The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research

By Baker Publishing Group

In The Face of New Testament Studies, editors Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne bring together New Testament experts who track developments in their specialized fields of research-and why those developments are important. It provides scholars and students with a useful survey of the "state-of-the-question" in New Testament Studies.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Baker Publishing Group
• Release date: May 1, 2004
• ISBN: 9781441206459

Book preview

Galilee and Judea

The Social World of Jesus

Sean Freyne

The interest in Galilee in NT scholarship today is largely related to the renewal of the quest for the historical Jesus. Galilee was also the home of rabbinic Judaism in the period after the second Jewish revolt (132–35 C.E.), and it was there, in the schools of Sepphoris and Tiberias, that such classic texts of Judaism as the Mishnah and the Palestinian Talmud were produced between the years 200–450 C.E. This essay will concentrate on Galilean life of the first century C.E. Yet, as we will see, the issue of the Jewish character of the region is highly significant for that period also. In order to explore this aspect properly, we must give special attention to the ongoing relationship with Jerusalem.

Modern scholarship has portrayed Jesus in many different roles, everything from Zealot revolutionary to Cynic sage, and each of these accounts presumes a different picture of the Galilean social world that is deemed to have played a decisive role in determining the contours of his ministry. In order to obtain some objectivity, therefore, we must bracket concerns with Jesus in the first instance and attempt a description of the Galilean social world insofar as is feasible from writings other than the Gospels. In addition, a considerable body of archaeological evidence from the region relating to the Hellenistic and Roman periods has emerged over the past twenty-five years. Apart from the Synoptic Gospels, the writings of Josephus are of prime importance, but these are not unproblematic. In particular, his account of the first revolt (the Jewish War) and his self-defense against the defamation of one Justus of Tiberias (the Life), both dealing with his own period in Galilee as commander on behalf of the Jewish revolutionary council in Jerusalem, are, to say the least, not unbiased accounts. In order to obtain some perspective, therefore, we will need a brief overview of the previous history of Galilee from the eighth century B.C.E.

Galilean History in Outline

The name Galilee, meaning the circle, in all probability is derived from the experience of the early Israelites inhabiting the interior highlands and surrounded by Canaanite city-states. Judea, on the other hand, is a tribal name that came to particular prominence in the monarchic period because David was of Judean origin. The first Galilean tribes were Zebulun, Naphtali, and Asher, with the tribe of Dan migrating north later. The various accounts of the different tribes and their characteristics (Gen. 49; Deut. 33; Judg. 5), though dated to the period of the judges, may well reflect later situations where the issue of ethnic identity came under threat from various sources.[1] Certainly the north bore the brunt of the Assyrian onslaught of the eighth century B.C.E., with Tiglath-pileser III’s invasion resulting in the destruction, and possibly the depopulation, of many centers in upper and lower Galilee (2 Kings 15:29; Isa. 9:1). However, unlike the case of Samaria some ten years later (2 Kings 17:24), there is no mention of a foreign, non-Israelite population being introduced to Galilee at that time. A century and a half later, Judah succumbed to the Babylonians, with the destruction of the temple and the deportation of the king and the leading members of the Judean aristocracy to Babylon in 582 B.C.E. Restoration occurred quickly under the Persians, with the edict of Cyrus in 515 B.C.E. allowing the successors of the deportees to return and rebuild the temple and reestablish the Persian province of Yehud (Judea). According to Josephus, it was from that time that the name Ioudaioi (Jews) was given to the inhabitants of the temple state (Ant. 11.173).

Galilee next appears in the historical record in the mid–second century B.C.E., when an independent Jewish state emerged under the successors of the Maccabees, the Hasmoneans. They initiated campaigns of expansion that eventually led to the establishment of a kingdom that territorially was as extensive as that of David and Solomon in the ninth century. For the first time in almost a millennium, therefore, Galilee and Judea were under the same native rulership, with Jerusalem again the political as well as the religious capital. At the same time, the name Ioudaios began to be used not just for the inhabitants of Judea, but for all who embraced the Jewish temple ideology by worshiping in Jerusalem.[2] By the mid–first century B.C.E., however, Rome was emerging as master of the eastern Mediterranean, and the Hasmoneans had been replaced by the Herodians, an Idumean dynasty entrusted by Rome to maintain its interests in the region as client kings. Galilee, with Sepphoris, close to Nazareth, as the administrative center for the region, was recognized as a Jewish territory, together with Judea proper and Perea beyond the Jordan. They were, however, soon incorporated into the kingdom of Herod the Great and were expected to make their contribution to the honoring of his Roman patron, Augustus.

The long reign of Herod as king of the Jews (40–4 B.C.E.) made a deep impact on every aspect of both Galilean and Judean society. When Herod died, Augustus refused to appoint any of his sons as his successor, assigning instead different regions to each: Galilee and Perea to Antipas; Judea to Archelaus; and to Philip, Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis in northern Transjordan, territories that Augustus had granted to Herod the Great as a reward for fidelity. Galilee was once again, therefore, administratively separate from Judea, something reflected in Matthew’s Gospel in explaining how Jesus, though born in Judea, came to live there: Joseph, hearing that Archelaus ruled in Judea in the place of Herod, his father, took Jesus and his mother to Galilee, and they came to live at Nazareth (Matt. 2:22–23). Josephus gives a broader background to this information. Archelaus had so outraged his subjects that he was deposed by Rome in 6 C.E., and thereafter Judea was ruled as a procuratorship, or Roman province of second rank, with the governor resident in Caesarea Maritima, and Jerusalem acting as the temple city controlled by the priestly aristocracy.

Antipas aspired to, but was never given, the title of king, but only that of tetrarch. He ruled in Galilee and Perea until 39 C.E., when he too was deposed and his territory was handed over to his nephew Agrippa I. Despite this lesser status, he continued with the style and policy of his father in ensuring that Roman concerns were taken care of in his territories. John the Baptist suffered at his hands, probably not for the reason given in the Gospels (Mark 6:13–29), but for that given by Josephus, namely, that John’s popularity and espousal of justice for the poor gave cause for concern that an uprising might occur (Ant. 18.116–119). This would have been deemed a serious failure in imperial eyes, since client kings were tolerated only if they could be seen to ensure stability and loyalty to Rome and its values. Apart from the Jerusalem temple, Herod the Great had confined his major building projects to the periphery of the Jewish territories: Samaria was renamed Sebaste (Latin: Augustus), and a temple to Roma and Augustus was built there, as also at Caesarea Maritima on the coast, where a magnificent harbor was developed. In the north a temple to Augustus was built at Paneas, which his son, Philip, later renamed Caesarea (Philippi). Antipas also continued this tradition of honoring the Roman overlords through monumental buildings in Galilee. Sepphoris was made the ornament of all Galilee and called autokratoris, probably alluding to Augustus as sole ruler (Ant. 18.27). In 19 C.E. he founded a new city, Tiberias, on the lakefront, honoring Augustus’s successor as emperor.

