ADDITIONAL NOTES I. The Names of St. Peter St Peter in the opening salutation uses only the name given him by Christ, the translation of Khfa'", G3064, (John 1:42; cf. Matt. 16:18). It is the prevalent name in Matt, Mark, Luke, while St John has usually Sivmwn Pevtro"; and it is the only name used in the Acts except in a few passages where the name Simon (Acts 10:5, 18, 32, 11:13) or Symeon (15:14) is put into the mouth of speakers. St Paul has it in Gal. 2:7, 8; elsewhere (1 Cor.4; Gal.4) he uses Khfa'", G3064, never Sivmwn, G4981.
The facts as to the use of the names of St Peter in the N.T. are as follows:
Sivmwn, G4981, used quite absolutely, is in narrative confined to Mark4 and Luke7 previous to the Mission of the Apostles, and is found nowhere afterwards [on Luke 24:34 see below]; in speeches it occurs Matt (Matt. 17:25: not reckoning 16:17), Mark (Mark 14:37), Luke (Luke 22:31; 24:34 [virtually a speech]): cf. Sivmwn Bariwna', Matt. 16:17; Sivmwn jIwavnou, John 21:15, 16, 17; Sivmwn oJ uiJo;" jIwavnou, John 1:43.
Sivmwn, G4981, joined to Pevtro", G4377, by oJ legovmeno", oJ ejpikalouvmeno", o}" ejpikalei'tai, occurs Matt, Acts4; and the two names are brought into the same context in reference to the naming, Mark (Mark 3:16), Luke (Luke 6:14), John (John 1:40; vs. 42, to;n ajdelfo;n to;n i[dion Sivmwna).
Sivmwn Pevtro" is confined to Matt1 (Matt. 16:16, where it introduces the confession), Luke (Luke 5:8, prosevpesen toi'" govnasin jIhsou'), John17 (in which Gospel it on the whole predominates), and 2 Pet. 1:1 (where however many authorities read Sumew;n Pevtro").
Pevtro", G4377, is the greatly predominating name in Matt19, Mark18 (after Mark 3:16; including 14:37, levgei tw'/ Pevtrw/ Sivmwn), Luke16 (after Luke 6:14), Acts51; it occurs in John15 (John 13:8, 37; 18:11, 16 bis, 17, 18, 26, 27; 20:3, 4; 21:7, 17, 20, 21); also in Gal.2 (Gal. 2:7, 8), 1 Pet.1. In speeches (not counting Matt. 16:18 [John 1:43]) it occurs in Luke (Luke 22:34, warning of denial), Acts2 (Acts 10:13; 11:7). Probably among Christians in his later days St Peter bore no other name than that consecrated by our Lord.
Khfa'", G3064, is confined to John1 (John 1:43), 1 Cor.4, Gal.4.
Sumewvn, G5208, is confined to Acts1 (Acts 15:14); on 2 Pet. 1:1 see above.
The name Khfa'", G3064, apparently is not elsewhere used (unless as Kaiavfa", see below) as a Jewish name, Aramaic or Greek (cf. Keim, Geschichte ii. p. 550). The Greek Pevtro", G4377, occurs in Joseph. Ant. xviii.6.31 for a freedman of Berenice, mother of Agrippa I., cited by Keim l.c. The substantive 5Ke, H4091 (µypiKe) appears only twice in the O.T. (Job 30:6; Jer. 4:29), both times in the plural. In the Targums (Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum 1032) it occurs as 5Ke, ap;Ke, for a rock, or a stone (e.g., gems, hailstones, thunderbolts), or a shore. The same senses recur in the Talmud and Midrashim (Levy-Fleischer, Neuhebr. u. Chald. . ii.321f.), where the word has also the meaning “ring”; apparently the sense “rock” is rare. The corresponding Syriac forms are . The derivation is uncertain (see Ges. Thes. 706). The Syriac Versions of the N.T. have as the representative of Khfa'", G3064.
