Encyclopaedia Biblica/Gaius-Galatia

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(rAioc [Ti. WH]).

i. A Corinthian, baptized by Paul (i Cor. 1 14). In grateful acknowledgment of his hospitality to Christians Paul calls him 'my host, and of the whole church' Rom. 16 23). According to Origen (ad Zoc.) this Gaius afterwards became bishop of Thessalonica'

the grounds of this statement are unknown. The list of

the seventy disciples by pseudo-Dorotheus contains a Gaius, who is said to have succeeded Timothy as bishop of Ephesus. It is not worth while to support this by the theory that Rom. 16, where Gaius is referred to, was addressed to the Ephesian Church.

2. A Gentile Christian, who went with Paul to Miletus (Acts 204). As the Gk. text stands, he was of Derbe ; but this seems inconsistent with 1829, where Gaius and Aristarchus are repre sented as both Macedonians (the reading MaiceSdva Aristarchus a Macedonian being very ill-supported). Many scholars (e.g., Salmond, in Hastings DB 2 8oa) suppose two different persons to be referred to ; but the two passages stand so close together that this is improbable. It is necessary to read either Aepj3ouos fie Ti/*o0eos (Blass,, after Valckenar) or jcal Aep/3. Ti/x. (Lachmann).

That Timothy was of Lystra, is no doubt a common opinion ; but it is not certain that /cat ets Aiiorpai/ is not an interpretation (see Klass, and cp TIMOTHY).

3. Gaius the beloved (6 ayaTnjTos), to whom 3 Jn. is addressed ; cp EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, 7. Of his personality nothing is known.

T. K. C.


( [AKV]), i Mace. 5 9 etc., RV GlLEAD [q.V. , l].


(^3 ; r AA&&\ [B], n*>AHA [A]).

1. A Levite, apparently in the line of Asaph, in the list of inhabit ants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii., 5 [b], 15 [i] a), i Ch. 9 15 (ya&ep [L]). The name is, however, corrupt, see HERESH and cp MATTANIAH, 2.

2. A Levite in the line of Jeduthun in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (EZRA ii., 5 [b], 15 [i] a), i Ch. 9i6 (yaAoA [L]) = Neh. 11 17 (yaAeA [ N c.a mg. sup.], yoAc [L], BA om.).




  • Settlement of Celts (1).
  • Roman Intervention (2-3).
  • Settlement of Jews (4).


  • I. Case for South Galatian Theory.
    • Geographical Nomenclature (5).
    • Difficulty of Accepted View (6).
    • South Galatian Theory (7).
  • II. Case for North Galatian Theory.
    • General Case for North Galatian Theory (8).
    • Any Churches in North Galatia ? (9-19).
    • New Testament references suit North Galatia best (20-31).


Literature ( 33).

MAP. Asia Minor, with the political divisions about 50 A.D. (after col. 1592)


1. Settlement of Celts.[edit]

The migration which left a settlement of Celts islanded in Asia Minor was the last phase of a movement of which the in-roads into Italy (390 B.C.) and Greece (279 B.C.) were episodes ; but its history is known only in outline.

In 280 B.C. the Celtic bands overran Macedonia, killing the brave Ptolemy Ceraunus who rashly opposed them with inferior force. The main horde under Brennus and Acichorius pene trated Greece proper ; but, being repulsed in ./Etolia and before Delphi, retired northwards again, and uniting with their brethren in the neighbourhood of Byzantium determined to cross into Asia Minor. In this design they succeeded, being assisted by Nicomedes I. of Bithynia, who concluded a treaty with the seventeen Celtic chiefs, securing their aid against his brothers.

The invaders must have seized immediately at least some part of the country known afterwards as Galatia. Our authorities represent its seizure as coming somewhat later ; but the survival of the Celts as a nation implies the possession of some place of deposit for their wives and children during those early years.

With their settlement on the uplands of the interior the Celts entered upon the second stage of their history, forming a true robber-state, from which bands of marauders issued systematic ally to fall upon the rich city-territories of western Asia. According to Livy (38 16), the three tribes cast lots for the region in which each plundered : this may not be true ; but certainly all Asia Minor within the Taurus was at their mercy for the next fifty years, and the kings were fain to purchase partial immunity from their raids by the hazardous device of employing them as mercenaries in their armies (Polyb. 653 65 ; Justin, 262).

A change came with the victories of the Pergamene kings (especially those of Attalus I. gained between 240 and 230 B.C. The inscriptions reveal several victories : cp Livy, 38 17, Attalus eos rex stepe fiidit fugavitqife. They are closely connected with an important chapter of Greek Art). The main result was to confine theCelts within definite limits (Paus. i. 8 i ; Strabosey) : henceforth they were restricted to Galatia proper, and their historical influence was exerted mainly indirectly.

The Celts occupied the NW. part of the great plateau constituting the interior of Asia Minor (cp Holm, Or. Hist. , ET, 4 96 f. ). The range having no distinctive name, of which the last member to the W. is the Mysian Olympus, separated them from Bithynia and Pontus. On the E. the Halys (Kizil Irmak}, the greatest river of Asia Minor, on the W. the Sangarius (Sakaria), ran through deep gorges to the Black Sea, dividing the land of the Celts into three nearly equal portions.

1 TaAaTi a [Ti. WH1 only in Gal. 1 2 i Cor. 16 1 i Pet. 1 1 ; GALATIANS, TaAarai [Ti. WH] in Gal. 3 1 ; GALATIAN, raAcmicds [Ti. WH] in Acts 16 8 18 23.

The Trocmi settled E. of the Halys, round Tavium (Nefez Keui) ; the Tectosages between the two rivers, around Ancyra {Angora) , the Tolistobogii l W. of the Sangarius round Pessinus (Bala Hissar). The territory of the three tribes formed a rough rectangle, extending about 200 m. from E. to W. On the S. lay the Axylon, or treeless steppes of Lycaonia, and the plateau of Iconium (Konia), in the E. part of which is the salt lake Tatta.

The importance of the Celts was due entirely to their geographical situation. The three tribes held in their hands the old Royal Road from Ephesus, by way of Pessinus, Ancyra and Pteria (Boghaz Keui, near Tavium), to the Euphrates (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM 27 f. ).

The alternative and more direct route following the one easy path that nature has made between the jEgean coast and the high grounds of the plateau (i/ ., and 49), through S. Phrygia and Lycaonia, was only in the infancy of its development ; con sequently the Greek cities of western Asia Minor, and those of Syria and Cilicia, were partially severed from one another, so that the former escaped the blighting shadow of Seleucid auto cracy (Holm, op. cit. \gtf.).

Strabo (567) gives a sketch of the Galatian political organisation.

Each tribe was divided into four clans (cp the Helvetii, Caes. BG\ 12), ruled by a tetrarch under whom were a judge and a general, the latter with two subordinates. The general council of the twelve tetrarchies consisted of 300 men, who met at a place called Drynemetum \ = Dryu-neimheidh, the temple of the oaks according to Perrot, Expl. arch, tie la Galatie, 182, who locates it near Assarli-Kaya, 7 hrs. SW. of Ancyra. Holder, however [Altkelt. Sfrachscliatz}, regards Dry- as merely an intensive prefix, and nemeton as = sanctuary. Cp Rams, in Bull, tie Corr. Hell. 1898, p. 234.7:). This assembly was principally a high court of justice ; in other respects the clans were independent. By Roman times this old system had quite disappeared. (See especially on this subject Ramsay, Hist. Coinni. on. Gal. 72^!).

1 The form Tolistobogii is usual in inscriptions and coins of the Roman period, and is found in early authorities. In early inscriptions the form Tolistoagii is given.

2. Roman intervention.[edit]

The commanding position of the Galatians upon the old route, and on the flank of the new one explains the necessity for the punitive expedition of the Roman consul Cn. Manlixis Vulso (189 B.C., Livy, 38 12/).

This broke their power, and apparently they partially suc cumbed to Ariarath.es of Cappadocia and the rulers of Pontus (Van Gelder, Galat. res. 257^, Polyb. 31 13). Their losses on this side were balanced, however, according to Rams. Stud. Bibl. 449 f., by the conquest of the Lycaonian tetrarchy, con taining Iconium and thirteen other cities (cp Pliny, HN 5 95 and Ptol. v. 4 10 who calls it 7rpo<riAj)ji/ie T), the added territory ). This was probably about 160 B.C.

During the latter part of the second century B.C. the Galatians seem to have been under the ascendancy of Pontus that is to say, the Pontic party among the Galatians themselves was triumphant. Then came a national reaction. At any rate the Romans in their struggle with the Pontic sultan found no allies more faithful than the Galatians, and by the side of the command of Mithridates to murder the Italians went the massacre of the whole Galatian nobility (Momms. Prov. of R. Emp. [ET] 1 339). Only three tetrarchs escaped.

In 64 B.C., when the contest with Mithridates was ended, Pompeius established over the Celts three tetrarchs (a misuse of the title, see above). Of these, the most successful and prominent was Deiotarus of the Tolistobogii, who gradually made himself supreme over the other two tribes, and after temporary eclipse during Caesar s lifetime was finally recognised by the Romans as king of Galatia (died in 41 B.C. ).

In 39 B.C., Amyntas, formerly a secretary of King Deiotarus, was made king of Pisidia (including Antioch) by Antonius, who between 39 and 36 B.C. disposed of kingdoms with a high hand in Asia Minor (App. BC 675). In 36 B.C. Amyntas was given in addition Galatia proper, with Isauria, part of Pamphylia, and W. Cilicia, as well as the Lycaonian plain intervening between his Pisidian and his Galatian domains, so that Iconium and Lystra were both under his sway (Dio Cass. 4932).

The manifest ability of Amyntas as an instrument of Roman olicy caused Augustus to confirm the Celtic prince in his ingdom, notwithstanding that he had fought for Antonius at Actium. He was also given a free hand on the non-Roman part of his frontiers. Soon therefore he made himself master of Derbe, which had been seized by Antipater (once Cicero s friend ; Ep. adFam. 1873).

In 25 B.C. the whole question of Roman policy in central Asia Minor had to be faced anew, for Amyntas met his death unexpectedly in an expedition against the Homonades, an independent tribe in Mt. Taurus.

3. Galatia a Province.[edit]

The death of Amyntas threw the burden of governing his vast territories upon the Romans themselves (Dio Cass. 6826). Marcus Lollius was the first governor of the new province ; but its organisation was not completed before 20 B. C. Pamphylia was separated from Galatia and put under a governor of its own (Dio Cass. 5826). Various dynasts were recognised as rulers of the parts adjacent on the NE. and SE. frontiers : Polemon ruled over Pontus, whilst Cilicia Tracheiotis, with eastern Lycaonia, including Kastabala and Kybistra, the old eleventh Strategia, 1 was attached to the kingdom of Archelaus of Cappadocia (Strabo, 535 537 ; App. B. Mithr. 105). In course of time, however, these parts were absorbed one after another and attached to Galatia Provincia.

Additions to Province.

  • 5 B.C. Paphlagonia (the district round Mt. Olgassys [ Ulgaz Dagli\ with the cities Gangra and Andrapa) after the death of Qeiotarus brother of Castor (cp Rams, in Rev. des Et. Gr., 1894, p. 251 ; Reinach, Rev. Numism. 91, p. 395).
  • 2. B.C. Amasia and Gazelonitis, together with the domain of Ateporix (cp Rams. Hist. Conim. 121 f.).
  • 34/35 A.D. Romana Pontica. This region together with that of Amasia is called as a whole Pontus Galaticits (Ptol. v. 63) as distinguished from Pontus Polenioniacus i.e., the part of Pontus governed by King Polemon.
  • 41 A.D. Derbe and the Lycaonian part of the eleventh Strategia of Cappadocia transferred to Galatia by Claudius on the restoration of Antiochus IV. (see DERBE).
  • 63 A.D. Pontus Poletoniacus, the kingdom of Polemon II., which retained its title even after incorporation (Ptol. v. 64).

1 The eleventh Strategia dated probably from 129 B.C. (cp Justin, 37 1) ; it originally included also Derbe and Laranda. See Ramsay, Hist. Comtn. >\f. io6_/T

The core of the province was constituted by the old kingdom of Amyntas, i.e. , the territory of the three Celtic tribes with eastern Phrygia, Pisidia, Isauria, and Lycaonia, so that all the towns mentioned in Acts 13/ . as visited by Paul (except those of Pamphylia) belonged at that time to the Province Galatia.

There is no literary evidence as to the constitution imposed upon the Province, and inscriptions other than epitaphs are rare in Galatia (see Anderson in / Hell. Stud. 19 S 2/).

The governor was a legatus Augusti pro prietore i.e., the province was imperial, but there were no legions within its borders. Ancyra, as being the old home of the Galatian kings, far exceeding, then as now (cp Murray, Handb. to AM 1 8), the other towns of the province in wealth, was the official capital. It had been an important city even before the Celts entered the country (JHS 1948). In S. Galatia, Antioch (Colonia C&sarcia Antiocheia) was a sort of secondary capital, for it was in this region that the work of Romanisation was specially active from 10 B.C. to 50 A.D., as is clear from the number of Roman colonies founded by Augustus about 6 B.C. (besides Antioch, Lystra and Parlais in Lycaonia, Cremna in Pisidia, Comama and Olbasa further W. Cp CIL 3, Suppl. no. 6974). These were connected by a system of roads which radiated from Antioch as the military centre of the whole of southern Galatia (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM 398 f.). Under succeeding Emperors, especially Claudius, this policy was continued, and several cities (e.g. , Derbe and Iconium) were remodelled and renamed in Roman fashion.

In a special way the southern part of the province was important in Paul s time.

4. Settlement Of Jews.[edit]

The two main roads from Ephesus to inner Asia traversed it, dividing at Apameia in Phrygia, the one to go N. of the Sultan Dajrk through Laodiceia Combusta and Caesareia in Cappadocia to the Euphrates, the other to go S. of the range through Antioch and Iconium and the Cilician Gates. To this fact we must mainly attribute the presence of large numbers of Jews in the cities of this region (see DELUGE, 20, end). The Jewish colonies, indeed, dated from the time of the Seleucid kings, who established them with special privileges and citizen rights in their garrison towns in Asia Minor (Jos. Ant. xii. 3 i and 84. Cp vd/xos rlav louSaiW in an inscription of Apameia, Rams. Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, 538, 668. See also Schiirer, Hist, of Jews, ET, ii. 2 252^). Hence Paul s experiences in Acts 13 14 14 i Gal. 17 417. Ramsay has pointed out that the analogy between Jewish ceremonial and the entire native Phrygian and Lycaonian religious system would tend to increase the influence of the Jews (St. Paul, 141).


5. Galatians in NT: nomenclature.[edit]

What remains of this article is devoted to the question, Where were the churches to which the epistle to the Galatians was sent? 1 The accepted opinion has been that they were in northern cities not mentioned in Acts. This opinion may conveniently be called the North Galatian theory. The arguments in favour of it are discussed below ( 8-31). In recent years (see 33) it has been proposed by many scholars to find the churches in the southern cities mentioned in Acts Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra. This opinion may conveniently be called the South Galatian theory. As Ramsay has said (Expos. 95^ P- 34) The central question as to the two Galatian theories ... is so fundamental, that it affects almost every general enquiry whether in regard to Acts as a history and as a literary composition, or in regard to Paul s policy and character. 2 The question should not be taken in too narrow a sense (Ramsay, Hist. Comm. 9).