This brief account of Galilean history is crucial for a correct understanding of the social world of Palestine in the first century C.E. Historical factors were largely determinative of shifting population and settlement patterns in the different regions, thereby explaining the religious and cultural loyalties also. Economic conditions were dependent on the political realities of the day, since all ancient economies were to a considerable extent politically controlled. It is to these topics that we now turn, focusing on Galilee and Judea separately, while also highlighting aspects of the relationship between them based on a shared religious tradition.

Who Were the Galileans? Religious and Cultural Affiliations

The inhabitants of Galilee are described in the sources as Galileans. But who were they? What was their provenance, what social and economic strata did they represent, and what were their religious and cultural affiliations? Definitive answers to questions such as these are hard to achieve, but the effort to address them adequately can offer some criteria for evaluating different proposals. Briefly, one can distinguish three broad lines of response in the contemporary discussions to the questions posed, with minor variations to each.

One proposal, by the German scholar Albrecht Alt, maintains that the Galileans of the later sources are direct descendants of the old Israelite population, who had remained undisturbed, it is claimed, in the first wave of Assyrian conquest of the north, and who had maintained their essential Yahwistic beliefs over the centuries. The inhabitants of Galilee freely and naturally joined the ethnos tōn Ioudaiōn when the opportunity arose after the Hasmonean expansion to the north, bypassing their historical, religious, and cultic center of Samaria within the old northern kingdom.[3] More recently, Richard Horsley also has espoused the notion of the old Israelite population remaining undisturbed in Galilee, but he sees the situation in the Hasmonean times quite differently. Over the centuries the Galileans had developed their own customs and practices that made them quite different from the Judeans, despite their sharing of the same Yahwistic beliefs based on the Pentateuch. Thus, according to Horsley, the Hasmonean expansion represented not a liberation but an imposition on the Galileans of the laws of the Judeans, laws that he regards as restrictive and designed to serve the material needs of the aristocracy of the Judean temple state.[4]

The opposite view is held by other scholars who accept the phrase Galilee of the nations (Isa. 9:1; 1 Macc. 5:15) as an accurate description of the population of the region and its cultural affiliations, especially from the Hellenistic period onward. This view reached its most extreme expression with the claim by Walter Grundmann in 1941 that Galilee was pagan, and therefore that Jesus in all probability was not a Jew.[5] Not everybody who accepts the notion of pagan influences in Galilee goes quite that far. Instead, Galileans are seen as having been more exposed to Hellenistic culture generally, so that they espoused a more open form of Judaism, influenced as they were, it is claimed, by the ethos of the surrounding cities.[6] Most recently this emphasis on Greco-Roman culture in Galilee has taken the form of the claim of Cynic influences on the population there. This was a countercultural movement within Greco-Roman society, similar, it is claimed, to that of Jesus and his followers.[7] Since the Cynics were an urban phenomenon, proponents of a Cynic presence there speak also of an urbanized Galilee, but with little support for such claims from the available evidence.

A third position, the one that in my opinion best corresponds to the archaeological evidence, speaks of the Judaization of Galilee from the south by the Hasmoneans, as they triumphantly marched north and east. Again, however, there are variations to this account. Some scholars have accepted uncritically Josephus’s version, according to which the Hasmonean Aristobulus I had, in 104 B.C.E., forcibly circumcised the Itureans, a seminomadic Arab people who had infiltrated into upper Galilee (Ant. 13.319).[8] Such a background, if correct, would have made the Galilean Jews, as recent converts, suspect in the eyes of their southern coreligionists, thus explaining some later disparaging remarks by the rabbis about the Galilean lack of piety.[9] Other scholars, on the basis of the material culture, believe that Galilee was settled from the south in the wake of the Hasmonean conquests.[10] This would explain their loyalty to Jerusalem and its worship documented in the literary sources, since they would have been of Judean stock originally and were sent to Galilee because of their support for the Hasmoneans.[11] A further variation on the Galilean Jews is the view that suggests a Babylonian influence in view of indications from the later literary sources of contacts between Galilean and Babylonian rabbis.[12]

In principle there is nothing to preclude the Galilean population from including Israelite, Iturean, Judean, and even Babylonian strands in the ethnic mix by the first century C.E., and it would be somewhat unrealistic to exclude such elements entirely. However, certain claims can be ruled out as unlikely or overstated on the basis of our present knowledge of the situation. The case for a pagan Galilee is poorly supported by the literary evidence and receives no support whatsoever from the archaeological explorations. Nor is there any evidence of a lasting Iturean presence in the region, even though they may have infiltrated upper Galilee for a time. There are also several problems with the idea of Galilean Israelites, not least of which is the likelihood of a largely peasant population maintaining a separate Yahwistic identity over the centuries in the absence of a communal cultic center.[13] Thus, the theory of the Judaization of Galilee from the south appears to be the most likely hypothesis in our present state of knowledge. Surveys have shown a marked increase of new foundations from the Hasmonean period onward, and at the same time the destruction of older sites, such as Har Mispe Yamim, which had a pagan cult center.[14] Excavations at sites such as Sepphoris, Jotapata, Gamala, and Meiron, as well as lesser sites, have uncovered artifacts of the distinctive Jewish way of life such as ritual baths, stone jars, and natively produced ceramic household wares—all indicators of a concern with ritual purity emanating from Jerusalem and its temple and an avoidance of the cultural ethos of the encircling pagan cities and their lifestyles.[15]

Social Stratification: A Pyramid of Power

Most recent social historians of Roman Palestine adopt Gerhard Lenski’s model of agrarian empires as their working hypothesis. This envisages a pyramidal view of society in which most of the power, prestige, and privilege resides at the top among the narrow band of ruling elite and native aristocracy, if and when these are to be distinguished. Beneath these are the retainer classes, which help to maintain the status quo on behalf of the elites, thereby gaining for themselves some measure of relative prestige. On a further rung down the ladder, as the base broadens, are the peasants, the free landowners who are the mainstay of the society but who cannot aspire to a higher place on the social scale. Instead, they are in constant danger of being demoted to the landless poor and destitute due to increased taxation, a bad harvest, or aggrandizement of property by the ruling elites for their own purposes. Such a model certainly fits well in general terms with what we know of Roman Galilee, once certain adjustments are made to this ideal picture to account for local circumstances.