The name Kaiavfa" is on the whole probably a twin form of Khfa'", G3064, taken from apykas Khfa'", G3064, from apak. The only difficulty is that the Syriac (including Syr. vt. in Luke 3:2, the only extant place) has (q) not (k). Keim’s (Gesch. iii. p. 238) derivation of the name from 5yEK;(part. of the verb 5WK) in Targ. Ps. 57:7 “bowing down” (trans.) or (?) hp;y“K', the subst., “humiliation,” in Targ. Prov. 16:26 (for both words see Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. 1024f.) is very improbable; and the supposition that apykis a duplicate form of apakexplains the Jod equally well. Jost’s derivation (Gesch. des Judenthums i. p. 332) from the town Chaipha (rather Haipha with j, cf. Reland Pal. pp. 667, 783) is still more improbable; though it is curious that a Joseph of Haipha occurs two centuries later (Jost, ib. i. p. 404, but without a ref.), Joseph being also the name of the high priest according to Josephus (Antiq. xviii.2). The Onomasticon explains Kaiavfa" by ijcneuthv" and perivergo", G4319, (De Lagarde, Onom. Sacr. pp. 175, 203; cf. pp. 60, 67).
II. The Biblical Terms for Sojourning The sojourner in a land is distinguished in the Old Testament from the inhabitant, strictly so called, and also from the stranger, strictly so called. The term is applied chiefly to Gentiles sojourning in the midst of Israel; but also to Israelites sojourning in foreign lands, as Egypt; and again to Abraham and his descendants as sojourning in Canaan, the land which they were afterwards to “inherit” and inhabit (Gen. 17:8; 28:4; Exod. 6:4; Ps. 105:11 f.).
In the original a sojourner is designated by two words, rGE, H1731 (with the verb rWz, H2319) and bv;/T, H9369. The former, which is much the commoner, expresses the idea of turning in as a guest. It is usually rendered in the LXX. by proshvluto", G4670, a word unknown in classical literature, but in what seems to be its original sense hardly distinguishable from the classical e[phlu", ejphluvth". The adoption of the Jewish faith by many sojourners in the land of Israel led ultimately to a natural extension of the term, so that rGEand proshvluto", G4670, came to mean what we now call a proselyte. Through this modification of sense proshvluto", G4670, apparently superseded a curious word by which the LXX. renders rGEin Exod. 12:19; Isa. 14:1 (Lev. 19:34: [Alloi: geiwvrai, pavroikoi, Origen Hexapla), giwvra" or geiwvra", a mere transliteration of the Aramaic form (ar:/yNI) of the original word, doubtless devised as a new term for a new object. Not to dwell on solitary renderings by xevno", G3828, and geivtwn, G1150, in the exceptional LXX. of Job, rGEis represented eleven times in various parts of the Old Testament by pavroiko", G4230, a classical word with an unclassical sense, being here almost equivalent to the classical mevtoiko". In like manner paroikevw, G4228, stands for the verb rWz, H2319, and that in a large majority of places; other Greek equivalents (besides katoikevw 9, ejnoikevw, oijkevw & c.) being provskeimai, prosgivnomai, prosporeuvomai, and prosevrcomai, G4665, all of which, but especially the last, are attempts to repeat the etymological force of proshvluto", G4670, , with which they are invariably joined.
The other word for a sojourner is bv;/T, H9369, derived from the verb bv'y:, H3782, “to sit,” and thence “to dwell” or “to inhabit.” The limitation of the substantive to sojourning or temporary dwelling probably comes from the original sense “to sit”; it may be compared to “settler,” or still better perhaps to “squatter.” Apart from etymology, the precise force of bv;/Tas compared with rGE, H1731, apparently a more generic word, is difficult to determine. It occurs but thirteen times, not being used in Deuteronomy or the prophetic books; and is invariably coupled either (eight times) with rGE(rWz, H2319) or (three times) with rykic;, H8502, “hired servant,” or (twice) with both words. In the LXX. (and in the later Greek versions, so far as they are known) the rendering of bv;/Tis always pavroiko", G4230, except in three places, in which pavroiko", G4230, is transferred to the associated rGE: in two of these (Gen. 23:4; Ps. 39:13 (38:13)) it is rendered by parepivdhmo", G4215, and in the third (1 Chr. 29:15) by katoikou'nte" (B) or more probably paroikou'nte" (A). The form parepivdhmo", G4215, is very rare; but parepidhmevw and parepidhmiva are not uncommon in late Greek literature and inscriptions, and are mere synonyms of ejpidhmevw, G2111, and the (in this sense) rarer ejpidhmiva (ejpivdhmo" in this sense is rarer still), by which from the fourth century B.C. onwards the sojourning in foreign cities or countries is often expressed.
