sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adramyttium, Africa (Roman province), Andriake, Aphrodisias, Asia (Roman province), Bithynia

   ( )  - 

brill.com/nt

The Denouement of Claudian - and its Implications for the Audience of

Mark Wilson Stellenbosch University, South [email protected]

Abstract

Recent inscriptional discoveries have revised our understanding of provincial bound- aries in southern Minor from until . Pamphylia is now un- derstood to have been part of during Paul’s journeys there. The denouement of the South Galatian hypothesis was declared by Clare Rothschild. An attempt is made to place historical and geographical issues into a more nuanced framework. Because of the omission of key source materials, her conclusion is challenged and the redivivus of the South Galatian theory is heralded. A discussion of Paul’s audience for his letter to the Galatians follows. Based on the new evidence regarding provincial Galatia, believers in Pamphylia might well have been part of his readership.

Keywords

Acts – Pamphylia – Paul – Galatians – South Galatian hypothesis

1 Introduction©

“I’m going to ask the American people to take out their maps. I’m going to speak about strange places that many of them have never heard of…. I want to explain to the people something about .” So Franklin Roosevelt told his speechwriters before his Fireside Chat from the White House on

³ This article is dedicated to D.H. French (d. 3/24/2017) who was the prodromos for all of us who research and travel in Asia Minor.

©   , ,  | :. /  -   »

February 23, 1942.½ The president understood that for Americans to understand the ¾¿À’s of the coming war eÁfort against the Axis powers, his constituents needed to be knowledgeable about its geographical battleground. Roosevelt’s announcement led to copious sales of maps and atlases across America before his broadcast. Would that readers of the similarly familiarize themselves with maps of the biblical world to know its sites, particularly in the book of Acts! The goal of this article is more modest: to inform biblical scholars about new discoveries related to provincial boundaries of southern Asia Minor in the ÅÆrst-century ÀÇ with their accompanying implications for Paul’s ministry and writings.

2 The Denouement of Claudian Pamphylia-Lycia

The existence of a joint province Pamphylia-Lycia founded by the emperor Claudius in 43 ÀÇ has been the communis opinio among Roman scholars, follow- ing the statement of (60.17.3; cf. , Claud. 25). Previously, Pamphylia had been part of Galatia, and Lycia was independent, but Lycia lost its freedom at this time because of a revolt. Magie articulates this: “Smaller than any of the provinces of which Asia Minor consisted, it (Lycia) was consid- erably increased in size by the addition of Pamphylia.”Ì The Roman historian Stephen Mitchell states more equivocally: “Pamphylia probably remained unit- ed with Lycia for the remainder of the Julio-Claudian period.” Nevertheless, his map indicates that Pamphylia was united with Lycia from 43 ÀÇ.Ï Grainger calls this merger a “triple province,” with also being included.Ð (Hist. 2.9) writes that Pamphylia was temporarily reunited with Galatia in 68 ÀÇ under the governor Calpurnius Asprenas, a situation that lasted until the fourth century ÀÇ.

Ò N. Hamilton,The Mantle of Command:  at War, 1941-1942 (New York: Houghton MiÁÔÕin Harcourt, 2014) 234. Ö D.M. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (2 vols.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) 1.529-530; cf. his expanded discussion of ancient and modern sources at 2.1386 n. 48; 2.1304- 1305 n. 4). For an extensive bibliography on the hypothesis of a province of Pamphylia-Lycia see S. Şahin and M. Adak, Stadiasmus Patarensis (: Ege, 2007) 85 n. 174 and F. Onur, “Two New Inscriptions from Perge: Corrigenda et Addenda” (2009) 5 n. 4, (https://www .academia.edu/1655135/Epigraphic_News_from_Antalya; accessed 2/14/2017). Û S.M. Mitchell, (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 2.153; for map 6 see 2.156; cf. Mitchell, “Pamphylia,” „ Ì (1996) 1103. Şahin and Adak fail to note this equivoca- tion plus provide the wrong page number (154) for Mitchell’s discussion. Ü J.D. Grainger, The Cities of Pamphylia (Oxford: Oxbow, 2009) 155-156. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2.154 narrows this further geographically stating that only central and southern Pisidia south of Lake Ascania ( Gölü) were included in the merged province.

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç ß

A second view has emerged that suggests Lycia alone became a province in 43 ÀÇ while Pamphylia remained part of Galatia until Vespasian’s reorganiza- tion in the early ÀÇ to form the double province Pamphylia-Lycia. Bennett, assessing these views, writes, “There is little to choose between the two points of view, although the somewhat ambiguous epigraphic and literary records would tend to support the ÅÆrst hypothesis rather than the second.”è Since these words were penned, the epigraphic records have become less ambigu- ous, however. New Testament scholars have reÔÕected the Pamphylia-Lycia provincial hy- pothesis in their writings. Bruce wrote: “From  43 to c. 68 it (Pamphylia) formed part of the of Pamphylia-Lycia….”é Newer commen- taries tuned to historical and epigraphical issues similarly maintain this per- spective. Schnabel speaks of Paul and traveling inland through the province of Pamphylia/Lycia and then returning to “the capital of the newly constituted province of Pamphylia.”ê Keener likewise states: “Pamphylia was a distinct province from 25 ç to 43 ç, then was combined with Lycia, as it would have been during Paul’s visit (ca. 48).”ì A voice in dissent to this com- munis opinio was Breytenbach who included Perga among the cities of South Galatia over two decades ago. Citing Brandt, he sees “Perge als Teil Provinz Galatien.”©í

î J. Bennett, “The in Lycia and Pamphylia”, Adalya 10 (2007) 134. He further suggests that Nero might have disbanded Lycia-Pamphylia and restored independence to Lycia. ï F.F. Bruce, (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 300. S.T. Carroll, “Pamphylia,” ‡ˆ 5.138, and B.T. Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 347- 358, likewise take this view. K. Lake and H.J. Cadbury, English and Commentary; Additional Notes to the Commentary, in The Acts of the Apostles (5 vols.; ed. F.J.F. Jackson and K. Lake; : Macmillan, 1933) 4.47 and C.K. Barrett, -14 (London: T&T Clark, 1994) 626 state that the reuniÅÆcation with Galatia occurred probably under Nero or Galba. Since Nero began his reign in 54 ÀÇ, according to their view, Pamphylia would have become part of Galatia at the earliest in the mid-50s but certainly after Paul’s ÅÆrst journey. ñ E.J. Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2012) 573, 614. What “capital of the newly constituted province” means here is unclear since was the capital of Lycia. Schnabel in Early (2 vols.; Downers Grove, óæ: InterVarsity, 2004) 2.1617 ÅÆg. 31, shows on a map that Pamphylia was part of Galatia only from 68-70 ÀÇ. ô C.S. Keener, Acts (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013) 2.2028. Pamphylia’s prior provincial status was never distinct but since 25 ¿ÀÇ attached to Galatia; see S.M. Mitchell, „ Ì, 1103. ³õ C. Breytenbach, Paulus & Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apostelgeschichte 13f.; 16,6; 18,23 & den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 159, citing Brandt in n. 92 as does F. Onur, “Two Procuratorian Inscriptions from Perge,” Gephyra 5 (2008) 65 n. 57.