1 The references in i and 2 Mace, also are dealt with below, 32-

2 For a different view, see below, 8.

[big upside down map of Asia Minor]


Abydos, BI Added Land, The, E2 Adramyttium, B2 Alexandria, Bz Amanus M., G3 Amasia, FI Amastris, E1 Amathus, E4 Amisus, FI Ancyra, Ez Antiochia, G3 Antiochia Pisidiz, Dz Anti-Taurus M., FGz, 3 Apamea Cibotus, Dz Archelais, F2 Argreus M., F2 Assus, Bz Attalia, D3

Bosporus, CI Byzantium, CI

Cabira, GI Cresarea Mazaca, Fz Caicus Fl., Bz Calycaduus Fl., E3 Caralis L, D3 Caria, C3 Carpathus, B4 Cayster Fl., BC2 Celzenze, Dz Celenderis, E3 Chalcedon, CI Chios, ABz Cibyra, C3 Citium, E4 Cuidus, B3 Comana, G2 Colossae, c3 Comana Pontica, GI Cos, B3 Cotyreum, Cz Coracesium, E3 Cremna, D3 Creta, AB4 Curium, E4 Cybistra, F3 Cyprus, EF4 Cyzicus, BI

Delos, A3 Derbe, E3 Diospolis, GI Dorylreum, Dz

Emir Dagh, Dz Ephesus, B3 Euphrates, Fl., GHz-4

Gangra, EI Gazelonitis, FI Gordium, DI Granicus Fl., BI

Hadrianopolis, EI Halicarnassus, B3 Halys FI., E-HI, z Hassan Dagh, F2 Hellespontus, BI Heraclea Pontica, Dr Hermus Fl., Cz Hierapolis, C3

Iconium, E3 Ida M., Bz Ilium, Bz Imbros, AI Isaura, E3 Isaurica, DE3 Issus, G3

Juliopolis, DI

Lampsacus, BI Laodicea, C3 Laodicea Combusta, Ez Laranda, E3 Lectum Pr., Bz Lemnos, Az Lesbos, AB2 Lycaonia, Ez, 3 Lydia, BCz Lystra, E3

Mreander Fl., BCz, 3 Magnesia, Bz Melitene, Hz Messogis M., BCz, 3 Miletus, B3 Myndus, B3 Mysia, BC2 Mytilene, Bz

Naxos, A3 Nazianzus, Fz Neoczesarea, GI Niczea, CI Nicomedia, CI Nicopolis, HI

Olgasys M., EI Olympus M., CI, 2

Paphlagonia, EFI Paphos, E4 Parnassus, E2 Patara, C3 Patmos, B3 Perga, D3 Pergamum, B2 Pessinus, Dz Phaselis, D3 Philadelphia, Cz Philomelium, D2 Phrygia, CDz Phrygia Galatica, CDEz, 3 Pisidia, CDEz, 3 Pompeiopolis, FI Pontus Euxinus, C-HI Pontus Galaticus, FI Pontus Polemoniacus, GHI Propontis, BCI Provincia Asia, Cz Provincia Bithynia et Pontus, DEFGI Provincia Cappadocia, E-Gz Provincia Cilicia, F3 Provincia Galatia, C-FI-3 Provincia Lycia, CD3 Provincia Pamphylia, DE3 Provincia Syria, GH3 Prusa, CI Pyla? Amanicze, G3 Pyramus Fl., FG3

Regnum Antiochi IV., E-G3 Regnum Polemonis 11.. GHI Rhodus, C3

Salamis, E4 Salmone Pr., B4 Samos, B3 Samothracin, AI Sangarius Fl., CDI Sardis, Cz Sarus Fl., FGz, 3 Satala, HI Sebaste, GI Sebaste, E2 Sebastia, Gz Seleucia, E3 Selinus, E3 Sestos, BI Side, D3 Sinope, FI Sipylus M., Bz Smyrna, Bz Sultan Dagh, Dz Synnada, Dz Syria Pylz, G3

Tarsus, F3 Tatta Palus, Ez Taurus M., EF3 Tavium, Fz Tectosages, EI Tembris Fl., Dz Temnus, M., C2 Tenedos, Bz Thera, A3 Thracia, ABCI Thyatira, Bz Tium, EI Tmolus M., Cz Tolistobogii, DEz Trajanopolis, E3 Tralles, B3 Trapezus, HI Troas, Bz Trocitis L., D3 Trocmi, FI, z Trogilium Pr., B3 Troja, Bz Triopium Pr. , B3 Tyana, F3

Zela, FI

I. Case for South Galatian Theory.[edit]

The official title of the vast province we have de scribed, extending almost from sea to sea, was Galatia.

This is proved by Ptolemy s enumeration of FaAaria side by side with the other official titles of the provinces of Asia Minor, and by Pliny s definition of Galatia as extending S. to Pamphylia (HN 5 146/7, attingit Galatia Patnphylice Carbaliant ft Milyas). It is also clear from Tacitus (Hist. 2 9, Galatiam ac Pamphyliam provincias Calpurnio Asf>renati regendas Galba pertniserat [ = 68/69 A.D.]. Cp Rams, in Stud. Bibl. 4 21 f.).

Ramsay, however, contends that the Greek-speaking natives did not habitually call the province Gulatia ; they called it the Galatic Province (cp CIG 3991, an inscription of Iconium which speaks of an eTrirpoiros FaXcm/cjjs firapxias), or else enumerated its parts. The use of the single term Galatia implied the adoption of the Roman point of view, in which national distinc tions counted as nothing before the imperial organisa tion. To this antithesis between the Roman and the native standpoint is traced the difference in phrase be tween the Epistles and Acts.

On the other hand, whilst it is now admitted that Galatia was the official name of the province, 1 it is still maintained by those who favour the North Galatian theory that the derivative name Galatians could not be used in addressing Pisidians and Lycaonians as it is used of the readers of Galatians in Gal. 3 i (see below, 29). This contention, however, is not convincing.

By the Romans the ethnic derived from the name of the pro vince was regularly used to denote the inhabitants of that pro vince, irrespective of internal national distinctions. This is conclusively proved by the exhaustive discussion of Ramsay (Stud. Bill. 426/!). On the other hand, the national appella tions, such as Phryx or Lyca", were extra-Roman and servile (cp Momms. in Hermes, 84, p. 33^), and in their nature nega tive of that unity which was the imperial ideal. No general term for the whole population of the province Galatia other than Galatians was possible for the Roman governor or for the Roman historian (Tac. Ann. 156, Pontica et Galatarum Cappadocumque auxilid). The same is true, also, of the Roman Paul. Indeed no other address was possible in the case of men belonging to Roman colonies like Colonia Lcrsareia Antiocheia (Antioch) and Colonia Julia t^elix Gemina Lystra (Lystra), and of semi-Roman towns like Claua -Iconiuin (Iconium) and Clatidw-Dcrbe (Derbe). So long as we refuse to think of the four cities under these, their Roman names in Paul s time, we obscure for ourselves their true position within the province, and fail to grasp Paul s own Roman character and attitude towards the imperial system (Rams. St. Paul, 135, id. Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? 52).

This argument can be met only by adherence to the old form of the North Galatian theory, that the Churches of Galatia were the northern cities Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium (Lightf. Gal. 20 ; he doubtfully adds juliopolis, which, however, be longed to Bithynia) ; but this view runs counter to the fact that the development of the northern part of the plateau resulted later, from the transference of the seat of government first to Nicomedeia and afterwards to Constantinople (Rams. hist. Geogr. of AM, 74 197 242). It further demands an erroneous interpretation of Actsl>>6 1823 (on these verses, see, however, 9/C 12-14), otherwise no record can be found in Acts of the foundation of churches in N. Galatia.

It is a significant fact, however, that the history of the North Galatian theory shows a steady tendency to place the scene of the apostle s activity ever farther southwards. Zockler main tains the impossibility of Ancyra or Tavium, and restricts the churches of Galatia to Pessinus and the villages of the Axylon (St. Kr. 95, pp. 59, 79). Others hold that whilst the S. Galatian churches mentioned in Acts are addressed in the Ep., it includes also foundations, otherwise unknown, in N. Galatia. The South Galatian theory is that we have in Acts a complete list and a complete account of the foundation of the Galatian churches, and that Paul never travelled in any part of Galatia proper.

The attempt to restrict the application of the name Galatians (FaXdrat) to those of Celtic blood is futile, as the majority of the inhabitants of Galatia proper must have been descended from the old conquered races, the Phrygians or the Cappadocians together with, in Paul s time, Greeks, Romans, and Jews (cp, however, below, 29, end). Especially in the towns must this have been the case (Van Gelder. Gal. res).

It is true that even in the first century A.D. the Celtic element retained its distinctive characteristics (as late as the 4th cent. A.D., according to Jerome, the Celtic tongue, a dialect resem bling that of the Gallic Trereri, was used side by side with Greek) ; yet no sound argument can be based upon the supposed correspondence between the characteristics of the Galatian con verts (Gal. 5 it)f. 1 6) and those charged against the Gauls, though no doubt many passages may be quoted in support of such correspondence (cp Meyer-Sieffert, Brief an Gal. 1 ?) 5). On this pedantic analysis of Galatian character see Ramsay, Hist. Comm. 162.

1 The untenable position that it was not, first assumed by Schiirer in JPT, 92, p. 471, was abandoned in TLZ, 3Oth Sept. 93, p. 506.

The Roman provincial title Galatia is not used in Acts ; but in 166 we find the phrase T^V $>pvyiav Kal rjv xupav (EV region of Galatia ), and in Acts 18 23, the phrase rr\v Ya\aTiKr)v xupav Kal <t>pvyiai> (AV country of Galatia, RV region of Galatia ). The phrases are ambiguous, and various explanations have been proposed (see qf. 12-14).

The question as to the precise significance of these phrases must be distinguished from that as to the locality of the Galatian churches. The latter question must be fought out on the field of geography and history ; and the example of Zahn (kinl. 1 134) shows that essential acceptance of the S. Galaiian theory is compatible with a desire to interpret the doubtful phrases as referring to N. Galatia. It is for the North Galatian theorists that the interpretation of the two expressions is of vital importance, if they wish to secure coincidence between Acts and the Epistles ; otherwise they must fall back upon a theory of lacunae which turns the edge of all criticism (Rams. Stud. Bibl. 4 16).

6. Difficulty of accepted view.[edit]

The holders of the accepted North Galatian view take the term Galatic country (FaXcfm-?} %wpa) to be simply a synonym for Galatia (Oa^,*.)- i.e. Galatia proper. The argument against this is decisive : Why, if Paul and the writer of Acts both refer to Galatia proper, should they differ so remarkably as to the name, the writer of Acts employing a circumlocution which stands alone among all the references collected from ancient authors? 1 On the other hand, the ad jective Galatic (FaXcm/cis) is used by Ptolemy and in the inscriptions 2 always in a definite special sense, to indicate the extensions of the original Galatia. Paul, writing as a Roman citizen, and from the Roman im perial standpoint, never uses any but Roman provincial titles 3 (coinciding, of course, in some cases with pre- Roman national designations), whilst the Greek writer of Acts adopts the popular and colloquial usage of the more educated classes ( Rams. \n Expos. , g86, p. I25/". = Hist. Comm. 23, p. 314^).

The North Galatian view demands also that Phrygia ($>pvylav) be a noun in both passages ; but this only makes more pressing the question why the simple term Galatia was not written.

Lightfoot (Gal. 22) correctly argued that the phrase of Acts 166 (see 5, end) must denote a single territory to which the two epithets Phrygian and Galatian are applied it was, in fact, the land originally inhabited by Phrygians, but subsequently occupied by Gauls. For the proof of this point as a matter of grammar, consult Ramsay (Church in K. Emp. 486, St. Paul, 210). The historical justification of the phrase, how ever, given by Lightfoot, though true, is inadmissible here, being quite out of harmony with the style of Acts, and failing to explain why the writer should have been at the pains to use a cumbrous expression that serves no purpose.

7. South Galatian theory.[edit]

Accepting the unity of the expression in Acts 166, we may take it to be a general and comprehensive 1 description rather than as the exclusive denomination of any one particular district (so Gifford in Expos. July 94, p. 12). It denotes then the borderlands of Galatia and Phrygia. 4 This certainly gives a perfectly intelligible route to the apostle, from Antioch northwards as far perhaps as Nakoleia, where, being forbidden to cross into Bithynia, he turned westwards (Acts 167).

The route from Antioch to Nakoleia, however, lay well within the borders of Asian Phrygia (since the boundaries of Asia fell E. of Troknades, Orkistos, and Amorion, according to Ramsay [Hist. Geogr. 172] and Wadd. [Pastes, 25]). The only road to which the description Phrygian and Galatian is really applicable is the direct road from Iconium to Dorylaion (Eski S/ie/tfr), the modern araba route from Konia to Constantinople, lying many miles E. of that suggested by Giflbrd (cp Rams. op. cit. 198). From the supposition that Paul diverged N. from Iconium, the natural inference is that the prohibition to speak in Asia was given at Iconium, or at Lystra, ami that Paul did not go on to Antioch (though his intention had been to visit all the churches, Acts 15 36 : KO.TO. TrdAii> Ttatrav).

1 See Holder, Altkeltischer Sprachschatz, s.v. Galatia, where most of them are given.

2 Pontus Galaticus, CIL 3, Suppl. 6818 ; Phrygia Galatica in Ada Sanct. zSth Sept., p. 563, as emended by Rams, (in urbf Antiochice Pisidiee ex regionc Phrvgiee Galaticte, where the M S has Galacia: See Stud. Bibl. 4 26). In CIG 3991, raAaTiK^ cirapxeia. is the enlarged province (date of this inscr. = 54 A.D.).

3 So also, and for the same reason, are Roman provincial titles used in i Pot. 1 1, which sums up all Asia Minor within the Taurus. See Rams. Church in K. Emp. no ; Zahn, Em/. 1 124.

4 Lightfoot seems to approximate to this view in his Coloss.P) 24-

In the second place, Lightfoot is certainly right in his remark ( Coloss. 26 n. ) that the boundaries of the pro vince Galatia were drawn with precision.

We must not take our own ignorance of the details of the frontier line as indicating any uncertainty as to the actual limits of jurisdiction of the various governors. Even though such un- < n.iinty might obtain in particular districts, the question still remains unanswered, why here alone the writer of Acts has been careful to insist upon the ambiguity, if such there was.

Ramsay follows Lightfoot in the translation of Acts 166, rendering the Phrygo-Gahuic territory (so RV the region of Phrygia and Galatia, as against AV Phrygia and the region of Galatia ). He differs from him, however, in the explanation, holding that the various parts of the province were to some unknown extent distinct, and were termed x^>P ai - Regiones.* Two of these Kcgiones were traversed by Paul in Acts 16 1-6 1823 viz., Galatic Phrygia and Galatic Lycaonia.

The Phrygia[n] region ("tpuyia \. ; more fully the Phrygia[n] and Galatic region, ^ <I>puyia icai raAariicj) \uipa. as in Acts \6 6= Phrygia Galatica) was that part of Phrygia which be longed to the province Galatia, containing the cities Antioch and Iconium (cp Actsl46 ; where the E. boundary of the Phrygian part of the province is put between Iconium and Lystra).

Just as SE. Phrygia lay in Galatia Provincia, whilst NW. Phrygia lay in the province of Asia (hence called Ao-iai/rj *pvyta by Galen, 4312), so E. Lycaonia formed part of the kingdom of Antiochus (hence called Lycaonia Antiochiana, C/Ll0866o), whilst V7. Lycaonia lay in the province Galatia (and was prob ably called Lycaonia Calatica : cp Ponius Galaticns). It is obvious that these two sections of Lycaonia might also be spoken of respectively as the region of Antiochus ( AirioxeiaiT} \iapa. I so Ptol. v. 6 17) and the Galatic region (raAarncTj x<upa : Acts 18 23).

