Galatians 1:21

ἔπειτα, Galatians 1:18 note. Galatians 1:21-24 continue the description of his independence of the Twelve. He stayed in Jerusalem only a fortnight and then went far away, and that for a long time.

An endeavour has been made to press these verses against the South Galatian theory, by saying that if the letter was addressed to South Galatia, St Paul must have mentioned his first visit, Acts 13:14, for it would be the strongest proof that he was away from Jerusalem. But if his first visit to South Galatia was long after this decisive journey to Syria and Cilicia there was no need to mention it, and in any case he is not drawing an itinerary. It had nothing to do with his relation to Jerusalem.

ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα. κλίματα originally “slopes.” In Aquila (Leviticus 19:27) apparently of the “side,” “edge” of the head, and so perhaps in Jeremiah 48:45 (= Numbers 24:17, κλίματα Symmachus) of Moab depicted under the figure of a man, though this latter passage may also mean the “slopes” or “corner districts” of the land of Moab. Elsewhere in the N.T. (Romans 15:23; 2 Corinthians 11:10[61]) “districts,” as probably here (cf. Polyb. 1:44. 6; x. 1. 3), not meaning the whole regions of Syria and of Cilicia, but districts in them. Thus the phrase indicates that St Paul did not stay only in Antioch or in Tarsus (Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25).

[61] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

τῆς Συρίας καὶ [τῆς] Κιλικίας. See note on Textual Criticism.

There is the same doubt about the text in Acts 15:41 (cf. 23). Ramsay (Gal. p. 277) says “Paul here thinks and speaks of the Roman Province, which consisted of two great divisions, Syria and Cilicia; and he designates it by the double name, like Provincia Bithynia et Pontus. We must accordingly read τῆς Συρίας καὶ Κιλικίας.” But, apart from the difficulty of accepting this naïve idea of textual criticism, the expression Provincia Syria et Cilicia has never been discovered. Perhaps when St Paul was writing, though hardly when he made his journey, they were separate provinces, for although “Cilicia was usually under the legatus of Syria (Dio Cass. 53. 12 where Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, Cyprus are ἐν τῇ τοῦ Καίσαρος μερίδι; cf. Tac. Ann. 2. 78), Cilicia is found under a separate governor, however, in 57 A.D. (Tac. Ann. 13. 33) perhaps as a temporary measure after the disturbances of 52 A.D. (Ann. 12. 55)” (Woodhouse in Enc. Bib. col. 828). In Mr J. G. C. Anderson’s map (1903) marking the boundaries of the Provinces from A.D. 63 to A.D. 72 it is separated from Syria. If we are to assume that the mention of these two places corresponds with the formal visits recorded in Acts 9:30 (Tarsus), Acts 11:25 (Syria), then of course the order here given is not chronological, and is due either to the greater political and commercial importance of Syria or to the closer geographical relation of Syria to Jerusalem (= “I went to Syria (Acts 11:25), nay as far as Cilicia” (Acts 9:30). But the above assumption is arbitrary, and it may well be that St Paul is simply describing his course to his home in Tarsus, “I went away from Jerusalem through Syria to Cilicia.” See also Introd. p. xx.