the region or regions with which he was concerned; see op
28. εὐτόνως γὰρ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις διακατηλέγχετο 1 δηµοσίᾳ, ἐπιδεικνὺς. διὰ τῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν.
1 δημοσια επιδεικνυς, D 137 has δηµ. διαλεγοµενος «ar, so Blass in B, and Hilg., but apparently superfluous after διακατηλεγχετο (Weiss).
this Expositor, August, 1898, pp. 126, 127, and Hastings’ B.D., ‘‘Galatia”. In xvi. 6 he writes of a missionary tour (see on διῆλθον, note, /. ο.) through the Phrygo-Galatic region; in xviii. 23 he speaks of a missionary tour through the Galatic region (Derbe and Lystra) and the Phrygian (Iconium and Antioch). It is, moreover, important to note that whether we take Φρυγία, xvill. 23, as an adjective, χώρα being understood, or as a noun, the same sense prevails, for we have evidence from inscriptions of An- tioch that Galatic Phrygia was often designated by the noun, “and St. Luke may be allowed to speak as the people of Antioch wrote,’ Ramsay, Hastings’ B.D., ii., p. 99, 1899. See further the same writer’s reference to the testimony of Asterius, Bishop of Amasia in Pontus Galaticus, A.D. 400, in favour of the above view, who paraphrases xviii. 23, τὴν Λυκαονίαν καὶ τὰς τῆς Φρυγίας πόλεις, and places the journey through Lyca- onia and Phrygia immediately before the visit to Asia, xix. 1; see especially Ramsay, Studia Biblica, iv., p. 16 ff. and p. 9ο; Hastings’ B.D., uw. s., as against Zahn, Hinleitung, i., p. 136.
But further: if the Phrygo-Galatic dis- trict thus lay on the road to Ephesus, it is difficult to see how St. Paul could be conceived of as going to a distance of some 300 miles out of his route to Galatia in the narrower ethnical sense of the word; and this is one of the many points which influences Mr. Turner to regard the South Galatia view as almost demonstrably true, Chron. of the N.T.; Hastings’ B.D., i., 422 (see also to the same effect, Renan, Saint Paul, p. 52; and Rendall, Acts, p. 275; Salmon, Introd., p. 377). McGiffert (so too Renan, Hausrath) maintains that if the North Galatian theory is correct, and St. Paul is not addressing the Churches founded on his first missionary journey, but only those founded, as we must suppose, during a period of missionary labour in North Galatia, a period inserted without a hint from St. Luke in xvi. 6, it seems incomprehensible why Barnabas should be mentioned in the Galatian Epistle. The Churches in North Galatia could scarcely have known anything about
him, especially as ex hypothesi they had been evangelised after the rupture be- tween Paul and Barnabas, Acts xv. 36 ff. If, however, the Churches of the Epistle = the Churches founded in Acts xiii., xiv., then we can at once understand the mention of Barnabas. But Mr. Askwith has lately pointed out with much force (Epistle to the Galatians, p. 77, 1899) that this argument must not be pressed too far. The introduction of Barnabas in the Galatian Epistle does not prove that he was known personally to the Galatians (although it may reasonably warrant the inference that he was known by name) any more than the allusion to him, 1 Cor. ix. 6, proves that he was personally known to the Corinthians, cf. also Light- foot, Colossians, p. 28.
One more significant and weighty fact deserves mention. In St. Paul’s collec- tion for the poor Saints (on the impor- tance of which see xxiv. 17) there is every reason to believe that all the Pauline Churches shared; in 1 Cor. xvi. I appeal is made to the Churches of Galatia and Achaia, and the Churches of Macedonia and Asia subsequently contri- buted to the fund. Ifby Galatia we under- stand Galatia proper, and not the Roman province, then the four South Galatian Churches are not included in the list of subscribers, and they are not.even asked to contribute. This appears inconceiv- able; whereas, if we look at the list of delegates, Acts xx. 4, whilst Macedonia and Asia are represented, and Gaius and Timothy represent the Churches of South Galatia, no delegate is mentioned from any North Galatian community (see Rendall: ‘‘Pauline collection for the Saints,” Expositor, Nov., 1898, and “The Galatians of St. Paul,” Expositor, April, 1894; also Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, Ἱ., 272, E.T., and McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 180, Askwith, Epistle to the Galatians, p. 88 ff. (189¢)). For the literature of the question see Ramsay, “Galatia,” Hastings’ B.D., ii., p. 89, 1899; Zahn, Einleitung, i., pp. 129, 130; Wendt (1899), p. 276, and ‘“ Galatians, Epistle to the,” Marcus Dods, Hastings’ B.D., ii., 94. To the list given in the last reference may be added the names of Wendt, O. Holtzmann, Clemen,V. Weber (Wirsburg), Page, Rendall, McGiffert,