Paul Without Acts

Discuss the world of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5623
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:53 am

Jax wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:14 am

Some consider the letters of Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, or the so called Hauptbriefe, to be the absolute core of the Pauline corpus. Others, such as myself, include 1 Thessalonians and Philippians to that core.

Still others add Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon to that list, with fewer including 2 Thessalonians and very few adding the pastorals of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

Romans, the Corinthian letters, the letters to the Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians are all to cities. Philemon and the pastorals to individuals.


The letter to the Galatians is different from the above and does not fit with the other letter genre. Galatians is to a group with no apparent geographical location, such as a city, as the letters to the other groups are. Nor are they to an individual.

This is odd.

One way to account for this in my scenario of a [bce] Paul writing to military groups in Greece and Macedonia in the 1st century BCE is to acknowledge that the ethnic group known as the Galatians, residing in central Asia Minor, was part of every major conflict of the civil wars taking place in Greece and Macedonia in the 1st century BCE. This could conceivably explain how Paul came into contact with them in the first place.

This however (for me at least) doesn’t really satisfy and begs the question as to why Paul didn’t name a city for the letter as the “Galatians” would have returned home after their part in the conflict had ended ( probably Ankyra). People have been trying to nail down a location for these “Galatians” since forever. With no results ...

Galatia is said to be named for the immigrant Gauls from Thrace, who settled there and became its ruling caste in the 3rd century BC, following the Gallic invasion of the Balkans in 279 BC ...

The invaders came at the invitation of Nicomedes I of Bithynia, who wanted their help in a dynastic struggle against his brother. Three tribes crossed over from Thrace to Asia Minor. They numbered about 10,000 fighting men and about the same number of women and children, divided into three tribes, Trocmi, Tolistobogii and Tectosages ...

.. the migration led to the establishment of a long-lived 'Galataean' territory in central Anatolia (which included the eastern part of ancient Phrygia) ... There they ultimately settled and, strengthened by fresh accessions of the same clan from Europe, they overran Bithynia and supported themselves by plundering neighbouring countries. The Gauls invaded eastern Phrygia on at least one occasion.[3]

Strabo describes the constitution of the Galatian state: by custom, each tribe was divided into cantons, each governed by a chief ("tetrarch") followed by a judge, whose powers were unlimited except in cases of murder, which were tried before a council of 300 drawn from the 12 cantons and meeting at a holy place, 20 miles southwest of Ancyra, written in Greek as Δρυνεμετον (Drunemeton or Drynemeton; Gaulish dru-nemeton "holy place of oak"). It is likely it was a sacred oak grove, since the name means "sanctuary of the oaks" (from drus, meaning "oak" and nemeton, meaning "sacred ground").

The Galatian arrivals left the local population of Cappadocians in control of the towns and most of the land, paying tithes to their new overlords, who formed a military aristocracy and kept aloof in fortified farmsteads, surrounded by their bands ...


Roman Galatia

After [the death of Deiotarus, a tetrach who had become 'king' of Galatia] in 25 BC, Galatia was incorporated by Augustus into the Roman Empire, becoming a Roman province. Near his capital Ancyra (modern Ankara), Pylamenes, the king's heir, rebuilt a temple of the Phrygian god Men to venerate Augustus (the Monumentum Ancyranum), as a sign of fidelity. It was on the walls of this temple in Galatia that the major source for the Res Gestae Divi Augusti were preserved for modernity. Few of the provinces proved more enthusiastically loyal to Rome.

Josephus related the Biblical figure Gomer* to Galatia (or perhaps to Gaul in general): "For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls], but were then called Gomerites".[5] Others have related Gomer to Cimmerians ...
  • Ezekiel 38:6 - the ally of Gog, the chief of the land of Magog.

    The later Christian writer Hippolytus of Rome in c. 234 assigned Gomer as the ancestor of the Cappadocians, neighbours of the Galatians.

    But, Jerome (c. 390) and Isidore of Seville (c. 600) followed Josephus' identification of Gomer with the Galatians, Gauls and Celts.
Although originally possessing a strong cultural identity, by the 2nd century AD, the Galatians had become assimilated (Hellenization) into the Hellenistic civilization of Anatolia.[7] The Galatians were still speaking the Galatian language in the time of St. Jeromea (347–420 AD), who wrote that the Galatians of Ancyra and the Treveri of Trier (in what is now the Rhineland) spoke the same language (Comentarii in Epistolam ad Galatos, 2.3, composed c. 387).

The 3rd-century AD Latin historian Justin called the region "Gallo-Graecia", Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, 25.2 and 26.2

Sharon Turner in The History of the Anglo-Saxons from the Earliest Period to the Norman Conquest Volume 1 (1841) recounts that, about 280 BCE, the Kelts invaded Greece (pp. 50-1) and

"The Kelts/Galatae ... serv[ed] in the armies of Ptolemy and also of Antigonus, and they had frequent battles with the Romans, but usually experienced ruinous defeats, especially with that tremendous conflict with Quintus Fabius Maximus, of which Caesar reminded Gauls of his day, when they were about to war with him, and in which Strabo states, that two hundred thousand Keltae were cut off.