In Acts 16 6 the Phrygo-Galatic district is given the full name ; but in Acts 18 23 it is simply called 77 <f>piiyia (x&pa.) , 2 in the latter passage the Lycaono- Galatic region, cf the cities Derbe and Lystra (Acts 146), is also mentioned, under the title TaXariK^ x^P a -

Ramsay further holds that Paul was actually in Asia when the prohibition to preach reached him (Church in J?. Emp.& 75).

Ramsay refuses therefore to understand the participle having been forbidden (icu>Ai>0eVrfs) as giving the reason for the step described in the words they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia (SiijASov . . . xcopcti ), arguing that the order of verbs is also the order in time (fb. 89) ; in short, that AV and were forbidden is correct (as though the Greek ran Si-rjWov . . . Koi eicia\v6r)(Ta.i ). This is not impossible, though harsh. It is noteworthy, however, that in his Si. Paul, Ramsay follows Lightfoot (jBibl. Ess. 237) in retaining the reading (SieAdovre?) of the inferior MSS, upon purely subjectis e grounds 3 that can have no weight against the authority of the great MSS. The aorist, they went through (&ir\\6ov) must be read, and the participle having been prevented (nctuAvOcVres) gives the reason, not so much for the action they went through . . . region (SirjASoi . . . xwpai ), as for the suppressed verb implied in the emphasis put upon the expression the Phrygia[n] and Galatic region as opposed to in Asia they made a tour of the Phrygo-Galatic region (only, and confined themselves to that), having been forbidden, etc. *

The point at which the prohibition was received is im material, and is in no wise indicated, but is most naturally assumed to have been Antioch.

In opposition to Ramsay, who, on grounds never fully explained, regards Acts 166-io as the most remarkable, the most emotional, and the most instructive paragraph in Acts (Church in R. Em p. 484), we must call atten tion to the hiatus between 5ir)\0ov and fXtJovres.

1 An inscription given by Sterrett, E/>ig- Journey, n. 92, mentions an tiea.Tovra.p\riv peyeuivdptov, or centurion of the Regio in which Antioch lay, i.e., Phrygia Galatica. St. wrongly alters his copy to Aeyeoji/apioi . In Str. 568 ^ I(raupiit7j, and Ptol. v. 6 17, T] \vno\f (.O.VTI, the word \uipa. is to be supplied.

2 So Ramsay, taking *pi>yi a as an adjective. It may be a noun and yet bear the same significance, for in inscriptions of Antioch the noun is often used = Galatic Phrygia, CJL A, Suppl. 63i3 and 6819.

3 Ramsay, St. Paul, 195, The succession of participles suits so perfectly the strange and unique character, the hurry, and the deep-lying emotion of the passage . . . the unusual emotion de manded the unusual expression.

4 The explanation given by Ask with (The Ep. to Gal. 34), who takes the participle predicatively, they went through . . . forbidden, seems to amount to the same thing.

All mention of entry upon Asian Phrygia is omitted, together with the reasons which led to such entry ; for it is only by anticipation from the subsequent they assayed to go into Buhynia that such reason (i.e., the desire to evangelize liithynia) can be adduced. Seeing that at the outset no in tention of opening up new ground was expressed by Paul (Acts 1035; the implication seen by Ramsay in Acts 16 3 [Church in A . Emf>. 75] is unjustifiable in the face of the words TOUS on-as (v TOIS TOITOIS eictiVois), we require some explanation of his going N. instead of retracing his steps, or descending to Attaha, as on the first journey (Acts 1425).! (Cp, however, below, 10 n.)

Further, we must not demand a too rigid parallelism in meaning between the phrases of Acts 166 and 1823. The North Galatian view makes them mean precisely the same thing, accounting for the difference in form by saying that the route was reversed on the third journey ; and Ramsay, but for different reasons, regards Phrygia (4>pvyiav) of Acts 18 23 as equivalent to the whole ex pression the Phrygia[n] and Galatic region (r. t/nrvtav Kal raXaTiKyv x^P -") of Acts 166. Acts 1823, how ever, should rather be brought into closer connection than is usually the case with the resumption of the nar rative in Acts 19 1 after the digression about Apollos. The word Phrygia ($pvyiav) must be taken in Acts 1823 in the sense natural and obvious in this passage, as a noun (cp Acts 2 10). It here indicates the 0/;-Galatian part of Phrygia, the special region thereof being particu larised as the upper country (TO. dvurepiKa fJ.^pij of Acts 19 1 ) which, following Ramsay (Church in R. Emp. 94), we explain as the district traversed by the shorter hill-road by way of Seiblia and the Cayster Valley. In his most recent utterances Ramsay connects the intro duction of Christianity into Kumeneia and this region with this passage ( Cities and Dish, of Phrygia, 2502 715; cp Expos. 95, p. 389).

That Phrygia in Acts 18 23 is to be taken as including, or even solely signifying, Asian Phrygia is supported by the para phrase given by Asterius, bishop of Amaseia, in Pontus, about 400 A.D. /oieTTJASei/ o\iv (K K.opiv8ov Trpb? riji riav II icrcCiui- \topav elra. TTJV \VKaoviav KCU ras TTJS 4>pvyia jroAeis KaraAa(3uir, KaKeldfv TTfV \(7iav eirKncei^d/iecos, elm -ri)i> MaiccSonai , (cotros liv rijsoiicou;iuVT;sSiSao <caAos(j W>-. Gr., ed. Migne, xl., Horn. 8). The traditional confusion of the Syrian with the Pisidian Antioch does not justify Zahn (Einl. 1 136) in setting this evidence aside as a mere false inference. The passage proves that Asterius interpreted the Galatic region (rt\v 1 aAa-iKrji Xiopa^of Acts 1823 as Lycaonia (against the N. Galatian hypo thesis) ; but it also proves that he took tpuyt av to signify the country between the Galatic region and Asia (using the latter term in the narrower Byzantine sense). A possible re joinder might be based upon the words confirming all the disciples, in Acts 1823 that, on the hypothesis expressed above, there could not have been any disciples in Asian Phrygia at the time of Paul s passage through that region. Yet we must grant the probability of the expansion of the teaching from the Christian centres in Galatian Phrygia and Lycaonia, even as from Ephesus in Asia at a later date. Paul s work would be wrongly conceived as that of a pioneer simply. \v. j. \y.

1 So also Zahn (Einl. 1135) rightly protests against the in variable but unjustifiable assumption that Bithynia was Paul s goal from the moment ttiat Asia was closed against him. Der Absicht aber, nach B. vorzudringen, wird erst in deni Moment gedacht, wo P. nahe an der Grenze B. und zugleich an einem Punkt stand, wo eine andere Strasse nach Mysien abging.

2 Thus we find conservative theologians like Zahn and Zdckler ranged on opposite sides, and similarly critical writers like Hausrath and Lipsius Zahn and Hausrath supporting the South, and Zockler and Lipsius the North Galatian theory.

II. Case for North Galatian Theory.[edit]

8. North galatian theory : general case.[edit]

The following paragraphs are devoted to a statement of the reasons which in the view of the writer compel adoption of the North Galatian theory.

i. General case for North Galatian theory. - It may perhaps conduce to a dispassionate consideration of these if it is pointed out at once that the question is, after all, not one of first-rate moment. How comparatively subordinate in importance it is is illustrated even in the strange way in which it has severed allies and united opponents. 2

It would be a great mistake to imagine that the establishment of the South Galatian theory would mean the vindication of the thorough credibility of the whole of Acts, or that to prove the North Galatian theory would be to discredit the book entirely. Only a few sections of Acts are involved. The rest of the book has to be tried by other tests (ACTS, 2 4-7 12-14 1 C P a l so such articles as APOLLOS, BAKJESLS, CORNELIUS, CHRISTIAN, COMMUNITY, COUNCIL, SIMON MAGUS, THEUDAS). Nor can acceptance of the North Galatian theory be said to cast a reflection on the author of Acts that is excessively grave. He has not stated what is untrue ; he has simply omitted to mention a subject at its proper place and touched upon it very slightly when he mentions it later the subject, namely, of the founding of the Galatian churches. Much more serious (to confine ourselves to Galatia) is a shortcoming of a different kind his total failure, namely, to mention another matter of which we learn from the epistle to the Galatians. The appearance of the Judaizers, their baleful influence, and Paul s polemic against them con stitute one of the most important chapters in the history of early Christianity, and yet Acts does not mention them at all. Still this charge does not depend on the acceptance of the North Galatian theory ; it is quite as serious from the point of view of the other. It is unnecessary, however, to anticipate here what will have to be said later (see 19) ; we proceed accordingly to lay down a general basis for the discussion of the question which ought to be treated as purely historical.

It is established beyond dispute that in Paul s time the districts in which are situated Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antiochia Pisidia i.e. , the cities visited by him on what is usually called his first missionary journey (Acts 13 /. ) belonged to Galatia Provincia (see above, 3), and that in official usage the word Galatia also included them. 1

Derbe and Lystra lay in that part of Lycaonia which had been added to the province of Galatia ; Iconium and Antioch in the portion of Phrygia - which then belonged to the same province.

Thus it becomes in a general way not impossible that the epistle to the Galatians may have been addressed to the churches of South or New Galatia.

ii. Any churches in North Galatia ? The possibility would be changed into certitude if Paul had founded no churches at all in North Galatia. In that case Acts 166 1823, the only places in Acts where mention is made of Galatia, would have to be understood of South Galatia, for churches in Galatia are presupposed in 1823 at least.

1 See especially Pliny, HJV \: 42 146 f.; Ptol. v. 4 \if. ; also Pliny, HN v. 27 95 ; Tac. Ann. 1835 156, cp Hist. lq; cp Ramsay in St. bibl. et eccles. 421-39, and .>/., 98^, p. 129^ = Historical Commentary on Galatians, 318-320 (chap. 24).

2 At that time Iconium belonged, more strictly, to Lycaonia. Acts 14 6, however, seems to represent Lycaonia as being first entered on the way from Iconium to Lystra. Ramsay, there fore (Church, chap. 2 5), assumes that the author is here following the ancient popular usage in accordance with which Iconium belonged to Phrygia ; so in Xenophon (Anab. i. 2 19) and even down to the second century A.D. According to Ramsay (chap. 2 3), Antioch in Paul s time belonged to Phrygia, and ought to have been called on the side of Pisidia (q rrpbs Ilio-iSia), to distinguish it from a city of the same name on the Maeander, on the border of Phrygia and Caria. From this, he considers, came the abbreviation (Acts 13 14) Pisidian Antioch ( Ai/ridxeta ^ Ilio-iiia), whilst at a later date the conception Pisidia was so far extended that it included Antioch, and the reading of D, Antioch of Pisidia ( Ai/Tioxa riijs Hi<riSia.<;), came to be appropriate. The non-Galatian portion of Lycaonia constituted the kingdom of king Antiochus ; the non-Galatian portion of Phrygia belonged to the province of Asia.

9. Acts 16:6-18:23 refer to South Galatia?[edit]

Ramsay, the most recent and most cautious advocate of this theory in Great Britain, at the outset, and even down to p.77-78 of the 3rd ed. of his Church, identified the cities traversed by Paul and Silas according to Acts 16:4-5 with the four we have mentioned - Derbe and Lystra (already visited in 16 1), Iconium (incidentally mentioned in 162), and Antioch (last named in 14 21). On this view he explained the 'And they went through' (5ir)\dov 5e) of 166 as geo graphical recapitulation of the journey through the second pair of these four cities, Iconium and Antioch that is to say, through Galatian Phrygia.

On the other hand, in an appendix to the same book, p. xiit, he finds in 1(3 4 y only the Lycaonian-Galatian churches, Derbe and Lystra, named in 1(3 i, together with the Syrian and Cilician, mentioned in 1641, and no longer says of 106 that it recapitulates the journey, but that the journey is resumed from Lystra as from the last point which, according to the narrative, Paul and Silas had reached. In agreement with this, in St. Paul, chap. 8 i (iSoyC), he expressly controverts the interpretation of 10 2 according to which Paul had already reached Iconium by way of Lystra.

In both views of the matter, however, Ramsay takes the Phrygia(n) and Galatic region (TT]V <bpvyiav Kal ra\aTiKT]v x- ) to mean the regio i.e. , the portion of the province which by its ancient popular name is Phrygian, but by its new official designation is Galatian. Thus he takes and (Kal) as sire, and Phrygia as adjectival, just as Galatic is. In 1823, according to Church^, chap. 5, n. i (p. 90), the same territory is intended as in 166; all that we have is a variation in form (or in order") the Galatic region and Phrygia (T. raXartKTji x- taJ <bpvyiav) and this is correct and excellent, if " Phrygia" here is a noun.

For further elucidation Ramsay refers to p. 93. There, however, we find him expressing another view, namely, that in 1823 are included not only Iconium and Antioch but also Derbe and Lystra. If the writer wished to carry out this complicated phraseology he would have had to say : Lycaono-Galatic and Phrygo- Galatic. He avoids the difficulty by using the simple phrase : the Galatic country. The Galatic region thus, according to Ramsay, here includes the Lycaonian and the Phrygian portion of the province of Galatia. This is implied, also, in the expression immediately following the words quoted above : after traversing which, Paul would reach Asian Phrygia. On this view, accordingly, Phrygia in 1823 denotes, not (as in 166) the portion of Phrygia belonging to the province of Galatia, but that which belonged to the province of Asia.

In the appendix (p. xiit) Ramsay expresses a third view that in 1823 Galatic region is only Lycaonia Galatica, whilst " Phrygia" is Phrygia Galatica. J

Further, as regards the prohibition to preach in Asia i. e. , according to Ramsay, in the province of Asia Ramsay s former view (Church^, 75 ; also app. p. xiit) was that Paul had already received it in Antiochia Pisidia. In the Expos., 95^, p. 392, and in Church^, 75, however, he maintains that it came to him only after he had already entered the province of Asia. In either view, however, this being prevented (Ku\v6evTfs) conies in point of time after they went through (5t^\- Oov] what Ramsay holds to be linguistically possible (dirjXdov /cwXi ^eires = SiyXBoi Kal fK(a\vd-q<Ta.v = Sie\- Oovres K(j}\v9t]ffav ; Church, chap. 4 ad fin. , p. 89 in 3rd and 4th editions, in 4th ed. also 485 f. ; St. Paul, chap. 94, n. 2). At the same time, he declares (Expos. 953, p. 393, n. i ; Church^, 486) his South Galatian theory to be perfectly consistent with taking Kti}\v0evT^ ["being prevented"] as giving the reason for 5ir)\0oi> ["went through"]. It is hard to perceive how this can be ; but, in any case, as has been noted above ( 7), Ramsay has changed his position, inas much as now (Sf. Paul, ch. 9i [p. 195 ./]), along with Lightfoot (Bibl. Ess. 237 f. ), he follows the inferior manuscripts (reading And having traversed . . . having been forbidden . . . having come over against Mysia, they attempted, etc. ; similarly AV ; dif\66vres o^ ... KW\v0&Tes . . . {\86vres Kara TTJV Mwrtap eireipafov, etc.). This reading of TR suits the South Galatian theory admirably ; but the reason he gives for preferring it is purely subjective (see above, col. 1595, n. 3). Considerations of this kind do not admit of argument ; but it may be said that the MSS HLP which support the reading have no weight.