   ( )  -   »

Historical atlases showing provincial maps of Asia Minor in the ÅÆrst century ÀÇ, such as the New Pauly Historical Atlas©© and the Cultural Atlas of the Roman World,©½ likewise present the Pamphylia-Lycia provincial view. The Barrington Atlas as well as the new digital map, “Asia Minor in the Second Century À.Ç.” are not helpful here since they depict Roman provincial boundaries in the early second century ÀÇ.©Ì Most atlases depict only the geographical on their maps of Paul’s journeys,©Ï unhelpful because users cannot see the po- litical realities of Asia Minor at that time.©Ð The —˜™ Atlas shows a joint prov- ince including Pisidia, but Pamphylia is not in bold print like Lycia.©è Only the Oxford Bible Atlas oÁfers a political map of Asia Minor with provinces marked; however, its depiction shows Pamphylia and Lycia as distinct provinces around

Interestingly, in his most recent publication Breytenbach has reverted to the commu- nis opinio. In Galatia, Iconium and Pisidian are “the southern cities within it” and southern Pisidia was possibly “reallocated to the new province as early as  ÛÖ”; see C. Breytenbach and C. Zimmerman, Early in and Adjacent Areas: From Paul to Amphilochius of Iconium (Leiden: Brill, Òõ³ñ) Ûô. ³³ New Pauly Historical Atlas of the Ancient World (ed. A.-M. Wittke, E. Olshausen, and R. Szydlak; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 177. Because this map shows a dating range from 27 ¿ÀÇ to 211 ÀÇ it is diÁÅÆcult to interpret. The chart on page 176 lists the province of Lycia being founded in 43 ÀÇ with its capital at Patara, but there is no mention of Pamphylia being joined to it. ³Ò T. Cornell and J. Matthews, Cultural Atlas of the Roman World (, ö¾: Stonehenge, 1990) 107. ³Ö R. Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000) 100; Ancient World Mapping Center, “Asia Minor in the Second Century À.Ç.” (http://awmc.unc.edu/wordpress/blog/2017/02/22/wall-map-now-available-asia-minor- in-the-second-century-c-e/; accessed 5/4/2017). ³Û Keener, Acts, 2.2189 reÔÕects this view: “Pamphylia may have been distinct from Galatia at the time of Paul and Barnabas’s journey, but Luke distinguishes here not the provinces (i.e., not Pamphylia vs. Galatia) but the regions (Pamphylia vs. Pisidia) for geographic speciÅÆcity.” ³Ü For example, B.J. Beitzel, The New Moody Atlas of the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 2009) 259 map 111; A.F. Rainey and R.S. Notley, Carta’s New Century Handbook and Atlas of the Bible (: Carta, 2007) 242; J.A. Beck, Discovery House Bible Atlas (Grand Rapids: Discovery House, 2015) 225, 228. P. Lawrence, The InterVarsity Atlas of Bible History (Downers Grove, óæ: InterVarsity, 2006) 163 incorrectly places the label Pamphylia over the of Lycia. ³î J.D. Currid and D.P. Barrett, Crossway —˜™ Bible Atlas (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010) 241 map 12-18C. C.G. Rasmussen, Zondervan Atlas of the Bible (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) 225 shows the boundary lines of a joint province of Lycia-Pamphylia with Pisidia included, but the name Lycia is absent. Lycia is shown on the map on p. 228 but without Pisidia.

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç 

65 ÀÇ.©é Maps in Bible atlases generally depict a joint Pamphylia-Lycia prov- ince at the time of Paul’s journeys. In recent years a number of archaeological discoveries have called into question that communis opinio. First are the important new discoveries in Lycia. Two monumental inscriptions—the Stadiasmus Patarensis of Claudius (46 ÀÇ) found in the capital Patara©ê and the Lex Portorii Provinciae Lyciae of Nero (58 ÀÇ) found in ©ì—show governors conducting imperial business only in that province and its cities.½í In the Stadiasmus Pamphylia is named as a bordering province.½© No inscriptions have been found in Pamphylia that name Quintus Veranius, Lycia’s ÅÆrst governor, or any other known Lycian governors from the reigns of Claudius or Nero. The number of inscriptions showing Pamphylia as part of Galatia are in- creasing. One from (¦§ 346) designates Calpurnius Asprenas as pro pr. provinc[ia]e Galateae Paphlagoniae Pamphyliae Pisidiae.½½ This is the same Calpurnius mentioned earlier, whom Tacitus names as governor of Galatia and Pamphylia in 68 ÀÇ. A bilingual inscription ( ¦ª óóó 6737) found near ’s Gate in Attalia recorded that the procurator M. Arruntius Aquila supervised road repair there in 50 ÀÇ.½Ì Arruntius is known from another in- scription found in eastern Pisidia as the procurator of Galatia under Claudius.

³ï A. Curtis, Oxford Bible Atlas (4th ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 159. The “Classical Map of Asia Minor” by W.H. Calder and G.E. Bean (: ¿ó¾¾, 1958) likewise depicts two provinces, Lycia and Pamphylia, in 63 to 72 ÀÇ. ³ñ Şahin and Adak, Stadiasmus Patarensis. For a discussion of the monument in English, see F. Işık, Patara: Capital of the Lycia League (Istanbul: Scala, 2011) 35-38 and N.E. Akyürek Şahin, “Stadiasmus Patarensis” (http://adkam.akdeniz.edu.tr/sp-en-text; accessed 5/4/2017). Williams (Persecution in 1 Peter, 257 n. 25) discusses at length the monument’s discovery but fails to note its signiÅÆcance for Pamphylia’s provincial status ³ô B. Takmer, “Lex Portorii Provinciae Lyciae: Ein Vorbericht über die Zollinschrift aus Andriake aus neronischer Zeit,” Gephyra 4 (2007) 165-188. Òõ C. Marek, In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 331, echoes this. Writing about the of a Claudian province of Lycia and Pamphylia, he states: “The problem has now been solved by further discoveries of inscriptions from Patara.” Ò³ B. Salway, “The Perception and Description of Space in Roman Itineraries,” in Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike (ed. M. Rathmann; : Philipp von Zabern, 2007) 203. ÒÒ Regarding such geographical listings of inscriptions, Marek, Land of a Thousand Gods, 361 writes, “The oÁÅÆcial title of a governor of a great province generally listed all its constitu- ent parts, one after the other…. The governor’s dominion as a whole is represented by the name at the head of the queue.” ÒÖ D.M. French, “Road Terminus-stones,” in Festschrift für Jale İnan Armağanı (ed. N. Başgelen and M. Lugal; Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 1989) 21 republished this inscription from W.M. Ramsay. N.P. Milner, “A in Oinoanda,” Anatolian Studies 48 (1998) 120

   ( )  -   »