The belief in a present heavenly povli", G4484, supplied the positive background which neutralised the negative character of the old (heathen as well as Jewish) thought of life as a sojourning; and also effectually replaced the distant earthly povli", G4484, for dispersed Jews.
III. The Provinces of Asia Minor Included in St. Peter’s Address The dispersed Christians to whom St Peter wrote his Epistle were sojourners in certain specified regions of the land now called Asia Minor. These regions are designated as “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” The list of names deserves careful study, both as to its contents and as to its order.
Each of the names in the list admits of different interpretations, according to variations of political or other usage and to successive changes of geographical limits. But the five names coincide precisely with the five names that make up the titles of the four provinces of the Roman empire into which Asia Minor, the southern littoral eventually excepted, was divided in and after the reign of Tiberius; and it would need strong positive evidence to refute the consequent presumption that the territory denoted by the list in the Epistle was the territory of these four Roman provinces. This presumption is strengthened by the change from compactness to inexplicable dispersion which takes place when the names in the list are interpreted by their national or popular instead of their Roman sense. No stress indeed can be laid on the absence of the names Mysia, Caria, and Lydia, the three regions which made up the Roman province of Asia according to its original constitution of B.C. 129: the Acts of the Apostles, which habitually uses the national names in Asia Minor, twelve times designates this long established province by its Roman name Asia, though it also speaks of Mysia in a single passage where it was necessary to distinguish the northern part of Asia. But this explanation will not account for the absence of Paphlagonia between Bithynia and Pontus, the very district which was more likely to contain Christian converts than any other on the northern coast, or of Phrygia between Galatia and Asia, or of Lycaonia and Pisidia between Cappadocia and partly Phrygia, partly Asia, these three regions being known scenes of St Paul’s missionary activity.
The three southern regions of Asia Minor, Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia, require separate consideration. The true or eastern Cilicia, Cilicia Campestris, St Paul’s native land, has a somewhat obscure history after the close of the civil war in B.C. 29. In the distribution of provinces made B.C. 27 Cilicia fell to the emperor. Cyprus is supposed to have been then, as formerly, combined with it, and to have so remained for five years, after which the island is known to have been transferred to the Senate: but the other regions formerly combined with Cilicia Campestris were at this time otherwise assigned. How the little district thus left was administered between B.C. 22 and some time in Hadrian’s reign (A.D. 117-138), is as yet but imperfectly known. For at least a considerable part of this period it was governed by the imperial legate of Syria, as was undoubtedly the case in B.C. 3-2, A.D. 17-21, 36, 52, and 72. In A.D. 74 Cilicia Campestris was reunited by Vespasian to the various mountainous districts of Cilicia (see below, p. 160), which had been detached from it in Augustus’s reign or yet earlier and Cilicia as a whole was apparently formed into a separate province: under Hadrian and his successors this was certainly its condition.
Cilicia Trachea, the wild home of the pirates who gave Rome so much trouble, was under the early emperors assigned to one or other of the “client” kings whom it was at that time found convenient to uphold near the eastern frontier of the empire. Throughout Nero’s reign, and till 74, it belonged to Antiochus of Commagene. United in 74 to Cilicia Campestris, it shared the fortunes of the more civilised district till the time of Diocletian. Two similar wild but smaller districts within the limits of eastern Cilicia had a similar history. Mount Amanus was apparently committed to the king of Commagene at the same time as Cilicia Trachea, and was included in Vespasian’s settlement of 74. Olbe, entrusted in like manner to the king of Pontus from a yet earlier time, made the fourth constituent part of the reunited province in the same year.
