GAIUS GALATIA
acknowledgment of his hospitality to Christians Paul calls him
‘my host, and of the whole church’ (Rom. 16 23). According to
Ori,gen (ad Zoc.) this Gaius afterwards became bishop of Thessa-
lonica’ the grounds of this statement are unknown. The list of
the se;enty 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 Ephesiad
Church.
z. A Gentile Christian. who went with Paul to Miletus (Acts
a Macedonian ‘-being very ill-supported). Many scholars (e.g.
Salmond, in Hastiugs’ D B 28oa)suppose two different persons t;
be referred to ; hut the two passages stand so close together that
this is improbable. It is necessary to read either Aepaabc 61
T L ~ ~ (Blass,
~ E O after
S Valckenar) or x d AeppS. Tip. (Lachmann).
GALATIA’
CONTENTS
A . H ISTORY
Settlement of Celts (J I). Roman Intervention
B. G ALATIANS OF THE E PISTLE AND
I. Casef o r South Galatian Theory.
I
Geographical Nomenclature ($ 5).
Difficulty of Accepted View ($5 6).
South Galatian Theory($ 7).
C. G ALATIANS ELSEWHERE (§ 32).
Literature (5 33).
MAP.
Asia Minor, with the political divisions about 50 A.D. (after col. 1592)
A. H ISTORY OF G ALATIA .
-
T h e mimation which left a settlement of Celts
1, settlement islanded in Asia Minor was the last
phase of a movement of which the in-
of Celts. roads into Italv h o B.C. I and Greece portions.
,\-,
(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 h t h inferior
force. The main horde under Brennus and Acichorius pene-
trated Greece proper. but being repulsed in IEtolia and before
Delphi retired northGardiagain and uniting with their brethren
in the ‘neighbourhood of Byzaitium 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.
T h e invaders must have seized immediately a t least
some part of the country known afterwards a s Galatia.
Our authorities represent its seizure a s 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 I€.), tl;e 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 mkrcy for the next
fifty years, and the kings were fain to purchase partial immunity
from their raids by the hwrardous device of employing them as
mercenaries in their armies (Polyh. 5 5 3 65 ; Justin, 252).
A change came with the victories of the Pergamene kings
(especially those of Attalus I. gained between 240 and 230 B.C.
The inscriptionsreveal several victories : cp Livy, 3817, Aiialzrs
eos rex s q b e f d i t fugauitque. They are closely connected
with an important chapter of Greek Art). The main result was
toconfine theCelts within definite limits (Paus. i. 8 I ; Strabo567) : were mdependent. By Roman times this old system had quite
henceforth they were restricted to Galatia proper, and their
historical influence was exerted mainly indirectly.
T h e Celts occupied the N W . part of the great plateau
constituting the interior of Asia Minor (cp Holm, G r .
Hist., ET, 4963). T h e range having no distinctive
name, of which the last member to the W . is the
Mysian Olympus, separated them from Bithynia and
1 Fahada [Ti. WH] only in Gal. l a I Cor. 161 I Pet. 1I .
GALATIANS,I’ah&aL [Ti. WHIin Gal. 3 I ; GALATIAN, I’aharLKd
[Ti. WH] in Acts 16 8 18 23.
1589
That Timothy was of Lystra, is no doubt a common opinion. but
it is not certain that Kai cis A&T~UV
is not an interpretatio; (see
Blass, and cp TIMOTHY).
3. Gaius ‘the beloved’ ( b & ~ u T ? T ~ s )to
, whom 3 Jn. is
addressed ; cp EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, 8 7. Of his person-
ality nothing is known. T. K. C.
GALAAD ( raAa&A [AHV]), I Macc. 5 9 etc., RV
G ILEAD [ q . ~ . ,I].
GALAL ($5; ; rahaah [B], r W h H ? [AI).
I. A Levite, apparently in theline ofAsaph, in the list of inhabit-
ants of Jerusalem (see E ZRA ii., 5 5 [b], 5 15 [I] a), I Ch. 9 15
(ya6ep [L]). The name is, however, corrupt, see HERESHand
cp MATTANIAH, 2.
2. A Levite in the line of Jeduthun in list of inhabitants of
Jerusalem (E ZRA ii., $5 5 [h], $ 15 [ I ] a), I Ch. 916 (yahah [Ll)
=Neh. 11 17 (yaheh [Nc.a mg. SUP.], yaheK [Ll, BA om.).
OF G ALATIA
(5 zJ ) . Settlement of Jews (J 4).
ACTS
11. Casef o r North Galatian Theoty.
General Case for North Galatian Theory (5 8).
Any Churches in North Galatia? ($6 9-19),
New Testament references suit Nor& Calatia best ($5 20.31).
Pontus. On the E. the Halys (KiziE ~ V Z Q ~the ) ,
greatest river of Asia Minor, on the W . the Sangarius
(SURQY~U), ran through deep gorges to the Black Sea,
dividing the land of the Celts into three nearly equal
The Trocmi settled E. of the Halys, round Tavium (Nefez
Keuz) ; the Tectosages between the two rivers, around Ancyra
( A ~ g 5 r a )the
; Tolistobogii 1 W. of the Sangarius round Pessinus
(Bala Hissar). The territory of the three tribes formed a rough
rectangle, extendingabout 2w m. from E. to W. On the S. lay
the Axylon, or treeless steppes of Lycaonia, and the plateau of
Iconium (Konia), in the E. part of which is the salt lake Tatta.
T h e importance of the Celts was due entirely to their
geographical situation. The three tribes held in their
hands the old Royal Road from Ephesus, by way of
Pessinus, Ancyra and Pteria (BoghazKeui,near Tavium),
to the Euphrates (Rams. Hist. Geogr. o f A M 2 7 f . ) .
The alternative and more direct route following ‘the one easy
path that nature has made between the Bgean coast and the
high grounds of the plateau ’ (ib., and 49), through S. Phrygia
and Lycaonia, was only in the infancy of its development ; con-
sequently the Greek cities of western Asia Minor, and those of
Syria and Cilicia, were partially severed from one another, so
that the former escaped the blighting shadow of Seleucid auto.
cracy (Holm, op. cit. 498J).
Strabo (567) gives a sketch of the Galatian political
organisation.
Each tribe was divided into four clans (cp the Helvetii, C a .
BG1 IZ), ruled by a tetrarch under whom were a judge and a
general the latter with two subordinates. The general council
of the iwelve tetrarchies consisted of 300 men, ‘who met at a
place called Drynemetum (=Drjwneimheidh, the temple of
the oaks’ according to Perrot, Ea@. arch. de la Galatie, 182,
who locates it near Assarli-Kaya, 7 hrs. SW. ofAncyra. Holder,
however [Altkelt. S$mclischatz], regards Dry- as merely an
intensive prefix, and nemeton as=sanctuary. Cp Rams. in
Bull. de Cow. Hell. 1898, p., 2343). This assembly was
principally a high court of justice ; in other respects the clans
disappeared. (See especially on this subject Ramsay, Hisf.
Comm. on Gal. 723).
T h e commanding position of the Galatians upon the
old route, and on the flank of the new
2, Roman one, explains the necessity for the puni-
intervention,
tive expedition of the Roman consul
Cn. Manlius Vulso (189 B.c., Livy, 38123).
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.
1590
 GALAT1A
This broke their power, and apparently they partially suc-
cumbed to Ariarathes of Cappadocia and the rulers of Pontus
(Van Gelder, Galaf. res. 2 5 7 3 , Polyb. 31 13). Their losses on
this side were balanced, however, according to Rams. Stud.
B i b Z . 4 4 9 x , by the conquest of the Lycaonian tetrarchy, con-
taining Iconium and thirteen other cities (cp Pliny, H N 5 95 ai id
Ptol. v. 410 who calls it rrpamrhqppivq, ' 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 Pontns-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. Prou. of X.
En@. [ET] 1339). 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.).
I n 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
5 7 5 ) . In 36 B.C. Amyntas was given in addition Galatia
proper, with Isauria, part of Pamphylia, and W . Cilicia,
a s well a s the Lycaonian plain intervening between his
Pisidian and his Galatian domains, so that Iconium
and Lystra were both under his sway (Dio Cass. 4 9 3 2 ) .
The manifest ability of Amyntas as an instrument of Roman
policy caused Augustus to confirm the Celtic prince in his
kingdom, 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. ad Fam. 13 73).
I n 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 a n expedition against the
Homonades, an independent tribe in Mt. Taurus.
T h e death of Amyntas threw the burden of govern-
ing his vast territories upon the Romans themselves
3. Galatia (Dio Cass. 5326). Marcus Lollius was
~ Province. 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. 5326).
Various dynasts were recognised a s 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 Strate,aia,l 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
[ U&az Da&] with the cities Gangra and Andrapa)
after the death of Qeiotarus brother of Castor (cp
Rams. in Rm. des Et. Gr., 1894, p. 251 ; Reinach,
Rev. Nunzism. '91, p. 395).
z. B.C. Amasia and Gazelonitis, together with the domain of
Atepork (cp Rams. Hisf. Comm. IZIJ).
34/35 A . D . Komana Pontica. This region together with that of
Amasia is called as a whole Pontus GaZatzcws
(Ptol: v. 6 3 ) ,as distingnished from Pontus PoZe
nzonzacus-z.e. the part of Pontus governed by
King Polemon.'
41 A.D. Derbe and the Lycaonian part of the eleventh
Strafegia of Cappadocia transferred to Galatia 1,y
Claudius on the restoration of Antiochus IV. (see
DERBE).
63 A . D . Pontus Polemoniums the kingdom of Polemon 11.
which retained its 'title even after incorporatio;
(Ptol. v. 04).
1 The eleventh Strategiu dated probably from 129 R.C. (cp
Justin 37 I ) . it originally included also Derbe and Laranda.
See Rkmsay: Hist. Comm. 64f: 106f:
'59'
GALATIA
T h e core of the province was constituted by the old
kingdom of Amyntas,-;.e., the territory of the thrce
Celtic tribes with eastern Phrygia, Pisidia, Issuria, a n d
Lycaonia,-so that all the towns mentioned in Acts 1 3 5
a s visited by Paul (except those of Pamphylia) belonged
a t that time to the Province Galatia.
There is no literary evidence a s to the constitution
imposed upon the Province, and inscriptions other than
epitaphs are rare in Galatia (see Anderson in J HeZL
stud. 19 5.f: ).
The governor was a ZegafvsAugrrsfi YO pretove-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 A M
IS), 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 (3H.S 1948). In S. Galatia
Antioch (Colonia Ccesareia Antiocheia) was a sort of secondar;
capital, for it was in this region that the work of Romanisation
was specially active from IO 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, $omam,'and Olbasa further W. Cp CZL 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. o f A M 398 J).
Under succeeding Emperors especially Claudins, this policy
was continued, and several ci&es(e.g., Derbe and Iconium) were
remodelled and renamed in Roman fashion.
I n a special way the southern part of the province
was important in Paul's time.
The two main roads from Ephesus to inner Asia traversed it,
dividing a t Apameia in Phrygia, the one to go N. of the
SuZtan Dagk through Laodiceia Combusta
4.Settlement and Czsareiain Cappadociatothe Euphrates,
of Jews. tiochother
the to go S. of the range through An-
and Iconium and the Cilician Gates.
T o this fact we must mainly attribute the presence of large
numbers of Jews in the cities of this region (see DELUGE I 20
end). The Jewish colonies, indeed, dated from the time'of th;
Seleucid kings, who established them with special privileges
and citizen rights in their garrison towns in Asia Minor (Jos.
Ant. xii. 3 I and 34. Cp v6pw TGV ' I o d a i w v in an inscription
of Apameia, Rams. Ciiies and Bish. of Phrygza, 538, 668. See
also Schiirer Hist. o f / e w s ET, ii. 2 2 5 2 ~ 3 . Hence Paul's
experiences in Acts 1 3 1 4 141'Gal. 1 7 417. 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).
B. G ALATIANS O F TIIE EPISTLE AKD ACTS.
What remains of this article is devoted to the
6. Galatians question, Where were the churches to
which the epistle to the Galatians was
in NT : s e n t ? l T h e accepted opinion has
nomenc1ature' been that they were in northern cities
not mentioned in Acts. This opinion may conveniently
be called the ' N o r t h Galatian theory.' T h e argu-
ments in favour of it are discussed below (§§ 8-31). I n
recent years (see 9 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 (Ex$os.
'956, , p . 34), ' T h e 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.' T h e question
should not be taken in too narrow a sense (Ramsay,
Hist. Comm. 9).
I. Casef o r South GaZaalian Theory.
T h e official title of the vast province we have de-
scribed, extending almost from sea to sea, was ' Galatia.'
This is proved by Rolemy's enumerationof l?ahada side by side
with the other officialtitles of the provinces of Asia Minor, and
by Pliny's definition of Galatia as extending S. to Pamphylia
( H N 5 1463, nttingit Galntia Pamphylia Cavbaliam et
Mi@as). It is also clear from Tacitus (Hist. 2 9 GaZafia7n ac
Pasz$?yliam $rooincias Call)rcrnio Asjrenati r&endas Galba
@rrxiserat [=68/69 A.D.]. Cp Rams. in Stud. Bibl. 427J).
1 The references in I and z Macc. also are dealt with below,
8 32.
2 For a different view, see below, 8 8.
'592
 MAP OF ASIA MINOR
I N D E X T O NAMES

Abydos, B I Comana Pontica, G I Isaurica, D E 3 Patmos, B3 Sebaste, G I

Added Land, The, E2 Cos, B3 Issus, G 3 Perga, D 3 Sebaste, E2
Adramyttium, B2 Cotyreum, Cz Pergamum, B2 Sebastia, Gz
Juliopolis, D I Pessinus, Dz Seleucia, E3
Alexandria, Bz Coracesium, E3
Amanus M., G 3 Cremna, D 3 Phaselis, D 3 Selinus, E 3
Lampsacus, B I
Amasia, FI Creta, AB4 Philadelphia, Cz Sestos, B I
Laodicea, C 3
Amastris, E1 Curium, E 4 Philomelium, D 2 Side, D3
Laodicea Combusta, Ez
Amathus, E 4 Cybistra, F3 Phrygia, CDz Sinope, FI
Laranda, E 3
Amisus, FI Cyprus, E F 4 Phrygia Galatica, C D E z , 3 Sipylus M., Bz
Lectum Pr., Bz
Ancyra, E z Cyzicus, B I Pisidia, CDEz, 3 Smyrna, Bz
Lemnos, Az
Antiochia, G3 Pompeiopolis, FI Sultan Dagh, D z
Lesbos, AB2
Antiochia Pisidiz, Dz Delos, A3 Pontus Euxinus, C - H I Synnada, Dz
Lycaonia, Ez, 3
Anti-Taurus M., FGz, 3 Derbe, E 3 Pontus Galaticus, F I Syria P y l z , G3
Lydia, BCz
Apamea Cibotus, D z Diospolis, G I Pontus Polemoniacus, G H I
Lystra, E 3 Tarsus, F 3
Archelais, F2 Dorylreum, D z Propontis, BCI
Tatta Palus, E z
Argreus M., F2 Mreander Fl., BCz, 3 Provincia Asia, Cz
Taurus M., EF3
Assus, Bz Emir Dagh, D z Magnesia, Bz Provincia Bithynia et Pontus, D E F G I
Tavium, F z
Attalia, D 3 Ephesus, B3 Melitene, H z Provincia Cappadocia, E-Gz
Tectosages, EI
Euphrates, Fl., G H z -4 Messogis M., BCz, 3 Provincia Cilicia, F3
Tembris Fl., D z
Bosporus, C I Provincia Galatia, C-F I -3
Miletus, B3 Temnus, M., C2
Byzantium, C I Gangra, EI Provincia Lycia, CD3
Myndus, B3 Tenedos, Bz
Gazelonitis, FI Myra, D3
Provincia Pamphylia, D E 3
Cabira, G I Thera, A3
Gordium, D I Mysia, BC2 Provincia Syria, G H 3
Cresarea Mazaca, F z Thracia, ABCI
Granicus Fl., B I Mytilene, Bz Prusa, C I
Caicus Fl., Bz Thyatira, Bz
Pyla? Amanicze, G3
Calycaduus Fl., E 3 Tium, EI
Hadrianopolis, E I Naxos, A3 Pyramus Fl., F G 3
Caralis L , D 3 Tmolus M., C z
Halicarnassus, B3 Nazianzus, F z
Caria, C 3 Tolistobogii, D E z
Halys FI., E - H I , z Neoczesarea, G I Regnum Antiochi IV., E-G3
Carpathus, B4 Trajanopolis, E3
Hassan Dagh, F2 Niczea, C I Regnum Polemonis 11.. GHI
Cayster Fl., BC2 Tralles, B3
Hellespontus, B I Nicomedia, C I Rhodus, C3
Celzenze, D z Trapezus, H I
Heraclea Pontica, D r Nicopolis, H I
Celenderis, E3 Salamis, E 4 Troas, Bz
Hermus Fl., C z
Chalcedon, C I Trocitis L., D 3
Hierapolis, C 3 Olgasys M., EI Salmone Pr., B4
Chios, ABz Trocmi, F I , z
Olympus M., CI, 2 Samos, B3
Cibyra, C 3 Iconium, E3 Samothracin, A I Trogilium Pr., B3
Citium, E 4 I d a M., Bz Paphlagonia, E F I Sangarius Fl., CDI 'Troja, Bz
Cuidus, B3 Ilium, Bz Paphos, E 4 Sardis, Cz Triopium Pr. , B3
Colossae, c3 Imbros, A I Parnassus, E 2 Sarus Fl., FGz, 3 Tyana, F3
Comana, G 2 Isaura, E 3 Patara, C3 Satala, H I Zela, FI
 GALATIA
Ramsay, however, contends that the Greek-speaking
natives did not habitually call the ~xovincz' Galatia' ;
they called it the ' Galatic Provirice' (cp C I C 3991,an
inscription of Iconium which speaks of a n h i ~ p o ~ o
FaXanK7js &rap;yias), o r else enumerated its parts. T h e
use of the single term 'Galatia' implied the adoption
of the Roman point of view, in which national distinc-
tions counted a s nothing before the imperial organisa-
tion. To this antithesis betiveen the Roman a n d t h e
native standpoint is traced the difference in phrase be-
tween the Epistles a n d Acts.
On the other hand, whilst it is now admitted that
'Galatia' was the official name of the province,' it is
still maintained b y those who favour the North Galatian
theory that the derivative name ' Galatians ' could not
b e used in addressing Pisidinns and Lycaonians a s it is
used of the readers of Galatians in Gal. 3 I (see below,
8 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
conc1;sively proved by the exhaustive discussion of Ramsay
(Stud. Bi6l. 426,K). On the other hand, the nationnl appella-
tions, such as Phryx or Lycaa, were extra-Roman and servile
(cp Momms. in Hemtes, '54, p. 3 3 ~ 3 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 liistorian (Tac. Ann. 15 6, Pontica et Gnlatnrunz
Caj#adocnmque auxilia). The same is true, also, of the
Roman Paul. Indeed no other address was possihle in the case
of men belonging to Roman colonies like CoZonia Cesareia
Antiocheia (hntioch) and Colonia Julia Felix Geinina Lystrn
(Lystra), and of semi-Roman towns like Claun- Zconiunz
(Iconium) and Claudio-Dcr6e (Derbe). So long as we refuse to
think of the four cities under these their Roman names in Panl'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 d a m at BethZehcnz ? 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 A M , 7 4 197 242). It further demands an erroneous
interpretation of Acts 1 6 6 18 23 (on these verses see however,
§ 9.f: 12:14), otherwise no record can be found {n A& of the
foundation of churches in N. Galatia.
It is a significant fact, however, that the history of the North
s a steady tendency to place the scene.of
ever farther southwards. Ziickler main-
y of Ancyra or Tavium, and restricts the
churches of Galatia to Pessinus and the villages of the Axylon
(St. Kr. 'gj, pp. 59, 79). Others hold that whilst the S. Galatian
churches mentioned in Acts are addressed in the Ep., it includes
also foundations otherwiseunknown, in N. Galatia. The South
Galatian theor; is that we have in Acts a complete list and a
complete acconnt of the foundation of the (lalatian chrirclies,
and that Paul never travelled in any part of Galatia proper.
T h e attempt t o restrict the application of thc nnme
' Galatians ' (I'aXdrat) t o those of Celtic blood is futilc,
as the majority of the inhabitants of Galatia proper
must have beeu descended from the old conquered races,
-the Phrygians o r the Cappadociairs together with,
i n Paul's time, Greeks, Romans, a n d Jews (cp, however,
below, 5 29, end). Especially in the towns must this
have been t h e case (Van Celder. G d 9-e.r).
It is true that even in the first century A . D . the Celtic e!ement
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 Tre7feii,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 19f: 16) and those charged against the Gauls,
though no doubt many passages may be qnoted in support of
such correspondence (cp Meyer-Sieffert, Bvief an GaLM 5).
On this 'pedantic analysis' of Galatian character see Ramsay,
Hist. Cornin. 162.
T h e Roman provincial title 'Galatia' is not used
in Acts ; but in 1 6 6 we find the phrase r+jv Q u y i a v K U ~
raXa.rrK$v xhpav ( E V 'region of Galatia'), a n d in
1 The untenable position that it was not first assumed by
Schiirer in JPT, '92, p. 471, was abandokd in T L Z , 30th
Sept. '93, p. 506.
52 I593
GALATIA
Actsl8z3, the phrase r$v TaXarcK+jvxhpuv ai (Ppuyiav
(AV ' country of Galatia,' R V ' region of Galatia '). 'The
phrases are ambiguous, a n d various explanations haw
s been proposed (see 0s 9f: 12-14).
The question as to the precise significance of these phrases
must he distinguished from that as to the localityof the Galatian
churches. The latter question must be fought out on the field
of geography and history; and the example of Zahu ( E X .
1134) shows that essential acceptance of the S. Galatian theory
is compatible with a desire to interpret the donbtfnl phrases as
referring to N. Galatia. It is for the North Galatinn theorists that
the interpretation of the t-o 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 lacunze whicl;
turns the edge of all criticism (Rams. Stud. BiX. 4 16).
The holders of the accepted North Galatian view
take the term Galatic c o u n t r \ ~ (PaXanrh
' ,.
. y l j,~ a ti o be
6. of simply synonym for daiatia 6 3
( F u X a r h - ;.e., Galatia proper.
accepted view' The argument against this is de-
cisive : Why, if Paul a n d thg writer o f x c t s both refer t o
Galatia proper, should they differ so remarkably as t o
t h e name, the writer of Acts employing a circun~locution
which stands alone among all the references collected
from ancient authors?' O n the other hand, the ad-
jective ' Galatic' ( F a X a w d s ) is used b y Ptolemy a n d
in the inscriptions always in a definite special sense, to
indicate the extensions of the original Galatia. Paul,
writing a s a Roman citizen, a n d from the Roman im-
perial standpoint, never uses a n y 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 a n d colloquial usage of t h e
more educated classes (Rams. i n Expos., '986, p. 1z5J =
Hist. Cotnm. 3 23, p. 3148).
The North Galatian view demands also that ' Phrygia '
( Q u y i a v ) be a noun in both passages ; but this only
makes more pressing t h e question why the simple tevm
' Galatia ' was not written.
Lightfoot ( G d 22) correctly argued that the phrase
of Acts 1 6 6 (see 8 5. end) must denote a single territory
to which the two epithets Phrygian a n d Galatian are
applied-' it was, i n fact, the land originally inhabited
by Phrygians, but subsequently occupied b y Gauls. '
For the proof of this point as a matter of grammar,
consult Ramsay (Church in K . E?izp. 4S6, St. Paul,
2.0). The historical justification of t h e phrase, how-
ever, given b y Lightfoot, though true, is inadn-issible
here, being quite out of harmony with the style of Acts,
a n d failing t o explain why the writer should have hecn
a t the pains to use a cumbrous expression that scrves n o
purpose.