The Galatian governor Praesens ÅÆxed the borders between and Tymbriada in 54 ÀÇ. And the Pamphylian city of sent envoys to the Galatian governor Corbulo in 56 ÀÇ.½Ï Further evidence depicting Pamphylia’s relationship to Galatia was discov- ered in Perga during the 2004-2005 excavations in front of Insula 9 along the colonnaded main street. Two Latin inscriptions were found in situ dating from the principates of Claudius and Nero. Özdizbay published these initially in Turkish and German.½Ð Onur later republished the inscriptions in English with corrections and revised translations. The inscriptions are inscribed on bases whose honorees are known from previously published fragmentary inscrip- tions. Onur writes, “Both inscriptions seem to have been by the same hand and time. In both inscriptions the shapes and dimensions of the letters, the spacing of lines and words, and the abbreviations display similar features.”½è Inscription A (Fig. 1) honors Sextus Afranius Burrus, who served as governor of Galaticae [et]/Pamphyliae (lines 6-7) from 43 to 50/1 Àǽé. The honoree of Inscription B (Fig. 2) was Lucius Pupius Praesens previously known from an inscription of Iconium.½ê Since the freedman Claudius Plocamus was the dedicator of both inscriptions, Praesens presumably followed Burrus as the procurator of the province from 50/51 to 61/62 ÀÇ again named Galaticae/et Pamphy/liae (lines 8-10).½ì From these two inscriptions Özdisbay concluded

observed that this inscription “suggests that Pamphylia only joined an expanded province of Lycia et Pamphylia in the ¾á 70’s.” ÒÛ Şahin and Adak, Stadiasmus Patarensis, 85-93 also provides a detailed discussion of the issue. Onur, “Two New Latin Inscriptions from Perge,” 5 n. 4 gives a detailed overview in English, and this information is summarized from his article. ÒÜ A. Özdizbay, “Pamphylia–Perge Tarihi ve İmparatorluk Dönemi Öncesi Perge’nin Gelişimi: Güncel Araştırmalar Işığında Genel bir Değerlendirme,” in Euergetes. Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu’na 65. Yaş Armağanı (2 vols.; ed. İ. Delemen, S. Çokay-Kepçe, A. Özdizbay, and Ö. Turak; Istanbul: ¾~}Çá, 2008) 2.860-871; also A. Özdizbay, Perge’nin M.S. 1.-2. Yüzyıllardaki Gelişimi / Die Stadtentwicklung von Perge im 1.-2. Jh. N. Chr. (: ¾~}Çá, 2012) 1.187-188 no. 19-20. For a diagram showing the location of insula 9 see 371 ÅÆg. 72; for a photograph see 372 ÅÆg. 74. Òî F. Onur, “Two Procuratorian Inscriptions from Perge,” Gephyra 5 (2008) 53-66. His impor- tant contribution was to match the missing upper parts naming the honorees with the statue bases to complete the inscriptions. Òï This is the same Burrus poisoned by Nero in 62 ÀÇ and mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. 12.42.7; 13.2.1), Dio Cassius (61-62), and Suetonius (Nero 35.5). He is also named in a later inscrip- tion from ( ¦ª |óó 5842) that mentions his consular insignia. Òñ This Greek inscription ( ¦· 3991 = ¦ª˜ 8848 = ¦· óóó 263) names him as the procurator of [Γ]αλα[τ]ικῆς ἐ[π]αρχεία[ς. Òô Onur, “Two Procuratorian Inscriptions,” 58-65 supplies a complete for both Burrus and Praesens. Plocamus was formerly a priest of the imperial cult in Iconium and perhaps was sent to Perge to establish the cult there. This again demonstrates an

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç  that Pamphylia was part of Galatia during the reigns of Claudius and Nero, to which Onur concurs: “One of the most remarkable conclusions deduced from the inscriptions is the deÅÆnite evidence that Lycia and Pamphylia were not joined until Vespasianus.”Ìí A related issue concerns the date when Pamphylia was actually joined to Lycia by Vespasian thought to be 71 or 72 ÀÇ.Ì© The recent discovery of a road monument on the Via north of Antalya has further clariÅÆed this dating to late 70 ÀÇ.̽ A signiÅÆcant onomastic point in these recently discovered Greek and Latin inscriptions is the use of Γαλατική, and Galatica for the province of Galatia. These are linked with ἐπαρχεία and provincia in each of these inscriptions and, according to Adak and Wilson, “oÁfensichtlich die gesamte Großprovinz Galatien mit allen in dieser Verwaltungseinheit vereinigten Landschaften.”ÌÌ Because Luke uses Γαλατικὴν χώραν (:6; 18:23), translations assume an ad- jectival form such as “Galatian region” or “Galatian area.” Thus ¿á¾& (s.v. Γαλα- τικός) states, “Here probl. the district, not the Rom. Province, is meant.”ÌÏ However, the preferred translation is “the region of Phrygian Galatia.”ÌÐ As Mitchell observes, “It is hardly conceivable that the Γαλατικὴ χώρα mentioned here is the region of north Galatia.”Ìè The regular nominal form Γαλατία is used in Gal 1:2, 2 Tim 4:10, and 1 Pet 1:1. The Petrine usage is clearly amidst other pro- vincial names while that in 2 Tim is between a city (Thessalonica) and a region/

intra-provincial connection related to imperial cult worship. In his list of provincial gov- ernors Marek, Land of a Thousand Gods, 584-585 did not include the names of Burrus and Praesens and instead suggests M. Annius Afrinus (?) for 49-54 and Q. Umber (?) for 54-55. Öõ Özdisbay, “Pamphylia–Perge Tarihi,” 861; Onur, “Two Procuratorian Inscriptions,” 65. Ö³ For example, C. Marek, Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike (München: Beck, 2010) Farbkarte 7; cf. 450, 870; also Land of a Thousand Gods, 340 no. 18; cf. 338-339, 587 provides the date of 72 ÀÇ. ÖÒ M. Adak and M. Wilson, “Das Vespasiansmonument von Döseme und die Gründung der Doppelprovenz Lycia et Pamphylia,” Gephrya 9 (2012) 1-40. ÖÖ Adak and Wilson, “Das Vespasiansmonument,” 9. ÖÛ The ancient texts referenced by ¿á¾& are of limited value for interpretation. Both (5.39.7) and Polyaenus (4.6.17) use Γαλατικόν in discussions about the . (Anab. 2.4.1) states that after leaving , set out ἐπ᾽ Ἀγκύρας τῆς Γαλατικῆς. Arrian uses Γαλατικῆς anachronistically because the Galatians did not set- tle in Asia Minor until the ¿ÀÇ; see G. Darbyshire, S.M. Mitchell, and L. Vardar, “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor,” AS 50 (2000) 78. ÖÜ G.L. Thompson and M. Wilson, “The Route of Paul’s Second Journey in Asia Minor: In the Steps of Robert Jewett and Beyond,” Tyndale Bulletin 67.2 (2016) 223-224. Öî Mitchell, Anatolia, 2.3.

   ( )  -   »

â2  Galatian inscription A. äà å à.

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç 

â2  Galatian inscription B. äà å à.

