05.01. Appendix 1. GALATIA, KINGDOM AND PROVINCE

APPENDIX I GALATIA, KINGDOM AND PROVINCE THE population of Asia Minor in the first century after Christ was an extremely complicated mixture of various nationalities, representing different invasions and conquests. One of the lowest strata, representing either an aboriginal population, or one of the earliest invasions, was the Lycaonians, in the district of Lystra, Derbe, and further eastwards. A most recent, but still very ancient stratum, was the Phrygians, who had invaded Asia Minor at the beginning of the first millennium before Christ, or even earlier, and had conquered and settled in the valley of Sangarios, the country near the Hellespont, and the adjacent districts, pressing on as far as Iconium. Originally a fierce and warlike race, they gradually degenerated, and passed under the domination of the Persian Empire, and afterwards under that of Alexander of Macedonia. A disturbed period followed the death of Alexander, and ultimately, after the fall of Seleucus in 281, Antiochus I. became nominal ruler of Phrygia, but was faced with the rivalry of Mithridates of Pontus in the north. Probably the northern part of Phrygia, bordering on Pontus, was more or less completely under Pontic control. At this point, about 278 b.c., a new invasion began; the Gauls, who had been ravaging all the Mediterranean lands, entered Bithynia, and after some vicissitudes occupied and settled in the north-eastern part of Phrygia, with Ancyra as their chief town. This is the Kingdom of Galatia; its population consisted of at least three superimposed and more or less coalesced strata, Gauls, Phrygians, and earlier inhabitants, perhaps related to the Lycaonians. The history of this kingdom up to the beginning of the second century b.c. is a series of wars and alliances with its neighbours, but in 189 b.c. the Galatian interference with commerce, and the alliance of the Galatians with Antiochus against Rome at the battle of Magnesia, led to a Roman expedition in which, as Livy narrates, an enormous number of Galatians were killed or captured. Further wars with the Pergamene and Pontic kings nevertheless followed, and probably to this period ought to be assigned an expansion of Galatia to the South at the expense of the Lycaonians, probably extending as far as Iconium and Lystra. This is the new territory which Ptolemy calls the “added” land, and Pliny a tetrarchy taken from Lycaonia. The two authorities do not wholly agree, for Ptolemy excludes Iconium, and Pliny says that the tetrarchy included Iconium and fourteen cities; but probably Pliny is right. This explains why, although in 189 b.c. Lycaonia belonged to the Pergamene kingdom, it was not part of the Roman Province of Asia which was made in 133 b.c. out of that kingdom. Nevertheless Galatia was never fully the equal of the Pontic kings in the north, and by 121 Galatia was probably—the point is not quite clear—more or less subordinate to Pontus. In that year the Romans declared Galatia free—which meant free from Pontus, and practically, if not nominally, under Roman control; but the Mithridatic wars followed, and it was not until 73 b.c. that it was really free from Pontus. In 64 b.c. Pompey reorganized the East. Galatia was placed under three chiefs, and part of the tetrarchy of Lycaonia, including Iconium and Lystra, was taken away. Of the three tetrarchs Deiotarus was the ablest, and in the last two years of his life was the sole King of Galatia. Dreading the horrors of a disputed succession, Deiotarus put to death all his sons but one, but either this son died prematurely or was overlooked, for on the death of Deiotarus in 40 b.c. Antony appointed Castor in his place. Meanwhile Pisidia and the rest of the Lycaonian territory of Galatia had formed part of the Province of Cilicia. Antony now found this arrangement undesirable. It was a disturbed district, and Roman soldiers could not be spared. Antony therefore appointed Amyntas, who had been secretary to Deiotarus, as King of Pisidia and Pisidian Phrygia; Antioch was probably his capital. Similarly, Polemon was made King of part of Lycaonia and Isauria and other districts. His capital was Iconium. Thus in 40 b.c. the centre of Asia Minor was divided between Castor King of Galatia, Amyntas King of Pisidia, with a capital at Pisidian Antioch, and Polemon, with a capital at Iconium. In 36 b.c. Castor died, and a new arrangement was made. Amyntas was given Galatia, and Lycaonia, which was taken from Polemon, who was moved northwards to Pontus, and the Cilician part of Polemon’s kingdom was given to Cleopatra. The fall of Antony only disturbed this arrangement in so far that Pamphylia and Cilicia Tracheia were added to the kingdom of Amyntas, who finally conquered Derbe, which had previously been an independent stronghold under Antipater. Thus the Kingdom of Amyntas became extremely large and important. Its final extent is indicated on the map facing p. 316. In 25 b.c. Amyntas was killed, and the Romans decided to take over his kingdom as a new province. Pamphylia, however, was again separated from it, and made into a distinct province, and part of Lycaonia, including Derbe, was given to the Kingdom of Archelaus of Cappadocia. This district went through various changes, but in a.d. 41 a kingdom containing part of Lycaonia and Cilicia Tracheia was confirmed to Antiochus of Commagene, who was given the title of King of the Lycaonians. This kingdom lasted until 72 a.d., when it was absorbed into the Empire. In 41, therefore, the boundary of the Province of Galatia was Derbe, which was restored to it, and Lystra and Antioch had been made into coloniae probably because they were important in connection with the dangerous mountain district in which they were situated.