Though Antipas never was given the title of king but simply that of tetrarch, there is no doubt that within Galilee itself he and his court represented the ruling elite. In one sense they could be said to be retainers on behalf of the emperor, but once Antipas was prepared to accept the role that Roman imperial policies in the East had dictated for him, his role was assured.[16] Josephus informs us that he loved his tranquillity (Ant. 18.245)—a characterization that fits well with the Gospel portraits, despite his attempts to upstage at Rome the governor of Syria on one occasion (Ant. 18.101–104). Augustus had decreed that he could have a personal income of two hundred talents from the territories of Galilee and Perea, and presumably he could also introduce special levies for building and other projects, especially when these were intended to honor the imperial household (Ant. 17.318). Not merely did Antipas and his immediate family benefit from these concessions, but also a new class seems to have emerged around him, called in the Gospels the Herodians, presumably as a replacement for the older, native Hasmonean aristocracy, which had disappeared after Herod the Great’s takeover.[17]

One passage that opens up an interesting perspective is the account of Herod’s birthday where the list of guests is described as the courtiers, the military officers, and the leading men of Galilee (Mark 6:21). The chiliarchoi clearly are military personnel of some kind, suggesting that the tetrarch had a permanent army, however small, distinct from the militia, which he might call up for a particular engagement (Ant. 18.251–252). There is nothing unusual about such a force, nor does it necessarily imply a huge burden on the natives, as would be the case when soldiers were billeted in a region. The chiliarchoi attending the king’s banquet were in all probability in charge of local policing and border posts and responsible for the personal protection of Antipas himself and his household. They thus belong to the retainer level rather than the aristocratic level on Lenski’s model.

The prōtoi tēs Galilaias are also known to us from Josephus’s writings. Two particular incidents involving their role are significant (Ant. 18.122, 261–309). In both incidents, the prōtoi clearly are influential Jews concerned about religious values, ostensibly at least, but they were also interested in the maintenance of law and order and the payment of the tribute to Rome. Josephus uses the term seventy-five times in his writings, and in the vast majority of uses it refers to men who held official positions of authority among the Jews.[18] As such, they are to be distinguished from two other groups mentioned frequently, the dynatoi and the hoi en telei, the former referring to an aristocracy of power, as distinct from one of birth, and the latter to those holding some official office.

The third group mentioned by Mark are the megistanes, meaning great ones or grandees. Thus, one might be tempted to identify them as courtiers as in Dan. 5:23 LXX. Josephus uses the term to refer to noblemen who at the outbreak of the revolt fled from the territory of Agrippa II, bringing their horses, their arms, and their possessions (Life 112). This seems to indicate local lords on whom the ruler normally could rely for active support at times of crisis, rather than court officials or administrative officers. It is not certain whether they could be identified with the Herodians who appear elsewhere in the Gospels (Mark 3:6; 12:13). The Latin ending to their name, -ianoi, suggests adherents or supporters of a person, and presumably, therefore, includes a wider circle than the immediate household. Indeed, at the time of the first revolt there are two people bearing the name of Herod, numbered among the ruling class of Tiberias, who recommended loyalty to Rome and who owned property across the Jordan. On that understanding, therefore, the Herodians in Galilee and elsewhere in the country could be described as wealthy landowners who presumably depended on benefactions from Herod the Great and his sons for their opulence. Inevitably, they would be stoutly loyal to the Herodian house and its policies, and could, arguably, be seen as the new Galilean aristocracy.

I have already suggested that the chiliarchoi of Mark’s list belonged to the retainer class rather than to the ruling elite. Other functionaries who would fit into this same category also appear in the literature. Mention of the archeia in Sepphoris immediately suggests keepers of official records and scribes of various kinds, such as the kōmogrammateis from every village of Galilee to whom Luke refers (Luke 5:17). Justus of Tiberias, Josephus’s rival in Galilee, had a good Greek education and was in the service of Agrippa II, presumably as a high administrative officer within his realm. Likewise, John of Gischala, Josephus’s implacable enemy in 66 C.E., seems to have had some official role in the Roman administration of upper Galilee (Life 73). We can also assume a whole network of lesser officials within the highly bureaucratic structures that had been put in place from the early Hellenistic period by the Ptolemies, and that simply would have been inherited by successive regimes thereafter.[19] These officials would have included market managers (agoranomoi), tax collectors (telōnai), estate mangers (oikonomoi), judges (kritai), prison officers (hypēretai, praktōres), all of whom (or their equivalents) are alluded to in the Gospels. The tax collectors appear to be ubiquitous—an indication perhaps of the demands that were being made on people, not just to meet the tribute due to Antipas himself, but also various other levies and tolls that were imposed.[20] The payment at least of the tributum soli, or land tax, was in kind, as indicated by the mention of imperial granaries in upper Galilee at the outbreak of the first revolt. Presumably there were others throughout the region also (Life 71.119). In addition, there was the tributum capitis, or personal tax, which was a regular feature of the Roman tax system, and the collection of this would have imposed another layer of bureaucratic retainers within the Galilean social structure.

Beneath the retainers comes the peasantry, according to Lenski’s model. These may include owners of small, family-sized holdings (ten to fifteen hectares), or tenants who engaged in subsistence farming while paying a rent, usually in kind to an absentee landowner. Ideally, all Jews were intended to participate in the use of the land, and the whole structure of tithing and agricultural offerings for the temple was built on that assumption. However, imperial domination had seen the emergence of large estates in Palestine, as elsewhere, and this inevitably put pressure on the traditional landowning system, as can be seen by the land reform of Nehemiah, already in the Persian period (Neh. 5:1–12). Though the Hasmoneans subscribed to the Israelite ideal of each man under his own vine (1 Macc. 14:12), there is plenty of evidence that they too continued the policy of large estates in the conquered territories, as did the Herodians also.[21] This pressure on the system meant that more and more people were driven off the land and reduced to penury.