   ( )  -   » province (Dalmatia).Ìé The unique use of Γαλατικήν in Acts suggests that Luke is using provincial language perhaps familiar to him from inscriptions. Marek’s map of Asia Minor correctly shows Pamphylia as part of the prov- ince of Galatia in the mid-ÅÆrst century ÀÇ.Ìê And Cohen is one of the few com- mentators on Galatia to state correctly the extent of its southern border: “The Roman province of Galatia in Minor (modern ) extended from the in the north to the Mediterranean in the south.”Ìì

3 The South Galatian Hypothesis Redivivus

In an article published in 2012 Clare Rothschild heralded the denouement of the South Galatian hypothesis.Ïí Rothschild’s writing is rightly described by a recent reviewer as “work of ÅÆne scholarship that reÔÕects broad awareness, new advances in scholarship, and a constructive interpretation….”Ï© Her ar- ticle was written after a three-week tour in Turkey during which she made a presentation on Pisidian Antioch. While its purpose was to explore the role of Pisidian Antioch in Acts, she states that her conclusion resolves the Northern versus Southern Galatian debate by canceling the historical reliability of the Southern hypothesis. This is a tall order since she does not discuss either the North or South hypothesis at length nor does she discuss the addressees of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.Ͻ Given’s Rothschild’s attempt to use historical geography to argue her case, it is useful to recall its importance for reconstructing ancient texts as Külzer has recently emphasized:

Öï Disputed is when the province Illyricum, mentioned by Paul in Rom 15:19, was split into Pannonia and Dalmatia. This split is dated either to Nero or Vespasian so maybe the dif- ference in the dating of these two documents reÔÕects the provincial nomenclature of the time. Öñ C. Marek, Geschichte Kleinasiens, Farbkarte 5, 6; In the Land of a Thousand Gods, 327 no. 16; 337 no. 17. The English version unfortunately no longer has color maps. Öô S.J.D. Cohen, “The Letter of Paul to the Galatians,” in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation (ed. A.-J. Levine and M.Z. Brettler; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 332. However, Galatia did not extend to the Black Sea until Vespasian’s reorganization of the provinces in Anatolia in 70 ÀÇ. The map showing Galatia on page 334 is imprecise because it fails to mark any provincial boundaries. Ûõ C.K. Rothschild, “The Denouement of the South Galatian Hypothesis,” NovT 54 (2012) 334-353. Û³ T.M. Troftgruben, “Review of Paul in : The Popular Religious Context of by Clare K. Rothschild,” Review of Biblical Literature (2017) 4 (https://www.bookreviews.org/ pdf/10265_11392.pdf; accessed 3/20/2017). ÛÒ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 335 in acknowledgments.

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç 

It is the main task of historical geography to reconstruct the former state of a special landscape, even more to search for regularities of emergence or decline of cultural landscapes in general. The reconstruction can focus on diÁferent aspects, for example the geomorphological situation, but also on historical settlement conditions, the using of agricultural areas or the course of the former road system. There are diÁferent methods of reconstruction, scientiÅÆc approaches like geodesy and geophysics, clima- tology or pollen analysis, as well as historical or philological approaches like analysis of written sources, archaeological data or onomastic mate- rial. The results of all methods must be taken into account if the picture of former days’ reality should be trustworthy.ÏÌ

The core of Rothschild’s article is an analysis of Galatia as a desideratum of the Lukan narrative. Five features are discussed: (1) stereotypes; (2) lack of de- tail; (3) historical inaccuracies; (4) brisk narrative pace; and (5) link between and Antioch.ÏÏ Interaction with these points will ensue seriatim. Rothschild claims that stereotypes replace historical information in -14 and that the itinerary of the ÅÆrst journey starting in “comprises the expected Galatian tour.”ÏÐ However, this facile summary fails to deal with the geographical and topographical realities of travel in southern Galatia in the ÅÆrst century. Seven anomalies in Luke’s so-called “stereotypical” depiction of the ÅÆrst journey and its route must be pointed out.

1. Paul and his companions turned northward from Paphos rather than traveling to , particularly Alexandria, the normal connection from southwestern Cyprus.Ïè Mitchell has suggested that Paul regarded his meeting with Sergius Paulus as a providential sign so he changed the direction of the journey. Sergius Paulus recommended that Paul visited his patria—Pisidian Antioch.Ïé

ÛÖ A. Külzer, “ and its Hinterland: Reconstructing the Past in a Changing Landscape,” (2017) 2 (https://www.academia.edu/30275559/Ephesus_and_its_Hinterland_ Reconstructing_the_Past_in_a_changing_Landscape_Abstract; accessed 7/11/2017). ÛÛ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 346-352, develops the idea at length that chapter 13 functions as a narrative inclusion, with Pisidian Antioch representing a “Little ” with “Big Rome” concluding Acts in chapter 28. The entire construct seems arbitrary and artiÅÆcial because the same factors could be cited even more about , where Paul had a much longer and extensive ministry. ÛÜ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 340. Ûî T.W. Davis and M. Wilson, “The Destination of Paul’s First Journey: Asia Minor or North Africa?” Pharos Journal of Theology 97 (2016) 1-14. Ûï S.M. Mitchell, “Population and Land in Roman Galatia,” ‡»¼ óó.7.2 (1980) 1073-1074, 1074 n. 134; Mitchell, Anatolia, 2.6.

   ( )  -   »

2. Paul’s group arrived at Perga, probably through its seaport of Magydus, and departed from Attalia.Ïê Campbell concluded that Paul’s two visits to Pamphylia, although seeming a bit puzzling, are “deliberately asym- metrical, and it is this that betrays their almost certain accuracy in histori- cal terms” (his italics).Ïì 3. left them at Perga and returned to Jerusalem.Ðí Barrett insight- fully observes, “If the disagreement about Mark was a pure invention on Luke’s part it was very cunningly worked out…. There is no reason to think that the story about Mark is totally untrue, for there is no reason why it should have been invented.”Щ 4. Paul and Barnabas did not stop inbound at Perga but traveled directly to Pisidian Antioch probably on the Via Sebaste, but seemingly returned on a diÁferent road “through Pisidia” (:24; Fig. 3).н Why does Luke needlessly suggest two routes if not to indicate some distinction to the “expected tour”? 5. is visited after Paul’s stoning at while passing through the larger, unmentioned city of Laranda. Apparently, someone from Derbe was present in Lystra at the time and invited Paul to recover in his city.ÐÌ Rothschild mentions this as an exception, stating, “Derbe is also not wholly stereotypical insofar as it was not located on the via Sebaste” and whose proximity to the road “was not far oÁf.”ÐÏ The distance from

Ûñ M. Wilson, “ Paul in Pamphylia: Intention, Arrival, Departure,” Adalya 19 (2016) 236-250. Ûô D.A. Campbell, “Paul in Pamphylia (Acts 13.13-14a; 14.24b-26): A Critical Note,” »§˜ 46 (2000) 595. Barrett, Acts 1-14, 690 notes: “It is hard to understand Conzelmann’s comment (81) that this note of itinerary is redactional. The evangelists had entered Pamphylia through Perge, and only some kind of traditional itinerary, whether accurate or not, would have led Luke to introduce a further locality of which he has nothing to say except that the party came to it and left it.” Üõ Various reasons have been suggested for his desertion as well as why he waited until Perga to leave; see Wilson, “Saint Paul in Pamphylia,” 239-240. ܳ C.K. Barrett, -28 (London: T & T Clark, 1998) 756. ÜÒ D. French and S.M. Mitchell both suggest the use of the Via Sebaste on Paul’s inbound route; see M. Wilson, “The Route of Paul’s First Journey to Pisidian Antioch,” »§˜ 55 (2009) 477-483. ÜÖ Writing about Paul and his fellow travelers, G.H.R. Horsley and J.M. Luxford, “Pagan in Roman Asia Minor: Revisiting the Archaeological Evidence,” AS 66 (2016) 150 state that “their visits to smaller towns (such as Derbe) may have been mentioned by the writer of Acts, but they were simply en route to other, larger places.” But on the ÅÆrst journey Derbe was the last stop and, as stated above, the larger city of Laranda is unmentioned. ÜÛ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 340 n. 19; 342 n 28. In note 19 she claims that, according to Acts, Paul did not found the church in Lystra, despite his preaching in the city in Acts 14:8-18. Later in on page 353 note 73 she asserts that it is “unlikely that Paul founded the

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç ß

â2  Route of the ÅÆrst journey. 獁å ⠏à.