Such is the outline of the history of the change from the Kingdom of Galatia to the Province of Galatia. It will be noted that, except in a strictly ethnological sense, the whole district, including Iconium and Antioch, had been Galatian since the time of King Amyntas. The name of the whole province was Galatia. This was at one time disputed by Schürer and others who preferred the North Galatian view; but in the face of the evidence of inscriptions and of Pliny and Ptolemy, they have abandoned this position. The various districts in the province would naturally be described as Galatic, because they belonged to the Galatic Province, but their exact names, and precise proof of them, present many difficulties. The districts important for the present purpose are those which Ramsay calls Phrygia Asiana, Phrygia Galatica, Lycaonia Galatica, and Lycaonia Antiochiana. The actual evidence for these is as follows:—

Phrygia Asiana is mentioned by Galen, who says … Δορύλαι, ἥ ἐστι μὲν ἐσχάτη τῆς Ἀσιανῆς Φρυγίας πόλις. (Περὶ τροφῶν δυνάμεως Ι), ed. Kühn, vi. p. 515.

Phrygia Galatica is probably mentioned in the Menologium Sirletianum, “Hi sancti martyres fuerunt sub Diocletiano imperatore in urbe Antiochiae Pisidiae ex regione Phrygiae Galaciae sub praeside Magno,” where Galaciae may be emended to Galaticae or Galatiae; Ramsay prefers Galaticae, but Galatiae is palaeographically more probable (A. SS. Sept. vol. vii. p. 562 A.).

Lycaonia Antiochiana is mentioned in CIL v. 8660,an inscription of 166 a.d.; and Ptolemy, v. 6, 17, speaks of Ἀντιοχειανή, though he nowhere supplies Lycaonia as the substantive belonging to this adjective. This is not very strong evidence, but one must not expect to find overwhelming proof for the details of provincial nomenclature. In any case it is noticeable that the terms Phrygia Galatica, Phrygia Asiana, etc., are exactly parallel in formation to Pontus Galaticus, just as Lycaonia Antiochiana is parallel to Pontus Polemoniacus, both of which names are used by Ptolemy. That χώρα means “regio” is probably not susceptible of proof: but χώρα is certainly not the usual Greek for “province” (ἐπαρχεία), and the use of the adjective Γαλατικὸς in a political rather than an ethnographical sense is the usual Roman practice. Γαλατία might conceivably mean the land which in the second century before Christ was the Kingdom of Galatia; but the proper title of the province would be ἠ Γαλατικὴ ἐπαρχεία. “The province which is named after the Galatian part of it,” and in the same way ἡ Γαλατικὴ χώρα means a district belonging to this province. As Ramsay has pointed out, ἡ Γαλατικὴ χώρα can no more mean “the Kingdom of Galatia” than “the British district” could mean England. It means the district attached to the Province of Galatia, as distinct from a neighbouring district attached to something else. That “regio” was a name used in Galatia for a district of the province is shown by an inscription from Antioch which mentions a ἑκακοντάρχην ῥεγεωνάριον, discovered by Sterrett, though he found the second word so strange that he was inclined to amend it into λεγεωνάριον.χώρα would be the natural translation of “regio.” It only remains to point out two smaller problems connected with Antioch and Iconium.

Antioch was really a Phrygian city: it was called Pisidian because it was close to Pisidia, and Strabo actually called it as such. It was given to Amyntas as King of Pisidia in 39 b.c., and Augustus made it a colonia and the military centre of the district. Strabo’s evidence shows that before 20 a.d. the Phrygian character of the country was not forgotten: later on, as Ptolemy shows, it was regarded as Pisidian.