The results of this sketch, patchy though it is, suggest that there was a mixed pattern of landownership in Galilee in the first century. Undoubtedly, the trend was toward larger estates, and thus a move away from mere subsistence farming of the traditional Jewish peasant class. The foundation of Tiberias is a good example of how pressure could come on small landowners as the ruling aristocracy’s needs had to be met. In a preindustrial situation, land was the primary source of wealth, but this was in short supply in a Galilee that was thickly populated by the standards of the time (J.W. 3.41–43). Increased taxation to meet the demands of that lifestyle meant that many were reduced to penury, thus reaching the lowest level on Lenski’s pyramid, that occupied by the landless poor and the urban destitute classes (Life 66–67). The slide from peasant owner to tenant to day laborer was inexorable for many, thus giving rise to social resentment, debt, banditry, and in the case of women, prostitution. All these social types can be documented from the Gospels either as typical characters in the parables of Jesus or as real-life figures for whom his movement offered a radical alternative to the harsh realities of daily life in Herodian Galilee.

Economic Systems

The problem of landownership in Galilee raises immediately the question of the economic situation there, since in preindustrial societies land was the primary resource. Relatively speaking, Galilee was well-endowed with natural resources. The melting winter snows from Hermon and seasonal rains ensured good growth and the production of a variety of crops. Josephus waxes lyrical about the climatic conditions of the plain of Genessar in the region of Capernaum, with its luxuriant range of fruits (J.W. 3.506–521). But the valleys of lower Galilee also yielded a variety of grain crops as well as flax, according to both Josephus and the rabbinic sources (J.W. 3.42–43).[22] The slopes of upper Galilee were suitable for the cultivation of grapes and olives, supporting the production of wine and oil, so graphically illustrated in the entrepreneurial activity of John of Gischala, as reported by Josephus (Life 74–75; J.W. 2.259–260).[23] In addition to the agricultural activity, the lake was a natural resource that supported a robust fishing industry, giving rise to the need for specialized services such as ceramic making for export of liquid products, as well as boat builders and net makers for the fish industry.[24]

The pertinent question that most concerns students of the Galilean economy is the extent to which the benefits of these products accrued to the peasants themselves, or whether they were creamed off by the ruling elite in taxes and other exactions.[25] Was the Galilean economy a politically controlled one to the extent that the peasants were mere serfs? In whose interest were the primary resources utilized? If, as I suggested, the Galilean landownership pattern represented a combination of large estates and family-run holdings, then it seems that some degree of commercial independence should be granted to the Galilean peasants. However, the refurbishment of Sepphoris and the building of Tiberias must have marked a turning point in terms of the Galilean economy. This was a watershed that coincided with Jesus’ public ministry and provides the most immediate backdrop to his particular emphasis on the blessedness of the destitute and the call for trust in God’s provident care for all.[26] The new Herodian class had to be accommodated with adequate allotments in order to maintain a luxurious lifestyle (cf. Matt. 11:8), and inevitably this meant pressure on the peasants. Debt was followed by appropriation of property, with slavery or brigandage as the only alternative ways of life.[27]

Yet this picture has to be balanced by the evidence from admittedly later sources that shows that a Jewish peasant class did survive the crisis of the two revolts. We find the rabbinic sources replete with references to markets, village traders, and laws to do with buying and selling.[28] This cannot be dismissed as mere idealization of later generations, but is rather a continuation of patterns that we can already discern in first-century sources such as the Gospels and Josephus’s writings. However, the dividing line between subsistence and penury was a thin one, as the threatened strike by the Galilean peasants that occurred in the reign of the emperor Gaius Caligula (39 C.E.) demonstrates. In protest at the proposed erection of the emperor’s statue in the Jerusalem temple, they decided not to till the land, and significantly, some members of the Herodian family were dismayed, fearing a consequence of insufficient resources to pay the annual tribute, thus leading to social anarchy (Ant. 18.273–274). Julius Caesar had recognized the problem for Jewish peasants by his restoration in 47 B.C.E. of their rights to support their temple, and consequently he reduced the annual tribute due to Rome (Ant. 14.190–216). Now, however, Antipas was annually entitled to two hundred talents (the equivalent of six hundred thousand Tyrian silver shekels) from Galilee and Perea as a personal income. This compares favorably with his brother, Philip, in the neighboring territory, who was allowed only one hundred talents. But Archelaus, before his deposition in 6 C.E., had been granted six hundred talents from Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, together with the coastal towns of Strato’s Tower (Caesarea Maritima) and Joppa (Ant. 17.318–320). Antipas’s income was still a considerable demand on the Galilean populace, however, and a direct tribute to Rome was, presumably, still applicable, even though this is not mentioned explicitly.[29]

The use of money is essential for any developing economy, since as stored value it allows for a far wider and more complex network of trading than does the barter of goods, which can occur only at a local level. Josephus does mention that John of Gischala used Tyrian money in his transactions with his fellow Jews from Syria. This piece of information is in line with archaeological evidence from various sites where Tyrian coinage seems to dominate the numismatic finds at locations not just in upper Galilee, such as Meiron, Gischala, and Khirbet Shema, but even at Gamala and Jotapata as well, both of which were lower Galilean strongholds of Jewish nationalism in the first revolt.[30] This suggests trading links with the important Phoenician port, despite the cultural differences between the city and its Jewish hinterland, which often boiled over into open hostility (J.W. 4.105). Most surprising is the fact that the Tyrian half-shekel was deemed to be the coin of the sanctuary, which all male Jews were obliged to pay for the upkeep of the Jerusalem temple. The usual reason given is that the Tyrian money had retained a constant value in terms of its silver content for over a century and a half (126 B.C.E.–56 C.E.), whereas other currencies in the region had been debased. It may also have been due to the fact that Tyrian money was in far greater supply than any other currency, native or foreign. The Tyrian mint was recognized by Rome as the most important one in the region, and the Herodians were not allowed to produce silver coins. Thus, we cannot infer from the quantity of coins alone that Galilean commercial relations were concentrated on that one Phoenician city. In antiquity, coins remained in circulation for a very long time after their date of issue, and they may have served transactions at several different locations along the way, not just at the places of production and final deposition.