Lystra to Derbe via Laranda was 121 kilometers, certainly not close by any means. 6. Paul and Barnabas revisited the newly founded churches to appoint lead- ers rather than returning directly from Derbe to Antioch on the Orontes. Why would they possibly subject themselves again to the persecutions

churches in South Galatia,” although he came to this region early. Such a skeptical reading of the text is not credible. No other ancient sources discuss church planting in this region. Breytenbach and Zimmerman, Early Christianity in Lycaonia and Adjacent Areas, 79-91 - serve that the earliest Christian inscriptions are found in Lycaonia and that there is a high frequency of the name Paulus on them. From this onomastic phenomenon, they con- clude that “there is cumulative evidence that the addressees of the Letter to the Galatians should be placed in Lycaonia” (91).

   ( )  -   »

previously experienced in Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch unless there was a credible pastoral reason to do so? 7. Instead of returning from Pisidian Antioch along the shorter router and more direct route through the , Paul and Barnabas re- crossed the to return to Perga and Attalia. More will be said about this in the next section.

In a footnote Rothschild points out that an earlier article on the route of the ÅÆrst journey “presumes historicity of the Acts account.”ÐÐ Rothschild declares her presuppositions by adopting the perspective of Haenchen and Pervo that Acts is not historical. Rather than adopt an a priori perspective on historic- ity, my discussion suggests that this pericope does preserve genuine memories of Paul’s travels. The historical geography related to the ÅÆrst journey is com- plex, with nothing routine or “expected” in its execution. By understanding the transportation system of imperial Cyprus and Galatia,Ðè it is possible to make a credible reconstruction of Luke’s description of the journey. The lack of detail regarding Pisidian Antioch, point 2, suggests to Rothschild that the visit is “a construct of the Lukan imagination.”Ðé She appreciates Breytenbach’s careful study of Acts 13-14 that “demonstrates the plausibil- ity/historical accuracy of its local color” (Ger. Lokalkolorit). Nevertheless, she faults him for connecting Acts 13-14 with Galatians by endorsing the Southern Galatian hypothesis. She continues: “That Luke’s reports about other cities in Galatia feature local color further detracts from the historicity of Paul’s Galatian itinerary.”Ðê But what local color is mentioned in Iconium, apart from a synagogue, or in Derbe with nothing added? Is Luke’s account of the second journey from Antioch to Troas, told with virtually no commentary in three verses (Acts 16:6-8), more historical? If more local color is desired, then the apocryphal Acts of Paul and , especially sections 26-39, certainly provide that.Ðì Regarding point 3, Rothschild cites two examples of inaccuracies regarding the ÅÆrst journey: 1) Paul and his companions arrived at Perga which in fact

ÜÜ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 339 n. 17. Üî For Cyprus see T. Bekker-Nielsen, The Roads of Ancient Cyprus (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2004) 108-111 ÅÆg. 13, 14; for Galatia see D.H. French, Roman Roads & Milestones of Asia Minor, Vol. 3 Milestones, Fasc. 3.5 Galatia (Ankara: British Institute at Ankara, 2012), especially the synopsis maps on pp. 15-16. Üï Rothschild, “Denouement,” 342. Üñ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 339 n. 17; cf. Breytenbach, Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien, 29-52. Üô E.J. Goodspeed, The Book of Thekla (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1901) 26 ob- serves that its “local color [was] so skillfully detected” by W.M. Ramsay in his The Church in the before ‡.. 170 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892) 375-426.

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç  was not on the coast, and 2) Antioch was not “in” Pisidia but rather “toward” or near” as states.èí About the ÅÆrst, ancient writers variously describe the ports connected to cities and . For example, (A.J. 16.17) states that Herod stopped at but does not mention its port while Luke does the reverse with Paul on his third journey (:14). (Ep. 16), describing his sail on a coasting vessel from Pergamum, did not mention that he actually departed from its port Elaia.è© Both Strabo (Geogr. 14.3.7) and Luke (:5) fail to mention Andriake, the port of . Strabo (Geogr 7.frags. 34, 36, 41) fails to connect with its port . However, Luke does so on its ÅÆrst mention (Acts 16:11) but not on the second (Acts 20:6), similar to what he does with Antioch’s port, (Acts 13:4; 14:26). Rothschild’s point cannot be sustained when other ancient authors are similarly examined. Regarding the second point, Luke never states that Antioch was in Pisidia. Acts 13:14 reads εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν τὴν Πισιδίαν.è½ Rothschild infers that the use of the proper adjective here is problematic because it is previously unattested.èÌ Metzger rightly suggests that the phrase functions with the grammatical equiv- alence of Strabo’s “toward or over against or near Pisidia.”èÏ If Luke wishes to place Antioch in a region, he would have used the genitive case as in Lystra and Derbe, εἰς τὰς πόλεις τῆς Λυκαονίας (Acts 14:6) or Philippi, πρώτη[ς] µερίδος τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις, κολωνία (Acts 16:12; cf. 8:5; 21:39).èÐ The later genitival variant τῆς Πισιδίας reÔÕects the provincial reorganization in 295 ÀÇ when Antioch be- came the capital of Pisidia.èè That these two examples in point 3 are historical inaccuracies cannot be sustained. Point 4 advances the notion that the narrative has an artiÅÆcial “sense of urgency” citing similar comments by Haenchen and Pervo.èé However, the

îõ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 343. î³ Marek, Land of a Thousand Gods, 369 makes the fact explicit, stating that Pliny the Younger traveled north from Ephesus “as far as and its harbor Elaia, when he boarded coastal vessels that took him through the and on to .” îÒ Unfortunately, some English translations translate erroneously as “Antioch in Pisidia” (FGö, ~Hö, ÇGö), which is reÔÕected in commentaries; see M.C. Parsons, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008) 191. îÖ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 343 n. 31. îÛ B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) 404. îÜ The Stadiasmus Patarensis does this as well: Ἀττάλειαν τῆς Παµφυλίας; see Salway, “Perception and Description of Space in Roman Itineraries,” 198 n. 68. îî In a long note Rothschild, “Denouement,” 344 n. 31 reviews some of this same material plus provides a long quotation from Cadbury that sheds little light on the issue. îï Rothschild, “Denouement,” 344-345.