1 Similarly St. Paul, chap. 646 (pp. 104, my.); Stud. bibl. et eccles. 4 56 ; Church(*t, 482 f. and 90*, whilst p. 93, word for word agreeing with Church*?}, follows the second view. And in St. Paul, chap. 94, n i (p. 210 f.) ; Stud. bibl. et eccles. I.e. ; Church(*}, 90*483 ; Gal. introd., iq, p. 209, he holds Phrygia (Q>pvyiai>) in 18 23 to be an adjective. See below, 13. He has not changed his view of 166.

10. No ; to North Galatia.[edit]

With regard to the correct reading 'they went through, . . . being prevented' (dirj\6ov . . . /cwXuWyres), it has to be maintained that the participle must contain, if not something antecedent to 'they went ' ( S ^ x0w ) t at least something synchronous with it, in no case a thing subsequent to it, if all the rules of grammar and all sure understanding of language are not to be given up.

Synchronism is what is denoted by the aorist participle (for example) in 1 24, where it precedes the verb, and in 1726, where it follows it; 1 2835 and even 2613 must be similarly taken if the text is to be accepted (WH conjecture some primitive error, and prefer with cursives, Vg., etc., the fut. ao-iraero/xei Oi). In 106, however, being prevented" (/ciuAv^eVres) could be con ceived to refer to something synchronous with they went (fiujAOov) only if Asia ( Acna) could be taken to denote the same country as the Phrygia(n) and Galatic region (^ 4>puyia ai raAoTiKT) xaipa). In point of fact, however, only Phrygia can be taken to mean a portion of Asia, and that only in one case viz., when Asia is understood as meaning the entire province of that name ; yet Galatia, whether taken as desig nating a district of country or as the name of a province, is in any case distinct from Asia.

Thus being prevented (Kw\vOtvres) must be held to have been antecedent to they went (5iTJ\6ov). Again, as Ramsay himself assumes, the prohibition to preach in Asia cannot naturally be supposed to have been made until Paul had entered Asia, or (at least) was on the point of doing so. From Lystra, where we left him (IGzf-s]}, it is impossible to pass directly into Asia (the nearest portion of which would be Asian Phrygia) ; Asia could be entered only after traversing Galatian Phrygia (Iconium and Antioch). This region, accordingly, must have been passed through before the occurrence of the preventing (KuXiifffOai). Now, if a journey through this same Galatian Phrygia (as Ramsay understands the geo graphical name) is indicated in the text as having followed the preventing, the journey in question can only have consisted in a renewed visit to the churches which had just been left. If this were what the author really meant, he would expose himself to a charge of very great carelessness for not having been more ex plicit ; but if he did not know that a return was involved, an accusation of geographical confusion would become inevitable. Moreover, it would be contrary to the whole practice of Paul (see e.g. , IB?/.), because he had been prohibited from preaching in a given district, to give up all search for a new field for his activities, and consent to have his mission brought to a stand in a country which he had just left as being already suffi ciently provided for. -*

1 So also in Gal. 3 19, where Ramsay (Ex., "98^, p. 333 f.= Gal. 381 [ch. 38]) wrongly takes Siarayeis Si ayye Awi/, ordained through angels, as something following 6 I/O/AOS TrpcxreTt Or] the law was added in point of time.

2 This improbable supposition seems to be the inevitable result even of the attempt made above in 7. If the pro hibition to preach in Asia (Acts 166) constitutes the reason, not for the journey of Paul and Silas through the Galatian portion of Phrygia (and thus through Iconium and Antiochia Pisidia), but for a fact which the reader is left to infer from the explanation given, viz., that ‘they confined themselves to this region,’ then they must either have remained in Antioch, which according to $ 7 they had already reached, or they must have retraced their step. Moreover we fail to find that any such additional fact is suggested by the simple statement ‘And they went through,’ etc. (6tijhBov SA, K.T.A.), or that when supplied it harmonises with the subsequent context. According to v. 7 Pan1 and Silas did not confine themselves to the Phrygo- Galatian territory, but advanced farther to the N. Thus in very deed we have a 'hiatus';- not, however, between ' they went through ' (S~ijMov, ZI. 6) and ' [Then] they went' (dABdv~es, v. 7), two expressions which, on the view we are about to develop, hang excellently well together, but between the (supplied) notion that Paul and Silas were restricted to Phrygo-Galatia, and the actual continued journey to the N. (;h86v~er, etc.). The 'hiatus' is obviated a: soou as the supplement is taken away.

Thus, we must take the Phrygia(n) and Galatic region (TTJV $pvytcu> xal Ya\a,TiKT)v xwpa^) to mean something else than Galatian Phrygia (or otherwise Galatian Lycaonia). In that case, however, the only remaining alternative is to take Galatic region as meaning Old Galatia. Phrygia can then be that portion of Galatian Phrygia which if we assume the prohibition to preach in Asia to have been received in Galatian Phrygia Paul and Silas had not yet traversed, but had to tra verse in order to reach North Galatia : or it can be Asian Phrygia, if they thought they could reach North Galatia by this route more easily, or if they had already entered Asian Phrygia before the prohibition came. That this last is what had actually occurred is now assumed, as already mentioned, by Ramsay himself; and that it was only the preaching in Asia that was interdicted, not the travelling through it, is excellently argued by himself from the fact that in 167, at Bithynia, mention of the prohibition to travel through it is ex pressly added.

11. Paul's route to North Galatia.[edit]

It is objected that North Galatia is very difficult of access to travellers. Broadly, however, this cannot be granted if we look at the roads which are shown in Ramsay's own map. 1 That Judaizers in particular were able to find their way thither 5 shown by the fact that Jewish as many as five inscriptions of Old [North] Galatia ( CIG 3 4045 4074 4088 4092 ; add 4087 with Ramsay, Gal. , introd. , 15, p. 169, and REJ lO?? [ 85]). The only point for consideration is as to whether Paul and Silas could have found a tolerable route into North Galatia from their last halt ing-place before 166. If, as Ramsay will have it, this halting -place was Antiochia Pisidia, the direct route northwards lay over the Sultan Dagh. If this range could not be crossed, it was possible to go round it, either eastward through Galatian Phrygia or westward through Asian Phrygia. The only remaining geographi cal difficulty is as to how they could subsequently get out of North Galatia Kara TTJV ~M.v<riai> (167). Whether we take this to mean over against Mysia (cp 27?), or in the neighbourhood of Mysia, is immaterial; in either case, a point is intended from which it would be possible to go to Bithynia also. Such a point is best found in Asian Phrygia.

Although North Galatia is the last region mentioned as tra versed before 16 7, we are not precluded from supposing that, after passing through some part of Phrygia into North Galatia, Paul and Silas actually made their way from North Galatia into the northern part of Asian Phrygia. Ramsay assumes that the iourney from 166 to 167 must have been due N. through Asian Phrygia. Thus, North Galatia would be excluded because not named. This assumption, however, is not compelled by the text. Even on Ramsay s interpretation of 166 as referring to Galatian Phrygia, the journey through one district is omitted in Acts that, namely, through Asian Phrygia unless being pre vented ((ooAuSeVres) is to be taken as subsequent to they went (Sirj\0ov). At this point, in fact, the narrative is curt ; and assuredly it admits of being filled up in the sense indicated above quite as readily as in that advocated by Ramsay.

In 1823 the text is explicit in favour of the assumption that Paul s route was directed to North Galatia and lay through Cappadocia, in other words, somewhat as follows : via Arabissos, Kokussos, Arasaxa, Matiane, Archelais, Parnassos, and then Ancyra, Germa, Pessinus.

Had Paul gone through Cilicia to South Galatia, he would certainly have strengthened the Cilician churches also ; and this would have been mentioned, as in 1541, all the more because in 1823 stress is laid upon in order (icafJffTJs). That is further a reason why we should not think of this third journey (if North Galatia is regarded as its goal) as having, nevertheless, been taken (as the second had been) through Cilicia and South Galatia (cp 17). In that case, moreover, the idea conveyed by Galatic region (raAart/oj \uipa.) would become unclear.

1 The only route by which Ephesus, it may be remarked, can be reached from Ancyra, the capital of Old [North] Galuti.i, is a circuitous route, leading first to the north-westward almost as far as to the Black Sea (crossing the river Sangarius, N E of Nic^ea in Bithynia) and then turning southward to Kotiaion ; and yet (Ramsay, A .r/., 98*, p. 413 -Gal. 254 [chap. (>]) between the two cities there was such abundant (or easy ) com munication as leaves it," in Ramsay s opinion, unexplained why Paul s news [of the Galatians change of attitude referred to in Gal. 16] was so sudden and so completely disastrous, even if one places Galatians as early as possible in the Ephesian residence of Paul.

According to what has just been said, the Phrygia of 1823 will be not the Galatian but the Asian Phrygia, as the route from N. Galatia to Ephesus (19 1) lay through the latter, not through the former (see above, ii, note, and 7, end). In 166 also we must under stand the Asian Phrygia, not the Galatian, a question which up to this point of the enquiry has been left open (cp, further, 15, end). The successive journeys, then, are to be figured thus : according to 166, Paul had already come from South Galatia westwards as far as to Asia (for what we are to understand, more exactly, by this, see below, 14/1 ), or at least to the neighbourhood of Asia ; then, in con sequence of the prohibition to preach there, he directed his steps in a north-easterly direction, and reached North [Old] Galatia through Asian Phrygia.

If it be felt, with Ramsay, that North Galatia had too unim portant a place in the movement of the world to deserve to be chosen by Paul as a mission field, it always remains open to us to suppose his objective to have been East Bithynia, that he tarried in North Galatia on the way only on account of illness, and that as soon as he had recovered sufficiently he made for West Bithynia.

According to 1823, on the other hand, if we do not neglect the changed order of the words, he travelled from the E. through Cappadocia into North Galatia in the first instance, and afterwards into Asian Phrygia and thence to Ephesus.

12. Linguistic advantages of North Galatian theory.[edit]

Linguistically also the North Galatian theory thus offers three great advantages. First, it enables us to interpret Galatic region (FaXcm^ ****) in both passages consistently ; so also Phrygia <*W): whilst, according to Ramsay's second view (referred to above ; see 9), both expressions and, according to his third view, Galatic region, have to be taken in 1823 in a sense different from that which they bear in 166. Secondly, it does justice to the changed order in which the words occur, which Ramsay certainly does not. Lastly, on this view the association of the two geographical names becomes correct, whilst in 1823 alike according to the second and according to the third view of Ramsay, we have the anomaly that the first member of the pair is designated by the name of the province of which it forms a part, whilst the second is designated by its own special name without any indication of the province to which it belongs.

On Ramsay's second interpretation, according to which the two districts belong to separate provinces, uniformity would have demanded that both provinces should be named the Galatic and the Asian region (though, indeed, this would not tell which region of each of the provinces is intended). The confusion of the text of Acts 1823 would be the more incredible because the second member would denote the Phrygian region without more precise designation, whilst the firs: member also contains, as Ramsay holds, a Phrygian region namely, that belonging to the province of Galatia.

According to Ramsay s third view both members belong to the same province Galatia. On that hypothesis it becomes all the more inconceivable that the first member (Galatian Lycaonia) should be called simply the Galatian region, as if the second (Galatian Phrygia) were not equally a Galatian region. As on Ramsay s second view we should have expected to read the Galatian and the Asian region, so, on his third, uniformity would demand the Lycaonian and the Phrygian region (supply, of the province of Galatia ).

Ramsay now says (St. Paul, chap. 646) that in Lycaonia Galatic region (raXaTt/cij X^P a ) without qualification was a current expression used to distin guish the Galatian Lycaonia from that region of Lycaonia which belonged to king Antiochus. If this be so, we have in this member of the phrase not an official but a quite local expression. How, then, could any writer have coupled with this as a second member, by the use of a common article, another expression which has no local usage to justify it ?

Who could be expected to understand even this second expression correctly ? According to Ramsay Si. Paul represents his third view only Galatian Phrygia is intended ; but the author says Phrygia without qualification. Moreover, who could be expected to understand the first expression? In Phrygia also one could equally well use the phrase Galatic region (1 aAa.Tiio) \u>pa.), without qualification, to distinguish Galatian Phrygia from Asian Phrygia. In fact, Ramsay himself (C/nircM*), 4827^) adds : When persons at a distance dis tinguished the two parts [viz., of Lycaonia], they of course sub stituted [ Lycaonia ] AVKOLOVIO. for [ region ] x<apa, designating them as Lycaonia Antiochiana and Lycaonia Galatica. This is exactly what the author of Acts does not do.

In a word, we have here three pieces of carelessness which Ramsay ought not to have attributed to an author whom he ranks as a historian with Thucydides (Sf. Paul, p. 3 f. ). On the North Galatian theory the meaning of Galatic region (TaXariKr) x^P a ) is c ear without any knowledge of local phraseology.

13. In Spite of ra/laTiKi Xupa.[edit]

Ramsay (Churc h, 79-81, gof, Exp., 98^, pp. 126-128 = Gal. 314-316 [chap. 23]) maintains that for North Galatia the form 'Galatia' (FaAcm a) is always used, and urges the adjectival form 'Galatic' as proving that a region added to Galatia only at a later date is intended. As an analogy he cites Pontus Galaticus. In this case, however, the indication that the district did not originally belong to Galatia lies not in the adjective but in the substantive (Pontus) ; and the case will not be changed even if, for the sake of brevity, the substantive is dropped, for the reader would still have supplied the word Pontus. The substantive region (xupa), also, Ramsay considers to be against the interpretation Old Galatian, and to point to a new district recently added ; and the position is supported (ChurchW, 483) by the newly- adopted rendering of Phrygia (&pvyia) in 1823 as an adjective, inasmuch as hereby, besides the Ly caonian, the Phrygian district which had been newly added to Galatia is designated as region (^wpa). But in Mk. Is the Judoea region (i; lovdaia x^P a ) s quite the same as Judasa (ij lovSala) in the parallel Mt. 85. In truth, it is quite arbitrary to assume, as Ramsay does, that region (x^pa) must necessarily be the Greek equivalent for regio in the sense of an officially delimited division of a province. If region (xupa) in a non-official sense means simply district, then Galatic region (FaXcm/c^ x^P a ) w ^ naturally mean the district inhabited by Galatians properly so-called z .f. , Old [North] Galatia. Nor would this meaning be excluded even if region {-^pa.} were to be taken in the official sense. There is, however, absolutely nothing remarkable in the author s employment of the non-official language. He does it, for example, also in Lk. 28 826 1513-15 19i2 Acts lOsg 2620 (cp Jn. Ils4). In so doing he follows the usage of the LXX (i) x^P a T ^ v XaXScuuji , Gen. 1128 31 Neh. 9? ; T&V Affffvpiwv, Is. 27 13; T&V lovSalwv, Is. 19 17; iv x&p<i- Alyvirriuv, Is. 19 19; AlyvwTm, Is. 19 20; et s yrjv Z^etp els x^P av E5a>/t, Gen. 32 3 [4] [%wpa thus = 7?;: just as in 112831 777 and xwpa are parallel]). This use of language de prives of all force Ramsay s question (Exp. , 986, p. 126 = Gal. 314 [ch. 23]) : Why should Luke alone employ everywhere a different name for the country, diverging from the universal usage of Greek and Latin writers, and also from his master Paul ? Lk. s use of region (xupa) shows that he is employing not (in a strict sense) a name but a periphrasis as in Acts 10 39 2620 (xwpo. TTJS lovdaias). Perhaps the purpose of the periphrasis is to suggest the participation of the inhabitants in the events recorded (cp col. 1604, n. 3). It may even be conjectured that Lk. uses region (^oJpa) in the non- official sense in all the other passages also (Acts 1849 [as in Lk. 15 14], Acts 12 20 Lk. 3i), perhaps also in Acts 8 1, although the plural (xwpcu) can also mean the country districts as contrasted with the town, as in Lk. 21 21.