The Galilean economy was motivated by values and attitudes that were directly opposed to those of the Jewish religious worldview that both the Galilean peasants and their Jerusalem religious leaders espoused, at least in theory. In order to maintain their elite lifestyle, the Herodians creamed off the wealth of the land for their own benefit without giving anything back in return. The Jewish ideal, on the other hand, espoused an inclusive community in which all shared in the blessings of the land and its fruits. It was during the long reign of Antipas that this conflict became apparent for the Galilean peasants in the changing ethos represented by Sepphoris and Tiberias.[31] These two centers and their upkeep drained the countryside of its resources, natural and human, thereby causing resentment and opposition. This opposition comes into clear light during the first revolt, when both were attacked by Galileans who sought to vent their resentment on the aristocratic inhabitants and their opulent lifestyles (Life 66.301, 373–380). However, this feeling of distance, even resentment, can be detected some forty years earlier during the ministry of Jesus to the villages of Galilee. Neither Herodian center is mentioned in the Gospels, and the lifestyle of those dwelling in the houses of kings is viewed critically when contrasted with the values that both Jesus himself and his mentor, John the Baptist, espoused (Matt. 11:8).[32]

Galilee and Jerusalem

If the Galilean peasants were opposed to the two Herodian cities and their values, Jerusalem, the holy city, represented in their expectations a very different reality. The temple in Jerusalem may have been a source of awe and wonder for Galilean peasants at first sight (Mark 13:1), but as the symbol of a shared universe that included shared stewardship of the land of Israel, it was meant to provide them with long-lasting feelings of attachment and motivation that were to express themselves in pilgrimage and offerings freely given.[33] The problem was that Jerusalem and its native aristocracy had suffered a fatal blow with the advent of Herodian rule. Even though Herod the Great had endowed the city with some magnificent buildings, in particular the greatly extended and refurbished temple complex itself, his espousal of other centers, notably Caesarea Maritima, indicates that there was a separation between the religious and political authority.[34] This considerably circumscribed the sphere of influence of Jerusalem—a situation that was further accentuated after the introduction of direct Roman rule in 6 C.E. with the deposition of Archelaus. Herod had also sought control of the religious institutions, especially the office of the high priest, by introducing his own appointees from the Diaspora, and thereby eroding the effectiveness of the office for inner-Jewish life. None of the usual status criteria of Greco-Roman society, such as wealth or claims to noble lineage, could indefinitely cloak the historical realities.[35] The life of luxury lived by the Jerusalem aristocracy, as evidenced by the recent excavations of their residences in the Jewish quarter, meant that even violence could be used in order to extract the dues from an increasingly disaffected peasantry (Ant. 20.180–181, 206–207).

It is not surprising, therefore, that the first century saw an increase in social turmoil of various kinds in the Judean countryside: banditry, prophetic movements of protest, and various religious ideologies that can be directly related to the prevailing social conditions.[36] Thus, the Essenes’ practice of the common life in the Judean desert away from the city, and the Pharisees’ espousal of a modest lifestyle (Ant. 18.12, 18), represent the classic countercultural response to the prevailing aristocratic ethos by treating poverty as an ideal rather than as shameful. However, as in Galilee, so in Judea, it is with the various revolutionary groups and their strategies, which come into full view at the outbreak of the revolt in 66 C.E., that one can best judge the resentment of the aristocracy and its elitist behavior. The refusal to pay the tribute, the cessation of the loyal sacrifice on behalf of Rome, and the burning of the debt records (J.W. 2.404, 409, 427) were acts prompted by hatred of the Roman governor, Florus, yet they had a strong social and class component also.[37] Josephus says that the chief priests, by a display of public piety, which was as contrived as it was personally motivated, sought in vain to persuade the people to accept the Roman troops (J.W. 2.321–324). The real reasons for their trying to placate Florus were later revealed to Agrippa: being men of position and owners of property, they were desirous of peace (J.W. 2.338). In fact, a political revolt had become a social revolution in which the chief targets were not the Romans, but the high priests and their immediate followers. Thus, in 67 C.E., as Vespasian advanced on Jerusalem, supported by brigands from the countryside, the Zealots occupied the temple and elected by lot a country villager with no legitimate credentials as replacement for the high priest Ananus, whom Josephus describes as a most wise man, who might possibly have saved the city, had he escaped the conspirators’ hand (J.W. 4.151).

Since Judea, like Galilee, was a rapidly changing society in the first century C.E., it seems clear that the systemic causes of the breakdown of Judean society, so graphically illustrated during the revolt, were already operative in the early provincial period. To some extent these were the legacy of Herod the Great’s domination of the religious institutions of Judaism for his own political ends. By his strong-arm tactics he was able to contain any show of dissent, to the point that no protest was possible. The reaction among the Jewish people upon his death, and the failure of Archelaus to maintain order, are clear indications that Judean society was already in turmoil in a way that Galilee was not. This was the world in which Jesus grew up and that shaped his distinctive understanding of Israel’s destiny and his own role in it. In Galilee he sought to address the social needs of the village culture, whose lifestyle and values were being eroded by the new level of Herodian influence there as a result of Antipas’s presence. However, as a Jewish prophet, he also had to address the center of his own religious tradition in Jerusalem. Like other country prophets before and after him, he had the unenviable task of having to declare judgment on the temple and the city that he loved (Luke 13:34–35).[38]

The Roman Empire and Asia Minor

David A. Fiensy

The people of Asia Minor witnessed some of the more important events in the development of early Christianity. Many of the NT books were addressed to persons, cities, or provinces of this region: Philemon, 1–2 Timothy, Ephesians, Colossians, Revelation, Galatians, and 1 Peter; and Paul was at Ephesus when he wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:32; 16:8). Further, the Book of Acts narrates Paul’s missionary travels through Galatia and Asia, two provinces in Asia Minor. Christian tradition locates the Johannine community, which produced the Fourth Gospel and the three Johannine Epistles, in Ephesus. Finally, one of the greatest leaders of the early Christian movement, Paul the apostle, and other Christian workers of less importance (Timothy [Acts 16:1]; Epaphras [Col. 4:12]) came from Asia Minor. And this list does not even touch upon the numerous second-century Christian leaders (both orthodox and heretical) who were born there.[1]

It is appropriate, then, to survey the work done in investigating Asia Minor because of this region’s importance in early Christian history. The wealth of newly published inscriptions and other archaeological finds in recent decades also makes such a survey particularly desirable at this time. Ongoing excavations in several parts of Asia Minor have brought to light numerous texts and other material remains that are yielding important results for NT study.[2]

Added to the new materials is the new trend in NT studies to consider these materials alongside the texts. When a noted NT scholar turns to editing collections on the epigraphy and archaeology of Ephesus and Pergamum, one senses a shift in the discipline.[3]

We will consider relevant works from roughly the last three decades that have appealed to the new evidence to interpret the NT. Generally, we will not consider commentaries and works of introduction (about authorship, etc.) except when they speak to our theme of using archaeology, epigraphy, and numismatics to illumine the NT texts.