Accepting the unity of the expression i n Acts166,
we may take it to be a ' general a n d comprehensive
7. South Gala- description rather than as the exclusive
tian theory. denoniination of any one particular dis-
trict' (so Gifford in Expos. Tulv '94,
p. 12). It denotes then the borderlands of Gaia& a n d
Phrygia.4 T h i s certainly gives a perfectly intelligible
'
route t o the apostle, from Antioch northwards as far
perhaps as Nakoleia, where, being forbidden to cross
into Bithynia, he turned westwards (Acts 1G7).
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. 1721 and Wadd. [Ehsies,zj]). The only
road to which the description 'Phrygian and Galatian' is really
applicable is the direct road from Iconium to Dorylaion (Eski
Sheher), the modern nra6a route from /ionin to Constantinople,
lying many miles E. of that sugsested by Gifford (cp Rams.
1 See Holder. A Zfhelfischer Sbrachschatz.
' S.W. ' Galatia,'
where most of thim are given.
2 'Pontus Galaticus ' C f L 3, Suppl. 6818 ; ' Phrygia Galatica'
in Acta Sand 28th Skpt., p. 563, as emended by Rams. (in ur6e
Antiochie Pisirtire ex regione Phry& Galatice, where the
MS has Galacie. See Stud. Bi61.4 26). In CIG3991, F a h a n x i
i r r a p ~ ~ is
i athe enlarged province (date of this inscr. '54 A.D.).
3 So also, and for the same reason, are Roman provincial
titles used in I Pet. 1I , which sums up all Asia Minor within the
Taurus. See Rams. Church in A'. Em$. 110 ; Zahn, Em/. 1124.
4 Lightfoot seems to approximate to thisview in his CoZoss.(9)
21.
1594
 GALATIA
03.cif. 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, and that Paul did
not go on to Antioch (though his intention had been to visit
all the churches, Acts 15 36 : K a r i ~ 6 h wrriuav).
In the second place, Lightfoot is certainly right in his
remark (CoZoss. 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-
certainty might obtain in particular districts the question still
remains unanswered, why here alone the &iter 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-Galatic territory’ (so RV
‘ t h e region of Phrygia and Galatia,’ as against AV
‘ Phrygia and the region of Galatia ’). H e differs from
him, however, in the explanation, holding that the
various parts of the province were t o some unknown
extent distinct, and were termed XGpai, Re,m’ones.
T w o of these IZegiones were krvcrsccl by Paul in Acts
16 1-6 18 23-viz., Galatic Phrygia ani: Galatic Lycaonia.
The ‘Phrygia[nI region’ ( B p u y i a p ;more fd:y ‘the Phrygia[n]
and Galatic region ’ 3 Bpuyla K a L I ’ a A a n t + X h p a as in Acts
1 6 6=Phvy& Gadtica) was that part of Phryg:a which be-
longed to the province Galatia, containing the cities Antioch
and Iconium (cp Acts146, where the E. houndary 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 ’Auravil B p v y i a
by Galen, 4 312)~so E. Lycaonia formed part of the kingdom of
Antiochus (hence called Lycmnia Antiociriana CZL 10 8660)
whilst W. Lycaonia lay in the province Galatia (hnd was prohi
ably called Lycuonia Galaticn: cp Ponfus Galaticus). It is
obvious that these two sections of Lycaonia might also he spoken
of respectively as the ‘ region of Antiochiis ’ (‘Avnoxecavil Xrjpa ;
so Ptol. V. G 17) and the ‘Galatic region’ (I’ahaTwil x h p a :
Acts 18 23).
In Acts166 the Phrygo-Galatic district is given the
full name ; but in Acts 1823 it is simply called +puyla 4 That ‘ Phrygia’ in Acts 18 23 is to be taken as including, or
( ~ 6 p a;) in the latter passage the Lycaono-Galatic
region, cf the cities Derbe and Lystra (Acts1461, is also
mentioned, under the title raxariK3 X6pa.
Ramsay further holds that Paul was ‘ actually in Asia ’
when the prohibition t o preach reached him ( C h u ~ c hi n
R. Ern?. (51 75j.
Ramsay refuses therefore to understand the participle ‘having
been forbidden ( K ~ u ~ J ~ u asT Cgiving
~ ) the reason for the step
described in the words ‘they went through the region of Phrygia
and Galatia (Bb<hSou . .. XLpav), arguing that the order of verbs
is also the order in time(&. 89); in short, that AV ‘and were
forbidden’ is correct (as though the Greek ran Sc<ASov
mi iKOh&&Tau). This is not impossible, though harsh. It is
...
noteworthy, however, that in his St. PuuZ, Ramsay follows
Lightfoot (Bi61. Ess. 237) in retaining the reading (SLCAS~VTEF)
of the inferior MSS, upon purely subjective grounds3 that can
have no weight against the authority of the great MSS. The
aorist they went through’ (&+SOY) must be read and the
partidple ‘having been prevented ’ (KoAu8duTrs) gives 6 e reason!
not so much for the action ‘they went through
(6~rjhSou. .. ... region
XLpav), 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.4
The point a t which the prohibition was received is im-
material, and is in no wise indicated, but is most
naturally assumed t o have been Antioch.
I n opposition to Ramsay, who, on grounds never fully
explained, regards Acts 166-10 as the most remarkable,
the most emotional, and the most instructive paragraph
1 An inscription given by Sterrett, Efiig. Journey, n. 02,
mentions an Qxarovr&pxqu +yeoudp~ou, or centurion of the
Re& in which Antioch lay, z.e., Phrygia Galatica. St. wrongly
alters his copy t o heycodpprov. In Str. 568 3 ’Iuauprmj, and
Ptol. v. 6 17,$ ’AurLoXaavrj, the word x d p a is t o be supplied.
a So Ramsay, taking Bpvyia as an adjective. It may he a
noun and yet bear the same significance, for in inscriptions of
Antioch the iiouii is often used=Galatic Phrygia, C Z L 3, Suppl.
6818 and 6819.
3 Ramsay, St. PnuZ, 195, ‘The succession of participles suits
so perfectly the strange and unique character, the hurry and the
deep-lying emotion ofthepassag;e
manded the unusual expression.
. .. the unnsual embtion de-
4 The explanation given by Askwith (The E$. to Gul. 34)
who takes the participle predicatively, ‘they went through ..
forbidden,’ seems to amount to the same thing.
= 59.5
GALATIA
in Acts’ (Church in R. Emf. 484), we must call atten-
tion to the hiatus between Gi$hOov and 8hO6vrEs.
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
Bithynia’ that such reason (i.a. the desire to evangelize
Bithynia) can be adduced. Seeink that at the outset no in-
tention of opening up new ground was expressed by Paul (Acts
15 36 ; the implication seen by Ramsay in Acts lG 3 [Chsrch in
R. Em#. 751 is unjustifiable in the face of the words TOGS S w a s
6v Tois ~ 6 f f o r sdKFivOis), we require Some explanation of his going
N. instead of retracing his ste s, or descending to Attalia, as
on the first journey (Acts14 25)j (Cp, however, below, 5 IO n.)
Further, we must not demand a too rigid parallelism
in meaning between the phrases of Acts 166 and 1823.
T h e 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’
(Qpuyiav) of Acts 18 23 as equivalent to the whole ex-
pression ‘ the Phrygia[n] and Galatic region ’ (r. Qpuyiav
~ a raXarrKilv
l X h p a u ) of Acts166. Actsl823, how-
ever, should rather be brought into closer connection
than is usually the case with the resumption of the nar-
rative in Acts191 after the digression about Apollos.
The word ‘ Phrygia‘ (Qpuylav) must be taken in Acts
1823 in the sense natural and obvious in this passage, a s
a noun (cp Acts 2 IO). I t here indicates the non-Galatian
part of Phrygia, the special region thereof being particu-
larised a s ’ the upper country’ ( ~ ~hU W T E ~ LpCp7 K ~ of
Acts19 T) which, following Ramsay (Church i n R.Emf.
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 Eumeneia and this region
with this passage (Cities a n d Bish. ofPhrygia, 2502 715;
c p Expos. ‘95a, p. 389).
even solely signifying Asian Phrygia is supported by the para-
phrase given by Astdius, bishop of Amaseia, in Pontus, about
400 A . D . - p n j A S e v o h I KKopivtJou r p b s T ~ rLjv Y I l r u ~ S & vXhpav‘
€?sa 1;)v hJKaoviau .ai rhs 76s Bpuyias lr6hsrs KaTahaphv,
&&3ev T ~ ‘Auiau
V & T L U K ~ + & ~ . B Y O ~ ,&a T)/V M a d o v l a v , K O L V ~ P
? ~ ~ ~ ~ F O ~ K O U ~ B Y I ) F G L G Gr., L ~ Ked.
~ AMigne,
~ S ( ~ xl.,
~ ~ ~Hom.
T . L).
The traditional confusion of the Syrian with the Pisidian
Antioch does not justify Zahn (Einl. 1136) in setting this
evidence aside as a mere false inference. ?‘he assage proves
that Asterius, interpreted the Galatic region’ &v raAaTiKilv
?pau)of Acts 18 23 as Lycaonia (against the N. Galatian hypo-
t esis) ; but it also proves that he took Cppuyiau 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 18 zg-that, on the hypothesis expiessed
above there could not have been any ‘disciples’ in Asian
Phrydiaat the time of Paul’s passa e through that region. Yet
we must grant the probability of t%e 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
he wrongly conceived as that of a pioneer simply. w. J. w.
11. Casefor North GaZatian Theory.
T h e 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. Genera2 case for North Galatian theory.-It may
perhaps conduce to a dispassionate consideration of
*. these if it is pointed out a t once that the
North question is, after all, not one of first-rate
Galatian
theorgr. moment. How comparatively subor-
dinate in iniportance it is is illustrated
general even in the strange way in which it has
severed allies and united opponent^.^
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
1 So also Zahn ( E X 1135) rightly protests against the in-
variable but unjustifiable assumption that Bithynia was VI’S
goal from the moment that Asia was closed against him. Der
Absicht aher, nach B. vorzudringen, wird erst in dem Moment
gedacht, wo P. nahe an der Grenze B. und zugleich an :inem
Punkt stand, wo eine andere Strasse nach Mysien abging.
2 Thus we find conservative theologians fike Zahn ,and
Zdckler ranged on opposite sides, and similarly critical writers
like Hansrath and Lipsius-Zahn and Hausrath supporting
the South, and ZSckler and Lipsius the North Galatian theory.
IS96
 GALATIA
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. T h e rest of the book has
to be tried by other tests (A C T S , 33 2 4-7 12-14 ; cp also
such articles as APOLLOS, B AR J ESUS , C ORNELIUS ,
CHRISTIAN, COMMUNITY, COUNCIL, S I M O N M A G U S ,
T HEUDAS). Nor can acceptance of the North Galatian
theory be said to cast a reflection on the author of
Acts that is excessively grave. H e 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. T h e 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 a t 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 anticipnte 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 t o 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-;.e., the cities visited
by him on what is usually called his first missionary
journey (Acts 13 J)-belonged to Galatia Provincia
(see above, 3), and that in official usage the word
Galatia also included them1
Derhe 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 2 which then &longed. to the same province.
Thus it becomes in a general way not impossible that
the epistle t o the Galatians may have been addressed to
the churches of South or New Galatia.
ii. Any- churches i ?Norfh
~ GaZautia ?-The possibility
would be changed i?to certitude if Paul had founded
no churches at all i n N o r t h Galatia. I n that case Acts
1 6 6 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
a t least.
Ramsay, the most recent and most cautious advocate
of this theory in Great Britain, a t the outset, and even
9. Acts 166 down t o p. 77 f. of the 3rd ed. of his
Church, identified the 'cities ' traversed
by Paul and Silas according to Acts 1 6 4 f .
"6",1",?~ with the four we have mentioned- Derbe
and Lystra (already visited in 16 I ) ,
Iconium (incidentally mentioned in l 6 2 ) , and Antioch
(last named in 1421). On this view he explained the
' And they went through ' (6rijAOov 66) of 166 as ' geo-
graphical recapitulatioii of the journey ' through the
1 See especially Pliny, HNv. 42 146x; Ptol. v. 4 1 1 3 ; also
Pliny HNv. 2795. Tac. Ann. 1335 156, cp Hist. 29; cp
Ramlay in St. b i d et eccZcs. 421-39, and E&., '986, p. 1 2 9 5
=Historical Cornmentavy on GaZatians, 318-320 (chap. 24).
2 At that time Iconium belonged, more strictly, to Lycaonia.
Acts 146, however, seems to represent Lycaonia as being first
entered on the way from Iconium to Lystra. Ramsay there-
fore(Church, chap. 2 s), assumes that theauthor is here foilowing
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.
23), Antioch in Paul's time belonged to Phrygia, and ought to
have been called 'on the side of Pisidia' (;Iwpbs IIrudia) to
distinguish it from a city of the same name on the Mzandiri on
the border of Phrygia and Caria. From this, he considers, came
the abbreviation (Acts 13 14) ' Pisidian Antioch ' ('AuTr6Xaa 7
I I v d i a ) , whilst at a later date the conception Pisidia was so
far extended that it ,included Antioch, and the reading of D,
'Antioch of Pisidia ( ' A v d x o i a nic IIcvrGas) came to he
appropriate. The non-Galatian portion of Lycaorka constituted
the kinEdom of king Antiochus; the non-Galatian portion of
Phrygia belonged to the province of Asia.
I597
GALATIA
second pair of these four cities, Iconium and Antioch-
that is to say, through Galatian Phrygia.
On the other hand in a n appendix to the same book, p. xiit
he finds in 164f oniy the Lycaonian-Galatianchurches Derh;
and Lystra named in 16 I together with the Syrian and dilician
mentioned 'in 15 41, and ndlonger says of 16 6 that it recapitulatd
the journey but that the journey 'is resumed from Lystra'-
as from t h i last point which, according to the narrative, Paul
and Silas had reached. In agreement with this, in St. P a s f ,
chap. 8 I (180J), he expressly controverts the interpretation of
16 z according to which Paul had already reached Iconium by
way of Lystra.
I n both views of the matter, however, Ramsay takes
' the Phrygia(n) and Galatic region ' ( ~ f@pupvyiav Kal
I'aAariKilv x. ) to mean the re@-ie., the portion of t h e
province which by its ancient popular name is Phrygian,
but by its new official designation is Galatian. Thus h e
takes ' a n d ' ( K U ~as=sive,
) and Phrygia' as adjectival,
just as ' Galatic ' is. I n 1823, according to Churc/iiS),
chap. 5 , n. I (p. go), ' the same territory' is inlended
as in 1 6 6 ; all that we have is a 'variation in form'
(or ' i n order')- ' t h e Galatic region and Phrygia'
(7. I'aXariK.ilv x. K U @puyiav)--and
~ this is ' correct a n d
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 t o carry out this complicated phraseology h e
would have had to say : Lycaono-Galatic and Phrygo-
Galatic. H e avoids the difficulty by using the simple
phrase : the Galatic country.' ' 'The Galatic region '
thus, according to Ramsay, here inoludes 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 t o the province of
Galatia, but that which belonged to the province of Asia.
I n the appendix (p. xiit) Ramsay expresses a third view
- that in 1823 'Galatic region' is only ' Lycaonia
Galatica, whilst " Phrygia " is Phrygia Galatica.'
Further, as regards the prohibition to preach in Asia
-Le., according to Ramsay, in the province of Asa-
Ramsay's former view (ChurchP),75 ; also app. p. xiif)
was that Paul had already received it in Antiochia
Pisidia. I n the Expos., 'gsa, p. 392, and in Churchi4),
75, however, he maintains that it came to hini only
after he had already entered the province of Asia. I n
either view, however, this ' being prevented ' (KWhUOdYTEE)
comes in point of time after ' they went through ' (&?A-
Oov)-what Ramsay holds to be linguistically possible
(&ijheov KWhUOhEE= 6lijAeov K C d tKWh687)CTaW = a i d -
ebvrcs dKwAdO?pmv ; Chuuch, chap. 4 ad en., p. 89 in
3rd and 4th editions, in 4th ed. also 485 f.; Sf.
PauZ, chap. 94, n. 2). At the same time, he declares
(Exyos. '95a, p. 393, n. I ; Church(4)),486) his South
Galatian theory t o be perfectly consistent with taking
KWXUOQYTEE ["being prevented "1 as giving the reason
for GrijhOov [" went through "I. ' It is hard to perceive
how this can be ; but, in any case, as has been noted
above (7), I Ramsay has changed his position, inas-
much as now (St. P a d , ch. 9 1 [p. 1gsf.1). along with
Lightfoot (BiBL Ess. 237 f.), he follows the ' inferior
manuscripts' (reading ' A n d having traversed , ..
having been forbidden ... having come over against
Mysia, they attempted, etc.' ; similarly AV ; GreXB6vres
6k ... KWXUe&TES ... ChObvrcs Karb S ~ VM U U ~ L ~
!mfplpa~ov,etc.). This reading of T R 'suits the South
3alatian theory admirably' ; but the reason h e gives
?or preferring it is purely subjective (see above, col.
1 Similarly St. Paul chap. 5 4 6 (pp. 104, IIIJ); Siud. 631. e t
xcles. 4 56 ; Church(4),'48~
f: a n d go*, whilst p. 93 word for
Nord agreeing with ChurchA, follows the second Giew. And
n St. Paul, chap: 9 4 n I (p. 210A); Stud. biU. ct eccZes. Z.C. ;
?hu~chW,90~483;G h introd 5 19,p. 209, he holds'Phvygia'
fpuyiau) in 1823 to be an aijective. See below, 8 13. He
2as not changed his view of 16 6.
1598
 GALATIA
1595, n. 3). Considerations of this kind d o not admit
of argument ; but it may be said that the MSS H L P
which support the reading have n o weight.
W i t h regard to the correct reading ‘ theywent through,
... being- prevented’
- (br%hOov , .. K W h u O & m s ) , it
has to b e maintained that the participle
,NorthNGalatia.
o to must contain, if not something ante-
cedent to ‘ thev w e n t ’ (6rijhOov). a t
least something synchronous with it, in n o case a fhing
subsequent to it, if all the rules of grammar and all
s u r e understanding of language are not to be given up.
Synchronism is what is denoted by the aorist participle (for
example) in 1 2 4 , where it precedes the verb and in l?26 where
it follows it 2335 and even 25 13 must ;e similarly &ken if
the text is i o be accept6d (WH conjecture some primitive
,error, and prefer with cursives, Vg., etc., the fut. bwmvm5prEvoL).
In 16 6 , however ‘being prevented ’ ( K O A V B ~ ~ W E Fcould
) be con;
ceived to refer’to something synchronous with ‘they went
&ijhOov) only if Asia (‘Ada) could be taken to denote the same
country as ‘the Phrygia(n) and Galatic region’ (6 apv la x a l
I’aAaTrci xdpa). In point of fact, however, only Jhrygia
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 bf 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.
T h u s being prevented ’ (KwXuOdvms) must b e held
to have been antecedent to ‘they went’ (8rqhOov).
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 ( a t
least) was o n the point of doing so. From Lystra,
where we left him (162[-5]), it is impossible to pass
directly into Asia (the nearest portion of which would
b e Asian Phrygia) ; Asia could be entered only after
traversing Galatian Phrygia (Iconium a n d Autioch).
This region, accordingly, must have been passed
through before the occurrence of the ‘ preventing ’
(KwhdeuOar). Now, if a journey through this same
Galatian Phrygia (as Ramsay understands the geo-
Eraphical 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 h a d 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 b e contrary to the
whole practice of Paul (see e.g., 1 6 7 J ) , because h e
had been prohibited from preaching in a given district,
t o give up all search for a new field for his activities,
a n d consent to have his mission brought to a stand in
a country which he had just left as being already suffi-
ciently provided for.2
Thus, we must take ‘the Phrygia(n) a n d Galatic region’
( ~ f i +pupvyiav
v KUL l?UhUTrKfiP xdpav) to mean something
1 So also in Gal. 319, where Ramsay (Erp., ’986, p; 3 3 3 J f =
Gal. 381 [ch. 351) wrongly takes6caTayeis 6‘’ byyydhov ordained
through angels,’ as something following b ~YL+.LOS & u c T ~ B ~ -
‘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 5 7. If the pro-
hibition to preach in Asia (Acts 166) constitutes the reason
not for the journey of Paul and Silas through the Galatia;
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 to-
gether, but between the (supplied) notion that Paul and Silas
r e r e restricted to Phrygo-Galatia, and the actual continued
journey to the N. ( ; h 8 6 v ~ e retc.).
, The ‘hiatus’ is obviated a:
soou as the supplement is taken away.
1599
GALATIA
:lse than Galatian Phrygia (or otherwise Galatian
,ycaonia). I n that case, however, the only remaining
ilternative is to take ‘ Galatic region’ as meaning Old
;alatia. ‘ Phrygia ’ can then be that portion of Galatian
’hrygia which-if we assume the prohibition to preach
n Asia to have been received in Galatian Phrygia-
’aul and Silas had not yet traversed, but had to tra-
Terse in order to reach North Galatia : or it can be
lsian Phrygia, if they thought they could reach North
k l a t i a b y this route more easily, or if they had already
mtered Asian Phrygia before the prohibition came.
r h a t this last is what had actually occurred is nuw
issumed, a s already mentioned, by Ramsay himself;
ind that it was only the preaching in Asia that was
nterdicted, not the travelling through it, is excellently
irgued by himself from the fact that in167, a t Bithynia,
nention of the prohibition to travel through it is cx-
xessly added.
It is objected that North Galatia is very difficult of
iccess to travellers. Broadlv.
,, however. this cannot b e
L1. Paul,sroute granted if we look a t the roads
which a r e shown in Ranisay’s own
to North
c)alatia. map.’ T h a t Judaizers in particular
were able to find their way thither
:asily enough is shown by the fact that Jewish
lames occur in as many as five inscriptions of
31d [North] Galatia (CZG 3 4045 4074 4083 4092 ; a d d
$087 with Ramsay, Gal., introd., 5 15, p. 169. and
RE/ 1 0 7 7 r851). T h e 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 SultSn Dagh. If this range
could not b e crossed, it was possible to .go round it,
Either eastward through Galatian Phrygia or westward
through Asian Phrygia. T h e only remaining geographi-
cal difficulty is as to how they could subsequently get
out of North Galatia KUT& T T ) Muulav ~ (I6 7). Whether
we take this to mean ‘ over against Mysia ’ ( c p 27 7 ) , or
‘ i n 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 1 6 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
journey 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 ’ (,wAvBhwcs) is to be taken as subsequent to they went
(6tljAOov). A t 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.
I n 1 8 2 3 the text is explicit in favour of the assumption
that Paul’s route was directed to North Galatia a n d 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 Ciliciau churches alsb ; and this
would have been mentioned, as in 1541, all the more because in
1823 stress is laid upon ‘in order’ (wa8&+). That is further a
reason why we should not think of this third journey (if North
1 The only route by which Ephesus, it may be remarked, can
be reached from Ancvra. the caDital of Old rNorthl Galatia. is a
circuitous route, leasing first {o the north-westward almost as
far as to the Black Sea (crossing the river Sangarius, N E of
Nicza in Bithynia) and then turning southward to Kotiaion ;
and yet(Ramsay, Exp., ’ 9 8 4 p. 413=GnZ. 254 [chap. 61) 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 balatians’ change of attitude referred
to in Gal. 161 was so sudden and so completely disastrous,’ even
if one ‘places Galatians as early as possible in the Ephesian
residence ’ of Paul.