   ( )  -   » observation is superÅÆcial. What if Paul and Barnabas did go immediately into the synagogue upon arriving in Pisidian Antioch? Maybe their arrival was short- ly before the Sabbath began, and they did not want to wait another full week to initiate contact. The apostles were walking on a strange road over moun- tainous terrain, so calculating an arrival time would be diÁÅÆcult. The shortest amount of time to walk 294 kilometers (incorporating Naismith’s rule) is ten days.èê Their productive time management should not be viewed negatively. Rothschild’s point 5 rightly notes that a link existed between Cyprus and Pisidian Antioch in the narrative. The “apostles’ dash to the synagogue” results not from some artiÅÆcial miracle plus teaching literary construct,èì but from the personal connection of Sergius Paulus with the Roman colony. This is brieÔÕy mentioned in a footnote but left undeveloped. Mitchell was the ÅÆrst scholar to advance the hypothesis that it was Sergius Paulus who recommended that the apostles visit Pisidian Antioch, a hypothesis that other New Testament schol- ars including myself have adopted.éí The handling of the North-South Galatian debate by Rothschild lacks con- sistency. In her conclusion she claims that, since Luke is aware of contention in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he has constructed the ÅÆrst part as a literary inclusion to place Paul in “Little Rome.” If this demonstrates that Luke is sim- ply trying to get Paul to south Galatia for his literary advantage, this then invali- dates the South Galatian hypothesis. It also then conÅÆrms the North Galatian hypothesis, which she claims is the more cogent explanation for many scholars including Schnelle and Betz.é© Nevertheless, many other biblical scholars and Roman historians still view the South Galatian hypothesis as more credible. In section óó of her article Rothschild states that she followed “closely” the research of Stephen Mitchell.é½ In fact, Mitchell’s two-volume Anatolia and his co-authored Pisidian Antioch are cited twenty-three times and serve as her main secondary sources. Although Mitchell’s views about South Galatia and Paul’s ÅÆrst journey are summarized in a response to Betz, his full view of the matter is never presented in the article.éÌ Either overlooked or ig-

îñ See M. Wilson, “Paul’s Journeys in 3D: The Apostle as Professional Ancient Traveller,” Journal of Early Christian History 8.1 (2018), 1-19; áKó: 10.1080/2222582X.2017.1411204. îô Rothschild, “Denouement,” 345 especially n. 38. ïõ For a discussion of this point, see Wilson, “Saint Paul in Pamphylia,” 231-232. ï³ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 353; 336-337 n. 4-5. For a more recent proponent see R.S. Schellenberg, “The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts,” JBL 134.1 (2015) 202. ïÒ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 340 n. 20. ïÖ Rothschild, 336-337 n. 4-5. R. Wallace and W. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Bristol Classical Press, 1993) 74 argue against Rothschild’s conclusion using an application

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç  nored is Mitchell’s statement on the opening page of volume 2 of Anatolia: “Hypercriticism has certainly led to a needless accretion of doubt on some basic issues. A prime case is the problem concerning the identiÅÆcation of the recipients of Galatians, a needlessly vexed crux of New Testament historical exposition.” Mitchell goes on to state why there should be no problem identi- fying the audience of Galatians: “There is virtually nothing to be said for the north Galatian theory. There is no evidence in Acts or in any non-testamentary source that Paul ever evangelized the region of Ancyra and , in person, by letter, or by any other means.”éÏ Rothschild’s claim that the South Galatian hypothesis has been invalidated by her research is remarkable since it contra- dicts Mitchell’s clear verdict.éÐ Rothschild’s article provides some valuable insights regarding Paul’s min- istry at Pisidian Antioch and its role in the book of Acts. However, any pro- nouncement about the demise of the South Galatian hypothesis must account for the judgment of an archaeologist and epigrapher like Mitchell who has over four decades of ÅÆeld experience both in North and South Galatia. The redivivus of the South Galatian hypothesis and the denouement of its North Galatian counterpart provides a more viable conclusion for the evidence presented.

4 Pamphylia as a Possible Audience for Galatians

Having established epigraphically that Pamphylia was part of provincial Galatia at the time of Paul’s ÅÆrst journey and that the South Galatian hypoth- esis is more viable from the perspective of historical geography and archae- ology, the implications for the audience of Galatians will be explored next. Believers in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe were among its recipients. Mitchell concludes that “there is good reason to think that the to the Galatians was written soon after this journey, and thus becomes, quite simply, the earliest surviving document of the Christian Church.”éè But could cities in Pamphylia have also been among the audience? Harrison denies that Pamphylia was favorable for a Pauline mission: “This small and somewhat backward province faced the sea and was almost sealed

of Occam’s Razor: “Why conjure up out of this verse (16:6) a mission to Ankyra when four ‘Galatian’ foundations are well attested?” ïÛ Mitchell, Anatolia, 2.3. For a more extensive discussion arguing the South Galatian churches as the audience for Paul’s letter, see Breytenbach, Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien, especially 152-167. ïÜ Rothschild, “Denouement,” 353. ïî Mitchell, Anatolia, 2.3. This of course presupposes an early date for Galatians.

   ( )  -   » oÁf from the regions to the north by the Taurus mountains. It was not a prom- ising area for evangelizing, since Greek and Roman inÔÕuences had not been strong in this region and the inhabitants were not yet receptive to new ideas.”éé Conversely, Bean presents a vastly diÁfering picture:

During the time of prosperity under the early empire, when wealth was abundant, the richer citizens were eager to outdo one another in mak- ing lavish presentations to their home tome; handsome buildings were erected at private expense, while other benefactors undertook to supply oil in the gymnasium free of charge, or simply to make a distribution of money either to all the citizens or to certain sections of them.éê

Archaeological excavations over the past ÅÆfty years in Pamphylia’s major cities have conÅÆrmed this positive assessment of Bean.éì Rather than returning east directly through the Cilician Gates to Syrian Antioch after appointing leaders in the newly established Galatian churches, Paul and Barnabas turned south again through the Taurus Mountains διελθόντες τὴν Πισιδίαν ἦλθον εἰς τὴν Παµφυλίαν (14:24). The reason for their return is then given: καὶ λαλήσαντες ἐν Πέργῃ τὸν λόγον κατέβησαν εἰς Ἀττάλειαν (Acts 14:25). On their inbound visit Paul and Barnabas failed to stop because of Sergius Paulus’s connection to Pisidian Antioch, as mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, Paul likely either saw a spiritual opening that prompted a desire to revisit the city, or he made contact with the Jewish leadership in Perga, as in Ephesus (:19-21). in Pamphylia were among the Diaspora communities addressed by the Lucius in 139 ¿ÀÇ (1 Macc 15:23). Philo (Legat. 36) similarly mentions their existence. Jews from Pamphylia were among the pilgrims in Jerusalem at the event (:10). Epigraphic evidence for Jews in Perga is a dedicatory inscription at (4th- ÀÇ) that men- tions , an from Perga (Σαµουηλ πρεσβύτης Πέργεούς).êí Carroll

ïï E.F. Harrison, Acts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 220. ïñ G.E. Bean, Turkey’s Southern Shore (London: Benn, 1968) 17. A visit to the archaeological site of Perga today as well as to the Antalya Archaeological Museum, where its realia is displayed, clearly bears out Bean’s assessment. Similar development can also be seen at Aspendus and . ïô See Grainger, Cities of Pamphylia, passim. ñõ J. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987) 42, write that “the only explanation we can suggest is that this is a form of the ethnic for the city of Perge in Pamphylia, for which the attested form is Πέργαῖος.”