The Scholarly Legacy

Although we want to consider the work done in the last three decades or so, we cannot ignore the major resources before that. Those working in the sources today cite some authors repeatedly. First of all is W. M. Ramsay, the patriarch of Asia Minor studies. Often, scholars today are only acting on leads that he provided in his numerous publications both on ancient history and NT. A classicist who traveled extensively in Turkey in the late nineteenth century, Ramsay wrote The Historical Geography of Asia Minor in 1890.[4] Two other authors of notable standard works are T. R. S. Broughton[5] and D. Magie.[6] The former traces the economic development of the region, while the latter provides an exhaustive history from the death of Attalus (133 B.C.E.) to 285 C.E.

Notable Resources

S. E. Johnson attempted to present all the relevant publications on the study of Asia Minor in three essays, the last of which was in 1975. Johnson reported on archaeological excavations as well as works specifically on NT and Christianity in Asia Minor.[7] Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, a series devoted to ancient Roman history, has in addition produced several essays on Asia Minor. In 1980 two appeared, one on Galatia and one on the cities of Asia Minor,[8] and in 1990 R. Oster’s essay on Ephesus as a religious center was published.[9] The American Journal of Archaeology has published reports of archaeological work in Asia Minor/Turkey almost yearly from 1956 to 1997.[10] Finally, the ongoing publication of inscriptions under the title Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien seeks to collect the new materials pertaining to Asia Minor.

The Acts of the Apostles

The God-Fearers/Worshipers

In the Book of Acts, whenever Paul entered a new town in Asia Minor, he almost always found a significant population of Jews. He went into the synagogues (13:14; 14:1; 18:19; 19:8), and he also interacted with Jews in various other ways (16:1; 19:13). The epigraphic sources confirm that a large number of Jews lived in Asia Minor during the events narrated in Acts.[11] Although the new evidence may call for rethinking our views about the nature of the Jewish Diaspora,[12] it certainly does in general support the information in Acts and Josephus about Jews in this region.

But another group of persons seemed less confirmed by the evidence until an inscription was found in Aphrodiasias. This group is referred to in Acts in several verses. These persons are called those fearing God (oἱ φοβoύμενοι τὸν θεόν, hoi phoboumenoi ton theon) or one fearing God in some passages (10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26), and those worshiping (God) in others (oἱ σεβόμενοι [τὸν θεόν], hoi sebomenoi [ton theon] [13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7]). After narrating the conversion of the first God-fearer, Cornelius of Caesarea (chs. 10–11), Luke tells the story of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch of Pisidia in Asia Minor (ch. 13). There, Paul preached in the synagogue to both Israelites and those fearing God (13:16, 26), and when the Israelites did not believe, Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles (evidently the God-fearers) to minister (13:46–48). Thus, the full Israelites did not accept Paul’s message, but the God-fearers did. Based on these references and a few texts outside the NT (mainly Josephus, Philo, Juvenal, Epictetus, and the Talmud[13]), the scholarly consensus said that attached loosely to the synagogues in the Diaspora was a group of Gentiles who studied the Torah and lived a life ethically acceptable to Jews but did not accept circumcision. These, so the consensus maintained, were half-Jews who would have been more open to Paul’s preaching than the Jews.

But some challenges have been made against the consensus. First, M. Wilcox doubted that Acts was describing a group such as the consensus had imagined. Only Acts 16:14 and 17:4 perhaps refer to such a group, but even here the texts are unclear. The references seem to Wilcox to speak only about a person’s piety and not about membership in a fringe group of Gentile synagogue adherents. Wilcox concludes that without further external evidence, one should not interpret these texts as referring to a class of Gentiles who regularly worship at the synagogue.[14]

A more serious challenge to the thesis has come from A. T. Kraabel. For a number of years, Kraabel worked on the excavations at Sardis and found no clear references or evidence for such a group of Gentiles connected to the worship of the synagogue. In examining over one hundred synagogue inscriptions both from Sardis and elsewhere, one can find no expressions such as those in Acts, although one does find a somewhat similar expression, θεοσεβής (theosebēs). Kraabel began to question the consensus and decided that although Luke does seem to be describing a group of Gentile synagogue adherents, Luke was not writing history at this point. Rather, the God-fearers were an effective theological construction for Luke to use in explaining how the gospel was rejected by the Jews and accepted by the Gentiles. Thus, the God-fearers were not an actual historical group, but Luke’s literary invention.[15] Further, the sources outside the NT that supposedly refer to God-fearers are always interpreted from the perspective of Acts. If one reads them without the influence of Acts, they do not clearly refer to such a group. Kraabel concludes that the God-fearers, if they existed at all . . . were isolated and did not have the effect that many suppose. In a sense they were a figment of the scholarly imagination.[16] These articles were written before the publication of the Aphrodisias inscription, but by 1992 Kraabel was still hesitant to accept the received view on the God-fearers. In an article published that year, he granted that there is a kernel of truth behind the God-fearers pictured in Acts, but he maintained that Luke took over that kernel and exaggerated it. Kraabel has seemed to see something anti-Jewish in the thesis. What Luke wanted, Kraabel maintained, was to show how Judaism was superseded. Yet he admitted, There surely were some Gentiles interested in their Jewish neighbors and their piety.[17]

Since the publication of the synagogue inscription from Aphrodisias, a city in western Asia Minor, the question of the existence of a group of God-fearers attached to the synagogue has been settled for most scholars. A stone pillar inscribed on two sides lists the donors to the local Jewish soup kitchen, according to J. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum, who give the inscription with commentary.[18] On one side of the pillar are listed members of the δεκανία (dekania), or special company or class of those pursuing study of Torah and prayer. Listed among the mostly Jewish names are three persons called proselytes (προσήλυτος, prosēlytos) and two (named Emmonius and Antoninus) called God-worshipers (θεοσεβής, theosebes). Obviously, the two God-worshipers have attracted much attention. They are singled out from the others by this title, and yet they have joined the others in study and worship. These certainly sound like the God-fearers of Acts. On the other side of the pillar are two longer lists of names separated by an empty space in the inscription. The upper list contains mostly Jewish names, and the lower list is introduced by the words and as many as are God-worshipers. Again, these persons, since they are separated from the other names and introduced by the title God-worshipers, seem to have been like the God-fearers in Acts. The support for these conclusions has been strong, and one can safely say that the consensus about the God-fearers—perhaps with some modifications[19]—has been confirmed by the Aphrodisias inscription.[20] C. K. Barrett’s cautious conclusions about this matter seem appropriate: (1) some Gentiles were attracted to Jewish ethics, theology, and worship but did not become proselytes; (2) in one place at least (Aphrodisias), they formed a recognized element in the synagogue; (3) such Gentiles presented a great opportunity to Christian evangelists; (4) Luke was aware of this.[21]