1600
 GALATIA
Galatia is regarded as its goal) as having, nevertheless, been
taken (as the second had been) through Cilicia and South
Galatia (cp $17). In t h a t case, moreover, the idea conveyed
by ' Galatic region ' (raharrri) xhpa) would become unclear.
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 (191) lay
through the latter, not through the former (see above,
5 11, note, and 5 7, end). I n 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, 5 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, $5 1 4 5 ) . or at
least to the neighbourhood of Asia; then, in con-
sequence of the prohibition to preach there, he directed
his steps in a north-easterly direction, and reached
North [Old] Galatia through Asian Phrygia.
If it be felt, with Ramsay, that North Galatia had too unim-
portant a place in the movement of the world to deserve to he
chosen by Paul as a mission field it always remains open to us
to suppose his objective to have'been East Bithynia that he
tarried in North Galatia on the way only on account 'of illness
and that as soon as he had recovered sufficiently he made foi
West Bithynia.
According to 1823, on the other hand, if we do not
neglect the changed order of the words, he travelled
from the E. through Cappadocia into North Galatia in
the first instance, and afterwards into Asian Phrygia
a n d thence to Ephesus.
Linguistically also the North Galatian theory thus
offers three great advantages. First. it enables us to
L Y
12. Linguistic interpret ' Galatic region ' ( r d U T L K i )
advantages of xdpa) in both passages consistently ;
North Galatian so also ' Phrygia' (:pu$a) ; whilst,
according to Ramsays second view
(referred to above ; see § g), both
expressions and, according to his third view, ' Galatic
region,' have to be taken in 1523 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 1S23 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 l S a 3 would be the more incredible
because t h e second member would denote the Phrygian region
without more precise designation, whilst the first 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 inconceivalAe 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 ':he
Galatian and the Asian region,' so, on his third, uniformity
would demand ' t h e Lycaonian and the Phrygian region'
(supply, 'of the province of Galatia ').
Ramsay now says (St. PauZ, chap. 5 4 6) that in
Lycaonia ' Galatic region ' (I'aXa~t~i) xhpa) 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 i t ?
Who could be expected to understand even this second
1601
GALATIA
expression correctly? According to Ramsay-Si. Parl repre-
sents his third view-only Galatian Phrygia is intended ' but
the author says ' Phrygia without qualification. More'over
wbo could he expected to understand the first expression? I:
Phrygia also one could equally well use the phrase 'Ga!atic
region ' (rahane Xdpa), without qualification, to distinguish
Galatian Phrygia from Asian Phrygia. In fact Ramsay himself
(Cha+4), 482f;) adds : 'When persons at) a distance dis-
tingnished the two parts [viz of Lycaonia], they of course sub.
stituted [' Lycaonia'] hvKao& for ['region '1 Xdpa, designating
them as Lycaonia Antiochiana and Lycaonia Galatica.' This is
exactly what the author of Acts does not do.
I n 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
(St. PauZ, p. 3 f: ). On the North Galatian theory the
meaning of ' Galatic region ' (raharrh-i) xdpa) is clear
without any knowledge of local phraseology.
Ramsay (Church,79-81, go?, E x p . , '986, pp. 126-128
=Gal. 314-316 [chap. 231) maintains that for North
13. In spite Galatia the form ' Galatia ' (l7aharia)is
of 8raXaTbK, always used, and urges the adjectival
form ' Galatic ' as proving that a region
Xh;pa., added to Galatia only a t a later date is
intended. As an analogy he cites Pontus Galaticus.
I n 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 ' (xdpa), also, Ramsay considers
to be against the interpretation 'Old Galatian,' and
to point to a new district recently added; and the
position is supported (Church(4),483) by the newly-
adopted rendering of ' Phrygia' (@puyla) in 1823 as
a n adjective, inasmuch as hereby, besides the Ly-
caonian, the Phrygian district which had been newly
added to Galatia is designated as 'region' (xdpa).
But in Mk. 1 5 ' the J u d z a region ' (+ ' I o u M a Xhpa) is
quite the same as ' J u d z a ' (4 'Iou&da) in the parallel
Mt. 35. In truth, it is quite arbitrary to assume, as
Ramsay does, that region (xhpa) must necessarily be
the Greek equivalent for regio in the sense of an officially
delimited division of a province. If ' region ' (&pa) in a
non-official sense means simply ' district,' then ' Galatic
region' (FahaTtKi) ~ 3 p awill ) naturally mean the district
inhabited by Galatians properly so-called-Le., ' Old '
[North] Galatia. Nor would this meaning be exrluded
evenif 'region'(x3pa)were to be takenintheofficial sense.
There is, however, absolutely nothing remarkable in
the author's employment of the non-official language.
H e does it, for example, also in Lk.28 826 1513-15
1912 Acts 1039 2620 (cp Jn. 1154). In so doing he
follows the usage of the LXX (4x3pa r D v Xahsalwv,
Gen. 1128 31 Neh. 97 ; rDv 'Auuupiwv, Is. 2713 : TGY
'Iou~?aiwv, Is. 19 17 ; i v x3pp A i y u d w v , IS. 19 19 ;
A l y t ~ r o u ,Is. 1920 ; EIS y f v Z v ~ i pCIS Xdpav 'EBdp,
Gen. 32 3 [4] [xdpa thus=y?j : just as in 11 28 31 yf
and x6pa are parallel]). This use of language de-
prives of all force Ramsay's question ( E z p . , '986, p. 126
=GaZ. 314 [ch. 231) : ' 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 '
(xdpa) shows that he is employing not (in a strict sense)
a name but a periphrasis as in Acts1039 2620 (xdpa rfs
'Iou8alas). 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' (xdpu) in the non-
official sense in all the other passages also (Acts 1349
[as in Lk. 15141,Acts 1220 Lk. 31),perhaps also in Acts
81, although the plural (XDpar) can also mean the
country districts as contrasted with the town, as in Lk.
2121. As for the divergence from the practice of
Paul in particular, since that apostle would certainly
have found such a periphrasis inappropriate in passages
IC02
 GALATIA
so formal as Gal.12 I Cor.161 (z Tim.410), 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).
Ramsay insists that, on account of the common
article, the words ‘ the Phrygiajn)
-- and Galatic region ’
I I I
14. ~~d of the !T?Y @ p y i U V K d rCLhUTlK$V XdpaV)
in 1 6 6 must denote a single territory,
common which must thus have lain in South
Galatia. This cannot be conceded, if only because
‘ and ’ ( ~ din) the sense of ‘ or ’ (sive) can never be
the rule, but only at most a rare exception.’
Ramsay himself has withdrawn this contentio,n by his further
elaboration of his argument in the Exjos., 956, pp. 26-40.
There he says rightly, that the writer of Acts regards two
substantives, when he takes them together under one article
as a unity only in a certain sense-namely, as a pair. He denie;
the applicability of this rule to 166 not because in this passage
we are dealing with adjectives,’ not substantives, but only
because the two, if regarded as different countries, would belong
to different provinces (‘Phrygia’ [Epyia], he says rightly, on
this view-that is, on the North Galatian theory-must be the
part pertaining to the province of Asia) and because, accordingly,
preaching bad been prohibited in PhrGgia hut not in Galaria.
Even if this distinction had to be made, there was
nothing in it to prevent the writer, in so summary a
narrative, from including both districts under o n e
article.% To do so became still easier as he employed
the common substantive ‘region,’ pa (it is best, with
Ramsay, to take ‘ Phrygia ’ [@puyia] in 166, as well as
in 1823, as an a d j e ~ t i v e ) . ~
Apart from this, there is another answer to Ramsay’s
objection. If by Phrygia (following one of the two
possibilities mentioned above, § IO, end) we are to
mderstand the remaining portion of Galatian Phrygia
which Paul and Silas had still to traverse before enter-
ing North Galatia, the prohibition to preach applies to
this just as little as to the ‘ Galatic region’ (ruha.rrK$
xdpu). Or, if Asian Phrygia is intended-the con-
clusion come to under § ~I--and by Asia not the entire
province of Asia but only ‘ in the popular sense ’ ‘ the
a g e a n coast lands’ without Phrygia ( 5 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.
I t would not, it is true, be permissible to take ‘ Asia ’
in this popular sense if the view held by Ramsay-
15. o ~ f i c iformerly
al at least (Church.8z)-were cor-
usage not rect : the view, namely, that the narrative
strict in Lk, 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 elsewhcre,
which in 29f. (where Phrygia is mentioned along with
1 Ramsay even supports this rendering(Si. Paul, ch. 94, n. I ,
p. x o J ) by Acts 139-‘ Saul, who also [is] Paul,’--ZairharP Kai
IIaGhop-as if ‘also’ and ‘or’ were the same (cp Winer’s
tions in Straho (Chu~chW,486t).
2 Ramsay (Ex#os., ’956, pp. 29-33) does not venture to allege
that in Acts two dlstricts 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 constitiite a
unity for the purpose of the mission. Even this however,
hardly holds good in 15 3, and certainly not in 19 21 dr in-what
he himself recognises as an exception--275.
3 Ramsay is mistaken in supposing that the adiectival char-
acter of ‘ Phrygia’ (Quyia) is an argument against the North
Galatian theory.
1603
GALATIA
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 Iconiurn, Lk.
follows the popular usage (see above, col. 1597,n. 2).
As Ramsay now completely identifies the author of the
entire book of Acts with the author of the journey-
narrative (St. Paul, ch. SI), he is all the less justified in
attributing to the latter in 166 a conception of ‘Asia’
different from that in 2 g . I Moreover, the critical view
of Acts regards both passages as due to the author of
the complete work, the ‘ we ’ source not beginning till
1 6 9 . Thus that ‘Asia’ is used in the popular sense in
1 6 6 becomes probable, because it is so used undoubtedly
in ‘Lg and the remaining passages in Acts admit of
either interpretation.
Here, then, we can now say still more precisely than
in 5 11 that Paul, proceeding from South Galatia
(Lystra, etc. 161-5) westwards, had already reached
Asia (in the narrower sense) or a t least its neighbour-
hood (1666); that, on account of the prohibition to
preach there, he directed his steps ( 1 6 6 ~towards
) the
NE., and founded, first, in Asian Phrygia, those
churches which we find him visiting anew in 1823, and
afterwards those in North 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, 11).
Apart, however, from the question whether Lk. ad-
+d exactly to the usage of Paul,
16. Or in it is quite unpermissible to say of
Paul that he invariably confined himself to the official
usage.
1 Ramsay believes it possible from his point of view to main-
tain so much a t 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 $1 16.
2 See the enumeration of them given elsewhere (ASIA, col. 339
end, col. 340 end). In Stud. 6iU. e t eccZes. (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 2 gJ, names Phrygia alongside of Asia unquestionably I
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 E g e a n coast lands-Ramsay, Stud Bi62. 4303,
3rges 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 ow11 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 Acts29, may be a
survival from that time. As for the name Galatia the fact
of its not occurring in Acts 13f: might seem to make akainst 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 (Ex). , ’956, 35-40). The
assumption, however, cannot be maintained. Ramsay himself
in one place (St. Paul ch. 5 I , p. 91) limits the assumption by
the insertion of the hord ‘usually,’ but he afterwards (i6.
zh. 9 I , p 196) leaves it qnqualified (‘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. 6 I , no. 3, p. 135 f: and ch. 114, p.
253s). On the other hand, in Ex). ’986, p. 126=Gal. chap.
!3, p. 315, he accentuates the opposite h e w : ‘ it has been shown
in page after page of my Si. 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 E g e a n land ’ (cp
8 13, end).
8 We assume, with Ramsay, that in Acts166 and in other
‘though not as Ramsay holds, in all) places in Acts the ‘ going
through’ (ddppd?aL) was accompanied with missionary preach-
mg. See ASIA, col. 340, n. I. Compare also the conjecture
regarding ’region ’ (xdpa) above, 5 13 (col. 1602. end).
4 So Ramsay, Church, chap. 8 2 , St. Paul, chap. 6 I, no. 3,
p. 135f: ; Exp., ’986, pp. 29.32 125f.:=Gd. chap. 14, pp. 275-
1604
 GALATIA
The assertion may possibly hold good for 2 Cor. 119, if, as
Ramsay (Ex#., '956, p. 38) tells us, Philippi did not belong to
Macedonia in popular parlance, for 2 Cor. llsf: certainly re-
lates to the same events as Phil. 4 15f: Besides this instance,
there is yet one other-curiously enough, unnoticed by Ramsay
-which favours his view. Galilee and Samaria became incor-
porated with /u&a as a single territory under Roman rule-
according to Josephus, Ant. xix. 9 2 B3ii. 1 1 6 , after the
death of Herod Agrippa I. (Actsl223)iu 44 A.D., but accord-
ing to Tacitus ( A z n . 1254) after the deposition of Ventidius
Cumanus in 52 A . D . (Schiir. G j Y l 4 7 6 f : , E T 2 1 7 2 8 ) . That the
official name of this territory was Judaea we have evidence
going as far hack as 69 A . D . (Tac. H7st. 2 5). It can hardly he tion of the official phraseology from the fact that he
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 church& in Galilee we may be sure
that Paul did not intend to exclude them when he wrote
I Thess. 2 14 Gal. 122. As nevertheless, he mentions only
Judaea, he appears to be follokng the official phraseology.1
All the other passages adduced hy Ramsay, on the
other hand, prove nothing.
Judcea is named by Paul in z Cor. 116, Rom. 15 31 also ; hut
here only the narrower meaning need he understood.
Where, apart from 2 Cor. 11g, he names Macedonia (I Thess.
17f: 4 IO I Cor. 16 5, 2 Cor. 1 1 6 2 13 7 5 8 I , Rom. 15 26, and
also Phil. '4 15) the apostle may he using the word quite as well
in its popular as in its official sense.
So also with the Syria and Cilicia of Gal. 121. The order
in which they are named here is not in accordance with that in
Acts9301125 3, which brings Paul from Jerusalem first to
Cilicia, and then to Syria. Ramsay seeks to
crepancy hy showing that a t that time Syria
united as a single province but had not rec
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 hare arisen from the existence
of a fixed and unvarying usus ioguendi such as we have for
example in the case of #rowincia Bithynia 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 (Ex# '986
p. 31 f: = Gal. ch. 14, p. 277.5 ; Stzrd. 6ihl. et eccL 4y4) i;
accordance with which be designates the province on his own
map in St. Paul 'prorincia Syria et Cilicia et Phcenice' ; hut
this he takes so little seriot that in the same work (St. Paul the second necessity, some have assumed the course of
ch. 8 I, p. 181) he says ' C a 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
77s .%pia$ K a i e s &htKhs).z
( Where Paul then mentions Asia ( I Cor. 16 19 2 Cor. 18) and
Achaia (1 Thess. 1 7 f: z Cor. 1I 9 2 11TO Rom. 15 26) the
popular sense is quite as possible as the official. Indeed, :fit is must be meant to be limited by the route stated to
accepted as a fact (so for example by Ramsay) that Paul made
some converts to Chriktianity in A6ens(Acts 17 3 3 s ) whilst yet
we find himcalling the Corinthian Stephanas ( I Cor. 1:6 16 15) his
first convert in Achaia, he here uses Achaia in its popular sense
which as Ramsay tells us (Ex)., '956, p. 38) did not includi
Athe& (see ACHAIA). If Rom. 15 19 is assuAed to be genuine of the N. The possibility of the existence of the
and Tit. 3 12 to have reference to it, Paul here uses Zl&ricum
in a wider sense which includes the whole coast of Epirus as
far as to Act&, where the Epirotic Nicopolis lay. Epirus
never was part of Illyria. From 4 0 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, hut 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 ; hut on
the other hand he notes that in Rom. 15 19 Paul uses the Roman
form ' Illyricum' whilst the Greeks used ZZtyrikos only as an
adjective, the snbstantive being ZZ@ris (Ex#., '986, p. 30=Gai.
chap. 14, p. 276J). This, however, tells us nothing as to the
rco-.ranhical denotation of the expression.3 Further (Ex#. and
278, chap. 23, p. 314; also Zahn (EinZ. in das NT, 5 11, n.
4), who, however although a supporter of the South Galatian
theory, traverses kvery other contention of Ramsay's dealt with
above in 88 9-15(so far as they are t o he found in Church; St.
Paul he had not yet seen).
1 This of conrse will not hold good if we follow the chronology by Lightfoot. In reality, it is sufficient to suppose that
(based on Tacitus)adopted by 0. Holtzmann(N~'l~cheZeitgesch. during his illness, or during his convalescence, Paul
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 xf 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
Philippians Phi/$$Estoz (Phil. 4 IS), which 'is the Greek repre-
sentative of the Latin Philippensis, according to a rule familiar
to archreologists ... he avoids the Greek ethnic, which was
' ~Oihtnqv6s. He would not address the inhabitants
O ~ h i n i e vor
of a Roman colony by a Greek name, hut 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
1605
GALATIA
Gal.,as above) he lays emphasis on the point that in 2 Tim. 4 IO
Paul designates as Dalmatia the province which in Rom. 15 19 he
had called ZllymZon in agreement he thinks with the change in
the name of Illyria which had ac&ally happ'ened in the closing
years of the apostle's life, Dalmatia having previously denoted
only the southern portion of that province. I t is, however, a
mere begging of the question to assume that the Dalmatia of
z Tim. 4 IO covers the same area as the Illyria of Rom. 15 19.
Dalmatia in Timothy could quite as easily mean that part of
lllyria which in popular speech had retained its old name.
Further, it is not legitimate to argue for Paul's adop-
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 (Ex?. , '956. p. 3 5 J , and 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 he
used in its official sense, it becomes only a possibility,
not a necessity, that our epistle was addressed to South
Galatians.
In 1823 Paul 'stablishes aZZ the discipZes.' As there
were disciples in South Galatia, it has been thought by
some that we must interpret oily in
17.
aisciples, no this sense 'the Galatic region (T+V
dispr60f of raXawc+v xdpuv) traversed by him
along with Phrygia, and that North
North Galatia must be excluded. To escaDe
the journey to have been as in 166- first through
South Galatia and afterwards through North Galatia
(against this see, further, 0 11 above). Neither assump-
tion is at all compelled by the text. 'All' ( ~ d v s a s )
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
latter is not excluded by the fact that there were
disciples in South Galatia. ' I n order' ( K a f k t f r ) in
like manner means only that Paul visited successively
each church which lay on his route, not that he visited
every place in -4sia Minor where there were disciples.
It may be the case that in wide districts of North
Galatia nothing - but Celtic was spoken, and that
18. Nor diffi- travelling in the interior-especially
culties of the for an invalid (Gal. 413)--was very
arduous. Lightfoot's assumption,
Journey, 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
founded a few churches, none of them very far apart,
(Das griech. Secund&-su&.x -77s po [Gqtt., '581) besides a
large number of other adjectives in this termination, i a s 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. 'Yph+x occurs in documents
In Demosthenes AKaKrjorar in Callimachus (circa 260 B.c.).
Nor are they all berivatives from words ending in -q or -a, such
as 'I86q or-Ypha. Not to mention any but words that are un-
questionably early, from pre-Roman times : AKaK7joLor comes
from'AraKoc (like p p o n j o ~ o s therefore,
, in Hesiqd, and dponjoror
in Aratus, circa 270 B.c.), and TLTaprjoLoc 1s In zitad, 2 751, a
river descending from Mount T d p i o v , in Hksiod, Shield, 181
and in Apollonius of Rhodes (circa 250 B.c.). a man from th;
same district. Cp also Kiihner, Ausf: Gramm. d. grikck.
Sprache, $ 334, n. 2.
1606
 GALATIA
and all situated in the W. of North Galatia, where
acquaintance with Greek, as far as Pessinus and Gernia
are concerned, is conceded even by Ramsay (Church,
chap. 61, no. 6). Nor, 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 ( C h u d , 84-86).'
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.XU.et eccZ. 419)
that 'the only form of the North Galatian theory that is no;
a historical absurdity is Lightfoot's, who held that Paul s
Galatian churches were in the great cities, especially Ancyra.'
T h e limitation of the old Galatian missionary field
indicated above deprives of much of its weight the
19,Nor the objection that the founding of the North
Galatian Churches is not recorded in
::E;. 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 83
8 6 $ , etc. ). On the claim for Acts thus presupposed by
Ramsay, see ACTS, §§ 2 , 4-7, 12-14. As far as the
silence 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 Colossz and Rome, or about Paul's journey to
Corinth. which we infer from 2 C o r . 2 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 - 1 3 9 .
.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 Galatiaa
churches within which there had been such violent
,disputes. Not till 1 8 2 3 , and even then only incidentally,
does he allude to their existence.
iii. N T references suit North Galatia best.- If it is
t o 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, snit North or South Galatia better. That
both portions of the province are meant equally is
inadmissible. According to Gal. 4 13-15, the occasion
of their founding must have been the same for all the
Galatian churches.
Nothing decisive is made ont when it is proved that
passages in Galatians which would be appropriate to
20. Indecisive North Galatia are suitable also to the
( a ) Had Paul actually cir-
arguments. South.cumcised Timothy and delivered the
decree of the apostles (Acts 1 6 3 f . ; but see ACTS, 7,
a n d C OUNCIL , I O ), enabling the Judaizers to cite a
case of self-contradiction in view of his preaching of
freedom from the law (Ramsay, St. P a d , chap. 8 2, Exp.,
'986, pp. 17-20 193$ = Gal. [chap. 81pp. 256-160, [chap. 271
pp. 324-326; but on Gal. 511 110, see next article, IO
and 13,n.), the fact could have been proclaimed quite
a s easily in North.as in South Galatia. (6) Star gods,
which are meant by the a7orXciu in 4 3 g (EV, ELE-
MENTS, y . ~ , 5 2 ) , were worshipped not only in
Antiochia Pisidia (where moon-worship is proved to
have existed) ; and castration and stigmatisation (if
512 617 do really refer to the practice of these in
pagan worships) also were widely spread. (c) Gal.
3 2 8 is regarded by Ramsay ( C h u d z , 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.
1 This divergence from Lightfoot's view is therefore not, as
might perhaps a t first appear, a half retractation of the North
Galatian theory and a n approximation to the South Galatian.
I t is simply a better formulrrting of the- North Galatian, which
avoids the difficulties needlessly introduced by Lightfoot.
160~
GALATIA
( d )Paul can conceivably have been received as an angel '
of God' ( & ~ y e h o&OD)
s ( 4 1 4 ) on other occasions besides
that of his deification at Lystra ( A c t s 1 4 1 1 - I 8 ) , to which
Kamsay (Church, chap. 6 1 , no. g ; St. Paul, chap. 58)
refers the passage. ( e ) Ramsay argues (Church, chap.
G z ) that if in the Pauline Epistles the South Galatians are
alluded to only in z Tim. 3 1 1 , and not in Galatians and
I Cor. 1 6 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. 4 7 6 ) ; certainly onq
to Corinth has ( I Cor. 5 9 x 1 ) . 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.
Another argument for the South Galatiau address of
21. Inherit- the Epistle is found by Ramsay in the
ante, etc. language used by Paul regarding in-
heritance and other matters.
I. The Zaws of inheritance accordin8 to Z<amsay.-
(a)When the Gentiles who follow Abraham in his faith are
called his sons (Gal. 37) this Ramsay holds has its explanation
in the conception that 'the; are heirs of dis 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 &s indekd the ancient k o m a n law of
inheritance. I n Paul's time, however, it was by Roman law
open to a man to make a n y 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' hzen intrpduced, into South Galatia
under Alexander the Great and the Seleucidz (334-189. B.c.)
long before i t 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 a t once in
place of that of the Celts ( E x j . , '986, pp. 203-6 zgo-g4=Gal.
[chaps. 31 351 PP. 337-344, 370-375).