"Strabo remarks of the Keltae that it was common for them to lie on the ground, that they used waxen vessels, that they were addicted to human sacrifices, from which the Romans reclaimed them .."
.


Thomas Arnold in History of Rome comments -
"Much has been written upon the Kelts and their language but we seem as yet unable to connect our knowledge of the existing Keltic races with the accounts of them we have received from the writers of antiquity" [pp. 519-20]

Arnold then refers to Diodorus telling 'us' the Gauls are made up 'two great divisions of people':
  1. of the Keltic tribes from Spain, of the south and centre of Gaul, and of the north of Italy; and,
  2. the 'proper Gauls', embracing more remote tribes of Hercynian and Scythia [central & eastern Europe; including above the Black Sea].

But then, interestingly, Arnold says (pp. 520-21)

Keltae and Galatae are undoubtedly different forms of the same name; the first [ie. Keltae] was the [Latin] form with which the Greeks were earliest acquainted , at a time when their knowledge of the Kelts was confined to the tribes of Spain and Gaul. The great Gaulish migration, of the fourth century before Christ, introduced the other and more correct form "Galatae" [Galatai; Γαλάται]; yet many writers continue to use the old orthography ... with the exception of the Galatians in Asia Minor; the other Gauls, in all parts of the world, [were] generally called by the Greeks ... Keltoi; Κελτοί
.

ie. the Galatians of Asia Minor - Galatai; Γαλάται - are derived from the Keltae, or were previously or also known as Keltoi [Κελτοί] (or both)

.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:08 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by Jax » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:00 am

ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας means something like "to the assembly of Galatias" right? And Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται is "Oh! foolish Galatai" also right? So really, is there any real reason to assume that "Galatians" as a geographic area is meant here?

Could Γαλάται (Galatai) be used as a plural form of a group from Gaul?

Stop that snickering in the back! :x I'm still learning here. :)

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5623
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:11 am

Jax wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:00 am
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας means something like "to the assembly of Galatias" right? And Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται is "Oh! foolish Galatai" also right? So really, is there any real reason to assume that "Galatians" as a geographic area is meant here?

Could Γαλάται (Galatai) be used as a plural form of a group from Gaul?

... I'm still learning here1 ..
1 Aren't we all.

I just added this to my post above [eta: with different emphases here ie. different bolding and underlining] -

Thomas Arnold in History of Rome comments -
"Much has been written upon the Kelts and their language but we seem as yet unable to connect our knowledge of the existing Keltic races with the accounts of them we have received from the writers of antiquity" [pp. 519-20]

Arnold then refers to Diodorus telling 'us' the Gauls are made up 'two great divisions of people':
  1. of the Keltic tribes from Spain, of the south and centre of Gaul, and of the north of Italy; and,
  2. the 'proper Gauls', embracing more remote tribes of Hercynian and Scythia [central & eastern Europe; including above the Black Sea].

But then, interestingly, Arnold says (pp. 520-21)

Keltae and Galatae are undoubtedly different forms of the same name; the first [ie. Keltae] was the [Latin] form with which the Greeks were earliest acquainted , at a time when their knowledge of the Kelts was confined to the tribes of Spain and Gaul. The great Gaulish migration, of the fourth century before Christ, introduced the other and more correct form "Galatae" [Galatai; Γαλάται]; yet many writers continue to use the old orthography ... with the exception of the Galatians in Asia Minor; the other Gauls, in all parts of the world, [were] generally called by the Greeks ... Keltoi; Κελτοί
.

ie. the Galatians of Asia Minor - Galatai; Γαλάται - are derived from the Keltae, or were previously or also known as Keltoi [Κελτοί] (or both)

.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5744
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:19 am

Jax wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:00 am
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας means something like "to the assembly of Galatias" right?
Since the sigma exists there in order to mark the genitive, you would remove it in English to express the nominative (since English has no noun cases: only residual pronoun cases): Galatia (Γαλατία). Oh, and it would be "assemblies," plural, which makes sense, given that Galatia is a region, not a city. (Elsewhere in Paul each city seems to have one assembly/church, except possibly Rome.)
And Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται is "Oh! foolish Galatai" also right? So really, is there any real reason to assume that "Galatians" as a geographic area is meant here?
Well, Γαλάται can mean Celts. But in light of Galatians 1.2 it would also pretty much have to mean a resident of the historical region (or possibly the province) called Γαλατία, right? (It was named after the Celtic invaders, I believe.)
Could Γαλάται (Galatai) be used as a plural form of a group from Gaul?
Yes, absolutely. Γαλάται = Κελτοί. Evidently, though, these are Κελτοί living in the region of Galatia.

I think. I am hardly an expert on the particular topic of Galatia.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5623
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:34 am

Ethan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:56 am

The letters of Paul are addressed mainly to colonies founded by Julius Caesar.