As for the divergence from the practice of Paul in particular, since that apostle would certainly have found such a periphrasis inappropriate in passages so formal as Gal. 12 i Cor. 16 1 (2 Tim. 4io), we are unable to find in these few passages any proof that he never expressed himself otherwise. On the other hand, we cannot share Ramsay s presupposition that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul and painfully followed his manner of expressing himself except in cases where he could follow a usage that had a Greek rather than a Roman flavour (see next col. , note 2, end).

14. And of the common article.[edit]

Ramsay insists that, on account of the common article, the words the Phrygia(n) and Galatic region" in 16:6 must denote a single territory, which must thus have lain in South Galatia. This cannot be conceded, if only because and (/ecu) in the sense of or (sire) can never be the rule, but only at most a rare exception. 1

Ramsay himself has withdrawn this contention by his further elaboration of his argument in the Exf>os., 95^, pp. 26-40. There he says rightly, that the writer of Acts regards two substantives, when he takes them together under one article, as a unity only in a certain sense namely, as a pair. He denies the applicability of this rule to 106, not because in this passage we are dealing with adjectives, not substantives, but only because the two, if regarded as different countries, would belong to different provinces ( Phrygia I tpiryt a], he says rightly, on this view that is, on the North Galatian theory must be the part pertaining to the province of Asia), and because, accordingly, preaching had been prohibited in Phrygia but not in Galatia.

Even if this distinction had to be made, there was nothing in it to prevent the writer, in so summary a narrative, from including both districts under one article. 2 To do so became still easier as he employed the common substantive region, ~x&pa. (it is best, with Ramsay, to take Phrygia [$>pvyia] in 166, as well as in 1823, as an adjective). 3

Apart from this, there is another answer to Ramsay s objection. If by Phrygia (following one of the two possibilities mentioned above, 10, end) we are to understand the remaining portion of Galatian Phrygia which Paul and Silas had still to traverse before enter ing North Galatia, the prohibition to preach applies to this just as little as to the Galatic region (YaXariKT) X^pa). Or, if Asian Phrygia is intended the con clusion come to under i r and by Asia not the entire province of Asia but only in the popular sense the /Egean coast lands without Phrygia ( 15 ; cp Ramsay, Church, chap. 82), the prohibition to preach applies to Phrygia as little as to the Galatic region and the two quite accurately constitute a pair.

1 Ramsay even supports this rendering (St. Paul,c\i. 84, n. i, p. 2ioyi) by Acts 13g Saul, who also [is] Paul, SoOAos 6 icat IlaOAos as if also and or were the same (cp Winer s Gramm.( s ) 18, n. 6 ; in Moulton s translation of the earlier edition, 133). Hardly less bold is the rule which he lays down in St. Paul, I.e. : when a list is given in Greek, the items of which are designated by adjectives with the same noun, the regular order is to use the noun with the first alone ; and in Church(^, 486 : when two separate things, desig nated by the same noun accompanied by different adjectives, are coupled together, the proper order is to express the noun with the first adjective and to leave it to be understood with the second. He has himself found it necessary to recognise excep tions in Strabo (Church^, 486!).

2 Ramsay (E.rfios., 951$, pp. 29-33) does not venture to allege that in Acts two districts can be grouped under a common article only when they are politically connected ; he is con strained to add that this may happen also if they constitute a unity for the purpose of the mission. Even this, however, hardly holds good in 15 3, and certainly not in 19 21 or in what he himself recognises as an exception 27 5.

3 Ramsay is mistaken in supposing that the adjectival char acter of Phrygia (<t>piryi a) is an argument against the North Galatian theory.

15. Official usage not strict in Lk.[edit]

It would not, it is true, be permissible to take Asia in this popular sense if the view held by Ramsay - formerly at least (Church, 82) - were correct : the view, namely, that the narrative of Paul's travels - all of them, not merely the 'we' portions under Paul's influence -invariably uses the geographical expressions that were capable of more than one meaning in the official Roman sense, and that Luke, the author of the narrative, is distinguished by this from the usage of Acts elsewhere, which in 2gf. (where Phrygia is mentioned along with Asia), and perhaps also in 69, follows the popular use. Even at this earlier date, however, Ramsay found himself forced to concede that, in the case of Iconium, Lk. follows the popular usage (see above, col. 1597, n. 2). As Ramsay now completely identities the author of the entire book of Acts with the author of the journey- narrative (St. Paul, ch. 17 i), he is all the less justified in attributing to the latter in 166 a conception of Asia different from that in 2g^ Moreover, the critical view of Acts regards both passages as due to the author of the complete work, the we source not beginning till 169. Thus that Asia is used in the popular sense in 166 becomes probable, because it is so used undoubtedly in 2g and the remaining passages in Acts admit of either interpretation. 2

Here, then, we can now say still more precisely than in ii that Paul, proceeding from South Galatia (Lystra, etc. 16 1-5) westwards, had already reached Asia (in the narrower sense) or at least its neighbour hood (1660)^ that, on account of the prohibition to preach there, he directed his steps (166^) towards the NE. , and founded, first, in Asian Phrygia, those churches which we find him visiting anew in 1823, and afterwards those in North Galatia. 3 As for the word Phrygia, it must unquestionably be used in the popular sense, for the word has no different official sense what ever. The word thus includes in point of language the whole of the former territory of Phrygia, and it is only as a matter of fact that the meaning is limited to the Asian portion (see above, 1 1 ).

1 Ramsay believes it possible from his point of view to main tain so much at least that Luke, as long as he was under the influence of Paul, and thus while he was writing out his memoirs of the journey, followed the official usage, and only afterwards adopted the popular. Such a change would in itself be remark able enough. Moreover, see 16.

2 See the enumeration of them given elsewhere (AsiA, col. 339 end, col. 340 end). In Stud. bibl. et cedes. (443-46) Ramsay withdraws his concession of a popular use of the word Asia in a sense less extended than as denoting the province, because other writers of the same period use Asia only of the entire quarter of the globe if not of the province. But an author who, as in Acts^gyT, names Phrygia alongside of Asia unquestionably does employ Asia in a narrower sense than as denoting the province of this name ; and the fact remains, even if this usage is not followed by other writers. Against the restriction of the meaning to Mysia, Lydia, Caria, and smaller districts in short, the ./Egean coast lands Ramsay, Stud. Bibl. 4 y>f., urges that it did not come in till after the division of the province in 295 A.D. The point, however, is not whether exactly these districts are what is meant, but merely that Phrygia is not included along with them. On Ramsay s own showing (Church, chap. 8 2) this was so also when the province of Asia was constituted in 133 B.C. ; and the narrower use of Asia (without Phrygia), which unquestionably occurs in Acts 2 9, may be a survival from that time. As for the name Galatia, the fact of its not occurring in Acts \%f. might seem to make against its being used in Acts in the official sense. The objection would apply with double force on Ramsay s assumption that when Luke mentions a certain district in which Paul proposes to make a missionary tour, he always names it by its comprehensive and official name before particularising (Kxp., gs/>, 35-40). The assumption, however, cannot be maintained. Ramsay himself in one place (St. Paul, ch. 5i, p. 91) limits the assumption by the insertion of the word usually, but he afterwards (//. ch. 9 i, p. 196) leaves it unqualified ( wherever ). Apart from the notices of entrances upon new missionary fields, Ramsay attributes the employment of the official phraseology to Luke in other places also (ch. 61, no. 3, p. 135^ and ch. 114, p. 253_/C). On the other hand, in Exp., gS/>, p. 126 = Gal. chap. 23, p. 315, he accentuates the opposite view : it has been shown in page after page of my St. Paul that Luke follows the Greek popular and colloquial usage, as it was current among the more educated half of society in the cities of the ^Egean land (cp 13, end).

8 We assume, with Ramsay, that in Acts 16 6 and in other (though not, as Ramsay holds, in all) places in Acts the going through (&iepxrda.i) was accompanied with missionary preach ing. See ASIA, col. 340, n. i. Compare also the conjecture regarding region (xoipa) above, 13 (col. 1602, end).

  • So Ramsay, Church, chap. 82, St. Paul, chap. (>i, no. 3,

p. 135^/C ; Exj>., gSi, pp. 29-32 iv^f.Gal. chap. 14, pp. 275- 278, chap. 23, p. 314; also Zahn (Einl. in das NT, n, n. 4), who, however, although a supporter of the South Galatian theory, traverses every other contention of Ramsay s dealt with above in 9-15 (so far as they are to be found in Church; St. Paul he had not yet seen).

16. Or in Paul.[edit]

Apart, however, from the question whether Lk. adhered exactly to the usage of Paul - it is quite unpermissible to say of Paul that he invariably confined himself to the official usage. 4

The assertion may possibly hold good for 2 Cor. 11 9, if, as Ramsay (A j /., 95^, p. 38) tells us, Philippi did not belong to Macedonia in popular parlance, for 2 Cor. HsyT certainly re lates to the same events as Phil. 4 is_/I Besides this instance, there is yet one other curiously enough, unnoticed by Ramsay which favours his view. Galilee and Samaria became incor porated with Judiea as a single territory under Roman rule according to Josephus, Ant. xix. 2 BJ ii. lie, after the death of Herod Agrippa I. (Acts 12 23) in 44 A.D., but accord ing to Tacitus (Ann. 1^54) after the deposition of Ventidius Cumanus in 52 A.D. (Schiir. GJV\ 476/i, ET 1 172^). That the official name of this territory was Judsea we have evidence going as far back as 69 A.D. (Tac. Hist. 2 5). It can hardly be doubted, therefore, that the name had been already given to it in 44 A.D. (or 52 A. D.). If, now, we are at liberty to assume the existence of Christian churches in Galilee we may be sure that Paul did not intend to exclude them when he wrote i Thess. 2 14 Gal. 1 22. As, nevertheless, he mentions only Judaea, he appears to be following the official phraseology. 1

All the other passages adduced by Ramsay, on the other hand, prove nothing.

Judaea is named by Paul in 2 Cor. 1 16, Rom. 1631 also ; but here only the narrower meaning need be understood.

Where, apart from 2 Cor. 11 9, he names Macedonia (i Thess. 1 ] f. 4 10, i Cor. 1(3 5, 2 Cor. 1 16 213 7581, Rom. 15 26, and also Phil. 415) the apostle may be using the word quite as well in its popular as in its official sense.

So also with the Syria and Cilicia of Gal. 1 21. The order in which they are named here is not in accordance with that in Acts 9 30 11 25 f., which brings Paul from Jerusalem first to Cilicia, and then to Syria. Ramsay seeks to remove the dis crepancy by showing that at that time Syria and Cilicia were united as a single province but had not received a common name. But should Paul ever have found it necessary to enumerate them in an order which was not that of his actual route, this necessity could only have arisen from the existence of a fixed and unvarying usus loquendi such as we have for example in the case offowtncia Rithynia et Pontus. Ramsay himself, however, has to confess that in the present instance he has not been able to find any proof of such a fixed, usage. All that he can adduce is a collocation of three names (Exp., "98^, p. -$\f. = Gal. ch. 14, p. 277 f.\ Stud. bibl. et eccHz^) in accordance with which he designates the province on his own map in St. Paul provincia Syria et Cilicia et Phcenice ; but this he takes so little seriously that in the same work (St. Paul ch. 8 i, p. 181) he says Cilicia was part of Syria. But that Paul is thinking of Syria and Cilicia as a geographical unity is rendered positively improbable by his repetition of the article (rtjs Svpt a? KOL rrjs KiAtia as). 2

Where Paul then mentions Asia (i Cor. 16 19 2 Cor. 1 8) and Achaia (i Thess. \ 7 f. 2 Cor. 1 1 9 2 11 10 Rom. 15 26), the popular sense is quite as possible as the official. Indeed, if it is accepted as a fact (so, for example, by Ramsay) that Paul made some converts to Christianity in Athens (Acts 17 33^), whilst yet we find him calling the Corinthian Stephanas (i Cor. 1 16 16 15) his first convert in Achaia, he here uses Achaia in its popular sense, which, as Ramsay tells us (>/., 95^, p. 38), did not include Athens (see ACHAIA). If Rom. 15 19 is assumed to be genuine and Tit. 3 12 to have reference to it, Paul here uses Illyricum in a wider sense, which includes the whole coast of Epirus as far as to Actium, where the Epirotic Nicopolis lay. Epirus never was part of Illyria. From 40 B.C. onwards they did not even touch each other; the southern border of Illyria was much farther N., passing through Scodra and Lissus on the Drilon. There are many other cities named Nicopolis, but not one of them in any district visited, so far as we know, by Paul. Ramsay does not express himself upon i Cor. 16 15 and Tit. 3 12 ; but on the other hand he notes that in Rom. 15 19 Paul uses the Roman form lllyricum whilst the Greeks used Illyrikos only as an adjective, the substantive being Illyris (Exp. , 986, p. 30= Gal. chap. 14, p. 2jf>f.). This, however, tells us nothing as to the geographical denotation of the expression. 3 Further (Exp. and Gal., as above) he lays emphasis on the point that in 2 Tim. 4 10 Paul designates as Dalmatia the province which in Rom. 15 19 he had called Illyrikon in agreement, he thinks, with the change in the name of Illyria which had actually happened in the closing years of the apostle s life, Dalmatia having previously denoted only the southern portion of that province. It is, however, a mere begging of the question to assume that the Dalmatia of 2 Tim. 4 10 covers the same area as the Illyria of Rom. 15 19. Dalmatia in Timothy could quite as easily mean that part of Illyria which in popular speech had retained its old name.

1 This of course will not hold good if we follow the chronology (based on Tacitus)adopted by 0. Holtzmann(N~'l~cheZeitgesch. 128.130) and Harnack (Gesch. d. aitchr. Lit. ii. [=ChronoL] 1233-239), for in this case both epistles belong to a date earlier than the introduction of the official nomenclature.

2 The omission of the second article, though adopted by Ramsay as the right reading, is supported only by x* among the uncials.

3 To a like category belongs Ramsay's assertion (Ex)., '986, p. 135=GnZ. chap, 25,,p: 321) that Paul of set purpose calls the i^nilippians rnilippeswi (Phil. 415), which is the Ureek repre sentative of the Latin Philippensis, according to a rule familiar to archaeologists ... he avoids the Greek ethnic, which was

  • iAi7rn-eus or <I>i.A<.7r7n)i/ds. He would not address the inhabitants

of a Roman colony by a Greek name, but only by the Latin name written in Greek form. Elsewhere (1. of Theol. Stud. Pi16 ['991) he says still more definitely: 'the suffix -+nos was only used in Greek to reproduce Latin names. But-does not Homer call the Ithacans'IOamjoioL (Od. 2 z j and often)? Buhler (Das gricch. Secundarsujffix -njs 40 [Gott., 58]), besides a large number of other adjectives in this termination, has collected fifteen which are derived from proper names among them names of various Greek places in which a derivation from the Latin -ensis is quite improbable. YjSArjcrios occurs in documents in Demosthenes, AxaKijo-ios in Callimachus (circa 260 B.C.). Nor are they all derivatives from words ending in ->) or -a, such as ISaicr; or *Y/3A<x. Not to mention any but words that are un questionably early, from pre-Roman times : AKOUCTJCTIOS comes from "Aica/cos (like /Sponjcrto?, therefore, in Hesiod, and a poTTj<nos in Aratus, circa 270 B.C.), and TirapTJcrios is, in Iliad, 2751, a river descending from Mount Tirdptoi/, in Hesiod, Shield, 181, and in Apollonius of Rhodes (circa 250 B.C.), a man from the same district. Cp also Kiihner, Ausf. Gramm. d. griech. Sprache, 334, n. 2.