(@,Further, according to the contemporary law of Rome, a will
remained secret during the lifetime of the testator, came into
force only a t his death, and until his death could always be
changed by the testator. I n Ramsay's view, the opposite is the
case with the will (&aO+q) of Gal. 3 15 17 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 ' i t must be deposited either in
original br in a properly cirrtified 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 i t . if there was a n earlier will the later must not he
accepted &less it was found not to inteifere with the preceding
one : and so it continued t o he in South Galatia down to the
apostle's time, whatever the changes, greater or smaller, it may
have passed through elsewhere (Exj., '986, pp. 299-303 326-9
435=Gul. [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 ?
curator. T h e tutors, Ramsay takes it, answer to the 'guardians
(drri~ppoaor),the curators to the ' stewards ' (okov6poi) of Gal. 4 2.
H e 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 analogyj
i t seems to know only 'guardians' (&risporroi), not 'stewards
( O ~ K O V ~ ~ O L )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-hook' of the fifth
century A . D ., edited by Bruns and Sachau in 1380. Here the
fathernominates by will not only the future'guardian'(;&porros)
but also the future curator of his son. Ramsay holds that this
law dates from the time of the Seleucidz, and had force in South
Galatia before that of Rome. When in Syria the Roman lay
likewise hecame influential, the name curator was substituted,
in the Syrian law-book referred to, 'for oikonomos,' while the
word epitrojos, written, however, in Syriac letters, was retained
(Ex)., '986, pp. 43g-441=GuZ. [chap. 411 pp. 391-393).
2. Are the facts esta6lished ?-The present writer is
not in a position to bring to a test these various state-
ments in all their details, I t 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.
x6oR-
 GALATIA
(a)Schulin,l Beauchet,a as also Thalheim,s find in an author
as early as Isaeus (circa 370 B.c.) that in Athens a man was at
libeity to make any one his heir without adopting him; and
Lipsius (in Meier-Schoemann, Attischer Process, 2 5goJ) and
Mitteis (12eicksrecht u. Volksrrcht, 341) accept this as holding
good everywhere for the third century H.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 Faiyiim in
like manner reveal a similar state of the law @Iahaffy, ‘ On the
Flinders Petrie papyri’ in Cunxingkawz Menr. Koy. Z r . Acarl.
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 Le 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 a* his heirs.his’ wife or his
illegitimate children alongside of his legitimate children (London
Text, §§ 36, $3, PP. 12, 19).
(6) 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: LLierr:
V. 2 14, 57 ; Aristoph. Wasps, 583.90; Isreus;G27 7 I ;’ Bekker,
Char. I. SC. 9) but they could also be demanded back by th?
testator in order to be destroyed or declared in the presence of
witnesses to be no longer valid (Iszus 6 30-32; Neier.
Schoemann, 2596f:; Thalheim, I O ; kchulin, pp. 7-9;
Beauchet, 3668.672). The passages referred to also snpply
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, toseveralprivatepersons.4
This effectually disposes of the theory that there was an official
inspection of the contents of a will. In fact even in the
FaiyBm, where a public Record Office has recentl; been brought
to light, Mahaffy (op. cit. Introd. p. 41) assures us that ‘ the
cntry of these private documents on the records of some public
office is not accompanied by any supervision, any officia!
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 anythmg of this. Schulin (ut supr.), who deals, not with
Attic wills only but with all Greek witls accessible to him,
never mentions’it; indeed the opposite is taken to be self-
evident, and both Schulin (mf: 49) and Beauchet (222) 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 Faiyiim. These however by no means prove
what he requires. H e add&es only’this, that on them
‘is often contained the provision that the testator is free to
alter or invalidate’ (Ex$ ’986, p. 3zg=GaI. chap. 34, p. 3 6 6 3 ) ,
from which he infers ‘;he customary presumption that the
diatheke is irrevocable.’ Rut the customary presumption has
no legally binding force, otherwise it would not be possible ‘p‘
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, &thin which prevailed
that irrevocability which Ramsay (Gal. 351) without qualifichtion
speaks ofas ‘ a characteristic featureof Greek law.’ His assump
tion might be explicable if we could venture to suppose that m
brinnine into such intimate connection the ideas of will-makine
and-adgption (e.c., Ex$., ’986, p. 301, ‘the appointment of a;
heir was the adoption of a son,’ and, conversely Gal. 351
‘the adoption was the will-making’) he held all ;vills to b i
irrevocable because adoption by a person while still alive wa?
irrevocable : hut this would he a darine supposition. Moreover
- in its general sense, there is still less proof forthcoming for
alterthiimer (‘gs), p. 72, n. 3.
4 Dareste Bull. de Corresp. Hellen., 1882, pp. 241-245, on
whom Ramkay, Cities and Bishojvirs, i. 2 3 6 3 3 and Gal. 355,
relies, produces inscriptional evidence for the existence of a
gublic archive in more than thirty cities, chiefly in Asia Minor,
ut of the depositing of a deed of adoption in only one, of the
depositing of a will in none.
1609
GALATIA
we know that a t Gortyna in Crete (see Gortyna’instr. 11 IO&)
even an adoption inter vivos, such as we have bcen speaking of,
could be revoked, and the Arabic and Armenian versions of the
Syrian law-hook already referred to are in remarkable agree-
ment with this (102 [IOI], p. 109, 1 4 0 ’ Mitteis, 2143). T h e
Egyptian wills have been cited by Ramiay 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 bas no reference io 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.
(c) If o ~ ~ o u d p oins Paul’s time, and even as far back as tke time
of the Seleucidae (so Ramsay, Ex#. ,’986, p. 441 =Gal. chap. 41, p.
393), corresponded to the Latin curator, why is it that in the Syrian
law-book the Latin is substitutedfor oiKov6px only, and not for
Xrponoc also? Why does the Roman jurist Modestinus in his
Greek treatise de Excusationi6us (3rd cent. A . D .) also write
dni~porros, but in Greek letters KOVPCWP (Lex I , Dig. de a n -
firmando tutore vel curatore 26 3, in Cor). ] U Y . Civ., edd. Krii: er
and Mommsen, 13366 also 34oa 352a and often)? Ramray
has not observed tha; Mitteis (p. 2 1 7 k ) adopts the view of
Bruns, the co-editorof the Syrian law-book and himself a lawyer
and confirms it by additional examples, that ‘the formal disl
tinction drawn by the Romans between tutela and cuva was
not rightly understood by the Orientals.’ Bruns says (p. 1 8 4 s )
and certainly with justice : ‘the ancient Greeks had only c n i
kind of tutelage and therefore had on1 one word &rlrpom-
to express it. This word the later Greezsrestrictedto the mean-
ing yf tufor, and they introduced alongside of it the word
KoUparWp. Indeed, when weight is laid upon the Egyptian
papyri, it ought to be observed that alonpide of dd~porrocthey
employ as a second word to desirnate male tutors, not o;rou6pop
but +povrirnjs (Aegyjt. Urkt&Jcn aus ... Berlin: griech.
Urknnden, no. 352 g 4‘20 5 427 g 2 7 3 , cp 447 1af: 21 [znd cent.
A.D.], and often). Mitteis (pp. 156 ‘17) in speaking of a
Peloponnesian inscription of the secoAd century A . D . (cp Lebas
et Waddington, b‘oyapArcheolo~ique,2 2 , no. a 4 3 a [ p . 5151 1. to)
in which the representative of a woman describes himself as her
+ ~ O Y T L U T $ S K a i K J ~ L remarks
W, without further note : ‘Qppv-
riur+s is the translation of the Latin curator.’ In the Egyptian
documents cited above, + p o v n u n j s , and, still more, aSproc, are
the usual designations for the guardian of a woman.
3. Are t h le@ conceptions appZicubZe l o GnZatinns9-
fa)Even were Kamsay’s identification of sons and hcirs
justifiable, there would not be any fitness in the assump-
tion that the Gentile followers of Abi-nham in his faith
are regarded as heirs of his faith. Ramsay says ( E r p . ,
’986, p. 203 = G d . chap. 31, p. 337) : ’ the idca that
they ... arc sons of Abraham ...
would certainlj
be unders:ood by the Galatians as referring to the legal
process cnlled adoption, uio8eaia.’ R’ow Paul indeec
expressly uses this word in speaking of their adoption
(Gal. 4 5 ) ; 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. 2 3 Am. 7 14 etc., see S O N ) are those who adhere to,
or follow, the,prophets. It is precisely in this sense that
we read in Rom. 412 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 w c
are dealing only with a Hebrew idea when Paul in
Rom.4nf. 16-18 speaks of Abraham as their father.
Ramsay‘s conjecture(Ezp., ’986, p. z94f: =Gal.chap. 3,l
p. 342f. ) that Paul uses this particular expression with a
reference to the more comprehensive sense of the word
flanter (somewhat like protector), which is frequent in
Latin, is quite away from the point.
(6) Even where it is possible to show that in some case a will
comprisinganadoption had been held to beirrevocableitwould not
belegitimate toassume thatby the word &aB+q,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
Ramsay.s thesis that they must have held wills to be irrevoc-
able. True Ramsay says (Ex$., ‘986; p. 3?1=GaZ. chap. 33,
p. 35.1) :,‘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 aview to his own death. A will of
that kind could have no applicatipn to God, and no such analogy
could have been used by Paul. These words can hardly be
.161o
 GALATIA
understood otherwise than as meaning that what Paul had in
his mind was adoption by a person still alive. But this is
absolutely excluded ; G d r j K $ 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 Paid does so apply it is unquestionable.
Thus another view of Gal. 3151719, which has the
support of many scholars, though not taken into account
by Ramsay, becomes all the more inevitable. When i t
is said ( 3 1 5 ) that ‘ n o man maketh void or addeth t o ’
a man’s testament,’ the testator himself is not to be
regarded as included in the proposition. H e 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
pnrpose-compared to a testament-given in the
promise to Abraham. Of the angels he assumes that
their’action was on their own responsibility, not a t 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. 42,the plural ‘ guardians and stewards ’
(&rrrpbaous Kal O ~ K O Y ~ ~ O Umakes S ) 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 hut natural, in the
singular, of one tutor and one curator. If, however,
Paul is thinking of both tutors and curators as dis-
charging their office simultaneously it becomes inipossible
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
3 15 17 he is compelled to think of God as dead ; but
not in 4 r J
( d ) Evenifwe grant, however, forthesakeofargument,
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?
T h e Galatians were all, or nearly all, Gentile Christians
(see next article, 1 11) 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 ’ (31 3 ) ;
‘ w e were kept in ward under the l a w . ..
law hath been our tutor,’ etc. (323-25), and ‘Christ
so that the
redeemed them which were under the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons ’( 4 5). The church of Corinth
in like manner was, practically, entirely Gentile; yet
Paul writes ( I Cor. l o r ) , ‘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 G a l 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 (Ex)., ’986, pp.
433-436, 4 3 8 J = G d . chap. 3 9 3 , pp. 381-385 389-391), and other
proofs of the same nature.
It is probable that in A4cts204 we have an enumera-
tion of the representatives of churches who had been
22. Acts204. appointed as men of trust, in accord-
ance with z Cor. 818-23, to see to the
due conveyance of the proceeds of the great collection
1611
GALATIA
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. 161 South Galatia must be meant. The list,
however, is not complete. It has no representatives of
Corinth and Pliilippi,l and names of North Galatians
can equally well have been omitted. Above all, it
would have becn quite irrational to carry moneys from
South Galatia to Jerusalem by way of Macedonia 2 and
run all the risks ( z Cor. 1126) of such a journey. More-
over, Timothy was the constant companion of Paul, nnrl
in like manner Gaius also will have been a member of
the company on other accounts than that of the col-
lection.
I Cor. 161 comes into consideration for the reason
that Paul presumably used ‘ Galatia ’ in Galatians in the
23. Cor.l6I. same sense as here. Now, I Cor. 101
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 I 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.
In Galatians Paul makes no reference to the journey
to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 1822. From this is
drawn the inference that the epistle
24. Acts 1 8 2 2
must have been addressed to South
unnoticed in Galatia, because, as is shown by
Galatians. ‘the former rtimel’ ( r b T O ~ T E I I O V \ in
I I ,
Gal. 4 13, Paul must have already >vi$ted 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 1314-1420 and 1421-23;
or, the first visit from Acts 1314-1423 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 1 8 a z J may very well have occurred
and yet not be mentioned in Galatians, see C OUNCIL
O F J ERUSALEM , 3 IC.
In Gal. 21-10Paul speaks of the Council of Jerusaleni
as hitherto unknown to the Galatians. This also has
‘
25, Council, suggested the inference that Paul’s second
unknown to vmt to the readers must have occurred
Galatians. ?fore the council-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. 32 Gal. 31). At his second visit he had, it is
true, found the churches already to some extent under
the influence of Judaism (19, ‘ said before,’ T ~ O E L ~ + K U ~ W ,
53, ‘again,’ aciXw); but the ‘ I marvel’ (Baupci(m) of
1 6 shows that he had left them in the honest belief that
he had been successful in counteracting this danger.
1 As the Corinthians had only shortly before brought against
Paul the charge that he was applying the collection to his own
purposes ( z Cor. 1 2 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.
P a d , chap. 13z), even had he been asked to do so. In point of
fact, the apostle had very clearly expressed, in 2 Cor. Szo A,
the principle by which he was precluded from this. That
Luke was a Philippian is only a bold conjecture of Ramsay’s
(St. P a d , chap. 9 3 103 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 llpoehO6vrrs: not vppoucA86vrss, must be read in 20 5 ; the
latter is quite irreconcilable with the fact that the persons
named have already accompanied Paul from Europe ( o u u i m r o
20 4).
1612
 GALATIA
From the ‘again’ (?rdXw) of 53 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.,52-4 31-5 49) ; and we 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.
At the Council of Jerusalem Pan1 supported the
interests of the readers of Galatians. according to the
26* ‘E:;?’ ‘with you’ (+E &/A&) of 2s.
would still hold good, however, even
on the assumption that a t that time
This
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 ’ (?rpbs &piis) 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.
The sickness of Paul, alluded to in Gal. 413, Ramsay
(Church, chap. 3,. pp. 62-65) considers to have been
malaria, which is endemic in Pamphylia,
27.
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. P a d ,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’ (Z yshoc u a m v B ) of zCor. 1276 to refer
(Ex$., ’99h, p. zi,f=Gaz chap. 48, p. 423).
Unless 2 Cor. 127a 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. ~ u r Gal. 12) in writing to South Galatia if there Rere
AufheZZung der Gesch. z. a?.B&fe d. A$: PauZws, 90. pp. 47-
125, and, earlier in ZWT,’73, pp. 238-244). Ramsay (Gal.
chap. 48, p. 427) himself says : ‘ I n fact, it is the visions which were sent by the hands of a trusty messenger:who:quite
give probability to the theory of epilepsy. ... T h e 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’ (iiyydos Beoil ; 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 [1350], 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 a s 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
t o this same conclusion.
Barnabas, it is thought, must have been personally
known to the Galatians. H e ,is introduced without
28. Barnabas remark in Gal. 21 g 13 ; and he was the
companion of Paul only on his first
known to journey, not on his second (Acts
Galatians.
15q5-40). Peter also, however, is
mentioned in Gai. 118 without explanation ; and
Barnahas, 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
1613
GALATIA
the founder of the Galatian churches (Gal. 1 8 f: 3 I f.
412-20)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.
The apostrophe ‘ 0 Galatians ’ ( B PaXdTar), in 3 I
addressed to persons who, by origin, were much rather
Lycaonians or Phrygians, would be in-
29. ,o Gala-
tians ,; Gal. I. telligible 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 he forcotten that Ramsav has been able to cite ~ ~~
not a single instance :o far a s G i a t i a is’ concerned, and in t1.e
case of the province’df 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 (CIG3662.5;see St.
G6Z. et eccles. 411). It is onlv bv a series of exceedindv hold
Roman province, about 160 B.C. Derbe certainly, was not
added to Galatia until 25 B.c., according tds 3 above not until
41 A.D. Accordingly the aptness of the excla)matioi ‘0Gala-
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 f&nd the people who had borne that name
from of old, and in common speech, not merely in official docu-
ments.
But we will not, however great the improbability,
dispute the abstract possibility that Paul might have
the made use of the term ‘ Galatians ’ as a
30.
Churches, comprehensive designation of inhatit-
ants of several recently-added portions
Gal. 2. of the province of Galatia. Not even
in such a case could he have made use of the address ‘ to
the churches of Galatia’ (TU&- ~ K K X ~ U L U LT+
S I’aXadas ;
churches already in North Galatia. Even if the letter
understood where to deliver it, the article. (Y+) 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 1540;
in which case the two visits of Paul implied in the ‘ the
former [time] ’ (d r p 6 n p o v ) of Gal. 4 13 would have to
be sought in Actsl314-1420 and 1421-23 (see above,
5 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
(1Cor.418-21 165-8 zCor.1214 131f.), the apostle’s
procedure is very different. Moreover, he manifestly
writes Gal. 420 on the supposition that he is not about
to see them soon.
A second possibility would be that the epistle was
written between Acts165 and 166. In that case Acts
1314-1423 would have to be reckoned as the first visit,
and 161-5 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
readers and so completely changing their attitude
towards the apostle and his message, and for Paul to
I iar of all this before his arrival in North Galatia from
t:::: South?
Most decisive of all is Gal. 121. If the epistle were
1614
 GALATIA
addressed to South Galatia, Paul would, according to
Acts 13f., have been with his readers
31. Gal. 12T. in the period indicated in Gal. 1 2 1
between his first and his second visit to Jerusalem (see
C OUNCIL OF J ERUSALEM, 0 I U ) . 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 hold attempt, which has on this account been
made to transpose Acts 13f: so as to make it follow Acts 15 34,
see ~ O U N C I LO F J ER U S A LEM , 5 Ie. In any case the project
will not be favoured by those who have any interes; in maintain-
ing the credibility of Acts. Ramsay ( C ~ ~ L Y C ~ ,6 3 ; St.
chap.
P a d , chap. 83) proposes another way of meeting the difficulty.
H e brings the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. 118 into
connection with Acts 926-30; and that in Gal.21-IO into con-
nection with Acts 1130 and 12 2 5 ; and concedes that before
Galatians was written Paul had certainly heen a third and a
fourth time in Jerusalem (Acts 15 and 1s 2 2 ) 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 th:
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’ ‘ t o deIiver to them’ ( i e . , to the Galatians)
‘ the Apostolic decree’ (Ramsay, GaZ. chap. 18, p. 287).
I n these circumstances how can Paul still attach im-
portance to his being able to prove that he was inde-
pendent of the original apostles a t p r s t P Only on one
assumption-that although his dependence became
evident a t 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 t u be historical, he himself personally informed
the South Galatians of the apostolical decree), the proof
of his independence in Gal. l r r - 2 1 0 is meaningless ; if
on the other hand he hopes by silence-nay, by the
express declaration of 26 (8,uol 02 ~OKODVTEE ot&?v rpou-
av4/3svro: 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 113 0
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 omif 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. 111-221 wholly
purposeless. Moreover, it is quite illegitimate to identify
Gal.21-IO, not with Acts 15 but with Acts 1130 1225
(see C OUNCIL O F J ERUSALEM, ra).
In GaZ. chap. 18f:, pp. 286 304 Ramsay inclines not
to identify the journey in Gal. 21-10 with any of those
recorded in Acts, but to insert it between Acts 9 and
Acts 1130. W e do not press, as against this, that
on such an assumption Paul has omitted to men-
tion not two journeys, but three; for Ranisay may
say of the one in Acts 1130 1225 what is said in
C OUNCIL, 1 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, Ranisay’s assumption that such a
1615
GALATIA
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. 21-10the situation becomes worse. According
to Ramsay ( G a l chap. 18 p. 296) on the journey of
Gal. 21-10,which is not mentioned in Acts, Paul ‘ con-
sulted ’ (Gal. 2 2 [ d v e O i p ~ v ] )the original apostles,
‘ asked their advice,’ because his gospel ‘ was not fully
matured until shortly before the beginning of the first
journey’ (Acts 131). 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 flesh 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. 1 2 1 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 Judrea
‘glorified God’ (124) and that he is silent on his sojourn in
South Galatia hecauie his mission in that country had perhaps
ceased to have their approval. Without the aid of the unten-
able theory (see next article, $ IO) of Clemen (to which Ramsay
now [Gal. chap. 18, pp. 291, 2961 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
readcrs could have determined the apostle to leave
unused the clearest proof of all that he had kept away
from Jerusalem.. Gal. 123f: can be dispensed with a s
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 beeu,with his
readers. P. w. s.
c.
G ALATIANS ELSEWHERE.
I n z Tim. 4 IO the reading varies between I’ahXlav
[N] and 1’aXadav [WH]; and even if the latter be
32. cGalatiar adopted the reference may still be to
Or
and
in Gykecurrent
Greek name for Gaul
during the first two centuries A. D. was
I’aXada (I’aXdmr) inless the older title KEXTLKT~
(KEXTOI,Kdk~ar)was emp1oyed.l
T o distinguish the Asiatic Celts the phrases oi i v ‘Auip
F d d r a t (Plut. Mor. 258), $ r a d 7))v ’Auiav raharia (Dios. Mat.
med. 3 56), or l’ahhoy atria, Fahhaypatroi(strabo 130,566) might
he used ; but generaey the context must decide (cp Plut. Pomj.
3r, 33, 38). Not until late did the Greeks adopt the Roman
terms FaMia, I%hhor. I t is in Herodian that we first meet
with the distinction, adopted by modern writers, between Fahhia
=Gaul, and Fru\aria=Galatia in Asia Minor. There would be
a strong tendency to alter l’aharia into Fahhia 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 raharia as applied to Gaul had been abandoned in
favour of the Latin Fahhia, airahhiar (cp Theod. 2 227, Galatiam
dixit quas nunc nonziiraiiius GaZlias).
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 HelZenism, in Stud. BibL 47p ‘ h e 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
1 Cp Paus. i. 41, b@ Sd W O ~ Eahoaq rahs;a0at. r a h d a r
i & v i q u e v . Kehroi y d p card re u@s rb dpxaiov Kai =a,& roin
Bhhot~i v o ~ d < o v ~ o .
1616
 GALATIA
the word. Finally, the combination with Dalmatia is
significant (and is curiously paralleled on Mon. Ancyr. :
cp Momms. Res Rest. D. Aug. 95, 'Ia~aviasK U ~
I'aAarias K U ~~ a p h4 a A , u u r ~ r ) . The reference there-
fore is probably to Gaul. Although the churches of
Vienne and Mayence claimed Crescens as their founder,
their clairn may be based merely upon this very passage.
2. In I Macc. 82 the Roman victories 'among the
Galatians ' (AVmS ' 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 ' a n d brought them under
tribute,' and by the mention of Spain (a. 3) ; for Livy
(3840) says nothing of tribute having been imposed upon
the Asiatic Celts. On the other hand, the victorious
march of Manlius through Galatia was of coniparatively
recent date (1898. 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 Macc. 8 20 a victory gained by Jews in Baby-
lonia ' against the Gauls ' (RV, Gk. FaAdrar) is men-
tioned ; perhaps an allusion to the victories of Antiochus
I. Soter, king of Syria (281-261B.c.). w. J. w.
GALATIANS (THE EPISTLE)
CONTENTS
A . G ENUINENESS (5s 1-9). 2. Readers ($11).
B. OTHER PROBLEMS ($5 10-15). 3. Judaizing emissaries (Q IzJ).
I. Date (I IO). 4. Purpose of Epistle (5 14).
A. GENUINENESS.
The genuineness of the four so-called ' principal '
epistles of Paul-Rom., I and z Cor., and Gal.-so
unreservedly accepted by the Tiibingen school, has not
been allowed to remain unquestioned in recent times.
When the opposite view was first set forth with charac-
teristic boldness by Bruno Bauer ( K r i t i h d. gaulin.