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç  suggests that “it is likely that there were Jews in the city of Perga during Paul’s missionary activities there.”ê© Gasque suggests that a synagogue existed, al- though archaeological evidence for such a structure has not been discovered.ê½ To postulate the existence of a synagogue in Perga based on textual evidence is viable, since synagogue buildings are yet to be found by archaeologists in cities like Pisidian Antioch or Ephesus (cf. Acts 13:14, 42; 19:8-9). If there were a synagogue in Perga, Paul probably began his preaching in it. The terse description of Paul’s ministry in Perga is ambiguous regard- ing spiritual results (Acts 14:25). The phrase λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον is used six other times in Acts (4:29, 31; 8:25; 11:19; 13:46; 15:36) with its functional equivalents εὐαYελιζόµενοι τὸν λόγον used eight times (5:42; 8:4; 11:20; 14:7, 35; 15:35; 16:6, 32; cf. 14:21), κατήYεaον τὸν λόγον once (13:5; cf. 28:31), and διδάσκων ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον once (18:11; cf. 28:31).êÌ In each case there is an expressed or antici- pated positive result of the preaching of the word.êÏ As B.R. Wilson writes, “the succinct conversion reports are most often presented in contexts of Christian proclamation, where the conversions are most naturally taken as the outcome of the preaching or teaching or debating.”êÐ At the beginning of the ÅÆrst journey Paul and Barnabas κατήYεaον τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ in the Jewish synagogues in Salamis where the result is also unstated (Acts 13:5).êè Tannehill notes a narrative function for Luke’s brief description:

ñ³ S.T. Carroll, “Pamphylia,” ‡ˆ 5 (1992) 138; similarly, M.R. Fairchild, “Why Perga? Paul’s Perilous Passage through Pisidia,” Biblical Review 39.6 (2013) 57. E.B. Brooks, “Mark at Perga,” Alpha 1 (2013) 99 (https://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/alpha/v1/ a1-19-perga.pdf; accessed 9/2/2017) is more pessimistic. Since the elder Samuel of Perga helped to fund the Aphrodisias synagogue, Brooks suggests “that the Perga Jews were too few to build their own synagogue. If such were the case with the Jews of 3rd century Perga, the Jews of 1st century Perga are unlikely to have been more numerous. There may have been none at all.” ñÒ W.W. Gasque, “Perga,” ‡ˆ 5 (1992) 228. ñÖ It is likely that there is an elision in the Greek text of 20:7 with λαλεῖν to be understood: παρέτεινέν τε (λαλεῖν) τὸν λόγον µέχρι µεσονυκτίου. ñÛ This same preaching pattern occurred in Salamis, Paphos, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe; cf. Schnabel, Acts, 614. M.A. Mutavhatsindi, “The Preliminary Urban Missionary Outreach of the Apostle Paul as Referred to in Acts 13-14,” Verbum et Ecclesia 38.1 (2017) 8 observes that they “are also involved in making a substantial number of disciples.” ñÜ B.R. Wilson, “The Depiction of Church Growth in Acts,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60.2 (2017) 327. Wilson repeats this in his conclusion that “the short- er conversion reports are typically presented as the outcome of speciÅÆc instances of Christian proclamation” (331). ñî Schnabel, Acts, 1080 believes that the initial preaching at Salamis was successful and that the return of Barnabas and John Mark to Cyprus “perhaps indicates that there were churches on Cyprus to whose consolidation and expansion they wanted to contribute.”

   ( )  -   »

“Dramatic portrayal of this preaching is reserved for the major scene that fol- lows in 13:14-43.” Like the missions of in Luke 4 and Peter in Acts 2, Luke then demonstrated Paul’s power not only as a preacher but as a worker of signs and wonders in his encounter with . Tannehill continues: “Because there were previous references to Paul’s preaching but not to his mighty acts, presenting the latter ÅÆrst may have been advantageous.”êé The concise refer- ences to preaching at Salamis and Perga function as an evangelistic inclusio for the ÅÆrst journey in the same way that Syrian Antioch functions as its geo- graphical inclusio.êê After Paul preached in Perga, it is very probable, as Pekman observes, “that in the course of this visit he [Paul] set up the ÅÆrst church organisation in Perge, and, consequently, in Pamphylia.”êì This small congregation would be comprised of Jews, Godfearers, and Gentiles, as in the other Galatian cities. Ramsay concludes that the absence of Pamphylia in 1 Pet 1:1 is “clear proof that there was no Church in Pamphylia at a date considerably later.”ìí However, the address is 1 Peter only contains provinces in Asia Minor, not sub-regions; Pamphylia would be ipso facto included in the mention of Galatia. The apocry- phal Acts of Paul 5 name Thrasymachus and Cleon along with their wives Aline and Chrysa as believers from Perge,ì© while the Life of 2 mentions that Paul stayed in at the home of Strataeas who had heard him preach in Pamphylia. How long Paul and Barnabas spent in Perga is unknown, but probably until they learned of a coasting vessel returning to . Instead of de- parting from Magydus, their port of arrival, they walked sixteen kilometers to the port of Attalia. The Codex Bezae (D) of Acts 14:25b adds εὐαYελιζόµενοι αὐτούς,ì½ suggesting “that the apostles conducted a preaching mission there before sailing for Antioch.”ìÌ So it is possible that, while waiting for their ship’s

ñï R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: The Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 2.161. ññ C.H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (New York: Crossroad, 1977) 125 likewise notes that chapters 13-14 are a large thought unit framed by the geographical “inclusion” (his term) of Antioch. ñô A. Pekman, History of Perge (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurum, 1989) 97. The Greek spelling Perge is usually preferred in scholarly literature related to classical studies. ôõ W.M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895) 181. Barrett, Acts 1-14, 626 calls Ramsay’s comment “a very insecure inference, not conÅÆrmed by 14.25.” ô³ I thank E.J. Schnabel for this reference. ôÒ Miniscule 383 reads αὐτοῖς. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 327 states that with this addition “δ improves the occasion.” ôÖ Metzger, Textual Commentary, 425.

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç  departure, they also preached in the important Greco-Roman city of Attalia.ìÏ The recent discovery of a colonette fragment with a menorah in Kaleiçi, the old city of Antalya, suggests that a Jewish community existed in Attalia in antiquity.ìÐ After returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas announced ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς µετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ὅτι ἤνοιξεν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν θύραν πίστεως (Acts 14:27). If churches had been established in Perga and possibly in Attalia, the apostles’ report of success in Galatia would also have included these cities. The rhetorical situ- ation that prompted the writing of Galatians, according to Bruce, was “Paul’s receiving news of people who had visited his Galatian mission-ÅÆeld and were persuading his converts there to accept a diÁferent form of teaching from that which he had given them.”ìè That teaching included adherence to the law and circumcision. Barclay suggests that their origin could have been Jerusalem (cf. its prominence in Gal 1-2; 4.25-26) “but they could have come from Antioch or almost any other church which included Jewish .”ìé Paul’s so- called “opponents,” after hearing the report of the apostles and therefore knowing their itinerary, apparently retraced their steps to the Galatian church- es. Whether they traveled ÅÆrst to Pamphylia before turning inland through Pisidia to and Lycaonia or vice versa by land via and is unknown. But this cluster of Galatian cities was surely the destina- tion of these purveyors of a diÁferent (ἕτερον εὐαYέλιον; Gal 1:6). How Paul learned about the activities of these troublemakers (οἱ ταράσσοντες; Gal 1:7; cf. 5:10) and agitators (ἀναστατοῦντες; Gal 5:12) is unknown. It is pos- sible that someone in the Galatian churches, distressed by this non-Pauline teaching, traveled to Antioch on the Orontes with news of these interlopers (cf. 1 Cor 1:11; 16:17). The letter drafted by the Jerusalem council and sent to the predominately Gentile churches states that the problem came to a head be- cause some unauthorized person went out and caused trouble (ἐτάραξαν; Acts

ôÛ Carroll, “Attalia,” ABD 5.139. Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (London: GÀ}, 1989) 224 quotes approvingly Dibelius’s suggestion that the mention of such an insigniÅÆcant and unimportant city of Attalia resulted from Luke having a description of the route at his disposal. Lüdemann concludes that such “travel notes are probably part of the tradition because they are so matter-of-fact and simple.” ôÜ F. Büyükyörük, “Sondage at Insula 124 Lot 13 in Kaleiçi,” Anmed 12 (2014) 270-271. This au- thor has received permission to publish this menorah, which will be discussed within the larger context of Jewish communities in ancient Pamphylia. ôî F.F. Bruce, The : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 19. ôï J.M.G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” ¿˜»§ 31 (1987) 87-88.