It follows that till at least the year 74, with the possible exception of a short interval about 57, no part of Cilicia, so far as we know, belonged in the apostolic age to any Roman province but Syria, such districts as were not subject to the legate of Syria having been outside the empire; and that after 74, or possibly a later date, the whole of Cilicia was an independent Roman province. The political connexion of Cilicia with Syria under the early emperors gives special force to the association of the two names in the Epistle to the Galatians and in the Acts. “Then I came,” says St Paul, “into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” The circumstantial account in Acts 9:30; 11:25 renders it morally certain that St Paul went straight to Tarsus. But this visit to Cilicia, whatever may have been its length, and howsoever it may have been interrupted, was followed by a year of important work at Antioch (Acts 11:25 f.), the primary capital of the whole province of Syria, including both Cilicia and (till after A.D. 66) Judea. St Paul therefore, describing in a summary manner the regions in which he had spent a considerable time, at a distance from Jerusalem and the earlier apostles, naturally places first the central portion of the province, and then the less important district of it to which he himself belonged by birth, and in which he had apparently laboured independently until he was invited to Antioch. So again, when the infant church of Antioch deputed Paul and Barnabas to visit Jerusalem on account of the question which had arisen about circumcision, the answer of the church of Jerusalem is addressed “to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia,” that is, to the capital and to the two northern districts of the province which looked to it as their capital. Once more, after the separation from Barnabas, St Paul with Silas “goes through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches”; and the manner in which this portion of the journey is spoken of suggests that the two districts had some closer bond of association than the accident that both had to be traversed before Lycaonia could be reached from Antioch by land.
Two other small maritime districts remain to be accounted for, Pamphylia and Lycia. In A.D. 43 the Lycians, hitherto allowed to remain independent, were brought into subjection by Claudius and joined to Pamphylia. Whether Pamphylia, or rather the part of it retained by the Romans, had hitherto since B.C. 36 been independently governed, or appended to a more important province, which would probably be Syria, is immaterial for our purpose. Now at all events a province was formed called Lycia, including both Lycia proper and the whole of Pamphylia. The names of two legates of “Lycia” are recorded, the first for about the years A.D. 54-56, and the other apparently for the immediately following years. The new arrangement cannot however have lasted long, for we find Galba (A.D. 68) entrusting the government of Galatia and Pamphylia to the same legate. This arrangement was probably due to an unrecorded restoration of Lycia proper to independence, and the smallness of the remaining territory of the province. Lycia again became Roman under Vespasian, who once more combined the two districts into a province under the name Lycia [et] Pamphylia. This settlement remained unchanged for some sixty years; and, as regards the territorial arrangement, till the time of Diocletian.
It follows that at the beginning of Nero’s reign the two districts together formed a Roman province entitled Lycia; that in the latter years of his reign either the same arrangement continued, or Pamphylia was governed with Galatia and Lycia was independent of Roman rule; and that in and after Domitian’s reign the two districts again constituted a Roman province, but under a title which included both names.
This sketch will supply materials for considering the question how to interpret the absence of the three southern names, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, from the list in the Epistle. During the whole of St Peter’s later life, a short time about A.D. 57 possibly excepted, Cilicia belonged to Syria, and would not naturally be associated in men’s minds with the provinces to the north and north-west. On the hypothesis of a later origin for the Epistle this reason for the absence of Cilicia from the list is less decisive, but still sufficient: the association with Syria would doubtless more or less continue. The omission of Lycia proper is in any case unimportant, for there is no evidence that it contained Christian converts till a much later time. In Pamphylia on the other hand, a yet smaller region, St Paul and St Barnabas unquestionably preached. On their way from Cyprus to the Pisidian Antioch and Lycaonia, on their “first” missionary journey, they crossed Pamphylia, making a halt at Perge; and on their return they lingered there again, Perge being specially named as a place where they “spake the word”. If the Epistle was written in the latter years of Nero’s reign, and if the arrangement by which Lycia was set free from Roman rule and Pamphylia placed under the same government as Galatia had already come into force, no further reason for their absence from the list need be sought: the list we have seen to be a list of Roman provinces, and nothing would be more natural than that Pamphylia should be thought of as an insignificant margin of Pisidia, if the authority of the legate of Galatia extended over both. If on the other hand this arrangement was first introduced by Galba, or if the Epistle belongs to either the first or the third of the times here taken into account, the exclusion of at least Pamphylia from the list needs to be explained.