Brief,'50-'52), it received no serious attention ; but
it has recently been again pressed in all seriousness by
Loman ( T h .T , '82, '83,'86) and his many successors
in Holland,l by Edwin Johnson, the anonymous author
of Antigua Muter ('87),and especially by Steck (Galatw-
'88).
Of the arguments brought against the genuineness of
Galatians we may mention first : The dificuZties ~ Y P -
sented 6y many of its details. -For
1. example, a contradiction has been
found between 110 where the apostle disclaims any
desire to please men, and 22 where, notwithstanding,
he submits himself to the judgment of the original
apostles. This, as well as many other examples of
hypercriticism, we may safely disregard. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that the epistle contains much that is
obscure and (to us) surprising. It can only be welcomed
as a gain for science that such difficulties have been
pointed out anew. But the spuriousness of the epistle
follows from them bnly by a petitio princ@ii-viz., by
assuming that the historical Paul, of whose writing we,
in the view of these negative critics, do not possess a
single line, was invariably in the habit of expressing
himself with absolute clearness, and also that the text of
what he wrote has at no point ever suffered at the hands
of copyists.
For example, 1 7 is certainly obscure ; but it admits of being
interpreted as meaning ' another gospel which [is no gospel a t
all but1 consists in nought else [or, rests upon nought else] than
this, that there be some'-etc. Again in 218 the thesis is:
' I f I build up again the Mosaic law wkch I have declared to
he obsolete, I thereby declare the life I have hitherto been living
~ ~~~
1 Bmong them Wlter, K o n ~ j.'a . jauZin. Haupi6riefe. 'go ;
yan Manen, Paulus I.-111. (Acts, 'go ; Romans, '91 ; Corinthians,
96). See van Manen (IPT, '83, '84, '86, '87 ; Th. T,'go ;Ex$. T
9 [Feb.-Apr. 'g8]), also Steck (Prot. KZ,'91,no. 31-34, '92, no.
34f: ; '95, no. 7f: ; Prof. Monatshefte, '97, pp. 333.342).
1617
GALATIANS
For the history of the Celtic tribes, G. Perrot, De Galatia
provincin Romana, 67, and his Bxjloration arch. de Za
Galatie, '72 ; Marquardt, ii'owzische Sfaats-
33. Literature. uerfassunr, 1P). ?58-?65: Chevalier. G a i Z i ~ r
iiz KZein&-n. ' 8 3 ." Koepp 'Weber die
Galaterkr. d. Attalus,' in Rheirz. h u s . 40 114-132) ('85) ; Niese,
i6id. 38 583-600 ('83) ; Stahelin, Geschickteder Kleinas. GaL, '97.
Van Gelder, Galatarum res in Grrecia 41 Asia gestre usque
a d medium smculum secundunz a . Chr., 88. Zwintscher, U e
Galatauurn telrarchis e t Amynta rete, '92 : Holder. AZtkel-
tischerSjvachschatz S.V. 'Galatia.' - '
The South Galatiadaddress has been maintainedprincipally by
Perrot (03cit. stcpra, '67), Renan (St. Paul), Hansrath (Pawlus
and NTZiche Zeitgesch.), Weizsacker (A$. Zeitalte~),Clemei
( Z W T , '94, pp. 396-423), Zahn (Eid. in das Nr), and W. It.
Ramsay (Histonkal L'eog. of Asia Minor 'go' Chsrch in
Row. Emj.PJ(21 '93, PJ'94, (4)'95, (5) '97 ; Citks a& Bishojuics
of Phrygia '95.' 7 S f . Paul the Traveller andathe Ronz.
Citizen (1) '95 8 .
'$5 (3) '97 (41 '98 (51 ' g Hist. Comm.'on
G?L. (1i"gg (5'1goo; 'it shouid be ndted t i a i the later editions
differ from' the earlier in many details ' consult also especially
Studia 6ibL et eccZes. 4 15-57 ['g61, and'see articles in Exjos.,
Jan., Feb., Apr. '94, July, Aug. '95, and 'Galatia' in Hastings'
DB 281-8 ).
T h e N?orth Galatian address is supported especially by
Sieffert (Zfschr.fir hist. Theol. '71, pp. 257.306 and Introd.
to E$. t o GaL in Meyer's NT konzntent. 7 Ahth.'M '99) where
a fuller list of authorities on both sides is given. Liihtfoot
GaZatians(lo!, Introd. 1-35 ; Chase, in Expos., Dit. '93, Ma;
'94; and Zockler (St.KY.,'95, pp. 51-102).
W.J. W.,$11-7,32 ; P. W.S., §§ 8-31.
5. Its place in history (5 IS).
Bibliography (I 16).
in freedom from the law to have been a life of transgression.
In 2 19 the sequence is unexpected; hut the intention is to
justify the implication in z). 18 of the sinfulness of again building
up the law. I n 110the conjectural emendation 7i @p* with the
mark of interrogation instead of the present d p r ~yap, has much
to recommend it (as in Rom. 3 3 ; in Gal. Z p n occurs immediately
before, in '19) ; so has the interpretation of rraitlw as equivalent
to q p J u u w (or, still better, the supplanting of &Ow by a word
hearing this meaning); for Paul apparently is here guarding
himself against the same reproach as In z Cor. 4 5. Once more:
in Gal. 3 20 the thesis sought to be established is that the law
was given, hot immediately by God bdt mediately by angels,
who were hut inadequately fitted fo; the service. As a step in
.the proof, use is made of the (erroneous) assumption that only
a plurality of persons will make use of a mediator, and that a
single person will always communicate what he has to say
personally and directly. The assumption here follows rabbinical
modes of thought,-resembling the argument in 3 16 (against
3 2 9 , Rom. 416), where it is urged that in the O T by the 'seed
of Abraham' Christ alone can be meant, inasmuch as the word
mr6ppa is used in the singular ;-resembling, also, the argument
elaborated in 421.31, according to which the Jews who continue
in unbelief are the children not of Sarah hut of Hagar. Here
again it is a merejetitio j v i n c i p i i to take for granted that the
historical Paul must have been incapable of adopting such
rabbinical lines of thought.1
As regards other obscure points, there has been an
attempt to explain them as due to ~ ~ n s k i @6orrowing
d
2. Romans from the author of Romans. It must
used? be conceded not only that the two
epistles have many thoughts in common,
but also that in Romans these are for the most part
elaborated with greater clearness.
I n Gal. 3 6 the mention of Abraham comes in quite abruptly
whilst in Rom. 4 it fits naturally into the context. in Gal. 3 2;
there is a mixture of two metaphors which in &om. 6 3 and
13 14 are applied separately and suitably ; in Gal. 3 19 the words
literally taken, admit of being construed as meaning that th;
law was given in order to prevent transgressions, and only from
Rom. 5 20 does it become clear that 'for the multiplication of
transgressions ' is what is intended.
On the other hand, positive blunders, of the kind that
can occur only in the case of a compiler manipulating
another man's work, cannot be shown anywhere.
In 5 6 circumcision is spoken of as a matter of indifference,
and in z). z as positively hurtful ; hut, as the first passage is
intended to refer only to those who had been circumcised before
their conversion to Christ, whilst the latter has in view only
those who, being already Christians, suffer themselves to be
1 As regards 421-31, it has been proposed by some critics to
strike out zru. 24-27, or at least v. 25a, from 76 to 'Apapip.
1618
 GALATIANS
circnmcised, there is no contradiction. Such a digression as we
have in 3 I I J a t the close of which 3 73 resumes the interrupted
connection with 3 TO, or such as occurs in 5 17 (fromZvaor perhaps
.even from ~asra),can very well have been made by the historical
Paul (or written on the margin by a very early reader). Many
other points that at first sight are very puzzling to us we can
easily suppose to have been clear to the Galatians through the
.oral teaching of Paul.
Steck, it is true, on the ground that we have no information
a s to what Paul may have preached in Galatia forhids this
supposition ; and, in like manner, he holds it to de illegitimate
to regard the collection alluded to in Gal. 2 IO as historical, in-
dependent evidence from other sources being wanting. On
,such lines as these we need not be surprised that in the single
word irpoa;nov in Gal. 5 21 he finds conclusive evidence that the
author of our epistle is quoting I Cor., and more particularly 6 g,?
It is alleged, further, that use of the synopticaZgoqkZs
is seen id at least Rom. 1 2 1 4 1 3 8 - 1 0 I Cor. 132 7 IO f:
3. Synoptists As it is maintained that these epistfes
than are older than Galatians, it is relevant
. - to discuss the allecration in the Dresent
Lial* ? connection. In toint of fact. &allthe
observed phenomena can be sufficiently explained by
I ~~ ~~~~
the assumption that the author knew the gospel history
from oral sources. Indeed, it is actually in I Cor. 7 IO$
that the genuine (because stricter) form of the prohibition
of divorce has been preserved.
I t is not to be supposed that if Jesus had mentioned the case
of adultery as an exception to the general prohibition-as we
read in Mt. 532 199-any tradition would have overlooked such
a mitigation ; least of all is it to be supposed that Paul would
have done so. In fact, the latter finds himself compelled on his
own responsibility to establish a new exception-that namely
by which it is provided that a marriage with a non-khristia;
may lawfully be dissolved if there seems no prospect of its
being continued ' in peace' ( I Cor. 115).
The attempt to trace the account of the resurrection
of Jesus in I Cor. 1 5 3 - 8 to the written synoptists also
must be held a failure.
I n view of the denial of the resurrection of Jesus current in
Corinth, the writer of the epistle was under the most stringent
necessity to adduce everything that could be alleged in proof
of it. That being so, he would assuredly have passed over none
of the circumstances connected with the event detailed in the
gospels ; least of all could he pass over what is related about the
empty grave.
On the other hand, it is easy to understand why the
synoptists left on one side the accounts recorded by
Paul. What Paul constantly affirms is only that the
risen Jesus had been seen. The synoptists believe that
they have much more conclusive evidence to bring-
namely, that Jesus had been touched, and that he had
eaten.
It is claimed that extra-canonical writings a h have
been used in the composition of the four epistles. Even
should this be made out as regards
4. Extra-
Philo(born about ZOB. C. : seevollmer,
canonical Die A TZichen Citaie 6ei PauZus, 83-
writings used 98 [ ' 9 5 ] ) and Seneca (died 65 A . D . ;
see Steck, 249-265; especially for Rorn. l219), the
genuineness of the epistles would not (when we consider
the early date of these writers) thereby be impugned.
Nor would it be impugned because of their employment
of the Assumatio Mosis.
George Syncellus in the eighth century finds such employ.
ment in Gal. 6 15 ; & MS of the eleventh c h r y finds it in 56.
Euthalius in the fifth century mentions an Bmhpvgov M w i k b r
as source. The passage does not occur in the portion of the
Assampfiothathascomedown tous(cpSchiir. G V I , $ 3 2 , 5 3 ; i4,
2636 ET 5 8 if:; Clemen, C ~ Y O a'
H. .Paul. Byiefe, 257). Whether
a Jebish book could have contained so anti-Jewish a proposition
unless through interpolation by a Christian hand need not here be
discussed. The Assumpffo was in any case composed within
the time of the sons of Herod the Great ; in 6 6 f: (according to
the most reasonable reading) it erroneously predicts for them a
shorter reien than their father has had (see APOCALYPTIC, 8 64).1
1 See R. H. Charles Assumhfion o f M o s e s ('97), p. IvJ
The view of Volkrnar ahd Hilgenfeld-that in the dssumjtio
the use of the plural cmvices in 108 proves use of 4 Esd., and
particularly of chaps. IIJ, which speak of the eagle with three
heads (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian)-is quite mistaken.
The passaqe rests simply on Dt. 32 11 (ceruices, which, more-
over, in Cicero and Sallust invariahly means but one neck,
renders +era'$psva), and is speakins of elevation in heaven, not
of elevation over the Romans. For afuller discussion of this
ooint sce the oresent writer's articles in the Protestantkche
komzfsh&, h 9 8 , pp. 2 5 2 . 2 5 4 ; 1899, pp. 150-152; rgoo, pp.
20.22.
1619
GALATIANS
4 Esd. was written, it is true, under Domitian, and would
therefore, be decisive of the question before us if the departuri
from the OT text in Rom. 107 could be traced to 4 Esd. 4 a.
The variation, however, comcs simply from Ps. 107 26 ; cp. 139 8.
It is also contended that, as compared with Acts, the
representation given in Galatians is only of a secondary
In particular, it is improb-
On Acts '
5. Dependent character.
able (it is argued) that the historical
Paul proclaimed his Gentile Christian
gospel for fourteen years without gainsaying, that at
the Council of Jerusalem he agreed to so manifestly
untenable a solution of the matter, and in Antioch came
into so violent collision with Peter (Gal. 21 9 11-21). As
to this, see C O U N C I L OF J ERUSALEM ($0 4, 9, 3). The
only serious difficulties are those arising from the state-
ment in 122, that Paul was unknown by sight to the
churches of Judzea, though they must have know-n him
very well as their persecutor. The statement seems
intended to mark with the utmost possible distinctness
Paul's independence of the Jewish Christians. Even
on the part of a writer of the second century, however,
it would have been too grave a slip to say of the Pales-
tinian Christians who had survived the persecution,
that they had not known Paul. If written in the
second century, the meaning of such a declaration
could only be that the churches of Judzea, having bcen
broken up and dispersed by the persecution, and only
at a later date reconstituted, were as such unacquainted
with Paul. Thus interpreted, however, the passage
can very well have been written by Paul himself. That
it is not quite literally accurate must be conceded : the
reconstituted churches must still have included persons
who had known Paul in his persecuting days. Still, it
is easy to understand why Paul did not have these
persons in his mind. What he wishes to prove is
simply that his own Christianity had not been derived
from any man, but had come to him immediately from
Christ. Had he received any Christian instruction
from man, that would have been after his conversion,
not before ; and there is no difficulty in believing that
from the time of his conversion he had entered into no
personal relations with the churches of Judzea, and,
more particularly, that in Jerusalem at the time of. his
first visit ( 1 1 8 f . ) he had remained incognito, and com-
municated only with Peter and James, since otherwise
there was reason to apprehend a renewal of the perse-
cution that had broken out against him in Damascus
( z Cor. 11pf.). Paul, accordingly, leaves out of con-
sideration those persons in the churches of J u d z a who
had known him before his conversion, because their
acquaintance with him then did not affect that inde-
pendence of the Jewish Christian churches which he
claimed for his own view of Christianity; and this
cannot with any fairness be charged against him as a
failure in veracity (120). On the other hand, that is
exactly what, we are told by Steck, is so improbable
historically-that ,Paul after his conversion remained
away from Jerusalem for three whole years ; and the
view of Acts (919-30) is preferred. This brings us to'
what lies at the root of the question in this aspect-
namely, the demand for a straight-
& ~ ~ ~ ~
forward, rectilinear deveZopment in the
history. It is, we are told, historically
~ ~ [
inconceivable that the view of Jesus and the original
apostles, which was still entirely Jewish -legal, was
followed immediately by that of the principal epistles of
Paul, and only afterwards by the mediating view of
Acts and the other writings. Steck, therefore, has
made out-and he alone with fairly good success-what
he considers to be straightforward development a s
follows :-Jesus, the original apostles, the historical
Paul, Mk. and Mt., Lk., Acts, Rom., I and 2 Cor.,
Gal., the remaining Pauline Epistles (leaving out those
to Timothy and Titus), then Marcion. To this series
the objection suggests itself that, whilst its author
makes out the historical Paul to have been only a shade
freer from the law than Peter (Acts 1 6 3 2118-26, e.g.,
1620
 GALATIANS
are accepted as historical), he a t the same time (p. 373,
369f.) speaks of him as fundamentally free from the
law, and names him as apostle of the Gentiles KUT’
d&~x+ : and Steck is open to the further criticism that he
attributes to Acts the ’ tendency’ to smooth over differ-
ences-in other words, to go back to a point of the
development that had been reached before. But the
most fatal objection of all is that Steck himself, after
a n interval of no more than a year (Prol. K Z , 1889,
pp. 108,841),found it necessary to demolish the entire
structure, and to place Rom. and Cor. before Lk. and
Acts, because he (rightly) saw that Acts (see ACTS,
§ 16) could not be assigned to a date earlier than after
the beginning of the second century, and because in
Marcion (circa 140 A D . ) the existence of ten Pauline
epistles-of which, moreover, three (Rom. and I and 2
Cor.), according to Stecks view, must be regarded as
each made up of three (or more) originally independent
pieces-is already recognised. Further, the historical
evolution argued for by Steck will not for a moment
allow two separate lines of developmei,t, such as the
line of the synoptic and that of the Pauline Christology,
to go on concurrently. Still, alongside that line of
development of Christianity, which had its roots in
Palestine, he recognises another, almost independent,
which took its rise in the heathen philosophical ideas
current in Rome-a line of development as belonging
to which he reckons, for example, the principal epistles
of Paul (denying at the same time their use of the
Rabbinical forms of thought). Within his first-men-
tioned series, too, he recognises a certain weakening
of the antinomism of Galatians in the minor Pauline
epistles, as well as an accentuation of it in Marcion.
In all this it becomes abundantly evident that historical
science does not in the least require that a rectilinear
development should be made out. It is, of course, the
business of historical science to understand everything
that happens : but a development is not unintelligible
even if it runs far ahead of its own time, and afterwards
falls back upon the footsteps it has already outrun, to
retraverse them anew, step by step. Were this other-
wise, we should have to eliminate from history all its
great and epoch-making men -Luther, for example,
and, in the end, Jesus himself.
The fact is certainly eloquent that not only Bruno Bauer and
others, hut Loman also (down to 1884 a t least), denied the
historicity of Jesus, and that in this respect Johnson has even
gone beyond the last-named. On the other hand, it is highly
significant that it is not enough for Johnson if 13runo Bauer
derives Christianity from the humanist ideas of Philo, Seneca
and the Roman emperors down to Marcus Aurelius. I n thii
quarter he misses the oriental fervour which he deems necessary
to the founding of a religion, and, therefore-it is the least he
can do-he transfers the origination of Christianity out of such
ideas to the East. Over and above this, he is compelled to see
in Marcion a highly important reformer, through whom Chris-
tianity was a t least liberated from its rudimentary Jewish
beginnings. We find Steck, on the same lines, characterising
as an original and spiritually-gifted person the very man who
(in his view)put together the epistle to the Galatians with so
little skill.
As far as Paul in particular is concerned, it must be
admitted that any ordinary man in his position would
assuredly have gone immediately after his conversion
to Jerusalem for authentic instruction in his new faith.
Now, what if Paul was not an ordinary man? The
more fanatical he had been as a Pharisee in his zeal
for the Mosaic law, the more clearly must he have
recognised the impossibility of ever fulfilling it com-
pletely, and all the more manifest must it have been to
him that in Christianity an altogether new way of
salvation was opened up. Then, further, the appear-
ance of Christ to him on the way to Damascus gave
him a clearer view of the divine purpose of the death on
the cross than all the .original apostles together could
have supplied. It was in this manner that he obtained
a n idea quite different from theirs of the Christ whom
he had never seen on earth (so 2 Cor. 5 1 6 rightly
interpreted). I t was in this manner that he discovered
in Christianity at once the true religion for the world
1621
GALATIANS
and the divine decree of abrogation as regarded the
Mosaic law. It was in this manner that he found
himself constrained to vindicate the great religious
blessing of freedom against every attempt at a rc-
imposition of bondage with the keenness which we
perceive in Gal. 2 14-21 186 5 12.
The traces of a later age, which
7‘ Objections Steck believes himself to have dis-
R ~ ~ ~ $ & covered,
, . have reference only to Rom.
and I and 2 Cor.
I t will be sufficient here to remark that in the first instance
these would only justify the excision of a few verses-e.g. T
Cor. 1529 Kom. 161 (if baptism for the dead, or the institution
of deaconesses, were still unknown within the lifetime of the
apostle). Some of the particulars alleged by Steck rest upon
false exegesis--e.g., where I Cor. 7 3 7 is taken as referring to a
man wishing to preserve his virginity in monastic fashion-a
sense which would require the word vapb’sviav.
’’ On the other hand, the epistles con-
ain much that would have been mean-
fngless and even impossible in the
date’ second century.
The close adhesion to the Mosaic law which gives the chief
occasion for Gal. and Rom. was, at that late date, hut feebly
represented (Just. Dial. 47 : Ignat. ad Philad. G I ; adillagim.
81, 91, 103, etc.). The gift of tongues, regarding which such
elaborate precepts are laid down in I Cor. 14, was already un-
known to the author of Acts, otherwise he would not have taken
it (Acts 21-11) as meaning speech in existing foreign languages
(see S PI R IT UA L GIFTS). To put into the mouth of Paul an
expression of the expectation of surviving till the second coming
of Christ (I Cor. 155rJ), would have been a most perverse pro-
ceeding on the part of a second-century writer. ?he case of
the incestuous person (I Cor. ~ I - E ) , the intimate relation
hetween Paul and the Galatian churches (Gal. 412-20). the
journeys of Timothy and Titus to Corinth, the charge of fickle-
ness brought against Paul on account of a change in the plan
of his tour (z Cor. 112-24), and, indeed (very conspicuously), the
whole of 2 Cor., are so personal and full of individiiality, that in
this case we are really entitled to draw the conclusion (so often
illegitimate) that they could not have been invented. As it is
conceded on all hands that the four epistles stand or fall to-
gether that conclusion must apply with equal validity to the
many ’portions of Rom., I Cor., and Gal., in which the in-
dividuality is less marked.
Lastly, the genuineness is sufficiently attestkd by the
9. External external evidence. If the four epistles
are to stand or fall together, the first
evidence
sufficient. epistle of Clem.Rom. would be proof
enough of their genuineness.
I t cites (471-3) I Cor. by name as a writing of Paul, and
(35 5 362.5) transcribes, without giving a name, Rom. 1 zgJ and
even Heh. 1.
Now, this epistle of Clement (11)informs us that it
was written in a time of persecution ; it is still unaware
of a distinction between TPEU@TEPOL ( 4 4 5 ) and PT~UKOTOC
( 4 4 4 1 424f: : see BISHOP, § 8, M INISTRY) ; and it knows
nothing of Gnosticism. Probably, therefore, it was
written under Domitian (93-96),or perhaps under
Trajan (112-117) : a t the very latest, under Hadrian
(circa 120). Its colourlessness forbids the suggestion
that circumstances of the time, as indicated by it, are
fictitious. If it were a product of imagination dating
from 150-170A. D ., it would serve the interests of that
time-viz., the idea of the episcopate and the polrmic
aglinst Gnosticism. Let only this be further observed,
that the principal Pauline epistles are largely made use
of in I Pet. (especially, and manifestly, Gal. 323 5 1317
in I Pet. 1 5 21611,and Rom. la$, in I Pet. 38-12 47-11
2 1 3 - 1 8 ) , and that there is a great probability that I Pet.
dates from 1 1 2 A.D. The epistle of James also, which
is of still earlier date (see C HRISTIAN , N AME OF, 8),
in like manner shows acquaintance, not only with the
Pauline doctrines, but also with the text of the chief
epistles.
The clearest proof is Jas. 4 I. This verse is clearlydependent
on Rom. 7 23 ; otherwise the word pdhq would not have been
used, for the context is speakinv not of the conflict of desires
within the man, but of the con& of the desires of one man
against those of his fellow-men (& $pi”, as if ZK ri)v fiSoviv ~ i ) v
urparsuopdvov K a r i 703 rrhqviov, instead of which phrase we
have, borrowed from Rom. 7 23, dv r o k pdhfuw ;pi)”).
Finally, on the evidence supplied by the Pseudo-
Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, see SIMON
MAGUS.