   ( )  -   »

15:24). Although the reference goes back to Acts 15:1, the use of ταράσσω might also stem from Paul’s oral report about the situation in Galatia (Acts 15:12). Williams likewise observes that Gal 1:7 and 5:12 represent “the same problem.”ìê Paul’s use of ταχέως in Gal 1:6 (with µετατίθεσθε; “quickly deserting”; FGö, óö, ÇGö) may be a helpful chronological marker suggesting only a matter of weeks or months since his visit.ìì The word ταχέως is similarly used in 2 Thess 2:2 (with σαλευθῆναι; “quickly shaken”; FGö, ÇGö). Weima suggests “that only a short time had passed between the two letters”, maybe eight to twelve weeks.©íí Paul’s use of ταχέως in these three letters could suggest a short period between Paul’s initial visit and the writing of the letter.©í© Witherington ob- serves similarly, “It is very likely then, and certainly is the most natural reading of these words, that in Paul’s mind there has been only a short period of time between when he ÅÆrst preached to the Galatians and when he is now writing them.”©í½ If churches did exist in Pamphylia, how did the Galatian letter reach them? That a close connection existed between Iconium and Perga at this time is evidenced by the inscriptions mentioned earlier. Plocamus had been sent from Claudiconium to Perga to establish an imperial cult there (IPerge 35).©íÌ

ôñ D.J. Williams, Acts (Peabody, }¾: Hendrickson, 1990) 270. ôô H.D. Betz, Galatians (: Fortress, 1989) 47-48 aptly notes that its use here “would make little sense, to be sure, if a considerable length of time had passed since the founding of the church” and that the “time reference seems to be the founding of the churches.” ³õõ J.D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014) 39. At this stage of the second journey, Luke uses the cognate τάχιστα to describe Paul’s instructions to his Macedonian companions that and Timothy should “quickly” join him in Athens (Acts 17:14). ³õ³ In other Pauline-related correspondence (1 Cor 4:19; Phil 2:19, 24; 1 Tim 5:22; 2 Tim 4:9) ταχέως has a temporal meaning. Thus ¿á¾& (s.v. ταχέως 1) suggests a meaning, “a very brief extent of time, with focus on speed of action.” However, the óö and æ trans- late ταχέως as “easily” in 2 Thess. 2:2 with a remonstrative sense, following ¿á¾&. ¿á¾& cites our target text, Gal 1:6, along with 1 Tim 5:22 as other examples of ταχέως being used remonstratively. However, no major English versions adopt this sense in their translations. ³õÒ B. Witherington óóó, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 82. However, on page 10, his “short time” is suggested as a year or two. Bruce, Galatians, 80 observes that οὕτως ταχέως “does not aÁford any precise indication of the interval between the Galatians’ conversion and Paul’s reception of the disquieting news about them…but the shorter the interval, the more pointed would his ‘so soon’ be.” ³õÖ Onur, “Two Procuratorian Inscriptions,” 64 describes this relationship: “The duration of his residence in Perge coincided with the time when Galatia was inclusive of Pamphylia (during the reigns of Claudius and Nero) and the when imperial cult was initiated at Perge. Perhaps, Plocamus was sent by the emperor in person (Claudius or Nero) to Perge for the preparations for establishing the imperial cult….That the relations between

   ( )  -  à ፠â À ãäàå-æåç ß

Communication between the two cities did not pass through Pisidian Antioch. Instead a road branched southward from the Via Sebaste through Mistea on the southeastern shore of Lake Caralis and then descended through the Taurus Mountains via to the Pamphylian plain.©íÏ Paul’s motivation for the second journey was twofold: 1) to deliver the deci- sion of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:25, 30; 16:4), and 2) to strengthen the Galatian churches established on the ÅÆrst journey and see if the problems addressed in his letter had been corrected (Acts 15:36; 16:5). With Silas and Timothy, who was added in Lystra, Paul also revisited Iconium and Pisidian Antioch.©íÐ His destination seemingly was Ephesus, so a visit to Pamphylia would have been a signiÅÆcant detour. Perhaps he arranged with believers in Iconium again to deliver the letter from the Jerusalem council as well as to bring greetings from Paul to the believers in Pamphylia. According to Acts, Paul never did revisit Pamphylia.©íè

5 Conclusion

This article has presented epigraphic evidence that Pamphylia was part of the province of Galatia when Paul made his ÅÆrst journey and wrote the let- ter to the Galatians. In presenting the possibility of a Pamphylian audience for Galatians, it hopes not to be “building castles in the air and thus increas- ing the patrimony of pseudo-knowledege.”©íé The South Galatian hypothesis remains preferable, and churches in Perga and possibly Attalia were part of the audience of Galatians. If the South Galatian hypothesis is accepted and

Claudiconium, where Plocamus was formerly the priest of imperial cult, and the family of Iulii Cornuti were well-established might have played a role in presence of Plocamus in Perge for this purpose.” ³õÛ See the so-called Eastern route discussed in Wilson, “Route of Paul’s First Journey,” 472- 474. The modern Turkish highways D330 and D695 closely follow this route. ³õÜ Although Pisidian Antioch is unmentioned in the text, it clearly was a stop along the Southern Highway on the way to Ephesus; see Thompson and Wilson, “Paul’s Second Journey and Jewett,” 221-222. ³õî At the end of his second journey Paul’s ship might have stopped at Attalia or Magydus on its way to . However, given his stated destination as , it is likely that the ship took a more direct route below Cyprus, as on the third journey (Acts 18:18-22; 21:2-3). On the captivity journey the coasting vessel from apparently made a direct run across the open sea below Pamphylia to Myra (Acts 27:5). ³õï The words about a hypothesis of A. Steward-Skypes by M.S. Monroy, The Church of Smyrna (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2016) 86-87. Monroy laments the incorrect methodology widely adopted by some scholars that bases a new hypothesis on a preceding one.

   ( )  -    » if provincial Galatia also included churches in Pamphylia, then new nomen- clature must be used to discuss the geographical situation of the audience. The Phrygian and Lycaonian cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe are now situated in Middle Galatia, while Perga and Attalia in Pamphylia are located in South Galatia. The Pamphylian churches would thus comprise the true South Galatian churches. These latter churches would also be among the Galatian believers to whom Paul later appealed to contribute to the collection for the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 16:1).

   ( )  -