Further, it is not legitimate to argue for Paul s adop tion of the official phraseology from the fact that he nowhere employs geographical expressions which have only a popular but no official meaning ; before doing so, it would be necessary to produce passages in which Paul -had occasion to use such expressions, and yet avoided doing so. Lastly, that Paul must have followed the official usage on account of the manner in which his missionary activity connected itself with the official capitals (Exp., 95^, p. 3S/- an d often) is a mere theory that proves nothing.

Moreover, even if Paul did invariably follow the official practice, the conclusion so often based upon this viz. , that Paul must by Galatia have meant South Galatia would still be quite illegitimate. As if North Galatia did not equally belong to the province of Galatia ! Thus, if we assume the word Galatia to be used in its official sense, it becomes only a possibility, not a necessity, that our epistle was addressed to South Galatians.

17. 'All the disciples' no disproof of N. Galatia.[edit]

In 1823 Paul stablishes all the disciples. As there were disciples in South Galatia, it has been thought by some that we must interpret only in this sense 'the Galatic region' (TJ\V no p aAartK ^ v x^P av ) traversed by him along with Phrygia, and that North Galatia must be excluded . To escape the second necessity, some have assumed the course of the journey to have been as in 166 first through South Galatia and afterwards through North Galatia (against this see, further, n above). Neither assump tion is at all compelled by the text. All (iroivTas) must be meant to be limited by the route stated to have been taken. One who travels through Galatia (and Phrygia) can stablish only the disciples whom he finds there in other words, if South Galatia is meant, only the South Galatians if North Galatia, only those of the N. The possibility of the existence of the latter is not excluded by the fact that there were disciples in South Galatia. In order (/ca.0e?7s) in like manner means only that Paul visited successively each church which lay on his route, not that he visited every place in Asia Minor where there were disciples.

18. Nor difficulties of the journey.[edit]

It may be the case that in wide districts of North Galatia nothing but Celtic was spoken, and that travelling in the interior - especially for an invalid (Gal. 4 13) - was very arduous. Lightfoot's assumption, however, that Paul carried his mission throughout the whole of North Galatia is as gratuitous as it is embarrassing. Ramsay's disinclination towards the North Galatian theory is in large measure due to the fact that he looks at it only in the form presented by Lightfoot. In reality, it is sufficient to suppose that during his illness, or during his convalescence, Paul founded a few churches, none of them very far apart, and all situated in the W. of North Galatia, where acquaintance with Greek, as far as Pessinus and Germa are concerned, is conceded even by Ramsay (Church, chap. 6 i, no. 6). Xor, in this case, need the Galatian mission have taken up such an excessive amount of time as to embarrass the chronology of the journeys of Paul, as Ramsay supposes (Church, 84-86 j. 1

Even granting that our first notice of a bishop (and so of a Christian church) in these regions is as late as 325 A.D., whilst for Ancyra, more to the eastward, on the other hand, it is as much as some thirty years earlier, we have in this no sufficient justification for saying, as Ramsay does (St. bibl. et ecct. 4 19), that the only form of the North Galatian theory that is not a historical absurdity is Lightfoot s, who held that Pauls Galatian churches were in the great cities, especially Ancyra.

19. Nor the silence of Acts.[edit]

The limitation of the old Galatian missionary field indicated above deprives of much of its weight the objection that the founding of the North Galatian Churches is not recorded in Acts. Ramsay repeatedly declares their existence to be for him incredible for the reason that, had they existed, he could no longer hold Acts to be a work produced within the first century by a companion of Paul (Church, chap. 8, and pp. 59 8386$, etc. ). On the claim for Acts thus presupposed by Ramsay, see ACTS, §§ 2, 4-7, 12-14. As far as thesilence of Acts as to the founding of the North Galatian churches is concerned, it may be pointed out that the same book says practically nothing about the founding of the churches in Cilicia, and absolutely nothing about those of Colossre and Rome, or about Paul s journey to Corinth, which we infer from 2 Cor. 2 1 12 14 1221-132. Still more noteworthy is its absolute suppression of the very name of Titus on account of the bitter controversy that had been waged over him (Gal. 23). The same consideration must have determined the author to recall as little as possible the memory of the Galatian churches within which there had been such violent disputes. Not till 1823, and even then only incidentally, does he allude to their existence.

iii. NT references suit North Galatia best. If it is to be held as proven that Paul did found churches in North Galatia, the point which we have now to deter mine is whether the references in the NT, and especially in Galatians, suit North or South Galatia better. That both portions of the province are meant equally is j inadmissible. According to Gal. 413-15, the occasion I of their founding must have been the same for all the : Galatian churches.

1 This divergence from Lightfoot's view is therefore not, as might perhaps at first appear, a half retractation of the North Galatian theory and an approximation to the South Galatian. It is simply a better formulating of the North Galatian, which avoids the difficulties needlessly introduced by Lightfoot.

20. Inductive arguments.[edit]

Nothing decisive is made out when it is proved that passages in Galatians which would be appropriate to North Galatia are suitable also to the South.

(a) Had Paul actually circumcised Timothy and delivered the decree of the apostles (Acts 16s/. ; but see ACTS, 7, and COUNCIL, 10), enabling the Judaizers to cite a case of self-contradiction in view of his preaching of freedom from the law (Ramsay, St. Paul, chap. 8 2, Exp. , 98^, pp. 17-20 193/1 = Gal. [chap. 8] pp. 256-260, [chap. 27] pp. 324-326; but on Gal. 5n 1 10, see next article, 10 and 13, n.), the fact could have been proclaimed quite as easily in North as in South Galatia.

(b) Star gods, which are meant by the ffroixeia in 439 (EV, ELEMENTS, q.v., 2), were worshipped not only in Antiochia Pisidia (where moon-worship is proved to have existed) ; and castration and stigmatisation (if 5 12 617 do really refer to the practice of these in pagan worships) also were widely spread, (

(c) Gal. 828 is regarded by Ramsay (Church, 43) as an allusion to the readers as Greeks . . . for purpose of courtesy. This also would be equally appropriate for North Galatia. Besides, the statement can be intended quite generally, without any allusion at all.

(d) Paul can conceivably have been received as an angel of God (dyyeXos Oeov) (4 14) on other occasions besides that of his deification at Lystra (Actsl4n-i8), to which Ramsay (Church, chap. 61, no. 9 ; St. Paul, chap. 58) refers the passage,

(e) Ramsay argues (Church, chap. 62) that if in the Pauline Epistles the South Galatians arc alluded to only in 2 Tim. 3n, and not in Galatians and i Cor. 16 1, Acts must be regarded as unhistorical when it speaks of his conspicuous love for them ; yet that an erroneous representation of the kind could not have arisen in the second century, in which those churches had no importance whatever. Very possibly, however, Paul may have written epistles to the South Galatians which we no longer possess. An epistle to the Lao- diceans has perhaps been lost (Col. 4i6) ; certainly one to Corinth has (i Cor. 5911). The apostle may in any case be supposed to have loved the North Galatians also, as far, at least, as to write an epistle to them if it was they who stood in danger of drifting away from the true Gospel.

21. Inheritance, etc.[edit]

Another argument for the South Galatian address of Epistle is found by Ramsay in the language used by Paul regarding inheritance and other matters.

I. The laws of inheritance according to Ramsay.[edit]

(a) When the Gentiles who follow Abraham in his faith are called his sons (Gal. 87), this, Ramsay holds, has its explanation in the conception that they are heirs of his faith. This con ception, he goes on to say, rests upon a law of inheritance according to which only sons (real or adoptive), not daughters or strangers, can inherit, so that, conversely also, all heirs can be called sons. Such was indeed the ancient Roman law of inheritance. In Paul s time, however, it was by Roman law open to a man to make any one his heir without adopting him as a son. On the other hand, the ancient Roman idea held good in the Greek law, and this according to Ramsay s con jecture had certainly been introduced into South Galatia under Alexander the Great and the Seleucidae (334-189 B.C.) long before it came under the Roman rule, and had continued to be the law under that rule while in North Galatia the Romans had introduced their contemporary law at once in place of that of the Celts (>/., 98^, pp. 203-6 2go-g^ = Ga/. [chaps. 31 35] pp. 337-344, 37-375>-

(b) Further, according to the contemporary law of Rome, a will remained secret during the lifetime of the testator, came into force only at his death, and until his death could always be changed by the testator. In Ramsay s view, the opposite is the case with the will (5ia#JK7)) of Gal. 81517, and therefore, he thinks, it is a will in the Greek sense that Paul has in his mind. Such a will was from the first open and public, immediately effective, and irrevocable, it must be deposited either in original or in a properly certified copy in the Record Office of the city, and the officials there were bound to satisfy them selves that it was a properly valid document before they ac cepted it ; if there was an earlier will, the later must not be accepted unless it was found not to interfere with the preceding one ; and so it continued to be in South Galatia down to the apostle s time, whatever the changes, greater or smaller, it may have passed through elsewhere (Exp., 98^, pp. 299-303 326-9 435 = Gal. [chaps. 33 34 391 PP- 349-355 364-368 384).

(c) Lastly, in Roman law, a son under age remains till his fourteenth year under a tutor, and till his twenty-fifth under a curator. The tutors, Ramsay takes it, answer to the guardians (errirpoiroi), the curators to the stewards (OIKOI/OJUOI) of Gal. 4 2. He discovers, however, this difference that according to Roman law the father can nominate by will only the tutor, not also the curator, of his son. Greek law here presents no analogy ; it seems to know only guardians (eTriVpon-ot), not stewards (olKovoftoi). On the other hand, Ramsay finds a full analogy to what we meet with in Galatians in the Syro-Roman, or as he prefers to call it Graeco-Syrian, law-book of the fifth century A.D., edited by Bruns and Sachau in 1880. Here the father nominates by will not only the future guardian (cn-iVpoiros) but also the future curator of his son. Ramsay holds that this law dates from the time of the Seleucidae, and had force in South Galatia before that of Rome. When in Syria the Roman law likewise became influential, the name curator was substituted. in the Syrian law-book referred to, for oikoiwmos, while th<- word cpitropos, written, however, in Syriac letters, was retained (.Exp., g8fi, pp. 439-441 = GaL [chap. 41] pp. 391-393).

2. Are the facts established?[edit]

The present writer is not in a position to bring to a test these various state ments in all their details. It has to be observed, how ever, not only that many of them are pure conjectures, but also that what they allege regarding Greek law is in the most essential points at variance with what we know as Attic law, or indeed as Greek law generally.

(a) Schulin,! Beauchet, " as also Thalheim, * find in an author as early as Isa^us (circa 370 B.C.) that in Athens a man was at liberty to make any one his heir without adopting him ; and Lipsius (in Meier-Schoemann, Attischer Process, 2590/1) and Mitteis (Reichsrecht u. V olksrecht, 341) accept this as holding good everywhere for the third century B.C., since the testa ments of the philosophers as preserved to us by Diogenes Laertius certainly are not restricted to the Attic field alone. The wills of Greek settlers recently discovered in the Faiyum in like manner reveal a similar state of the law (Mahaffy, On the Flinders Petrie papyri in Cunningham Mem. Roy. Ir. Acad. no. 8, 91, Introd. p. 41). This last is the only instance noted by Ramsay ; but he does not regard it as having any bearing on South Galatia ; he holds it to be a rapid development extending to Greek wills only in the case of the soldiers in question who in Egypt were separated from their families. But it is not only un- proven, it is quite improbable, that Paul and the South Galatians should have remained entirely unaffected by this development which had been going on in Athens and elsewhere for three or four centuries, and that they should have gone on taking it for granted as a matter of course that no one could inherit except an actual or an adopted son. The Syrian law-book also does not show any continuance of what Ramsay calls the Greek law, for it allows the testator to name as his heirs his wife or his illegitimate children alongside of his legitimate children (London Text, 36, 63, pp. 12, 19).

(b) In Attic law, not only written wills in most cases were sealed and deposited without disclosure of their contents, and opened only after the death of the testator (Diog. Laert. v. 2 14, 57 ; Aristoph. \Vasps, 583-90 ; Isa^us, 627 7 i ; Bekker, Char. I. sc. 9) but they could also be demanded back by the testator in order to be destroyed or declared in the presence of witnesses to be no longer valid (Issus, 630-32; Meier- Schoemann, 2 sg6yC ; Thalheim, 10 ; Schulin, pp. 7-9 ; Beauchet, 8668-672). The passages referred to also supply the proof that a will did not of necessity require to be deposited with a magistrate, that it could equally well be entrusted to a private person, or, for greater security, to several private persons. * This effectually disposes of the theory that there was an official inspection of the contents of a will. In fact, even in the Faiyum, where a public Record Office has recently been brought to light, Mahaffy (oft. cit. Introd. p. 41) assures us that the entry of these private documents on the records of some public office is not accompanied by any supervision, any official countersigning of each as inspected and approved by the State.

For Ramsay, however, the most important thing is the irrevocability of a will. None of the scholars we have cited know anything of this. Schulin (itt supr.~), wholdeals, not with Attic wills only, but with all Greek wills accessible to him, never mentions it ; indeed the opposite is taken to be self- evident, and both Schulin (21 f. 49) and Beauchet (2 22) affirm that, so far as Athens is concerned, even a will containing an adoption could at any time be recalled though an adoption completed during the lifetime of the adoptive father was irre vocable. Nor can Ramsay call the Syrian law-book to his aid ; on this point it follows the Roman view, according to which an earlier will is annulled by a later (London Text, 45, p. 15). Here Ramsay in fact relies exclusively on the wills found in the Faiyum. These, however, by no means prove what he requires. He adduces only this, that on them is often contained the provision that the testator is free to alter or invalidate (Exp., 98^, p. 329 = Gal. chap. 34, p. 366^!), from which he infers the customary presumption that the diaiheke is irrevocable. But the customary presumption has no legally binding force, otherwise it would not be possible for wills to be revoked ; and Ramsay himself says (Gal. 366) : I confess that several high English authorities on Greek wills in Egypt, when consulted privately, expressed the opinion that these wills were revocable at the testator s desire ; though he adds : but they have not satisfied me that the evidence justifies that opinion earlier than the Roman time and Roman influence. In the interests of Ramsay s argument, to have been able to adduce a single instance in which Greek differed from Roman law in this respect would have been much more valuable than any number of conjectures ; in point of fact, so far as we have been able to discover, it is not possible, in the Greek sphere, to point to any area, however limited, within which prevailed that irrevocability which Ramsay (Gal. 351) without qualification speaks of as a characteristic feature of Greek law. His assump tion might be explicable if we could venture to suppose that in bringing into such intimate connection the ideas of will-making and adoption (e.g., Kxp., 98^, p. 301, the appointment of an heir was the adoption of a son,' and, conversely Gal. 351 'the adoption was the will-making') he held all wills to be irrevocable because adoption by a person while still alive was irrevocable : hut this would he a darine supposition. Moreover we know that at Gortyna in Crete (see Gortyna inscr. 11 io_^C) even an adoption inter vivas, such as we have been speaking of, could be revoked, and the Arabic and Armenian versions of the Syrian law-book already referred to are in remarkable agree ment with this (102 [101], p. 109, 140; Mitteis, 2i4_/). The Egyptian wills have been cited by Ramsay so vaguely that it is impossible to verify them in detail, and moreover many of them still remain unpublished. The present writer is unable to say where it was that the customary presumption, against which the testators guard themselves, held good. Perhaps their saving clause has no reference to any actual law. According to Mahaffy (Introd. p. 39), in them often a son is mentioned as sole heir. When the revocability of the testament is spoken of it is conceivable that we have another instance, similar to that just cited, in which it is the obvious that is said.

1 Das griech. Test., Basel, 1882, pp. 29-33.

2 Histoire du droit pri-ve de la republique Athenienne 3 691-697.

In Herrmann, Lehrb. d. griech. Antt.(*) ii. i = Rechts- alterthiimer ( 95), p. 72, n. 3.

  • Dareste, Bull, de Corresp. Hellen., 1882, pp. 241-245, on

whom Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, i. 2 368 f. and Gal. 355, relies, produces inscriptional evidence for the existence of a public archive in more than thirty cities, chiefly in Asia Minor, but of the depositing of a deed of adoption in only one, of the depositing of a will in none.

(c) If oLKovofjiog in Paul s time, and even as far back as the time of the Seleucida; (so Ramsay, Exfi. , 98^, p. 441 = Gal. chap. 41, p. 393), corresponded to the Latin curator,^ why is it that in the Syrian law-book the Latin is substituted for OIKOI/O^OS only, and not for 67,-iTpo7ros also? Why does the Roman jurist Modestinus in his Greek treatise de Excusationibus (3rd cent. A.D.) also write eTnVpoTros, but in Greek letters Kovpartop (Lex i, Dig. de con- firmando tutore vel curatore 20 3, in Cor/y. Jur. Civ., edd. Kn iger and Mommsen, 1 336^, also 340*1 352*1, and often)? Ramsay has not observed that Mitteis (p. 217 f.) adopts the view of Bruns, the co-editor of the Syrian law-book and himself a lawyer, and confirms it by additional examples, that the formal dis tinction drawn by the Romans between tutela and euro, was not rightly understood by the Orientals. Bruns says (p. 184/1), and certainly with justice : the ancient Greeks had only one kind of tutelage and therefore had only one word en-iYpoiros to express it. This word the later Greeks restricted to the mean ing of tutor, and they introduced alongside of it the word Kovpariop. Indeed, when weight is laid upon the Egyptian papyri, it ought to be observed that alongside of eirirpoiros they employ as a second word to designate male tutors, not oiKOvoiiOs but <J>poi>Ti(mJ5 (Aegypt. Urkundcn aus . . . Berlin: griech. Urkunden, no. 80294^05 427 9 2jf., cp 447 i8f. 21 [2nd cent. A.D.], and often). Mitteis (pp. 156, 217) in speaking of a Peloponnesian inscription of the second century A.D. (cp Lebas et Waddington, Voyage Archeologique, 2 2, no. 24 $a [p. 515] 1. 60) in which the representative of a woman describes himself as her (^poi/TicTTTjs Kal (cv pio?, remarks without further note : <f>pov- Tiorrjs is the translation of the Latin curator. In the Egyptian documents cited above, <poi Ticmjs, and, still more, jciipios, are the usual designations for the guardian of a woman.

3. Are the legal conceptions applicable to Galatians?[edit]

(a) Even were Ramsay s identification of sons and heirs justifiable, there would not be any fitness in the assump tion that the Gentile followers of Abraham in his faith are regarded as Aeirs of his faith. Ramsay says (Exp., 98^, p. 2O3 = G/. chap. 31, p. 337): the idea that they . . . are sons of Abraham . . . would certainly be understood by the Galatians as referring to the legal process called adoption, vioOeaia.. Now Paul indeed expressly uses this word in speaking of their adoption (Gal. 4s) ; but this adoption makes them sons of God. He cannot at the same moment have intended to make out that they were by adoption sons of Abraham. On the contrary, their designation as sons of Abraham is to be regarded as a mere Hebraism. Sons of the Prophets (2 K. 2s Am. 7 14 etc. , see SON) are those who adhere to, or follow, the prophets. It is precisely in this sense that we read in Rom. 4 12 of the believing gentiles that they walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision. In the same way we are dealing only with a Hebrew idea when Paul in Rom. 4n/". 16-18 speaks of Abraham as their father. Ramsay s conjecture (Exp. , 98^, p. 294/1 = Gal. chap. 31 p. 342/. ) that Paul uses this particular expression with a reference to the more comprehensive sense of the word pater (somewhat like protector], which is frequent in Latin, is quite away from the point.

(b) Even where it is possible to show that in some case a will comprising an adoption had been held to be irrevocable it would not be legitimate to assume that by the word fiiaOjJicT), employed without qualification in Gal. 3 15 17, Paul and the Galatians understood a special kind of will that, namely, associated with the adoption of a son ; still less is it legitimate when it is remembered that in the case before us there can be no thought of adoption, Christ, God s own son (Rom. 832), being the sole heir. But if, as we contend, the apostle and his readers must have taken the word in its general sense, there is still less proof forthcoming for Ramsay s thesis that they must have held wills to be irrevoc able. True, Ramsay says (/?.*/. , 98^, p. jp\ = Gal. chap. 33, p. 351) : We think of a will as secret and inoperative during the lifetime of the testator, as revocable by him at pleasure, and as executed by him only with a view to his own death. A will of that kind could have no application to God, and no such analogy could have been used by Paul. These words can hardly be understood otherwise than as meaning that what Paul had in his mind was adoption by a person still alive. But this is absolutely excluded ; 6ta07)K7) in the language of the law as that had been long established in Paul s time never means anything else than a will made with reference to death (the sense of covenant does not come into consideration here). It is of course true that the analogy to a man who makes arrange ments with his death in view halts somewhat when applied to God ; but that Paul does so apply it is unquestionable.

Thus another view of Gal. 8151719, which has the support of many scholars, though not taken into account by Ramsay, becomes all the more inevitable. When it is said (815) that no man maketh void or addeth to a man s testament, the testator himself is not to be regarded as included in the proposition. He himself might perhaps have it in his power to change it. Only, this possibility does not come into account in the case under consideration. For in the apostle s view it is not God but the angels who are regarded as authors of the Mosaic law, which announces a change of the divine purpose compared to a testament given in the promise to Abraham. Of the angels he assumes that their action was on their own responsibility, not at the command of God. On this interpretation, the question whether it is with Greek or with Roman law that we are dealing, does not arise. In every system of law it holds good that an outsider cannot alter another man s will.

(c) As for Gal. 4 2, the plural guardians and stewards (tiriTpowovs teal oiKov6fj.ovs) makes it very improbable from the outset that the apostle is thinking of the son as being subject to the guardians during one part of his minority and to the stewards during another part only ; for the law speaks, as is but natural, in the singular, of one tutor and one curatar. If, however, Paul is thinking of both tutors and curators as dis charging their office simultaneously it becomes impossible to detect his exact legal meaning. Equally impossible is it to do so if, as is not improbable, he is thinking of the father of the heir as still living. It must be re membered that in the figure the father is God. In 81517 he is compelled to think of God as dead; but not in 4i f.

(d) Even if we grant, however, for the sake of argument, the possibility that Paul s manner of expressing himself in Galatians is in agreement with Greek law, what has been proved ? Only that Paul himself was acquainted with this law, not by any means that his readers also were. Or has the apostle in other matters paid such careful regard to the circumstances of his readers? The Galatians were all, or nearly all, Gentile Christians (see next article, 1 1 ) and yet he writes in a way that includes them also with reference to the Mosaic law, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law (813) ; we were kept in ward under the law ... so that the law hath been our tutor, etc. (823-25), and Christ redeemed them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons (4s). The church of Corinth in like manner was, practically, entirely Gentile ; yet Paul writes (i Cor. 10 1), our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, etc. In the case of a writer who is so careless to guard his language on obvious and important points, it is futile to single out individual phrases, assume them to have been carefully chosen with reference to the special environment of the readers and on these to base far-reaching con clusions as to where that environment was (as, e.g. , Ramsay does in Gal. chap. 35, p. 374).

The same remark applies to the proof of a South Galatian address which Ramsay finds in the ' tutor ' (rar8aywy6c) of 3 243 on the ground that there were no slaves of this kind in North Galatia, or again in 328 because in South Galatia the women enjoyed greater independence than elsewhere (/T.r/., 98^ pp. 433-436, 43Sy: = Gal. chap. 39yC, pp. 381-385 389-391), and other proofs of the same nature.

22. Acts 20:4.[edit]

It is probable that in Acts 20:4 we have an enumeration of the representatives of churches who had been appointed as men of trust, in accordance with 2 Cor. 818-23, to see to the due conveyance of the proceeds of the great collection to Jerusalem. Among these, whilst we find two South Galatians Gaius and Timothy no North Galatian is mentioned ; and from this it has been supposed that in i Cor. 16 1 South Galatia must be meant. The list, however, is not complete. It has no representatives of Corinth and Philippi, 1 and names of North Galatians can equally well have been omitted. Above all, it would have been quite irrational to carry moneys from South Galatia to Jerusalem by way of Macedonia 2 and run all the risks (2 Cor. 1 1 26) of such a journey. More over, Timothy was the constant companion of Paul, and in like manner Gaius also will have been a member of the company on other accounts than that of the col lection.

23. 1 Cor. 16:1[edit]

i Cor. 16 1 comes into consideration for the reason that Paul presumably used Galatia in Galatians in the same sense as here - Now, i Cor. 16 1 is held to refer to South Galatia, because it is deemed improbable that Paul did not invite the South Galatians also to take a part in the great love-offering of the Gentile churches. But he may very well have invited them even if i Cor. 16 1 refers to North Galatia. Paul here says only that he has ap pointed a particular manner of making the collection in Galatia. It is open to us to suppose that he has not as yet had occasion to do this for South Galatia also, or that another method had already been adopted there.

24. Acts 18:22 unnoticed in Galatians.[edit]

In Galatians Paul makes no reference to the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 1822. From this is drawn the inference that the epistle must have been addressed to South Galatia - because, as is shown by the former [time] (rd trpbrepov) in Gal. 4 13, Paul must have already visited the readers twice before the despatch of the epistle. These two visits can perhaps, if one is willing to be satisfied with the meagrest possible evidence, be held to be proved for South Galatia from Acts 13i4-142o and 14 2 i-2 3 ; or, the first visit from Acts 13 14-1423 and the second from Acts 161-5 ; as far as North Galatia is concerned they are not to be found till 166 and 1823. That, how ever, the journey of 18 22/ may very well have occurred and yet not be mentioned in Galatians, see COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, \c.

25. 'Council' unknown to Galatians.[edit]

In Gal. 2:1-10 Paul speaks of the Council of Jerusalem as hitherto unknown to the Galatians. This also has suggested the inference that Paul's second visit to the readers must have occurred before the counc il in other words, that it is related in Acts 1421-23, and so must have been made to South Galatia. On the other hand, even if the Council of Jerusalem had already been held, Paul surely had every motive for keeping back as long as possible from newly-converted Gentile Christians all knowledge of the existence of misunderstandings of the kind. His principle was to feed such churches with milk, and to set forth Christ plainly before their eyes ( i Cor. 82 Gal. 81). At his second visit he had, it is true, found the churches already to some extent under the influence of Judaism (1 9, said before, irpofip^Kafj.ev, 63, again, ird\iv) ; but the I marvel (6a.vfj.dfa) of 16 shows that he had left them in the honest -belief that he had been successful in counteracting this danger. From the 'again' (ird\iv) of 3 it is legitimate to infer that in this connection he had employed substantially the same arguments as those which he afterwards used in the epistle (e.g. , 62-4 81-5 4 9) ; and \ve may regard it as a proof of his apostolical wisdom that he declined to make use of the controversies of the Council of Jerusalem in furtherance of his end.

1 As the Corinthians had only shortly before brought against Paul the charge that he was applying the collection to his own purposes (2 Cor. 12 16-18), it would have been inconceivably im prudent on his part to take upon himself the responsibility for due conveyance of the Corinthian contribution (so Ramsay, St. Paul, chap. 182), even had he been asked to do so. In point of fact, the apostle had very clearly expressed, in 2 Cor. 820 /., the principle by which he was precluded from this. That Luke was a Philippian is only a bold conjecture of Ramsay s (St. Paul, chap. 93 103 11 2 17 4, and frequently), quite apart from the consideration that it is by no means certain that it is Luke who speaks in we (see ACTS, 9).

2 UpocMArnt. not TTpocreWoi Tts, must be read in 20 5 ; the latter is quite irreconcilable with the fact that the persons named have already accompanied Paul from Europe (ooifei jreTO 204).

26. 'With you'. Gal 2:5.[edit]

At the Council of Jerusalem Paul supported the interests of the readers of Galatians, according to the 'with you' ( Wp6s l /xs ) of 2:5. This would still hold good, however, even on the assumption that at that time they had not yet been converted which was the case with the North Galatians. Paul was concerned at that crisis in vindicating freedom from the law for the churches which he was yet to found as well as for those which he had already established. Even if the letter be assumed to be addressed to South Galatians, with you (irpbs i/juas) constitutes only an individual applica tion. That in the Council of Jerusalem Paul should have had in his mind only his South Galatian churches, and not equally those founded by him in Syria, Cilicia, etc., would be a wholly untenable supposition.

27. Paul's malady.[edit]

The sickness of Paul, alluded to in Gal. 4 13, Ramsay (Church, chap. 3, pp. 62-65) considers to have been malaria, which is endemic in Pamphylia, and, as he thinks, was the cause of the apostle's going for recovery to the more highly situated Antiochia Pisidia.

As Ramsay further (St. Paul, chap. 5 2) identifies this sick ness with the thorn in the flesh, it is very improbable that malaria can be meant. The view finds no real support in the fact that fever occurs in inscriptions as a punishment sent by the gods of this lower world, to which Ramsay supposes the messenger of Satan (ayyeAos crarava.) of 2 Cor. 127^ to refer (l ~.xf>., ggb, p. 2if. = Ga(. chap. 48, p. 423).

Unless 2 Cor. 12 ja is to be held to be meaningless, the apostle s malady was associated with ecstatic visions ; and these are not, so far as we know, symptomatic of malaria, though certainly they are of epilepsy, with which Krenkel (among others) has identified Paul s thorn in the flesh (Beitr, zur Aitfhellung der Gcsch. u. d. Brief e d. Af. Paulus, 90, pp. 47- 125, and, earlier, in ZIVT, 73, pp. 238-244). Ramsay (Gal. chap. 48, p. 427) himself says : In fact, it is the visions which give probability to the theory of epilepsy. . . . The theory is seductive. But are we prepared to accept the consequences ? . . . Has the modern world, with all that is best and truest in it, been built upon the dreams of epileptic insanity? This is the argument of a theologian, not of a historian.

However this may be, the fact that Pamphylia ex poses the traveller to risks of malaria is no proof that Paul could not possibly have been seized with illness even in North Galatia. Moreover, Paul says that on account of his sickness he was received as an angel of god (dyyeXos Oeou ; Gal. 4 14). About any reception of this kind in Antiochia Pisidia (where, according to Ramsay, he had this illness), we read nothing in Acts (on the contrary, we are told of a persecution instigated by the Jews [13so], of which Galatians says nothing) ; and Ramsay cannot think of him any longer as having been ill in Lystra, where, according to Ramsay, the favourable reception occurred.