1622
 GALATiANS
There is thus hardly any necessity for going into the
evidence of Marcion, who about 140 admitted ten
Pauline epistles into his church lectionary, or for calling
attention to the wholesale execution among the extra-
canonical writings (and even among the heathen writings)
of the second century which has to be made by Johnson
before he can affirm that the N T came into existence
between Justin and Irenaeus about 155-180 A . D . , and
that even Marcion perhaps was still unacquainted with
any personal Christ-acquainted only with the ideal
figure of a xp1/rrh (see C HRISTIAN, N AME OF, § I).
B. O T H E R PROBLEMS.
Having disposed of the objections to the genuineness
of Galatians we turn to the remaining problems. The
Date. superior limit for the date of the epistle has
been indicated already (see preceding article,
1 24). In view of Gal. 1 6 it is not advisable to bring
it much lower.
True, oi;rws ~axe'osmeans, not 'so soon,' but 'so suddenly.'
Thus the expression, considered in itself, allows the supposition
t!iat the beginning of the Galatians' falling away was of late
origin-a supposition precluded by the other rendering- and
requires us to think only that the subsequent steps of the declen-
sion, ouce begun, took but a short time. On the other hand, i t
has to be remembered that the churches had already begun to
show inclinations towards Judaism before Paul's second visit
and that Paul believed himself to have obviated this by hi4
oral communications with them. H i s surprise a t the sudden-
ness of the change that had come over them is intelligible only if
w,e.suppose the change to have happened shortly after his last
VISlt.
Thus, the epistle is best assigned to the beginning of
Paul's three-years' stay in Ephesus, whither he had
gone after leaving Galatia (Actslgr).
On account of its similarity in contents to Romans,
some have thought it necessary to assign the epistle to
the same period. In that case its date would be some
three or four years later : for, it is highly probable that
Romans was written during the apostle's last stay in
Corinth (Acts 201-3 ; cp Roni. 1623 with I Cor. 114).
Only, identical subjects are not handled in an identical
manner in the two epistles,
I n Gal. 4 3 0 the Jews who continue in unbelief are expressly
excluded from the inheritance whilst in Rom. 9 3 1125-32 the
apostle shows a strong interesi in their ultimate salvation. I n
Gal. 3 3 43gf: the Mosaic worship is placed on precisely the
same plane with that of the heathen, whilst in Rom. 7 12-14 the
defect is sought, not in the Mosaic law but only in the sinfulness
of man. In Gal. 16-9 Paul anathemhises every doctrine not
in accordance with his own, whilst i n Rom. 1 1 2 6 17 he recognises
the doctrines which prevail in Rome, though devoting the whole
latter to their correction, as on a n equal footing with his.
Clemen (Chron. d. PauZin. Brief, '93) appeals to
those differences in support of his contention that
Galatians is (as Steck also holds) the last of the four
chief Pauline Epistles, in the belief that in this way he
is able to accept what is true in Steck's position and
yet to conserve the'genuineness of the epistles. His
proofs admit of being turned the other way. Besides,
his theory that Paul, during the first period of his
missionary activity, continued to be Jewish-Christian
in his thought and teaching, and that he reached the
culminating point of his anti-Judaism only at the end
of his life, is erroneous. In the case of so energetic a
thinker as the apostle, the development indicated above
in 5 5 J is certainly more probahle. As far as the
apostle's earlier period is concerned, Clemen's view is
in direct opposition to Gal. 116. The culminating point
of Paul's antinomism must have been reached in his
controversy with Peter in the Syrian Antioch at latest.
That after that-nay, after his refusal to circumcise
Titus a t the time of the Council of Jerusalem-he con-
tinued to preach circumcision is inconceivable (cp pre-
ceding afiticle. s 20.). If this reproach, then, was
levelled a t him even a t so late a date as that of Galatians
(511 ; on l r o s e e below, col. 1625, n.), it cannot have
been anything but a slander. If his adversaries were
capable of this, there is nothing to show that with
1623
GALATIANS
reference to any period after the apostle's conversion
they had any ground for their assertion. They may
safely be held to have applied to the present an asser-
tion that was true only of the time during which Paul
was still a Jew. It is also on general grounds probable
that Paul in the closing years of his life became gentler,
not, as Clemen says, harsher. T h e second coming of
Christ he believed to be near at hand; yet, before
this could happen the gospel had to be preached to
all the world (Roni. 1 0 18 1125). It must have become
clearer and clearer to him that he and his disciples
were not in a position to accomplish this by them-
selves, and that accordingly the Jewish-Christian way
of looking a t things also was willed by God. Phil.
115-18 expresses this with special clearness. In the
Epistle to the Romans an irenical attitude was par-
ticularly desirable, inasmuch as he wished to estab-
lish friendly relations with the church in Rome, and
thus to have a new centre from which to carry on
activities. I t is furthcr worthy of remark that iii
Galatians, as in Rom. 325, the death of Christ is repre-
sented only as a propitiation for sins that are past-
not yet, as in Rom. 83, as serving also for the averting
of sins to come, and that the doctrine of the ' spirit '
(?rveDfia) in Gal. 5 16-25 is much less elaborately thoug1.t
out than it is in Rom. 6-8.
On the home of the readers, see,preceding article.
As for their nationality-according to Gal. 4 8 5 2 6 12 f .
ll. Readers. they
Gentilewere,
at least preponderantiy,
Christians. Whether there may
not also have been among them a sprinkling of Jewish
Christians cannot be decided by reference to 3 13 23-25
45,for in that case all the readers together must lime
been Jewish Christians. 'These passages, therefore,
show only that Paul is inadvertently applying t3 his
readers that which holds good as regards himself
(see preceding article, 21, 3 a'). In 421, on the
other hand, he says, truly, not that his readers are yet
under the law, but that they are now only contemplating
the assumption of that yoke. That there was a Jewish
element in the Galatian churches might be inferred
more readily from 328, though here also, perhaps,
Paul is speaking more from principle than was exactly
required by the personal circumstances of his readers.
The Judaizing emissaries, too, could have found access
all the easier if born Jews already belonged to the
churches. But the question must be allowed to remain
undecided.
From 31 5 7 we learn that the Judaizing emissaries
were personally unlcnown to Paul. Both before and
12. Judaizing after his second visit they had been a t
emissaries. work among the Galatians. Whether
the same persons were engaged in this
on both occasions we have'no means of knowing : but
on both occasions they wrought in the same spirit,
though on the second with i,mmeasurably greater
success (see preceding article, 5 2 5 ) .
That one or more prominent persons were included among
them follows from the iiuns ihv 8 of 5 IO. I t is impossible,
however to say whether any individual (possibly one of the
original gpostles) is intended. For b Tapduvwv 6pis can mean
'every one who brings you into perplexity' just as easily as b
;pydpsvos in z Cor. 11 4 refers to all the Judaizers who had already
arrived in Corinth (02 4 m p h i a v dn6uroho~,115), since the pro-
position that follows (dveiXw&, or bv+uOe) does not state a
conceivable case merely but a n actual fact. It is certain,
however that the originai apostles, in Jerusalem a t least, did not
interfer; with the activity of these r a p d u u o v r f s (17 ; cp 5 12 :
see C OUNCIL O F JERUSALE'N, # 3). From 612J some have
thought it must follow that they themselves had not a s yet been
tircumcised, but were only fanatical proselytes. In that case
i t would he incomprehensible why they should not have
accepted circumcision long before, or how they could withoi:t
this have brought the Galatians so far. T h e determination of
the question lies not in the reading mppLrerpqp&oi, whichis quire
plainly a correction intended to make themeaning easier, but in
tnking the present oi ~ r s p ~ r q ~ v d p in
r v oa~timeless sense-the
men of the circumcision (cp I Thess. 2 12 : b r a h l v , 1 I O : b
I;udpel,os).
What their representations to the Galatians had becn
1624
 GALATIANS
can be plainly gathered from the answers of the apostle.
13. Their They had said that in order to gain salva-
tion it was not enough to comply with the
doings. teaching of Paul, who had simply demanded
faith in Christ crucified (31,f. 5) and risen, but that it
mas also necessary to fulfil all the prescriptions of the
Mosaic law (325 10 5 4 ) , to which alone the promise of
salvation was attached ( 3 8 18.54). They had said that,
on the other hand, the doctrine of Paul opened a wide
door to moral laxity ( 5 1 3 ) . These arguments on the
merits of the case they fortified by personal ones. They
maintained that Paul was not strictly an apostle at
all, but dependent on the original apostles (11 I I J
115-221). Only these, the 'pillars' ( 2 9 ; see COUNCIL,
5 6 ) , were competent to decide the true doctrine, as
they had formerly ( r o d , 2 6 ) been taught by the Lord
himself when he was on earth. Wherever, therefore,
the teaching of Paul departed from theirs, it was to be
rejected. Nay, more, elsewhere (this is obviously what
we are to understand) Paul himself was still preaching
circumcision ( 5 11) ; he is thus in contradiction with
himself if he has failed to exact it of the Galatians.
Thereby he has deprived them of their title to salvation ;
and this be can have done only out of a desire to please
men,l and so make the acceptance of Christianity seem
easier than it really was. T o these Judaizers, ac-
cordingly, the description in Acts 15 I 5 applies admirably.
They had already brought it about that the Galatians
observed the Jewish feasts IO), and were seriously
thinking of receiving circumcision (5 I J 6 I.$). Their
moral character is represented by Paul as very despicable.
He ascribes to them motives quite as low as the motives
which they ascribe to him. It is not, he says, about
the salvation of the Galatians that they are concerned :
all that they seek is personal consideration among then1
( 4 1 7 ) and repute with their Judaistic (perhaps even
Jewish) co-religionists for having brought the Galatians
to circumcision ( 6 1 3 ) , and they are in dread of persecu-
tion by these same comrades should they fail to insist
on circumcision in their proselytising efforts, and, like
Paul, rest satisfied with faith in the cross of Christ (6 12).
I t is probable that in this Paul is as unjust to them as
he was to Peter in charging him with hypocrisy ( 2 11-13 ;
see C OUNCIL, 3). From their point of view, they
could hardly do otherwise than, on religious grounds,
hold Paul's preaching to be not only dangerous but
also God-dishonouring. But we have seen that among
the means which they made use of even slander had a
place ( 5 I , ) , and that they flagrantly violated the compact
of the Council of Jerusalem (29).
It was to counteract the influence of those persons
that Paul wrote Galatians. Its course of thought is not
14. Purpose rightly apprehended if we view chaps.
.,
1J as constituting a personal apologia,
Of
and chaps. 3 f. and 5 f. as forming
respectively a dogmatic and a practical section. Nor
does it avail to take the dogmatic portion as ending at
47 or 4 r 1 , or not till 5 6 or 5 2 4 , as if 421-31 were not
intensely dogmatic, and 4 8-2 0 very much the reverse.
The epistle must be viewed much more as being an
epistle ; repetitions must not be ignored or denied ; and
a chief turning-point must be recognised in 513.
After the salutation, 11-5, and statement of the position of
matters, 16-10,there follows what constitutes the first main
division of the epistle, the historical demonstration that the
gospel of Paul isindependent of the original apostles, and is of
directly divine origin. Here there are three sections: 111-24
2 1-10 2 11-21. The second main division contains the dogmatic
proofthat Christian freedomand observance ofthe law are incom-
atihle. This in the first instance occupies 3 1-4 7 continuously.
%ex, follow a practical application to the readers (48-11), a
calling to mind of their former good relations with Paul(4 12-zo),
a renewed proof from the OT (421-31), a new proof drawn from
1 The <& bvOphrrorr I p 6 u x f r v of 1I O will refer to this. It is
not till e l &iIv6'phaois ~ ~ ~ S U K thatO V this alleged 'pleasing of
men, as shown towards Gentiles, will be put on a level with the
complaisance which Paul, before he became a Christian, and
when persecuting Christians, had shown towards the Jews.
See, further, above, $3 I .
53 1625
GALATIANS
first principles ( 5 1-6) and a renewed application to the readers
( 5 7-12). The third 'main division consists (like Rom. 6.8) of
exhortation and proof that morality is not impaired by Christian
freedom-this in 5 13-24 in general terms, in 5 25-6TO in relation
to particular points of special importance for the readers.
Finally, the autograph conclusion, 6 11-78, sums up once more
the leading polemical points.
The importance of Galatians for its first readers un-
doubtedly consisted in the first instance in this-that it
15. Place in won them back to Paul and his gospel.
Thds much may be presumed, if I Cor.
history. (16 I ) , which, as we gather from 16 8, was
written at the close of the three-years' stay in Ephesus,
is of a later date than our epistle (see above, $ '0).
For the history of primitive Christianity Galatians is a
historical source of the first order. It constituted for
the Tubingen school the Archimedean fulcrum by which
it revolutionised the traditional conception of the history
of the first century. What has already been said under
ACTS ($5 4 6,f.) and C OUNCIL OF JERUSALEM ($$ I 7-11)
may suffice to show the magnitude and fundamental char-
acter of the errors to which we should have been exposed
had this epistle not been preserved to us. The character
of Paul, the imperiousness which he showed in the service
of what he had recognised to be truth, his ardent love
and zealous care for the churches which he had founded,
the rabbinical ingenuity yet truly religious depth of his
thinking, and at the same time the far-reaching nature
of the differences that separated, the various tendencies
in the early church, find immediate expression here
as hardly anywhere else. In all time Galatians will
be the charter of freedom, not only from the Mosaic law
but also from every yoke that is imposed upon the
religious life as an external condition of salvation without
reference to any inner necessity of the soul. It was in
this sense that it supplied Luther with a foundation from
which to carry on his life-work against the freshly-
asserted claims of work-righteousness in the Catholic
Church of his day.
4. W. Meyer('41; (5),
in '80 (8) '94 identical with
A Girmah ed. '70); Hil-
C d -*Iowett ( ' 5 5 : (2), '59; condensed ed.
Gedankenganx des
Galaier6uiefs, 'iG'&panded inti Zum Evn7~geliunzdes P a u h s
und des Petrus, '68 ; also-a new work-Bas Evangelitrnz des
PauZus, 11, 'So); Lightf. ('65; (lu), 'go); J. Ch. K. von Hof-
?ann (Die Hail@ SchrzJ? Nezmz Testawzenis, 2 I , '63 ; (2),
72); Lipsius (Nandcomm. 22, '91, (21, '92); also in Dutch, by
Baljon ('89) ,and Cramer (Nieuwe Gijnragen door Cranzer en
Lamners, 6 go) both with many textual conjectures. As to
the conje&ures: see Baljon (De lekst der heeven aa?i de
Roxcinen, Connthiers en Galatiers, akademisch proefschriftr
Utrecht, '84), and on the attempts at dissection see Clemen
(Einheitlicueit der paulinischen Sriefe, '94). Marcion's text
is specially dealt with by Hilgenfeld (Z. Itist. T/ieoZ. '55,
426-483), vanManen(TlzeoL. Tqd. 1867, pp. 382-404, 451-$33),
and Theod. Zahn (Gesch. d. Nriichen Kanons, 2409-jz9, 92).
Mention must also be made of the work of Volkmar (f'aulvs w o n
Damaskus bis zu?n Galaterbrief; '87; partly also in TIieoZ.
Zeitschr. aus der Schweli, '84J) P . w. s.
GALBANUM (fi&n, XAABANH HAYCMOY [BLIP
x ~ B p .H. [A], gfZdunu?z doni odovis [=P')?P TI?],
Ex. 3 0 3 4 + ) , which was an ingredient in the holy
incense, is a resinons substance often mentioned by
botanical writers, ancient and modern. Though the
etymology of &n, /IeZPncih, is uncertain,l the names
xaXPciv~and gddunum are certainly connected with,
and probably derived from, the Hebrew word.
The source of the gum is even yet not quite certain. Diosco-
rides and Theophrastus speak of it as the product of a Syrian
narthex; but in modern times the galbanum of commerce is
known to be produced only in Persia, and since Boissier it has
generally been identified-e.q., by Fliickiger and HanhuryP)
( 3 2 0 fi),and by Dymock (2 152 &)-as the gum of the um-
belliferous Ferula galbaniflua Boiss. et Buhse and the kindred
species F. mbricaulis, Boiss.2' The resin is ?armed of 'tears
1 Its connection with 3>p, 'milk,' is improbable.
2 Besides these, its principal known sources, however, there may
have heen others : thus Sir G. Birdwood speaks in this connection
1626
 GALEED
which exude spontaneously from the stem, especially on its
lower part and about the bases of the leaves.’ I t has ‘ a peculiar,
not unpleasant, aromatic odour (Fliick. and Hanb. Z.C.).
N. M.
GALEED (-I$$), I. or Jegar-Sahadutha (73’
K ~ 9 1 ~ the
~ ) former
, the Hebrew, the latter the
Aramaic, designation of the heap or cairn which was a
sign of the covenant between Jacob and Laban, Gen.
31 47 ( ‘ Galeed ’ again in v. 48).
The renderings of @ and Vg. (on which see Nestle, Mayg.
p. .of.) show an uncertainty as to whether 7y is a noun or a
verh. For Galeed, j3ouvbs p a p n p z [A], j3. p&p,us [Dsil E
L] ; ACERYU M TESTIMONII in u. 47. 8. paprupsi [ADL],
8. paprvpiou [E] ; GALAA D in v. 48. For Jegar-sahadntha,
Pouvbs p&p~us[AI, p. +s p. [LM Ll, @ouvbv paprupias [El ;
fuvnuZuum testis.
Both have the same meaning-viz., ‘heap of witness ’
-and the intention of the former is to suggest a deriva-
tion of the name G ILEAD (g. a.).
The original tradition, however, must have been without this
trivial etymology. N???~J&’ 72; Uegar-iahadutha) is certainly a
corruption of ln$yli (Gar-Salhad), ‘fortress of Salhad.’ 1 We
have to suppose that J and E both had access to storks of the lives
of the patriarchs in a written form, among which was that of the
meeting of Laban and Jacob. J’s source of information con-
tained one statement which was very possibly wanting in E’s
and which J’s account gave, pa+y in a mutilated, partly in 5:
corrupt form. The early tradition must have said that Jacob
set his face towards Gar-Salhad on Mount Hauran, but ‘ Gar-
Salhad’ had become corrupted’into ‘Gar-Sahad’ ( l a w 73) and
‘on Mount Hauran’ into ‘on the mountain’ ( ~ 2 ) .The latter
phrase may have originally stood in a. 25, where we now read
7?2,.‘on the mountain.’ Reasoning on the strange phrase
Gar-Sahad, J seems to have come to the conclusion that it was
really Jegar-Sahadutha (‘heap of witness’ in Aramaic), and
that it referred to a cairn which Jacob must have erected as a
boundary mark and this suggested explaining Gilead as a
modification of ’Gaped, the Hebrew equivalent of Jegar-iaha-
dutha. He forgot the improbability (pointed out hy We. CH43)
that the grandchildren of ‘ Nahor’ and Abraham-hoth sons of
Eber-should have spoken different dialects ; but how else could
he have explained GariSahad? That Wellhausen is wrong in
treating v. 47 as a late archaeological gloss should be clear :
‘heap of witness’ is by no means an obvious explanation of
‘ Gilead ’ and has to be accounted for. The verse belongs to
J hut :s misplaced; u. 48 should run ‘therefore he (Jacob)
c h e d it Gal‘cd, but Laban called it Jekar-Bahadutha.’ Vu. 49
(on which see G ILEAD, 0 4) and 5 0 belong to E ; they give an
explanation of E’s pillar (mus;Zbu) corresponding to that of J’I;
cairn (guZ). It has only to be added that Nahor is miswritten
for Hauran (r>in) ; the ‘God of Nahor’ in v. 53 (E) was origin-
ally ‘ the God of Hauran’-a phrase which lost its force when
E, like J, brought the meeting of Laban and Jacob farther
S . in order to suit the subsequent travels of the patriarch.
2. G ALEED ( y y h ) may also originally have stood in
another important passage now evidently mutilated-viz. ,
Josh. 2234. where we read of a great altar set up by
Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, as a ‘ witness ’ (cp
v. 27) to the tribes on both sides of the Jordan that
those on the eastern side were equally worshippers of
YahwB, in the strict legal fashion, with their brethren
on the W. (So Di., Bennett in S B O T ; EV, following
Pesh. and some Heb. MSS, is content with supplying
y [‘4.
) that CASUL[q.v.] was a border city of Galilee, and
T h e narrative to which the passage belongs (vu. 9-34) must be
very late but may be based upon an early record which con-
tained a Lecond explanation of the name Gilead connecting it
with a great altar erected in early times by the )eastern tribes.
Whether this is probable or not, is a question on which critics
are not at all unanimous. Those who agree with Di. will
ascribe to the editor the anxious assurances of the eastern tribes
that no sacrifices should he offered upon the altar, and certain
other peculiarities, such as the indistinctness of the description
of the locality of the altar (v. IO^), and the omission of the
name pf th? altar (v. 34 ; cp Bennett). If on the other hand the
narrative is an absolutely unhistorical invention framed to
defend the doctrine of a unique sanctuary’ (Kue. Hex. 107,
cp 3 3 9 3 , and see We. C H 135) we must suppose that the
name of the altar was accidentilly omitted by a very early
scribe, or perhaps (cp I S.13 I and Budde’s crit. note in SBOT)
was never inserted by the narrator. It is worth noticing that
both in u. II and in v. 34 @ reads differently from MT. I n
of OphoirliapaZbunz$ru of Khorassan, and Galbanum o&cinale
of Syria (EH(91 1 2 718).
1 Cp Kar-ASur, Kar-IZtar, Kar-Sartukin, ‘fortress of ASur,
of IStar, of Sarpukin.’
1627
GALILEE
particular @B has in v. IT, d a l ~oGyahaaS(‘inGilead’; @Lorn.)
where M T has ni\’)?-5! (‘in the districts’?), and in v. 34, m\L
6rov6pauev ’Ivp~oQs
the altar .. .
rbu @opbv . . Ka\L&rev (‘ and Joshua named
. and said’). At any rate, both texts (and also
Jos. Ant. v. 126) agree in not giving the name of the altar.
Cp ED. T. K. C.
GALEM (Josh. 1559, VUY. Bid., d only). See
G ALLIM, I.
GALGALA (rAhrAhA [AKV]), I Macc. 9 2. See
A RBELA, $ 2 8 , and cp GILGAL,
6 (6).
GALILEE (%in, nih$a [ z K. 15291 ; Aram.
&’$$ ; r A h € l h A l A [B], - A I L [BaKAQrVL arid NT] ;
G A L I L E A , G. GENTIUM).
The name gdil means ‘circle ‘ ‘district ’ ‘region.’ Once
only we find the qualifying additjon ‘of th;natioiis’-viz Is.
9 I [8231 ‘ In the former time be brought “into
1. Name. contemp; the land of Zehulun and the land of
Naphtali, but in the latter time he confers honour
on the road to the sea, the other side of the Jordan, the district
(gZZ2) of the nations’ (6 ah[r]rAaia r 2 v &v&v). The latter
phrase clearly means ‘the dlstriCt inhabited by a mixed popu-
lation of Jews and foreigners. Josh. 1223 is partly parallel,
for we should doubtless read (with Graf, St. Kr. 1854, p. 870)
‘the king of the nations of the g&Z’ (not? as in M T ‘ of Gilgal ).
Cp I Macc. 5 15 yahrhaia &hho$$hov ; ‘1yahrhaia’simply often
in I Maw. (oiice)in Macc. and twicein N T thearticleisodtted).
‘ Galilee ’ (to retain the convenient thongh
- late-coined
2.Original Grsecised name) seems at a comparatively
referenoe. early period to have specially designated
the territory of Naphtali.
T h e cities mentioned in the list of Tiglath-pileser’s conquests
(2 K. 1529) as constituting ‘the gal&?’(Galilee) are, with prob-
ably one exception,l all in Naphtali, and, as if to prevent mis-
understanding, the narrator sums up thus : ‘andGalilee, all the
land of NaDhtali.’*
Although the early Naphtalites failed to occupy all
the land which they coveted (Judg. 1 3 3 ) , and in Gen.
307f: Naphtali is the so11 of a slave-girl, Naphtali,
like Zebulun, is praised for its heroism in a patriotic
war (Judg. 5 18). Probably, therefore, the special appli-
cation of the phrase ‘ district (of the nations) ’ to Naph-
tali arose out of the occupation of Naphtali by the
AramEans under Benhadad I. The chief (Naphtalite)
Galilean city was of course Kedesh, which is called
‘Kedesh in the gdi2 (Galilee), in the hill-country of
Naphtali’ (cp Tob. 12).
The g d i l was, however, a vague expression, and
must surely have been sometimes used with a wider
referen’ce. For this we may cite I K. 910-13, though
this passage is decisive only for the time when it was
edifed. The connection between the Cabul mentioned
here and that of Josh. 1 9 27 seems hardly disputable.
Whoever gave the last touches to the story of the de-
spised twenty cities of ‘ Cabul’ must have considered
that the ‘land of the gZZi2’ extended to the Asherite
town of Cabul, for to exclude the town of Cabul from
the land of Cabul ’ would be as unnatural as to exclude
the town of Goshen from the land of Goshen (Josh.
; cp 1551). In the time of Josephus we know
there is every probability that this ancient place was
spoken of as Galilrean long before this; Janoah, too,
even if Asherite, was apparently regarded as Galilzean
when z K. 1529 was written, though the writer certainly
seems to have applied the term ‘ Galilee’ more especi-
ally to Naphtali. How, indeed, could Asher have
failed to be included in the gel2 huggu’yyim? Accord-
ing to Judg. 131-33 the non-Israelitish element in Asher
1 Janoah( =Yenu’amu) being probably Asherite (see JANOAH),
in spite of Buhl’s hesitation (Geog. 229). It is no doubt out of
the right geographical order; but this is probably a con-
fusion introduced by the editor, and was not in the original
record. It would, of course, be possible to emend nry into
nij3 (cp T K. 15 20, and see CHINNERETH), but the corruption
assumed seems not very likely.
2 As Benzinger points ont, the preceding word 1 ~ 5 3 cannot
)
be right ; be misses, however, the true explanation of the pres-
ence of the word. It is simply miswritten for $ijr ; thescribes
a5 usual, left the wrong word and the right side by side. C i
the corruptions mentioned under GILEAD, 2.
1628
 GALILEE
was considerably larger than that in Naphtali. The
highly mixed origin of the tribe so-called is implied in
Gen.30rzf: (birth of Asher), and is confirmed by the
fact that the Hebrew tribesmen borrowed their name of
Asher from their non-lsraelitish parents, an extensive
North Palestinian region having been called Aseru in
the time of the Egyptian kings, Seti I. and Rameses 11.
(see ASHER, 1I ).
The land of Zebulun also had a natural claim to he
called Galilaean. Zebulun is not indeed said to have
been, like Asher, the son of a slave-girl, but, like Asher
and Naphtali, it had to tolerate Canaanitish encZuaves in
its territory (Judg. 130), and, if Is. 9 1 [823] may be
followed, it suffered, like Naphtali, from the invasion
of Tiglath-pileser-Le., was partly Aramaised. In the
latter passages Zebulun (which corresponds to the ‘ road
to the sea ’ ; see ZEBULUN) and Naphtali together form
‘ the district (g6ZCZ) of the nations,’ and very possibly
in I K. 9 13 ‘ the land of Cabul ’ should he emended into
the land of Zebulun ’ (see CABUL),implying that the
‘ twenty cities in the land of the giZiZ’ were in Zebulun.
After 734 B.C. ‘ thegdiZ’ in its widest sense became
an integral- part
- of the Assyrian empire, ar.d hence,
though the -greater part of the old
3.
boundaries.
Later Israelitish population remained, its
-~Duritv must have become bv degrees
more and more contaminated. In z Ch. 36 IO, Ihow-
ever, there may be an allusion to post-exilic attempts of
the Jews of South Palestine to strengthen the Jewish
spirit in the N. ‘ a s far as Zebulun,’ and I Macc.
5 14-23 shows that Jews lived in ‘ Galilee‘ in Maccabean
times. The term Galilee in post-exilic times, however,
had obtained a wider meaning than of old. We know
the boundaries of Galilee in the time of Josephus, and
we may assume that they were the same in the preceding
centuries. According to him, Galilee was bounded on
the N. and W. by the territory of the Tyrians, to which
Mount Carmel also belonged, on the S. by Sam,uia and
Scythopolis (Beth-shean), on the E. by the trans-
Jordanic region and by the Lake of Gennesaret (BJ
iii. 3 I). It was divided into two parts, Upper and
Lower Galilee, the boundary line of which was, natur-
ally, the plain of er-RXmeh (the ha-Ramah of Josh.
1936). The Mishna, which recognises the same
divisions, though it adds the district of Tiberias (taken
from Lower Galilee), names as the frontier city K e h r
ITananyah ; Josephus, however ( Vit.188), mentions
Bersabe or Beer-sibai (see 7). Elsewhere this his-
torian mentions Kedasa or Kydasa (the ancient
Kedesh) as a Tyrian fortress on the Galilaean border
(Ant.xiii. 56 Blii. 181 iv. 23). This is important, for
it suggests a change in the N. boundary of Galilee.
In the N., Galilee seems to have lost ; but in the
S. it gained considerably, for Ginaia or En-gannim,
S. of the Great Plain, marked the southern limit of
Galilee. Sometimes, too, localities on the E. of the
Lake of Gennesaret (or Sea of Galilee) are reckoned as
Galilaean (see, e & , Jos. BJii. 8 I, where Judas of Ganiala
is called du+p I’ahAaios)-a natural inconsistency.
Nominally, therefore, Galilee was cut off from the
Lebanon by the territory of Tyre. It was, however,
its relation to-the Lebanon and to
4. Physical
characteristics, ?3emon that made Galilee so rich
in m ~ i s t u r eand
, ~ especially in streams of some ruins still called ‘the old Haifa.’ For the
and wells, and therefore so pre-eminent in- fertility, as
compared with both Samaria and Judwa. There is no
difference in this respect between Lower and Upper
1 The phrase ‘the other side of Jordan’ corresponds to
‘Gilead ’ in the traditional text of z K. 15 29, which lay before
the author of this late insertion in Isaiah (see SBOT and cp
Duhm). Guthe (PREP)6337) seems wrong in explaining 7 2 ~ streams flowing from the eastern watershed meet the
of the district on the W. shore of the Jordan from Hiileh to’
Dan. 7 ~ 5 2is’surely corrupt (see col. 1628, note 2 ) .
2 Neub. Gdogr. 226.
3 ‘All vegetation,’ says Merrill, ‘would he,afTected by the
“ dew of Hermon,” which is praised in Ps. 133 3. See, however,
DEW, 5 2 (4.
1629
GALILEE
Galilee ; the distinction drawn in the Mishna is merely
that the latter produces, and that the former does not
produce, sycomores. Not only in Asher (Dt. 3324),but
also throughout Galilee, olives were so abundant that it
was easier, as a Rabbi said, to support an entire legion
by means of olives than in the land of Israel (where food
is less easily had) to raise a single chi1d.l Naphtali
was specially famous for its vines, and for 16 m. round
Sepphoris the land ‘flowed with milk and honey’
(Meg. 6 a). All this luxury might have enervated the
inhabitants but for the long stretches of highland
country.
Upper Galilee, in particular (*)np! ‘ the hill-
country of Naphtali’), consists of a broad mountain-
ridge, a continuation of the Lebanon range. On the
summit is a tract of undulating table-land, diversified
by wooded heights and smooth green plains. In the
centre of this table-land stood Kedesh-Naphtali, among
whose rich pastures Heber, the Kenite, sojourned
(Judg. 411). On the E. the mountains break down
abruptly into the deep basin of the upper Jordan. On
the W. the slopes are more gradual, and long ravines
of singular beauty and wildness wind down to the sea-
coast and the plain of Acre. These western declivities,
once the possession of Asher, are still celebrated for
their olive groves (cp the name Bir-zaith). The town
of Safed, perched on the culminating point of the
mountain chain to the S., is one of the four sacred
cities of the Jews. It is also noted as the centre of
a wide volcanic region (see E ARTHQUAKE , 5 3).
The southern slopes of the mountain range, from the
castellated heights of Safed to the broad plain of
Esdraelon, afford some of the most picturesque scenery
in Palestine. Forests of evergreen oak sweep round
the flanks of the hills in graceful belts, and line the-
sides of the valleys, leaving open glades, and undulating-
expanses of green grass, such as are seen in English
parks. Here, too, are upland plains, likevast terraces,
with rich soil and rank vegetation. The largest is that
now called el-Baft5f-fertile, but without sufficient
drainage on the eastern side, and therefore marshy.
There are others to the eastward, along the brow of the
hills that encircle Tiberias, and extending down to
Tabor. These are separated from the great plain of
Esdraelon by a line of rocky hut picturesque hills,
which culminate on the E. in the dome of Tabor.
Esdraelon stretches out beyond them like a sea of
verdure, leaving in the distance the base of Carmel and
the mountains of Samaria.
Lower Galilee was a land of husbandmen, famed for
its corn-fields (the wheat of Chorazin was proverbial),
as Upper Galilee was for its olive groves, and Judwa
for its vineyards. The demand for the Galilzan wheat
must have been large indeed (cp Acts1220). GEN-
NESARET (see G ENNESAR ), however, surpassed all other
regions ; its fertility excites Josephus to an unwonted
enthusiasm (BJiii. 32f: 108). The best pomegranates
came from Shikmonah--.e., we can hardly doubt,
the Sykaminos of Josephus, between Czesarea and
Acco, near Mount Carmel; and it should be noted
that Eusebius ( O S 26770) expressly identifies Sylia-
minos and Hepha-ie., the modern Haifa. Probably
the old town lay a little to the N. of Haifa, on the site
oil of ancient Galilee cp z Ch. 210, and for its wheat
and fat oxen (but not ‘fowls’ ; see FOWL, z), I K.
423 [53]. Turning to the rivers and lakes, we must
give the first place to the Jordan, all of which to
the N. of the Lake of Gennesaret, and one-third of
its length to the S., belonged to Galilee. Many small
Jordan ; those on the W., including the Kishon (Nahr
el-Mukatfa‘),flow into the Mediterranean (see K ISHON).
The Semachonitis or Lake of HGleh (not the ‘Waters
1 Ber. Rabba, par. IO, following Wiinsche’s translation (cp
Neub. Gdogr. 180).
1630
 GALILEE
of M EROM ’) and the S EA OF G ALILEE are the two
lalces. The former is a triangular basin, about 6 ft.
above the sea-level; it is very disappointing, being
shallow and reedy; water-fowl abound in it. The
latter is described in the next article. On the famous
hot springs of Tiberias (rivalled by those of Gadara) see
T IBERIAS.
The population of Galilee in the time of Jesus was
of more diverse origin than it had ever been before.
The somewhat mixed old Israelitish
5. Later population had been further modified by
population’ Phcenician. Iturzan (Arabian ?1. and
Greek elements, so that .the Jews, with perfect‘justice
from their point of view, could look down on the
Galilzans, whose imperfect legal orthodoxy and in-
accurate pronunciation 1 soon ‘ bewrayed ’ them (Mk.
1470 Mt.2673). Still, the Galilzans could boast of
great names in their past history,2 and they were them-
selves no cowards when their religion was at stake ; the
old spirit of the Naphtalites lived again in their descend-
ants, however mixed the race of those descendants
might be. They were doubtless too industrious to be
strictly orthodox from a Pharisaic point of view ; but
the Messianic hope burned more brightly in Galilee than
anywhere else in Palestine, and hundreds of inquirers
from the populous Galilean towns and villages followed
the great Teacher wherever he went. He had a word
for all. He knew them indeed, as brothers know
brothers, for it can hardly be doubted that, as Prof.
Percy Gardner has well said, ‘ according to all historic
probability, Jesus of Nazareth was born at Nazareth’
(ExpZoouatio Evnngelica, 254 [‘99]), or rather at the
Nazarene or Galilean Bethlehem, for which, by a mis-
understanding, ‘ Nazareth’ appears to have been sub-
stituted (see N AZARETH). This connection of Jesus
with Galilee has been well treated by Renan, though
he has ,doubtless fallen into exaggerations which repel
sober minds.
‘The region adjacent to Jerusalem is perhaps the most triste
country in the world. Galjlee, on the other hand, is full of
verdure and of shade rhe true country of the song of songs.
During March and kpril the fields are carpeted with flowers.
The animals are small, but of great gentleness. The forms of
the mountains are more harmonious there than elsewhere and
inspire higher thoughts. Jesus seems to have had a s&al
fonduess for them’ (Vie deJPsus(14),.67$).
T h e early history of Christianity cannot be understood
apart from its physical environment. Galilee is dear to
us, because by every right Jesus can be
6. Local called a Galilean, and must have imbibed
inRuences
the moral and physical influences of his
on Jesus. village home ; Umbria gives the key to
St. Francis; Galil& in some sense, gives the key to
Jesus of Nazareth. How he ‘ had compassion’ on its
teeming multitudes we know from the Gospels, and it
is no slight merit in Dr. Selah Merrill that he has sup-
plemented the one-sided (thongh not untrue) statements
of Renan by proving the density of the population of
ancient G a l i l ~ e . ~‘ He who wandered among the hills
and valleys of Galilee was never far from some great
and populous city.’4 Yet, such are the revenges of
history, this home of the fulfiller and transformer of the
Law became, in the second century after Christ, the
centre of Jewish study of the Law. Galilee must at
this period have contained a large and wealthy Jewish
population. Traces of their splendid synagogues arc
still to be found at Tell Ham, Kerazch, Irbid, Kedes,
Meir5n, Kefr Bir‘im, and other places. Strangely
enough, in six of these there arc carved representations
of animals.
1 They confounded N with y, and Iwith
; n.
2 In Jn. 752 for xpo+jqc we should probably read, with the
Sahidic version, 6 xpar#+qp, else strange ignorance is ascribed
to the Jews. Prophets and other great men had come out of
Galilee. See Keim, J e w s ofiVazara, E T 3 13-15.
3 Josephus asserts (Vit. 45 ; Bjiii. 3 2) that there were 204
cities and villages, the very least of which contained more than
15,ooo inhabitants. We need not accept this.
4 Besant, quoted by GASm. HG 432, n. 2.
1631
GALILEE, SEA O F
The best-known localities in Jewish Galilee are in the
lower part of the province. On the W. of the southern
border, S. of the Wiidy el-Melek, is
., Chief the village of Semaniyeh, the ancient
Simonias (Jos. Vit. 24), identified by
the Talmud with SHIMKON [Y.w., i.]. The modern
village of YZfii, SW. of Nazareth, is the Japha of
Josephus (BJii. 206, iii. 731). The frontier town of
XalothorExaloth(BJiii. 31; Vit.44)is themodern Iksd ;
cp CHESULLOTH or CHIsLorH TABOR. Another frontier
town, Dabaritta(Jos. Yit.2662; Bjii. 21 3).isthemodern
Deburiyeh, at the foot of Mount Tabor on the north,
the ancient D ABERATH. Close to or upon Mt. Tabor
was a fortress called by Polybius (v. 706) Atabyrion.
S. of Tabor, on the slope of Little Hermon, is the
small village of Nein. the Nain of the NT. The plain
between Tabor and Gennesaret was called (Eus. OS
2968) Szronas ; the name is echoed in that of the village
SirCnB. ESDRARLON is treated elsewhere.
Let us now move westward from the shore of Gen-
nesaret, and pause first at the ruins of Irbid, the Arbcla
of Josephns, famous in the history of Herod ( B l i . 1 6 2 4 ) .
and look up to the round rocky hill called Karn Ilaftin
(1135 ft. above sea-level), regarded by the Latins as
the Mount of the Beatitudes, and identified by the
Talmud with the ZIDDIM of Josh. 193s. T o the SW.
is Kefr Kenni, which tradition identifies with C ANA OF
GALILEE. Conder’s site for Cana (‘Ain Kiini) has the
seeming advantage of being only half an hour to the N.
of Nazareth ; the fountain flows on though the village
has disappeared. But what if ‘ Nazareth’ is really a
mistake for the Nazarene Bethlehem ? Sefhriyeh is no
doubt Sepphoris, so famous in the Roman war ; the
Talmud calls it Sippori. Beit-Lahm, the ancient
Bethlehem of Zebulun and en-NiiSira, or Nazareth,
require to be noticed together (see N AZARETH ).
In the N. of the Plain of Baf@f (the Asochis of Jos.)
we pause with interest at the Tell leiit, upon which
once stood the fortress of Jotapata, defended by
Josephus (B/iii. 7 J ) ; cp JIPHTAH-EL. The border
cities, Kefar Hauanyah and Bersabe, arc respectively
Kefr ‘Anin and Ab6 Shebi (N. of Kefr ‘Anin), unless,
indeed, Bersabe is the Birsabee of Theodosius (circa
530 A . D . ) , which Guthe identifies with Khirbet el-
‘OrEmeh, above KhZin Minieh on the Sea of Galilee.
Of the doubtless ancient sites in Upper Galilee, few
have a proved biblical connection-cg., Kerizeh (Chora-
zin) ; Safed (the Sefet of Tob. l T in the Latin), the
highest town in Galilee (2749 ft.), and, as some have
fancied, the ‘city that is set on a hill’ of Mt. 514 ;
Meiron, where many old Jewish teachers arc buried;
el-Jish, the Gischala of Josephns, and the GUS Halab
of the Talmud ; and, to the NW., Kefr-Bir‘im, already
referred to. See also G ALILEE, S EA OF ; ESDRAELON ;
JEZREEL i. ; TABOR.
Neuhauer La GPopajhz’e du Talmud (‘68) ; Gukri:, Gal+
(‘So) ; Szlrub of Western Palestine; Memoirs, vol. i. Galilee
(:SI) ; Merrill, GaLiZee in the Time ’of Chrfsf
Literature. (91); Macgregor, The X u 6 Roy o n ; k /ordun
(‘69); GASm. HGZO,; Guthe, art. Galilaa’in
PREP) Bd. vi. ( 9 9 ) ; also Art. ‘Galilee’ in IGtto’s Bid. C J ~ .
by J. L.’ Porter, from which afew portions of the present article
have been adapted. T. IC. C.
GALILEE, SEA OF (H ~ A A ~ C CTH A C rahlhalac
[Ti. WH]),a Hebraistic expresslon (see G EOGRAPHY,
§ 4) for the fine sweet-water lake through which the
Jordan flows on the E. of Galilee.
I t occurs five times (Mt. 4 18 15 29 ,&Ik.116 T 31 Jn. 6 I).
Other names are (I) ‘sea of Tiberias (+ 8. 6 s TtPeprdSos
[Ti. WH]) Jn.21 I ; (z) ‘sea of Galilee, of
1. Names. Tiberias’ ($8, +Tab. fip Tip. [Ti. W H j Jn. G I),
where ‘of Tiberias’ seems to be a scribe’s COY-
ration, intended to supersede ‘of Galilee,’ and pointing for-
.ward to u. 23 where ‘Tiherias’ is ,mentioned;l (3) ‘lake of
Gennesaret ’ (t hipuq rsvvquapcr [TI. WH]), Lk. 5 I ; (4) ‘ the
1 B. d.e. Syr. Hcl. (Tregelles) prefix sls r b p+, which is
also a correction, but one that does not suit, the eastern shore
being meant.
1632
 GALILEE A N D ESDRAELON.

Walker GEotrtaN SI
For Index t o names see back of m a p . ENCYCLOPAEDIA BlBLlOA 1900.
 MAP OF GALILEE AND ESDRAELON
INDEX TO NAMES
The references following some names having no Jiblical equivalent are topassages that mention them. The @ka-
betical arrangement ignores prqixes :'Ain ( spring'), Bir ( ' well'), el ( I the '), 3. (leael, ' mt. '), 3isr ( ' Jn'dge '),
Kefr ( I village '), Kh. (KhirJat, ruin '), L. (lake),Mt., N . (Nahr, ' river'), Nadi ('prophet'), R. (river),
Sahl ('plain '), Sheikh ( ' saint '), Tell ( ' mound'), U m m (' mother '), W. ( Widy, ' valley ').
Abel-betb-maachah, DI Ecdippa, Bz KaigBriyeh, A4 [LEE ii., $ 7 ) Kh. el-'Or&meh,D3 (GALI-
Abil el-Kamh, Dr Edrei?? Cz Kal'at el-Hosn, D3 (GALI- LEE i., 5 7)
W. 'Abillin, B~(JIPHTAH-EL) ' Endor ' ? C4 Kal'at esh Shakif, DI
~

Pella, Dg
tell Abii KudCs, B4 Endiir, C4
Abii ShebL,c3(GALILEEi.,8 7) En-gannim, C5 .KHnH,
am. Piing, Cz [(EPHRAIM?