Paul in Ephesus

As part of his third missionary tour, Paul spent an extended amount of time in the city of Ephesus (Acts 19:10; 20:31). There, he taught in the Jewish synagogue for a while, encountered some Jewish exorcists, and witnessed an anti-Christian riot. The material remains confirm that Jews had a presence in Ephesus but do not provide many details. To date, only three inscriptions referring to Jews and some objects with Jewish symbols have been found. The synagogue so far has eluded discovery.[22] Luke then says that Paul removed himself from the synagogue to teach in the lecture hall of Tyrannus (19:9). A person named Tyrannus has been attested in an inscription, but we cannot be certain that this is the same one as in Acts. Additionally, an inscription referring to an αὐδειτώριον (audeitōrion, from the Latin auditorium) has been found. This was a lecture hall adjacent to the library.[23]

The riot (19:23–40) has attracted attention due to the numerous epigraphical and classical parallels to the text of Acts. The details of this section lead to the conclusion that the author at least knew the culture of Ephesus and may have been present at the riot.[24] The reference to Ephesus as a νεωκόρος (neōkoros), or temple warden, city (19:35); the mention of the clerk or scribe of the people (γραμματεύς, grammateus [19:35]); the several reminders that Artemis was acclaimed as great by the Ephesians (19:27, 28, 34, 35); the statement that Artemis was honored in many other places (19:27); the reference to silversmiths (ἀργυροκόπος, argyrokopos [19:24]); and calling the regular assembly of Ephesus the ἕννομος ἐκκλησία (ennomos ekklēsia [19:39])—these are all attested word for word in the inscriptions from Ephesus.[25]

Although no silver shrines have yet been found like those named in Acts 19:24, the oft-cited Salutaris inscription from Ephesus describes a golden statuette of Artemis. In addition, terra-cotta figurines of Artemis standing in a niche have been found that roughly correspond to that indicated in Acts.[26] Further, the zeal with which the Ephesians defended the cult of Artemis in the riot described in Acts 19 is well known from an inscription. According to this text, they sentenced forty-five persons to death for mistreating sacred items from Artemis.[27]

More generally, historians have noted the frequent attestation of labor guilds, such as the silversmiths’ guild to which Demetrius belonged (19:24–27). The inscriptions from Asia refer to guilds of all kinds, including silversmiths. Further, other incidents of rioting at the instigation of these labor unions are indicated in the inscriptions.[28] The gathering of labor unions, it seems, often could result in outbreaks of unrest in the cities of Asia Minor. Thus, the story of the riot in Ephesus narrated in Acts 19 seems plausible.

The intent of those scholars investigating the details of Acts 19:23–40, then, has been to demonstrate that they are paralleled in the material remains from the region and thus fit easily into the history and culture of Ephesus.

The Asiarchs

One of the passing remarks in the riot narrative has sparked controversy. In Acts 19:31 Luke writes, Certain also of the Asiarchs, since they were friends of [Paul], sent word to him and urged him not to go into the theater. Historians have some questions about this statement: (1) Who were the Asiarchs? Specifically, were they the high priests of the imperial cult in Asia? (2) Is this reference anachronistic? In other words, can we find attestation of Asiarchs present during the time when Paul was in Ephesus (mid-fifties C.E.)? Since the literary references to Asiarchs are few (Acts 19:31; Strabo, Geogr. 14.1.42 [referring to the time of Pompey—i.e., the late republic]; Digest [quoting Modestinus] 27.1.6.14), we must rely heavily on the material remains to answer these questions.

The older view is that the Asiarchs were also the high priests of Asia.[29] In 1974 M. Rossner gave seven arguments for this identification based on her examination of the inscriptions and coins available at that time.[30] But since then several more inscriptions have expanded the list of known Asiarchs to over two hundred; of these, 106 were from Ephesus. Only seventy-four of those from Ephesus were known to Rossner.[31] From the new evidence, both R. A. Kearsley and S. J. Friesen have argued that the two offices were not the same.[32]

The question of whether or not the reference is anachronistic is unsettled. The coins and inscriptions begin to refer to Asiarchs in the late first century, after the time when Paul was in Ephesus. Kearsley has attempted to calculate backward from an inscription that she dates to 114 C.E. This inscription and others related to it trace a family’s history, showing that the family produced several Asiarchs down through the years and would have had one at the time of Paul. Kearsley’s case, however, depends on the correct dating of the inscription to 114 C.E.[33] Friesen disputes the dating (he dates it to 170 C.E.), locating the first Asiarch in the family no sooner than the 80s, after Paul was in Ephesus. He believes that the office of Asiarch, which was an archaic office found in Asia in the days of the old Roman republic (the Strabo reference), was revived in the age of the Flavian emperors.[34] There is, therefore, no scholarly consensus on this issue. I would observe, however, that a revival in the importance of this office does not mean that it had ceased to exist between the time of Pompey (mid–first century B.C.E.) and the time of Domitian (late first century C.E.).

Roman Roads

One reads that Paul passed through Pisidia, Cilicia, Phrygia, Galatia, and Asia (Acts 13:4; 15:41; 16:6; 19:1) without knowing how he traveled. Did he climb mountains? Did he follow goat paths? Did he use well-paved roads?

The discovery and publication of Roman milestones in Asia Minor make it possible to trace the probable route of some of the roads in use when Paul was traveling through the region. D. French has published the inscriptions and the corresponding maps. He distinguishes among paved roads, unpaved but constructed roads, and mere tracks and paths.[35] The highways (the paved, broad roads) available to Paul in Asia Minor were few. There was a road from the republican period (the inscriptions date 129–126 B.C.E.) in western Asia Minor leading from Dorylaeum and Apamea to Ephesus and on north to Pergamum. In the Augustan period (the inscriptions date 6 B.C.E.) the Via Sebaste, or Augustan road, was built, which connected Cremna, Comama, Parlais, Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra (Roman colonies).