A simple and adequate explanation is easily found. The country which we call “Asia Minor” had for the ancients a much less distinct individuality than it now conventionally enjoys. To a scientific geographer, describing the configuration of land in the midst of water, it was simply a great “chersonese” or peninsula without a name; and from this point of view the Gulf of Issus was almost of necessity the starting point of the “isthmus” which divided it from the countries to the east; so that even Cilicia would be included. In common usage however regard was had to natural features of greater practical moment. Herodotus speaks merely of “those who dwelt within the river Halys.” In the days of the Greek kingdoms and under the early Roman empire we find in use the descriptive designation “Asia within the Taurus,” suggested by the great mountain barrier on the south-east. Any more or less level tracts that might occur between Taurus and the sea, together with the southern slopes and spurs of the mountain range itself, would thus be reckoned as part of “Asia without the Taurus,” that is, of the southern Asia to which Syria and Arabia belonged. Accordingly Strabo always speaks of Pamphylia as well as of Cilicia as “without the Taurus.” About Lycia his language wavers: at first he more or less distinctly places it “within the Taurus”; afterwards he describes “the littoral without the Taurus” as “occupied by Lycians and Pamphylians and Cilicians”; and again, on finally leaving Europe and Asia Minor, he identifies “the remaining countries of Asia” with “the countries without the Taurus except Cilicia and Pamphylia and Lycia”: but the inconsistency is explained by intervening remarks to the effect that the range of Taurus does in fact extend westward, though at a lower elevation and with much complexity of form, even to the promontory opposite Rhodes; and that a mountain ridge of Taurus shuts off the whole of Lycia from the district to the north. It would accordingly be only natural that, when Lycia and Pamphylia were united as one province, the entire province should be regarded as “without the Taurus.” Hence the provincial names in the list in the Epistle make a complete whole; and the addition of Cilicia, Pamphylia, or probably even Lycia, except in case of temporary political connexion with a province north of the Taurus, would have been as likely to introduce an incongruity as to give greater completeness. The list as it stands may to all appearance be truly said to include the whole of Roman Asia Minor, if we may apply the later name to the corresponding but not identical territory marked out by the limits best known to the first or second century.
The order of names in the list has long attracted attention, being supposed by many to supply an argument in favour of Babylon as against Rome, as the place where the Epistle was written. Starting from the fact that Rome is in the west, Babylon in the east, it is easy to elicit evidence from the order of names, provided that no account is taken of any other geographical fact relating to the two cities. The first name is that of Pontus, which lies to the east, and the last names are those of Asia and Bithynia, the westernmost of all the regions named. This collocation, so far as it has force at all, is obviously adverse to the claims of Rome. But similar geographical considerations are no less adverse to the claims of Babylon. Babylon lies to the south as well as to the east of Asia Minor, and the northernmost region of Asia Minor is Pontus. The next two names in the list add to the incongruity: the order Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia is an exact inversion of the order which would present itself to a writer looking mentally towards Asia Minor from Babylon. The appeal to geography therefore in this elementary form, that is, the appeal to mere position on the map, condemns Rome and Babylon alike: in other words, the arrangement of the list must be either accidental or dependent on some different principle.
An absolutely fortuitous collocation, such as would be produced by shaking up the names in a bag and drawing them out at random, may be dismissed at once as impossible: in the absence of a principle consciously followed, the arrangement would obey unconscious promptings of association, and in such a matter association itself would be mainly the product of antecedent arrangements of some intelligible kind. Now it is at once obvious that a writer not following an order determined by some special intention would be in the highest degree unlikely to set down the province of Asia where it stands in the Epistle, neither first nor last. Whether from an external or a purely Christian point of view, Asia would under such conditions assuredly demand a more dignified place, alike in its own name and in that of Ephesus. A second difficulty arising out of the position of Pontus and of Bithynia in the list will come before us presently in another shape. There is therefore a presumption that the very peculiar order of the list must have been dictated by some definite motive or occasion.
What this occasion must have been, as regards its essential point, has been divined by Ewald. For some reason or other the Epistle itself was to enter Asia Minor by a seaport of Pontus, and thence to make a circuit till it reached the neighbourhood of the Euxine once more. Nor can there be much doubt what the reason was. Silvanus, “the faithful brother,” “through whom” the Epistle was written, was charged, we may naturally infer, with the duty of conveying it to its several destinations. We cannot tell why he proposed to land