C4 (CANA)
$4) Ptolemais, B3
Accho, 133 Esdraelon, B4 Kanah?? Cz Ramah, C3
Achshaph ?? C I 'Esfiyeh, B4 (CARMEL) jebel Karmal, AB3, 4 er-RBnieh,C3
Achzib, Bz (E)xaloth, C4 wHdy el-Karn, Bz 15 7) plain of er-RZmeh, C3
Acre, B3 Karn Hatfin,C3(GALILEEi., (GALILEE i., 5 3)
bay of Acre, B3 [HADDAH)umm el-Fahni, B4 el-KHsimiyeh, C I RBs el-'Ah, Bz (H OSAH)
kefr Ad(h)Hn, Bg (E N- wsdy Fajjlas, D4 tell el-Kassis, B4 (CARMEL, RHs en-NBkiira, Bz (RA-
MAH, 6 )
sahl el-AhmB, CD3, 4 Fakii', Cg (GILHOA, g I) Kaukab el-Hawk, D4 I$ 3) RBs Umm esh-Shakf, B4
'AinithH, Cz (BETH-ANATH) jebel Fakii Cg Kedasa, D2 RummBneh, B4 (HADAD-
'AkkH, B3 el-FCdeh, C4 (CYAMON) Kedes, Dz RIMMON )
Alanimelech ?? B3 Kedesb (Kishion ?) B4
'AIiH (ruin), Cz (HALI) Gath-hepher ?? C4 Kefar Hananya, C3 Safed, C3 (GALILEE i., g 7)
umm el-'Amiid, B2 Gerasa, D3 (GERASENE) tell KeisBn, B3 (KISHION) Safiiriyeh, C3, 4 (NAZA-
wHdy 'Amiid, ~ ~ ( T A P P U A el-GhuwCr,
H) D3 (GALILEE ii., RETH )
kefr KennB, C3
Anaharath?? Cg Mt. Gilboa, C5 [$ 2) Kerak, D4 (GALILEE ii., $7) wBdv SakBk. Bz
kefr 'AnBn, C3 Ginaia, C5 KerHzeh, D3
W. 'Ara, Bg (EPHRAIM, $ 4 7 ) Gischala, Cz Kersa, D3 (GERASENES) . .
wHdyel-'Arab,D&ADARA) Gush Halab, Cz wAdy el-Khudera, Ag Scala Tyriorum, Bz (RA-
el-'Araj, D3 (BETH-SAIDA) tell Khureibeh, Dz Scythopolis, Cg
Arbela ?? C3 J. Hadireh, Cz (HAZOR) Kishon, B3 Sefet, C3 (GALILEE i., g 7)
Ard el-Hiileh, Dz Haif%, AB3 (ACHSAPH) kefr Kiid, Bg (BETHULIA) wBdy Selhab, Bg (DOTHAN)
sahl 'ArrBbeh,B~(DOTHAN)Haifs el-'atika, A3 [DALA) Kuffin, Bg L. Semachonitis, Dz
'ArrHneh, Cg wsdyel-HamBm, C3 (MAG- wady Semak, D3 (GERAS-
Asochis, C3 Hammon ? Bz Ladder of Tyre, Bz Semakh, D4 [ENES)
(RAMAH,6 ) Semiiniyeh, B4 (KATTATH)
'Athlit, A4 'ain HHmiil, Bz (H AMMON) nahr el-LeddBn, Dz
wHdyHBmu1, BP(HAMMON)Lejjiin, B4 Sepphoris, C3, 4 (NAZA-
Bahr Tabariyeh, D3, 4 RETH)
B a h r e t el-Hiileh, D z el-HHrithiyeh, B4 (HARO- Leontes, D I (ACHSHAPH) esh-Shari'a, Dz, 3, 4, 5
(MEROM) well of Harod, c 4 [SHETH) N. el-LitHni, D I (ACH- Shari'at el-ManBddireh,D4
nahr BHniHs, D2 (ABANA) Kh. Harreh. Dz (HAZDR) SHAPH) wady SharrHr, C4 (GOLAN)
nahr Bareighit,Dz(ABEL ii.) N. el-HB+bBni, D I , ~ ( A I N
2), Kh. Luweziye, DI Shaffa, C4 (BETH-SHITTAH)
el-Bafeiha, D3 [ARBATTIS) Hazor? Dz Shihor-libnath ?? A4
Hieromax, D4 nahr Mafshiikh, Bz
Baftof, C3 (ALAMMELECH)~ MBr.rBner-RHs,Cz (MEROM) Shunem, C4
BeisHn, C5 ' Hill of Moreh ' ? C4 jebel eS-Sih,C4(NAZARETH)
Mas'adiyeh, D3 (BETH-
Beit IlfS, C4 (BETHULIA) Hippo<, D3 SAIDA ) Simouias,B~(GALILEE~.,$ 7)
Beit-Lahm, B4 Hukkok?? C3 Kh. Ma'siib, B2 (ASHERAH) Solam, C4
bir Bel'ameh, Cg (BEI-MEN) tell ITiim, D3 (CHORAZIN) nahr el-Mef jir,Ag(KANAH) Sur, BI
w ~ d Bel'ameh,
y ~ ~ ( I H L E AHiinin,
M) Dz (MIGDAL-EL) Megiddo, B4 SiisithH,D3 GALILEE^^., $ 7 )
Bel%!, Cz (RAMAH,6 ) Meiren, C3 (MEROM) Spcaminum, A3
Belus, B3 Ibleam? C5 el-Mejdel, D3 (MAGDALA)
jisr BenHt Ya'kiib, Dz khirbet Iksaf C I wady el-Melek, B3 Taanach, B4
Bersabe, C3 GALILEE^., $7) IksAl, C4 'ain el-Meyiteh, HAROD ROD) Ta'annuk, €34 [P 7)
Bethlehem, B4 Irbid, C3 [58 4, 7) Merj 'A@", DI (IJON) TabakBt Fahl, D5 (GILEAD,
Beth-shean, Cg [MEL, 0 I) Sh. Iskander, B&EPHKAIM. Merj el-Hadireh, ~ ~ ( H A z o R Tabariyeh,
) D3
BilBd er-Riihah, B4 (CAR- 'ain Taba'iin, C4 (HAROD)
Merj Ibn 'Amir, BC4 et-TBbigha, D3 (cp CAPER-
wsdy el-Bireh, D4 Jabesh ?? D5
el-Meshhed, C4 Tabor, C4 INAUM,$ 4 3 )
kefr Bir'im, C2 (AHLAB) Jalkamiis, Cg el-Me&, C4 (GILBOA, 5 z)
esh-sheikhBurkBn,C ~ ( G I L - ain JBliid, C4 Tantiirah, A4
el-Mezra'ah, C4 (ESDRAE- Tarichez, D4 (GALILEE ii.,
[§ 7)
N. Jaliid, HAROD ROD)
Cabul, B3 ") Janoah?? C I , z w. el-Milh, B4(ARAD)[LON) wHdy ef-TawShin, C3
Czesarea Palzestin=, A4 khBn Minieh, D3 et-Tell, D3 (BETH-SAIDA)
tell Jefat, C3
Cana?? C3 Jelameh, C4 (IBLEAM) khirbet Mini&, D3 Tiberias, D3
Capernaum ? D3 Jelb6n, C5 (GILBOA,$3 I ) Miryamin, Dg sea of Tiberias, D3, 4
Mt. Carmel, AB3, 4 el-Mohraka,Bq(CARME1.,$3) jebel ef-TCr, C4
Jenin, C5
Chisloth-tabor, C4 Jezreel, C4 jisr el-Muj?imf, D4 Tyre, BI
Chorazin, D 3 Jiphtah-el? C3 el-MujEdil, B4 (IDALAH) Tyrus, BI
Dnbaritta, C4 el-Jish, Cz Mujeidil, C2 (M IGDAL-EL)
nahr el-Mukattd, B3. 4 wAdy YBbis, Dg (JABESH)
Daberath, C4 Jokneam? B4
tell el-Mutasallim, B4 YBfa, C4 (JAPHIA)
nabi Dahi, C4 Jordan, Dz, 3, 4, 5 Yakiik, C3
DBIiet er-Riihah, B4 Jotapata, C3 Nabi Dahi, C4
YBnuh, CI, z
.Dan. Dz ' N a i n ' ? C4
DHniBn, Bz (DAN-JAAN) Kabr HirBm, Cz (H IRAM) nahr Na'mHn, B3 (ADONIS) YarmBk, Ya'tir, Cz
D4 (GOLAN)
Debiiriyeh, C4 Kabiil, B3 en-Nlasira, c 4 [RATH)
YemmH, CD4 (APHEK, 3, c)
DCshiin, CDz (HAZOR, I) Kadesh, Dz en-Na'ba, C4 (ANAHA-
tell Dibbin, D I (IJON) tell el-KHdi, Dz ' Nazareth,' C4 Zer'in, C4
Dor, 4 jebel Kafsy, C4 (NAZARETH) Nein, C4 nahr ez-Zerl+, A4
plain of Dothan, Bg tell Bairntin, B4 Niiris, C4 (GILHOA, $ z) ez-Zib, Ba
 GALILEE, SEA O F
sea’ (5 O&h.), Jn. 611-25; (5) ‘the lake’ (4 A+.), Lk. 5 ;in the narratives of the first feeding of the people (see
8 zz,f 33. To these must be added (6) ‘sea of Chinnereth
( n ? p ; ) , and (7) ‘sea of Chinneroth’ (niy-o;), see C HIN.
NERETH , CHINNEROTH i also (8) ‘the water of Gennesar ’-i.e.,the ruins of BETHSAIDA( q . ~ . ) . Nor can we doubt
(RV) ‘of Gennesareth, I Macc. 1167. See GENNESAK.For
Talmudic notices the reader will consult Neub. Giogr. 2 5 , and
Kohut, ‘Lakes of the Holy Land,’jQR 4 691 (‘92).
The extreme length of this lake is 13 m. ; its greatest
width is little less than 7 m. It is an irregular oval
2. physical in shapk. Its surface is 68; ft. below
characteristics. the level of the Mediterranean. Its
greatest deDth has been exaggerated
by M’Gregor and tortet. I
--
As Barrois (1894) states, it varies from 130 ft. to 148 ft.,
according to the season, the greatest depth occurring along the
course of the Jordan, through the meridional axis of the sheet.
The surface temperature varies considerably. Down to 30 ft. it is wish to rationalise, that prompts many good critics to
on an average about 68“ or 69“, and at 50 ft 62’ or 63‘. Between
6 j ft. and 130 ft however there is a &form temperature of
59’. This is mu& higher h n in the Swiss lakes at the same
depth, but the lake of Tiberias lies a t a much lower elevation,
under a much hotter sun, and is fed from the sides and the
bottom by several hot springs (see PEFQ, ’94, pp. 211-220).
The scenery of the lake disappoints some travellers ; more towards the S. Jesus had gone hither to be as far
but arriving from the S. where the landscapes are by no
means always pleasing, one feels it a relief to catch a
first view of its pale blue waters and the steep but bare
and by no means bold mountains which so nearly
surround it.’ It is unjust to speak of it a s dreary. It
is only under certain aspects that it presents a painful
monotony of gray ; the evening hues are delightful, and
round it there is a broad beach of white pebbles with
small shells. The Jordan enters at the extreme northern
end and issues ‘ plunging and swirling ’ at the southern.
Here there are wide openings, which permit a view of
the valley, and suggest interesting excursions.
The favourable physical conditions of Gennesaret (EL few very real difficulties. Nor is it only geography and
GhuweV) have been referred to elsewhere (see GEN- exegesis that owe something to a keener textual criti-
NESAR ). Here it suffices to add that the harvest on the
shore is nearly a month earlier than on the neighbour-
ing highlands of Galilee and Bashan. Frost is entirely
unknown. The trees, plants, and vegetables are those
usually found in Egypt--e.g., the palm, the Zizyphus
lotus, and the indigo plant.
‘Though the whole basin of the lake, and, indeed,
the Jordan valley, is of volcanic origin, as evidenced by
the thermal springs and the frequent earthquakes, yet
the main formation of the surrounding wall of moun-
tains is limestone. A large number of black stones and
boulders of basaltic tufa are scattered along the slopes
and upland plains, and dykes of basalt here and there
burst through the limestone strata in the neighbourhood
of Tiberias and along the northern shore.’
In the O T the lake is only mentioned in descriptions
of boundaries. It receives ample compensation in the they came to the land, unto Gennesaret.’. Mk. 8 4, ‘Whence
NT, for its well-peopled, pleasant shores shall we be able to fill these men with bread here in a desert
3. NT attracted the preacher of the kingdom of
references* God. Four of its fisher-folk became his Dalmanutha.’
first disciples, with whom he took up his temporary
abode in the ‘ village of consolation ’ (Capemaurn)-he
who was emphatically mtnd@em (;.e., Comforter, a
Jewish title of the Messiah). The local colouring of
the Gospel narratives which have the lake and its shores
for their scene, is wonderfully true. The sudden storms
-the multitude of fish-the ‘ desert place ’ near Beth-
saida where there was ‘ much grass ’-all this is in
accordance with facts. The hot, tropical air of the
Gh5r is often filled by the cold winds from Lebanon
which rush through the ravines of the Perzan hills
(Thomson). So much for the storms. The fish are
famous, both for variety and for abundance (see FISH,
8 I ). Josephus (DJiii. lo7) remarks-and Hasselquist 6. Bethsaida or shall we suppose (GAS, H G 458 ; see
corroborates this-that some of them are found also in
the Nile.3 T o Beth-saida the fish of the lake perhaps
gave its name, and Taricheze was mainly devoted to
the curing of fish. The desert but grassy place intended
1 Cp Harper, In Scripture Lands, 323 ; H. v. Soden, Reise-
bride, ‘98, p. 157.
2 Porter, Kitto s BG. CycZ. 3 Cp Neub. GLOP. 25.
1633
GALILEE, SEA O F
especially Mk. 639) is surely the rich but swampy plain
of el-Bateiha in the NE., at the N. end of which are
that towards the S. of the lake there were also ‘desert
(solitary) places,’ even if they were only on high hill
tops.
This consideration is important with reference to the
two narratives of the feeding - of the multitude. That
4. Feeding of the same tradition may receive different
the multitude. forms, so that two distinct events
appear (but wrongly appear) to be
reported, is clear frbm the lives of tge.pa&:archs. It is
the application of the comparative method, not any
identify the two narratives referred t0.l If this be
done, we are placed in a position to rectify some very
natural mistakes in the present form of the traditions.
W e shall see that the scene of the most original narra-
tive of the feeding was probably not in the NE., but
as possible from Antipas,2 and yet, even in this remote
spot, he could not hide himself from eager followers.
How did he .deal with them? There was probably a
gap in the oral tradition, and the early Christians did
not shrink from filling it up by ascribing to him who
was a prophet, and more than a prophet, a deed such
as Elisha was said to have performed of old. How
well they expanded the scanty suggestion of 2 K.
442-44 ! How much more spiritually suggestive are
the evangelical narratives !
The view presented here is different doubtless from
that commonly received ; but it seems to remove not a
cism. W e are thus helped one stage further towards
the perception that the central importance of the Gospel
narratives does not consist in their freedom from the
inevitable errors of much-edited popular traditions.
Let us now compare the various Gospel statements as
to the scene of the reported event, assuming (as we may
and must) that there is a duplication of the original
story.
Mt. 1413 ‘When Jesus heardpf it, he withdrew from thence
in a boat td a desert place apart. No name of a place is given
beforeu. 34, where we read, ‘.
Gennesaret.’ Mt.1529 ‘And Jesus
.. ...
they came to the land, unto
came nigh unto tly
Sea of Galilee ; and he Lent up into a mountain, and sat there ;
v. 39, ‘And he sent away the multitudes, and entyed into the
boat, and came into the borders of (RV) Magadan.
Mlc.611 ‘Come ye yourselves into a desert place’; v. 45,
‘ And stdghtway he constrained KL:disciples to enter into the
boat, and to go before him unto the other side to Bethsaida,
while he himself sendeth the multitude away ; v. 53, ‘And .
..
place?’ v. IO, ‘And straightway he . .. came into the parts of
Lk. 910, ‘And,he took them and withdrew apart to a city
called Bethsaida ; p. 12 ‘for \;e are here in a desert place.’
The reading in v. IO IS uncertain (c Blass’s edition of Lk.). RV
follows Treg., Ti., WH. Certainry the reading of the received
text (followed by AV) is the work of a corrector. I t does not,
however, follow that that of I3 and D, etc. (D has K J P ~for V
ndhiv) is the right one. We must leave the question open.
There is nothinp else in the text of Lk. to indicate exactly
where the scene Gf the narrative is to be placed.
: ‘Jesus went away to the other side of the, sea of
J!i. 6
Galilee v. 3 ’And Jesus went up into the mountain ; v. I O
‘Now tdere ;as much grass in the place’; v. 17, ‘And the;
entere,d into a boat and were going over the sea into Caper-
m u m ; v. 23, ‘Hodbeit there came boats from Tiberias,‘ etc. ;
v. 24, ‘. .. and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.’
The greatest difficulty here is in Mk. 645 ( ~ p o d y e r v
EL)S r b dpav r p b s P@uaiGav). Are there two Rethsaidas?
BETHSAIDA, $jz ) that ‘going across’ does
and
Dalmanutha.not mean crossing to the W. shore, but
only taking the short journey novthwurd to
Bethsaida? The present writer thinks both views improb-
1 Cp Keim, J e w von Naz.2 528f: 2 Cp Keim, Z.C.
3 Note the barley loaves, and cp Jn. 6 9.
1634
 GALILEE, SEA O F
able, and instead of adopting the reading of old MSS of
the Itala (followed in AVmS 'over against Bethsaida')
would suppose that there is a scribe's error, and that
for ' Bethsaida ' (B$uur8uv) we should read ' Tiberias '
(Ti@epta8a).
A similar change is certainly necessary in the case of
Magdala (Rec. Text) or Magadan (Treg., Ti., WH) in
Mt. 1 5 3 9 , and Dalmanutha in Mt. 610. These names
have been discussed over and over again (see DAL-
MANUTHA), and the latest solntions are hardly more
natural than the earliest. The name in the original
tradition must have been one which would account
equally well for all these forms, and it should be one of
which we are not obliged to say with Bruce (speaking
of Magadan in the Expositor's Bidk) 'place wholly
unknown.' It seems to have been Migdal-nunial
( w u hi?,'the tower of fish'), which was I R. rn.
from Tiberias, probably to the S. of that city.2
It will be seen that just as Bethsaida and Capernzum
go together in one form of the tradition, so somt un-
known place on the E. coast (the neighbourhood of
Gamala would suit) and Migdal-nunia go together in
an~ther.~ We may perhaps find traces .of this latter
view of the localities in Mk. 6 4 5 (reading Ttpepra8u)
and also in Jn. G 2 3 , where the ships are brought by
the evangelist from Tiberias, because the spot where
he places the feeding was obliquely opposite Tiberias.*
' T h e land where they were going' (v.21) was not
Capernanm (a mistake surely of the redactor of the
Fourth Gospel), but Tiberias.
Nothing has been said here as yet of the calming of
the storm. Here again the spiritual suggestiveness (if
6. calming the narrative makes it an inalienalile
treasure. We cannot, however, pin our
faith to the literal accuracy of the beauti-
ful story, any more than to that of Ps.
77 19 [ z o ] , ' Thy way was in the sea and thy path in the
great waters,' and of Ps. 107 28-30 ; see especially the
suggestive words with which the latter passage con-
cludes,-' So he bringeth them unto the haven wherethey
would be. ' Such symbolic language is characteristic
of faith in all earnestly-held religions, and the symbol
soon fixes itself in narrative. These are no doubt
held to be facts ; but the facts are valued chiefly as
vehicles of spiritual ideas, and never examined into
with the strictness of historic investigation.
We referred above to a little-known Migdal, as
almost certainly the Magdala of the received text of
Mt.
. --
1520. dj..
The ordinary view identifying it with Mejdel, that miserable
village with which the plain of el-Ghuwer begins, has to
be abandoned. The Talmud mentions several
.
7. Magdala, Migdals in this neighbourhood Mejdel was
Taricheae. one of these-Dossiblv that fro; which Marv
&.
. Magdalene seems to-have derived her name,
scarcely the MIGDAL-EL ( q . ~ .of
) Joshua.
Other places on the W. shore are referred to in
special articles (see, e.g., CAPERNAUM, C HORAZIN ).
Let us now turn to the S. end of the lake, where
stands the ruin of Kerak, at the point where the Jordan
issues. Here we should probably place Tarichece,
which, according to Pliny ( N H 5 1 5 ) , in his day gave
its name to the whole lake.5 Its site indeed is not
undisputed, being sometimes placed at Mejdel, and
though the theory of Gratz-Tarichece= Migdal-nunia
= Mejdel-is the simpler theory which
has commanded the assent of Wilson (PEFQ, '77,
1 Dalma=Ma(q)dal' nntha=nunia. I t is implied that the
substratum of t6e narkrive is Hebrew or Aramaic. Renan
(Vie de]&sz+l~J, 146) thinks that 'Magadan' comes from Dal-
man(outha). This does not help much.
a See Nenb. Giogr. 217; Buhl, 226; but cp GrB. MGW3,'80,
p. 484' who makes the distance 4 m. (we return to this later).
3 It'would not do, therefore, to suggest that 'Bethsaida'
(place of fish?) might be a second name of Migdal-nunia.
4 Slightly differently Furrer, Bedeufunfder 6ihZ. Geogyajhie,
$4 ('70).
5 Gratz however, suspects the text to be inaccurate.
6 MG&J,'80, pp. 434.495.
1635
GALLERY
p. i o 8 ; Furrer, Z D P V 2 5 6 3 12 1 9 4 5 1 3 1 9 4 8 ) , and
Socin (Baed. PuZ.(~J 290) cannot be lightly rejected.
Upon the whole, however, the argument of .Schiirer
(Gesch. 1515) appear to be provisionally decisive in
sr. .
favour of Kerak ; Conder, Guthe, and Buhl also
incline in this direction. One would like to be able to
speak more positively. Taricheze was famous in the
first Roman war ; it was a centre of Galikan patriotism.
Jesus may perhaps have been there ; it is a little strange
that it should nowhere be mentioned in the Gospels.l
Turning round the lake from Kerak, we pause first at
Kal'at el-HoSn, most probably the ancient Hippos (the
Talmudic SiisithZ). The name of Gamala (mentioned
alSove ; famous in the Roman war) seems to be pre-
served in that of the village of Jamli : Kersii is probably
the ancient Gerasa (see GERASENES). But what an
inadequate idea these few names give of the girdle of
towns which inclosed the Sea of Galilee in ancient
times I As Lamartine says, 'the borders of the Lake
of Gennesaret seem to have borne cities instead of
harvests and forests.' The scene is very different now.
Without the help of the imagination even the travelled
student will see nothing but a sheet of water unenlivened
by vessels and surrounded by treeless hills. T. K . c.
GALL. (I) d h ,r8'6 or ?bh4r 2 (XohH),5 Dt.
2 9 1 3 [17] 3232 Ps. 6921 [zz], Jer. 8 1 4 915[!4]2315 Lam.
3 5 1 9 Am. 6 1 2 : the same Hebrew word I S in Dt. 3 0 3 3
rendered 'venom,' i n Job 2 0 1 6 'poison,' and in Hos.
1 0 4 'hemlock.' The word primarily denotes an
extremely bitter plant (Hos. 1 0 4 ) and its fruit (Dt.
2 9 1 3 [IT] etc.) ; it is constantly coupled with n:yi,
Zu'Zmih, 'wormwood,' the two together denoting the
extreme of bitterness. Though there is no evidence
that the plant denoted by drii was poisonous, the word
is metaphorically applied to the venom of serpents
(Dt. 3 2 3 3 etc.), the notions of bitterness and of poison
being closely conjoined in ancient thought (cp Di. on
Job 2014).
As the etymology of the Heb. word is unknown and there is
no kindred form in any other Semitic language, we have no
data for discovering the particular plant intended the proposed
identifications with hemlock, colocynth darnei, and poppy
being alike conjectural. The reference in Hos. 10 4 points to
some weed growing on cultivated land (as I dypoa~rs);whilst
in Dt. 323zsome berry-bearing plant is indicated. The colocynth,
which is otherwise probable, is a plant that grows, not on
cultivated, but on barren land. Cp FOOD, 8 5, end.
(2) mlp, merZy& JoblBist, and (3) qin, mcrfirih,
~ o b 2 0 1 425+ (in 6 ~ 0 x 4exc.
, v.2 5 , 8tUlTUtS [BA], 8lUiTg
[KC]),
are analogous derivatives from slightly different
forms of the same root (Lag. Ueders. 40), which denotes
bitterness. They mean properly the human gall or
bile ; and, from the association of the ideas of bitterness
and poison (see above), "in is once applied, like
ddy, to the venom of serpents (JobSO14).
N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
GALLERY. ( I ) 3VlK [Kt.], 'attlik, Ezek. 4115,
p'ng, 'aif@,Ezek. 41 15 ($1.) 16 42 5 (& &&horrra, & ~ o + a & ~ e ~ s ,
rrepimuhav). The sense seems correct. With regard to @'s
third rendering, observe that in 42 5 3 the 'galleries' have no
pillars. Cp Ass. me%& nzBtc&, 'passage, road,' from I/pnN,
' t o pass on' (Del. Ass. I f WB, s.u.). An architectural applica-
tion of this word, however, is not mentioned. See TEMPLE.
(2) a??, rdh,t, in plur., Cant. 7 5 [61 The king is held in the
galleries' ; RV carrecfs,, 'in the tresses thereof.' Neither
' gallery' nor 'tresses IS philologically defensible (see Bu.
ad 206.). pu;n elsewhere means 'troughs ' ; here it seems to he
1 See GAS FfG.4518
2 See j o s . B3 iv. 1I . The view adopted above is that of
Furrer and Buhl ; Baed. PaZ.(4J, however, still adheres to the
older view which identifies Gamala with Kal'at el-Hosn.
3 Quoted by GASm.
4 The latter spelling only in Dt. 32 32.
5 This. the word used in Mt. 27 ? A Acts822. is the usual 'S
rendering of V$y; but we find Bu&s'in D t 3 i 3 3 Job 20 16 Am.
6 12, m k p 6 v in Jer. 23 15, and d p w u r i s in Hos. 10 4, whilst in
Lam. 3 5 r& is rendered .$+ai$ tlrough confusion with the other
ddl.
1636