One can then both answer some questions and raise others. Since the Via Sebaste seems to have joined Roman colonies, we can understand why Paul followed it to Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. But why, then, did he go on to Derbe, which was off the road?[36]

In heading west on the second journey, Paul would have found it much easier to transfer from the Via Sebaste to the old republican road and then on to Ephesus. Why, then, did Paul think that the Spirit was forbidding him to travel through Asia (Acts 16:6)? What sort of unpaved path or track must he have used to head toward Troas?[37] As French observes, one cannot conclude that Paul traveled only the Roman roads.[38]

Pauline Epistles

Women Leaders

At least two NT epistles associated with Asia Minor reveal important attitudes about women’s roles in the early church. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 14:34–35 (written at Ephesus) that women should be silent in the assembly. The Pauline or deutero-Pauline letter sent to Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3) requires women to receive instruction quietly and forbids women to teach men (1 Tim. 2:11–12). One could conclude from these texts that women in Asia Minor generally were denied leadership roles and that Judaism maintained this practice in the synagogue—a practice that Christianity imitated.

But work based on the inscriptions in the last thirty years leads to other conclusions. The Book of Acts and the Gospels refer to men who were called leaders of the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγος, archisynagōgos).[39] Inscriptions from the Greco-Roman world also refer to the archisynagōgos. These men had responsibilities, evidently, for managing the synagogue worship, education, and finances.

The surprise is that two inscriptions from Asia Minor and one from Crete name women as archisynagōgoi.[40] Rufina of Smyrna, who is called both a Jewess and an archisynagōgos, is named in an inscription from the second century C.E., and Theopempte of Myndos of Caria is also so named in an inscription from the fourth or fifth century.[41] These two inscriptions are interesting for two reasons: (1) there are seven references to archisynagōgoi from Asia Minor, five to men and two to women; (2) the only other place where a woman was called an archisynagōgos was Crete. Thus, as Trebilco and Kraabel suggested, it seems plausible that women were allowed a greater role in some synagogues in Asia Minor.[42]

Added to the above inscriptions are three others that interest us. From Phocaea comes mention of one Tation, who was given the chief seat in the synagogue because of a donation she made. Julia Severa, a Gentile sympathizer to Judaism (or a God-fearer), built the synagogue at Acmonia and was given honors. Finally, the Aphrodias inscription described above mentions someone named Jael as the president or patron (προστάτις, prostatis) of the synagogue.[43] Was Jael a woman, named after the famous person of Judg. 4:17–22, or a man? Opinions vary,[44] but if this person was a woman, she functioned as an important synagogue leader.

The main debate is whether these titles and others[45] were given to women because (1) their husbands or sons held the office, or (2) they were simply honorific, given because of a donation but not carrying an actual leadership function. B. Brooten has argued that the inscriptions do not usually mention a husband or son, and thus we cannot be sure that the women were married at the time. Second, even if the title was in some sense honorific, that does not exclude a leadership role of some kind.[46] Brooten appears to have convinced most scholars writing on the subject.[47] The only factor to give the NT student pause is the dates of these inscriptions (most of them from the second to the fourth centuries). Still, anyone who would discard or otherwise interpret this evidence certainly must accept the burden of proof.

Thus, if Jewish women in Asia Minor were being granted greater authority than generally allowed them elsewhere, what do we make of the text from 1 Corinthians, and especially that from 1 Timothy, which was directed to churches in Ephesus? Did the author(s) intentionally oppose a trend in the synagogues in Asia Minor? Or do we perhaps need to reflect anew on what the texts were saying? At any rate, the inscriptions should serve as the background out of which we understand early Christian teaching on the role of women in the church.

The Galatian Letter

In recent years most of the attention has been given to western Asia Minor due to the excavations in that region. Therefore, the interpretation of NT documents that relate to that region has been most affected by the new materials. Yet, one issue that relates to central Anatolia has again been examined on the basis of inscriptions and classical sources.

In 279 B.C.E. a large body of migrating Celts (or Galatians) left the Danube valley and crossed into Asia Minor. They finally settled in the north-central part of Asia Minor, primarily in and around the three cities of Pessinus, Ankyra, and Tavium. In 25 B.C.E. the Celtic settlement, along with parts of Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Isauria, were made into one Roman province called Galatia. The question concerning the Epistle to the Galatians is whether Paul sent his letter to the ethnic Galatians (Celts), and thus to the northern part of the new province, or to the Roman province of Galatia, including the southern part of the province, where the cities of Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra were located—cities we read about in Acts (13:14–14:24; cf. 2 Tim. 3:11).

The ancient interpreters believed that the letter had been sent to northern Galatia. W. M. Ramsay, however, although not the first to argue for a southern destination, probably first gave the hypothesis its best statement. J. Moffatt vigorously opposed Ramsay’s conclusions.[48] There is still no consensus on this issue.[49]

Two of the more important questions in the determination of the destination of the epistle have received some epigraphical light. First, can the word Фρυγία (Phrygia) in Acts 16:6 (cf. 18:23) be an adjective (Phrygian country), or must it be a noun? Proponents of the South Galatian theory point out that Acts never records Paul’s traveling to northern Galatia (an argument from silence). Advocates of the North Galatian theory respond that the two verses from Acts indicate that Paul traveled through Phrygia [an old territory west of Galatia] and the Galatian country [a territory in the north]. The South Galatian theorists maintain that the verses should be understood as stating that Paul traveled through the Phrygian-Galatian country, or the part of the province of Galatia that used to be the old territory of Phrygia (Phrygia Galatica; thus, in the south).

The common belief held by the North Galatian proponents has been that the word Phrygia could only be a noun, because in the first century the word used only two terminations and not three. But C. J. Hemer has found examples of the term used as an adjective with three terminations in several classical sources and in inscriptions from Athens, Delphi, Ephesus, Erythrae, Rhodes, Lindos, and Camirus, and from Panticapaeum.[50] Thus, we should conclude that the word may well have been used by Luke as an adjective (but, of course, was not necessarily used adjectivally).

The second question is Would someone call the residents from the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia Galatians (= Celts)? Paul called his readers foolish Galatians in Gal. 3:1. Since he called his readers Galatians, must they have been ethnic Galatians? Again, the proponents of the northern Galatia view have maintained that Galatians must refer to ethnic Celts, and thus the letter must