Corinth - Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis
Philippe - Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensis
Ephesus - Temple of Divine Julius Caesar
.
As far as Galatians goes, Julius Casear wrote a first hand account of the Gallic Wars, written as a third-person narrative - Commentarii de Bello Gallico - but whether it refers to Galatia in Asia Minor is hard to know [yet]

In it Caesar describes the battles and intrigues that took place in the nine years he spent fighting the Germanic peoples1 and Celtic peoples in Gaul that opposed Roman conquest. The "Gaul" that Caesar refers to is ambiguous, as the term had various connotations in Roman writing and discourse during Caesar's time. Generally, Gaul included all of the regions that Romans had not conquered or administered, or which were primarily inhabited by Celts; except for the Roman province of Gallia Narbonensis [southern modern France].

"Gaul" was also used in common parlance as a synonym for "uncouth" or "unsophisticated" as Romans saw Celtic peoples as uncivilized compared with Rome.



1 Interestingly, from Wikipedia: "Caesar’s generalizations, alongside the writings of Tacitus, form the barbaric identity of the Germans for the ancient world. The name “Germani” is even of Roman origins, showing how the identity of the Germans is tilted by Roman perceptions and prejudices. By defining the German culture as barbaric in these passages, Caesar hopes to justify his conquest of the Germans in the eyes of his readers".
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by Jax » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:44 am

God! It's enough to drive a person mental. :wtf:

καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας of Galatians 1:2 means "and the brothers with me to the assemblies of Galatia" which could mean to the assemblies of Celts from the area of Galatia in Anatolia or Celts from Gaul.

Right? :scratch:

Is it too early to start drinking? :banghead:

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5623
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:20 pm

Jax wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:44 am

καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας of Galatians 1:2 means "and the brothers with me to the assemblies of Galatia" which could mean to the assemblies of Celts from the area of Galatia in Anatolia or Celts from Gaul.

Right? :scratch:
That famous phrase Veni, vidi, vici of Julius Caesar's came after a battle after the ruler of Galatia in Anatolia, Deiotarus, appealed to Julius Caesar's lieutenant Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus for support against Pharnaces II of Pontus - the Battle of Zela. [eta] Pharnacles II won the first battle against Deiotarus and some Roman troops, but then Julius Caesar appeared in person and quickly dispatched Pharnaces II [in 5 days], and then wrote that famous passage in a letter to a friend in Rome.

God! It's enough to drive a person mental. :wtf:
It's certainly an interesting dimension. I've often wondered why Irenaeus has been tied to Gaul, too (as have others)


Is it too early to start drinking? :banghead:
It's 7.20 am here ... :cheers:

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5744
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:28 pm

Jax wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:44 am
God! It's enough to drive a person mental. :wtf:

καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας of Galatians 1:2 means "and the brothers with me to the assemblies of Galatia" which could mean to the assemblies of Celts from the area of Galatia in Anatolia or Celts from Gaul.
Except that I think Gaul (in the west, in modern day France) was called Κελτική (Celtica), not Γαλατία. Strabo calls it Κελτική in the Geography, at any rate.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5623
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:40 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:28 pm
Jax wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:44 am
God! It's enough to drive a person mental. :wtf:

καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας of Galatians 1:2 means "and the brothers with me to the assemblies of Galatia" which could mean to the assemblies of Celts from the area of Galatia in Anatolia or Celts from Gaul.
Except that I think Gaul (in the west, in modern day France) was called Κελτική (Celtica), not Γαλατία. Strabo calls it Κελτική in the Geography, at any rate.
Certainly by the Greeks, though the Latin-speakers might not have been so specific, according to Thomas Arnold -
[Keltae] was the [Latin] form with which the Greeks were earliest acquainted, at a time when their knowledge of the Kelts was confined to the tribes of Spain and Gaul. The great Gaulish migration, of the fourth century before Christ, introduced the other and more correct form "Galatae" [Galatai; Γαλάται]; yet many writers continue to use the old orthography ... with the exception of the Galatians in Asia Minor; the other Gauls, in all parts of the world, [were] generally called by the Greeks ... Keltoi; Κελτοί

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5744
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul Without Acts

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:56 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:40 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:28 pm
Jax wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:44 am
God! It's enough to drive a person mental. :wtf:

καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας of Galatians 1:2 means "and the brothers with me to the assemblies of Galatia" which could mean to the assemblies of Celts from the area of Galatia in Anatolia or Celts from Gaul.
Except that I think Gaul (in the west, in modern day France) was called Κελτική (Celtica), not Γαλατία. Strabo calls it Κελτική in the Geography, at any rate.
Certainly by the Greeks, though the Latin-speakers might not have been so specific, according to Thomas Arnold -
[Keltae] was the [Latin] form with which the Greeks were earliest acquainted, at a time when their knowledge of the Kelts was confined to the tribes of Spain and Gaul. The great Gaulish migration, of the fourth century before Christ, introduced the other and more correct form "Galatae" [Galatai; Γαλάται]; yet many writers continue to use the old orthography ... with the exception of the Galatians in Asia Minor; the other Gauls, in all parts of the world, [were] generally called by the Greeks ... Keltoi; Κελτοί
Well, since we are talking about Greek epistles....

I doubt that Paul was writing to churches in France. He was writing to churches in Asia.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply