WHY DID PAUL GO TO THE PISIDIAN ANTIOCH? (ACTS 13)

Why did Paul go to Pisidian Antioch? (Acts 13)

Ben Witherington asks that question in the Summer 2026 issue of BAR magazine. For some background here, this event happened as part of Paul's first missionary journey. He and his companions started out from the Syrian Antioch and proceeded in order to Cyprus. At that point Paul converts the governor of the island, who was named Sergius Paulus. At that point, Paul travels to Paphos, from where he sailed to Perga and then on land traveled to Pisidian Antioch. It helps at this point to look at a map of his travels, such as those usually included in most study Bibles.

There are two troubling issues (which may or may not be related) worth discussing regarding this trip.

First is the unusual fact that Saul's name suddenly changes to Paul during the course of the the narrative. Second is the problematic last leg of that journey that would have led Paul 's party over a difficult overland route through mountains for at least 160 miles. And to make it even more remarkable, that final stop was only a small Roman town.

Reason for Paul's Trip

Previous scholars have explained the necessity of this journey as quoted below:

“Ramsay infers from Gal. 4:13 that Paul caught malaria in the low-lying territory around Perga, and went to recuperate in the higher altitudes of southern Galatia...this, however, is highly speculative.” (Bruce)

Goodwin, on the other hand, states “The best critics now interpret St. Paul's infirmity [i.e. his thorn in the flesh] as some form of physical disease, either ophthalmia or epilepsy.” If either of these two explanations is correct, then that destroys the malaria theory for the inland trip completely.

Neil mentions several possibilities: “To reach it (i.e. Pisidian Antioch) from Perga, the two missionaries had to cross the Taurus mountains, and it has been suggested that this difficult and in places dangerous journey was undertaken because the swamps of Perga had brought on one of Paul's recurring attacks of malaria – if indeed this is what the 'thorn in the flesh' was (2 C. 12:7); in writing later to the churches he founded in Galatia on this first missionary journey, he speaks of his original mission there as being the result of illness (Gal. 4:13). The highland air of Antioch, 3,600 feet above sea level, may have assisted his recovery. It has been objected, however, that since a sick man would be unlikely to face the rigors of a mountain pass, no doubt 'in danger from rivers, danger from robbers' (2 C. 11:26), Paul's real intention was perhaps to reach the great road to Ephesus which passed through Antioch, with Rome as his eventual goal...On the other hand, his encounter with Sergius Paulus [on Cyprus] may have fired him with the desire to evangelize a Roman colony; he seems to have devoted much of his attention to this particular field of activity: as Antioch, Lystra, Philippi and Corinth were all Roman colonies...”

John Stott quotes Ramsay favorably at this point and adds: “Perhaps it was this hurry [to escape to a higher altitude] which explains why the missionaries did not stay to evangelize Perga, which they did on their return journey.” And another popular author, Lloyd John Ogilvie, in his Drumbeat of Love also accepts the malaria theory.

Saul's Name Change to Paul

Then, concerning the fact that Saul is first called Paul during his stay in Cyprus, the following scholars weigh in:

Bruce explains: “The apostle, as a Roman citizen, must have had three names – praenomen, nomen gentile and cognomen – of which Paullus was his cognomen. It is probably a mere coincidence that Luke should first designate him by his Roman cognomen in a context where another bearer of the same cognomen appears.”

Witherington agrees: “Acts 22:28 says the apostle was born a Roman citizen. We are not dealing here, as many have suggested, with a name change related to Paul's conversion; rather, we are given the apostle's Roman name, since he was a Roman citizen from birth. Why is this important? The reason for mentioning Paul's non-Jewish name in a discussion with the governor of Cyprus is because Paul is trying to appear Roman to a fellow Roman.”

Matthews: “Saul was his Jewish name, used up to this point to stress his origin; Paul was his Roman name, the one he was generally known by, and is used from now on in Acts as missionary activity aims at both Jews and Gentiles.”

By contrast, S.E. Johnson attributes the name change to a different author taking over the narrative at this point in Acts, a supposition which has little support elsewhere.

Fitzmyer offers his opinion on the name change as follows: “Commentators, following Jerome, have tried at times to suggest that Saul adopted his name from the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, the first Gentile whom the apostle brings to the Christian faith. That, however, is fanciful. It is sheer coincidence that Saul happens to bear the same Roman name as the proconsul. 'Paul' is the only name that the apostle ever uses in his letters, and if it were not for the Lucan usage in Acts up to this point, we would never have known that Paul was also called Saul. From this point on in the Lucan story only 'Paul' will be used, save in the episodes in which Luke recounts the apostle's experience on the road to Damascus, when the risen Christ addresses him as Saoul (22:7; 26:14), as he did in 9:4, or when Ananias so speaks (9:17; 22:13). The change of name is hardly intended to be 'the water-shed.' as Synge...would have it...That is to make far too much out of this minor detail.”

Fitzmyer offers a further objection to Paul adopting the name of his convert Sergius Paulus, namely that “The connection is purely literary, not historical. It fact, it is a sheer literary coincidence and mentioned even before the conversion of the proconsul.”

Hackett mentions yet more to seal the coffin on that theory: “...it was customary among the ancients for the pupil to adopt the name of the teacher, not the teacher to adopt that of the pupil...It is more probable that Paul acquired ths name like other Jews in that age, who when they associated with foreigners had often two names...Lightfoot suggests, he may have borne the two names from early life. This explanation of the origin of the name accounts for its introduction at this stage of the history. It is here for the first time that Luke speaks directly of Paul's labors among the heathen; and it is natural that he should apply to him the name by which he was chiefly known in that sphere of his ministry,”

Recent Archaeologial Evidence

Witherington, in his article, now offers a good alternative explanation for Paul's movements during his first missionary journey based on recent evidence he and Mark Wilson uncovered at the site of ancient Pisidian Antioch. He writes that they “noticed in Yalvac (the modern name for Pisidian Antioch), in the courtyard of the small municipal museum, [an inscription] where it sat gathering mold and gradually wearing away...Its first line mentions the 'Paulii,' with the plural referring to an entire family, and the second line names L. Sergius (Lucius Sergius Paulus) – the very proconsul of Cyprus who was so impressed with Paul when they met in AD 48 or 49. Indeed, we can trace this figure's career through a number of other inscriptions detailing his posts and promotions over time. One particular inscription, discovered near Pisidian Antioch in the early 20^th century, appears to refer to a son (filius) of Sergius Paulus, and thus serves as additional corroborating evidence linking this family with the Roman town.”

Witherington then offers some intriguing indirect evidence in the form of Pliny the Elder's treatise Natural History, which mentions Sergius Paulus as one of his sources. It may be just a coincidence but that book describes the fact that there were magicians on the island of Cyprus (see Acts 13:4-12).

Witherington concludes: “It makes good sense that the governor would suggest Paul and Barnabas go to his hometown; perhaps he even wrote a letter of recommendation for them, though Acts does not say so...When one journeys the same route that Paul and Barnabas likely took over the rugged mountains, probably following the Via Sebaste, it becomes obvious that there had to have been a good reason why they undertook this arduous journey to the north...It seems clear, then, that Paul and Barnabas deliberately went to Pisidian Antioch, the home of the Paulus clan, with the blessing of Sergius Paulus. The governor may have provided a letter of introduction or commendation to the authorities there for his fellow Roman citizen. This was an opportunity they could not pass up.”