Thus, whilst on the points formerly discussed, all that it was possible to prove was that the individual actual data warranted the North Galatian theory just as much as the Southern, here we have a consideration which makes positively for North and against South Galatia. On the four points remaining to be considered we come to this same conclusion.

28. Barnabas known to Galatians.[edit]

Barnabas, it is thought, must have been personally known to the Galatians. He is introduced without remark in Gal. 2i 9 13 ; and he was the companion of Paul only on his first journey, not on his second (Acts 15 36-40). Peter also, however, is mentioned in Gal. 1 18 without explanation ; and Barnabas, although he was unknown to the Corinthians, is introduced in the same manner in i Cor. 96 it was enough that they had heard about him. Besides, Paul expresses himself as having been in so exclusive a sense the founder of the Galatian churches (Gal. 1 8 / 3 i /. 4 12-20) that it is almost impossible to suppose South Galatia to be meant. According to Acts 14 12, Barnabas was even taken for Jupiter in Lystra.

29. 'O Galatians' - Gal 3a.[edit]

The apostrophe 'O Galatians' (i Ya\drai), in 3a addressed to persons who, by origin, were much rather Lycaonians or Phrygians, would be intelligible in an official manifesto ; but in a letter such as this of Paul's it would become so only if besides New Galatians Old Galatians were included (against which supposition, see above, col. 1607, beg. of iii. ). On the assumption that the apostrophe was addressed to the New Galatians alone, such a mode of address is in the highest degree improbable.

It must not be forgotten that Ramsay has been able to cite not a single instance, so far as Galatia is concerned, and in the case of the province of Asia, which had subsisted more than a century longer, only one, in which the inhabitants of districts first incorporated with the provinces by the Romans designated themselves by the official provincial name (C/G36626; see St. bibl. et eccles. 431). It is only by a series of exceedingly bold hypotheses that he endeavours (pp. cit., 25, 46-55 ; Gal., introd., 7, p. 6^_/.) to establish a probability that Iconium and Lystra had already become part of Galatia before the setting up of the Roman province, about 160 B.C. Derbe, certainly, was not added to Galatia until 25 B.C., according to 3, above, not until 41 A.D. Accordingly the aptness of the exclamation O Gala tians as addressed to the North Galatians, depends not on their Celtic descent, but on the fact that only in North Galatia was to be found the people who had borne that name from of old, and in common speech, not merely in official docu ments.

30. 'Unto the Churches' - Gal 1:2.[edit]

But we will not, however great the improbability, dispute the abstract possibility that Paul might have made use of the term 'Galatians' as a comprehensive designation of inhabitants of several recently-added portions of the province of Galatia. Not even in such a case could he have made use of the address to the churches of Galatia (rats ^/f/cXT/cri ais rrjs YaXarLas ; Gal. 12) in writing to South Galatia if there were churches already in North Galatia. Even if the letter were sent by the hands of a trusty messenger who quite understood where to deliver it, the article (TCUS) would have been inadmissible. Now, the letter contains in formation about the Council of Jerusalem and the controversy with Peter in Antioch in Syria. If ad dressed to South Galatia, the letter must, accordingly, have been written between the date of the controversy and that of the founding of the North Galatian churches (Acts 166). If so, the first alternative is that it was written from Antioch, in Syria, before Acts 15 40; in which case the two visits of Paul implied in the the former [time] (rb Trpbrepov) of Gal. 4 13 would have to be sought in Acts 13.i4-142o and 1421-23 (see above, 24). Against this view we must bring an observation which also makes against Ramsay s dating of the epistle from Paul s next stay in Antioch in Syria (Acts 1823 ; see St. Paul, chap. 84). On both occasions there was an immediate prospect of a renewed visit to the readers by the apostle. Ramsay considers that Paul may have entrusted the bearer of the epistle with an oral announce ment of his proposed visit. In such a case, however (iCor. 4i8-2i 16s-8 2 Cor. 12 14 13 1/), the apostle s procedure is very different. Moreover, he manifestly writes Gal. 4 20 on the supposition that he is not about to see them soon.

A second possibility would be that the epistle was written between Acts 16 5 and 166. In that case Acts 13 14-14 23 would have to be reckoned as the first visit, and 16 1-5 as the second. How would this leave a sufficient interval during which, after the second visit, the Judaizers could have had time for going to the renders and so completely changing their attitude towards the apostle and his message, and for Paul to hear of all this before his arrival in North Galatia from the South ?

31. Gal. 1:21.[edit]

Most decisive of all is Gal. 1:21. If the epistle were addressed to South Galatia, Paul would, according to Acts 13-14, have been with his readers in the period indicated in Gal. 1:21 between his first and his second visit to Jerusalem (see COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, ia). It is not for a moment to be thought that Paul would have left unnoticed so very conclusive a proof of his absence from Jerusalem, and have mentioned precisely two other provinces which were not those to which his readers belonged.

On the very bold attempt, which has on this account been made, to transpose Acts 13yC so as to make it follow Acts 15 34, see COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, i e. In any case, the project will not be favoured by those who have any interest in maintain ing the credibility of Acts. Ramsay (Church, chap. 63; St. Paul, chap. 83) proposes another way of meeting the difficulty. He brings the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. 1 18 into connection with Acts 926- 30; and that in Gal. 2 i-io into con nection with Acts 1130 and 122$; and concedes that before Galatians was written Paul had certainly been a third and a fourth time in Jerusalem (Acts 15 and 18 22), but maintains that there was no need to mention this in Galatians, as in that epistle all he wished to show was his independence of the original apostles at the time when he converted the Galatians.

This last contention is not only destitute of any warrant from the text, but is also entirely inconsistent with the situation. The Judaizers could have over thrown Paul s authority in Galatia just as well if after his first missionary activity there he had shown that he was dependent on the original apostles. This was, in fact, what, according to Ramsay, actually happened. In Acts 15 he was commissioned by the older apostles to deliver to them (i.e., to the Galatians) the Apostolic decree (Ramsay, Gal. chap. 18, p. 287). In these circumstances how can Paul still attach im portance to his being able to prove that he was inde pendent of the original apostles atjirst? Only on one assumption that although his dependence became evident at the Council of Jerusalem, the Galatians are still unaware of it. If he takes for granted that they know it (according to Acts 164, which Ramsay holds to be historical, he himself personally informed the South Galatians of the apostolical decree), the proof of his independence in Gal. ln-2io is meaningless ; if on the other hand he hopes by silence nay, by the express declaration of 26 (e/nol oi doKovvres ovdev irpoff- avtdtvTO : RV, they who were of repute imparted nothing to me ) to prevent his readers from learn ing or remembering the fact of his dependence, he is deliberately setting himself in his epistle to deceive them. In this case his moral character must be sacri ficed to save the credibility of Acts. This is what Ramsay (Gal. ch. 19, p. 302) accuses the advocates of the North Galatian theory of doing when they hold that Paul leaves unnoticed the journey mentioned in Acts 11 30 1225. That he did so, however, is assumed only by those of them who, like Ramsay, hold absolutely by the historical character of everything contained in Acts. In any case, for Paul to omit all mention of this journey would be a small matter compared with his hiding that dependence on the original apostles which is testified to by the apostolical decree. On the South Galatian theory, Paul could be exonerated only by placing Galatians earlier than Acts 15, and if Ramsay s date be adhered to, only by rendering Gal. ln-22i wholly purposeless. Moreover, it is quite illegitimate to identify Gal. 2i-io, not with Acts 15 but with Acts llso 1225 (see COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, ia}.

In Gal. chap. 18 /., pp. 286 304 Ramsay inclines not to identify the journey in Gal. 2i-io with any of those recorded in Acts, but to insert it between Acts 9 and Acts llso. We do not press, as against this, that on such an assumption Paul has omitted to men tion not two journeys, but three ; for Ramsay may say of the one in Acts 11 30 1225 what is said in COUNCIL, ic, of that in Acts 1822 that Paul does not mention it because in chaps. 3-6 he has lost sight of his intention to enumerate his visits to Jerusalem. So far as Acts is concerned, Ramsay s assumption that such a visit is omitted is much more remarkable. The main thing, however, is that by the assumption the situation is no wise improved : Paul still ignores his dependence on the original apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. On the contrary, on Ramsay s interpretation of Gal. 2i-io the situation becomes worse. According to Ramsay (Gal. chap. 18 p. 296) on the journey of Gal. 2i-io, which is not mentioned in Acts, Paul con sulted (Gal. 2 2 [aceW / uij ]) the original apostles, asked their advice, because his gospel was not fully matured until shortly before the beginning of the first journey (Acts 13 1). This means entire dependence; for the contrast is that after it had fixed itself in his nature as the truth of God ... he no longer "con ferred with fiesh and blood. The upshot then is this : Paul seeks to make evident his independence of the original apostles precisely by recording this act of submission to them.

Equally impossible as an expedient is it to maintain that in Gal. l2i Paul is naming only two provinces (Syria and Cilicia) for the reason that they were the only provinces on account of his successful activity in which the Christians of Judaea glorified God (124), and that he is silent on his sojourn in South Galatia because his mission in that country had perhaps ceased to have their approval. Without the aid of the unten able theory (see next article, 10) of Clemen (to which Ramsay now [Gal. chap. 18, pp. 291, 296] seems to lean), it would be impossible to perceive why Paul should have conducted his mission in South Galatia on any other principles than those which he followed in Syria and Cilicia.

Above all, no unfavourable judgment on the part of the Jewish Christians regarding his mission to his readers could have determined the apostle to leave unused the clearest proof of all that he had kept away from Jerusalem. Gal. 123/1 can be dispensed with as far as the primary object of the argument is concerned, and Paul would willingly have refrained from adding these verses had he been able at this point to say that during the interval in question he had been with his readers. p. w. s.


32. 'Galatia' or 'Gaul' in Tim. and Macc.[edit]

In 2 Tim. 4 10 the reading varies between Ta\\ia.v [X] and TaXartav [WH] ; and even if the latter be adopted the reference may still be to Gaul.

The current Greek name for Gaul during the first two centuries A. D. was TaXaria (FaXdrai) unless the older title (KeXroi, KArat) was employed. 1

To distinguish the Asiatic Celts the phrases oi fv Aat a TaAarat (Plut. Mar. 258), T\ Kara rrfv \<riav TaAaTia (Dios. Mat. meti.Z^d), or TaAAoypaiKta, raA\oypat<cot (Strabo 130, 566) might be used ; but generally the context must decide (cp Plut. Pomp. 3 J > 33> 38)- Not until late did the Greeks adopt the Roman terms ToAAta, TaAAot. It is in Herodian that we first meet with the distinction, adopted by modern writers, between FoAAi a = Gaul, and FaAaTi a = Galatia in Asia Minor. There would be a strong tendency to alter roAarta into FaAAi a in NT MSS in this passage, owing to the general belief that western Gaul was meant, combined with the fact that at the time of their origin the word TaAaria as applied to Gaul had been abandoned in favourof the Latin FoAAia, ai FaAAi at (cp Theod. 2 227, Galatiam dixit yuas nuac nominamus Gallias).

1 Cp Paus. i. 4 1, o\f/e Se Trore aiiToii? <caAeicr0ai TaAara? f(VLicq(rtv. KeAroi yap Kara. Tf <r$a? TO ap^aiov <cai irapa 7019 aAAots liyOfiafofTO.

On linguistic grounds, then, no general decision is possible. The passages in which the name occurs must be examined separately.

i. It has been argued that if Paul had meant Gaul he would, according to his usual practice, have used the Roman provincial name, and that, as Timothy was in Asia Minor, possibly even in Galatia, he would have avoided an ambiguous term. Paul was, however, after all, Greek in language and thought (cp Hicks, St. Paul and Hellenism, in Stud. Bibl. 4?, he thinks in the tongue that he speaks and writes ). Further, if Crescens had actually gone to Timothy s own sphere of labour, more would have been said, and Timothy certainly could not fail to attach the right significance to the word. Finally, the combination with Dalmatia is significant (and is curiously paralleled on Mon. Ancyr. : cp Momms. Res gest. D. Aug. 95, &j \<rira.via.s KO! FaXaTtas /ecu wapa &a\/j.a.Tui>). The reference there fore is probably to Gaul. Although the churches of Vienne and Mayence claimed Crescens as their founder, their claim may be based merely upon this very passage.

2. In i Macc. 82 the Roman victories among the Galatians (AV"- Frenchmen ; RV Gauls ) are mentioned. The date is about 160 B.C., some sixty years after the Roman conquest of Cisalpine Gaul (Polyb. 214-34). That the reference is to this war is suggested by the addition and brought them under tribute, and by the mention of Spain (v, 3) ; for Livy (8840) says nothing of tribute having been imposed upon the Asiatic Celts. On the other hand, the victorious march of Manlius through Galatia was of comparatively recent date (189 B.C. ), and must have made a profound impression throughout the Seleucid dominions, so that the reference is almost certainly to that event.

3. In 2 Mace. 8 20 a victory gained by Jews in Baby lonia against the Gauls (RV, Gk. FaXdrai) is men tioned ; perhaps an allusion to the victories of Antiochus I. Soter, king of Syria (281-261 B.C.). w. J. w.

33. Literature.[edit]

For the history of the Celtic tribes, G. Perrot, De Galatia provincial Komana, 67, and his Exploration arch, de la Galatie, 72; Marquardt, A omische Staatsverfassung, \ V), 358-365; Chevalier, Gatlier in Kleinasien, 83 ; Koepp, Ueber die Galaterkr. d. Attalus, in Rhein. Mus. 40 114-132 ( 85); Niese, ibid. 38 583-600 ( 3) ; Stahelin, Gesckic/tte der Kieinas. Gal., 97. Van Gelder, Galatarum res in Grcecia et Asia gestte usque ad medium sieculum secundum a. Chr., 88 ; Zwmtscher, De Galatarum telrarchis et Amynta rege, 92; Holder, Altkel- tischer Sprachschatz, s.v. Galatia.

The South Galatian address has been maintained principally by Perrot (ppcit. supra, 67), Renan (St. Paul), Hausrath (Pan /us, and NTliche Zeitgesch.), Weizsacker (Ap. Zeitalter), Clemen (ZWT, 94, pp. 396-423), Zahn (EM. in das N l~), and W. M. Ramsay (Historical (.jeog. of Asia Alinor, 90; Church in Rom. Emp.^) ( 2 ) 93, ( 3 ) 94, (*) 95, ( 5 > 97 ; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 95- 7 ; St. Paul the 1 ravelltr and the Rom. Citizen, I 1 ) 95, W 96, ( 3 ) 97, ( 4 ) 98, (6) 99 ; Hist. Coinm. on Gnl. (1) 99, (2) 1900 ; it should be noted that the later editions differ from the earlier in many details ; consult also especially Studia bibl. et eccles. 4 15-57 [ 96], and see articles in Expos., Jan., Feb., Apr. 94, July, Aug. 95, and Galatia in Hastings ..#281-89).

The North Galatian address is supported especially by Sieffert (Ztschr. fiir hist. Theol., 71, pp. 257-306, and hitrod. to Ep. to Gal. in Meyer s NT Comment. 7 Ablh.l 9 ) 99), where a fuller list of authorities on both sides is given ; Lightfoot, GalatiansW), Introd. 1-35; Chase, in Expos., Dec. 93, May 94 ; and Zockler (St. Kr., 95, pp. 51-102).

W. J. W., 1-7, 32 ; P. W. S., 8-31.