Iconium also was really Phrygian. It is described by Xenophon as the most easterly town in Phrygia, and Pliny also speaks of it as Phrygian. So also in the trial of Justin Martyr Hierax says that he ἀπὸ Ἰκονίου τῆς Φρυγίας ἀποσπασθεὶς ἐνθάδεʼ ἐλήλυθα. During the changes of Roman administration it was usually connected with Lycaonia: thus it went in 39 b.c. to Polemon, not to Amyntas, but in 36 b.c. it passed with part of Lycaonia to Amyntas. It was in this way a border town which politically was probably Lycaonian and nationally probably Phrygian. It is not quite clear whether it belonged to Lycaonia Galatica or Phrygia Galatica. St. Luke, however, seems to regard it in Acts 14:6 as Phrygian, for he says that the Apostles fled from Iconium to “the cities of Lycaonica, Lystra, and Derbe.” In Acts 16:2-6, however, his meaning is less plain. In Acts 16:2 he says that Timothy was well spoken of by those in “Lystra and Iconium.” Does not this imply that St. Paul was already in Iconium? Then, in Acts 16:6 he says that they “passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region.” Does this imply that they entered this region after leaving Iconium? If so, Iconium is here regarded as Lycaonian. But the assumption is not necessary Διῆλθον does not necessarily mean that they only then entered the region.

Probably, therefore, St. Luke ought to be taken as regarding Iconium as Phrygian, and in so far as evidence that Iconium belonged to the region of Phrygia Galatica rather than to that of Lycaonia Galatica. But it would not be wise to press the point. In any case, the argument on p. 259 holds good, that St. Luke’s meaning may be that at Iconium St. Paul had to choose between the road going into Phrygia Asiana or that passing through Phrygia Galatica, and that he chose the latter because he found that he would not be able to preach in Asia. The accompanying map, based on the work of Ramsay, shows the Kingdom of Galatia, the Kingdom of Amyntas, and the Province of Galatia, together with the towns and roads which are important for the history of St. Paul’s work.

Those who wish to study further this very complex question will do well to begin by reading the first part of Ramsay’s Historical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, and his articles on the various towns and provinces in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and to look up for themselves the passages which he quotes. The omission of the latter task results in a wholly wrong impression that the matter is, after all, quite simple—which is emphatically not the case. 

¹ Pliny says (Nat. Hist. v. 25), “Hos includit Lycaonia in Asiaticam jurisdictionem versa, cum qua conveniunt Philomelienses, Tymbriani, Leucolithi, Pelteni, Tyrienses. Datur et tetrarchia ex Lycaonia, qua parte Galatiae contermina est, civitatium xiiii urbe celeberrima Iconio.” Ptolemy says (Geogr. v. 4), Ὑπο δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα ἔθνη διήκουσι Προσειλημμενῖται, ὑπὸ δὲ τούτους οἱ βιζηνοὶ καὶ μέρος Δυκαονίας, κ.τ.λ., while to Lycaonia (Geogr. v. 6) he reckons Iconium and six other towns, and to Ἀντιοχειανὴ Derbe, Laranda, and two others. Lystra he does not mention.

¹ In this way Ramsay explains the difference between Pliny and Ptolemy. He thinks that Pliny represents the older, and Ptolemy the later facts.

² Strabo, p. 568 ff. 577. Appian, Bell. Civ. v. 75.

¹ It should be noted that a widely copied misprint in one of Ramsay’s later statements attributes this inscription to CIL. x, instead of CIL. v.

¹ Sterrett, Epigraphic Journey in Asia Minor, p. 92.

²Strabo refers on pp. 569 and 577 to Antioch as ἡ πρὸς Πισιδίᾳ. The meaning of this phrase is shown on p. 566, where he says of Phrygia Magna, ἐν ᾑ ἐστιν ἥ τε παρώρειος λεγομένη Φρυγία καὶ ἡ πρὸς Πισιδίᾳ, κ.τ.λ.

¹ Appian says of Antony, ἵστη δὲ πῃ καὶ βασιλέας, οὅς δοκιμάσειεν … Ἀμύνταν δὲ Πισιδῶν, καὶ πολέμωνα μέρους Κιλικίας, κ.τ.λ. Civ. v. 75 ed. Mendelssohn, II. p. 1123).

² Xenophon, Anab. 1. 2, 19.

³Acta Martyrii Justini et Sociorium, 4.

⁴ Strabo, p. 568.

⁵ Dio Cassius, 49.32, δ δʼ οὖν Ἀντώνιος … δυναστείας Ἀμύντᾳ μὲν Γαλατίας, καίπερ γραμματεῖ τοῦ Δηιοτάρου γενομένῳ, ἔδωκε, καὶ Λυκαονίας Παμφυλίας τέ τινα αὐτῷ προσθείς, κ.τ.λ.