Galatians, Epistle to the – Gamaliel

Galatians, Epistle to the

1. Occasion of the Epistle. — From internal evidence we gather that St. Paul had, when he wrote, paid two visits to the Galatians. On the first visit, which was due to an illness (4’*), he was welcomed in the most friendly way; on the second he warned them against Judaizers (1’ 6’ ‘again,’ cf. 4" ‘the former time,’ though this may be translated ‘formerly ‘) . After the second visit Judaizers came among the Galatians, and, under the influence of a single individual (the’ who ‘of 3’ S’ is singular, cf . 5’°) persuaded them that they must be circumcised, that St. Paul had changed his mind and was inconsistent, that he had refrained from preaching circumcision to them only from a desire to be ‘all things to all men,’ but that he had preached it (at any rate as the better way) to others. It is doubtful if the Judaizers upheld circumcision as necessary to salvation, or only as necessary to a complete Christianity. It depends on whether we fix the date before or after the Council of Acts 15, which of these views we adopt (see § 4) . Further, the Judaizers disparaged St. Paul’s authority as compared with that of the Twelve. On hearing this the Apostle hastily wrote the Epistle to check the evil, and (probably) soon followed up the Epistle with a personal visit.

2. To whom written. The Korth Galatian and South Galatian theories.— it is disputed whether the inhabitants of N. Galatia are addressed (Lightfoot, Salmon, the older commentators, Schmiedel in Encyc. Bibl.), or the inhabitants of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay in the S. part of the Roman province Galatia (Ramsay, Sanday, Zahn, Renan, Pfleiderer, etc.). Those who hold the N. Galatian theory take Acts 16:6 18:23 as indicating that St. Paul visited Galatia proper, making a long detour. They press the argument that he would not have called men of the four cities by the name ‘Galatians,’ as these lay outside Galatia proper, and that ‘Galatians’ must mean men who are Gauls by blood and descent; also that ‘by writers speaking familiarly of the scenes in which they had themselves taken part’ popular usage rather than official is probable, and therefore to call the Christian communities in the four cities ‘the churches of Galatia’ would be as unnatural as to speak of Pesth or (before the Italo- Austrian war) Venice as ‘the Austrian cities’ (Lightfoot, Gal. p. 19). Pesth is not a case in point, for no educated person would call it ‘Austrian’; but the Venice illustration is apt. These are the only weighty arguments. On the other hand, the N. Galatian theory creates Churches unheard of elsewhere in 1st cent, records; it is difficult on this hypothesis to understand the silence of Acts, which narrates all the critical points of St. Paul’s work. But Acts does tell us very fully of the foundation of the Church in S. Galatia. Then, again, on the N. Galatian theory, St. Paul nowhere in his Epistles mentions the four cities where such eventful things happened, except once for blame in 2 Timothy 3:11 — a silence made more remarkable by the fact that in the collection of the alms he does mention ‘the churches of Galatia’ (1 Corinthians 16:1). If the four cities are not here referred to, why were they omitted? The main argument of the N. Galatian theory, given above, is sufficiently answered by taking into account St. Paul’s relation to the Roman Empire (see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 7.)

With regard to the nomenclature, we notice that St. Luke sometimes uses popular non-political names like ‘Phrygia’ or ‘Myaia’ (Acts 2:10 16:8) but St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, uses place-names in their Roman sense throughout, e.g. ‘Achaia’ (which in Greek popular usage had a much narrower meaning than the Roman province, and did not include Athens, while St. Paul contrasts it with Macedonia, the only other Roman province in Greece, and therefore clearly uses it in its Roman sense, Romans 15 2 Corinthians 9:2 ll", 1 Thessalonians 1:7 f.) cf. 1 Corinthians 16:5). ‘Macedonia,’ ‘Illyrioum’ (Romans 15:19 only; the Greeks did not use this name popularly as a substantive, and none but a Roman could so denote the province; in 2 Timothy 4:10 St. Paul himself calls it ‘Dalmatia,’ as the nameusage was changing from the one to the other), ‘Syria and Cilicia’ (one Roman province), and ‘Asia’ (the Roman

arovince of that name, the W. part of Asia Minor, including [ysia). We may compare St. Peter’s nomenclature in 1 Peter 1:1, where he is so much influenced by Pauline ideas as to designate all AsiaMinornorthof the Taurus by enumerating the Roman provinces. St. Paul, then, calls all citizens of the province of Galatia by the honourable name ‘Galatians.’ ■To call the inhabitants of the four cities ‘Phrygians’ or ‘Lycaonians’ would be as discourteous as to call them ‘slaves’ or ‘barbarians.’ The Roman colonies like Pisidian Antioch were most jealous of their Roman connexion.

The South Galatian theory reconciles the Epistle and Acts without the somewhat violent hypotheses of the rival theory. The crucial passages are Acts 16:6 18:23. which are appealed to on both sides. In 16:6 St. Paul comes from Syro-Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, no doubt by land„through the Cilician Gates [Derbe being mentioned first as being reached first, while in 14:6 Lystra was reached first and mentioned first], and then ‘they went through (v.l. going through) the region of FhrygiaandGalatia.’ Ut.’ thePhrygian and Galatic region ‘[so allj the beat MSS read these last words]. This’ region,’ then (probably a technical term for the subdivision of a province), was a single district to which the epithets ‘Phrygian’ and ‘Galatic’ could both be apphed; that is, it was that district which was part of the old country of Phr^gia, and also part of the Roman province of Galatia. But no part of the old Galatia overlappedPhrygia, and the only district satisfying the requirements is the region around Fisidian Antioch and Iconium; therefore in 16:6. is excluded. Moreover, no route from N. Galatia to Bithynia could bring the travellers’ over against Mysia’ (16:7). They would have had to return almost to the spot from which they started on their hypothetic journey to N. Galatia. Attempts to_ translate this passage, even as read by the best MSS, as if it were ‘Phrygia and the Galatic region,’ as the AV text (following inferior MSS) has it, have been made by a citation of Luke 3:1. but this appeara to be a mistake; the word translated there ‘Itursea’ is really an adjective ‘Ituraean,’ and the meaning probably is ‘the Itursean region which is also called Trachonitis.’

In the other passage, Acts 18:23. the grammar and therefore the meaning are diiierent. St. Paul comes, probably, by the same land route as before, and to the same district; yet now Derbe and Lystra are not mentioned by name- St. Paul went in succession through ‘the Galatic region and through ‘Phrygia’ (or ‘[the] Phrygian [region]‘). The grammar requires two different districts here. The first is the’ Galatic region ‘[of Lycaonia] — that part of old Lycaonia which was in the province Galatia, i.e. the region round Derbe and Lystra. The second is the’ Phrygian region ‘[of Galatia], i.e. what was in 16:6 called the Phrygo-Galatic region, that around Antioch and Iconium. In using a different phrase St. Luke considers the travellers’ point of view; for in the latter caae they leave Syrian Antioch, and enter, by way of non-Roman Lycaonia, into Galatic Lycaonia (‘the Galatic region’), while in the former case they start from Lystra and enter the Phrygo-Galatic region near Iconium.

All this is clear on the S. Galatian theory. But on the other theory it is very hard to reconcile the Epistle with Acts. The S. Galatian theory also fits in very well with incidental notices in the Epistle, such as the fact that the Galatians evidently knew Barnabas well, and were aware that he was the champion of the Gentiles (2’‘‘even Barnabas’); but Barnabas did not accompany Paul on the Second Missionary Journey, when, on the N. Galatian theory, the Galatians were first evangelized. Again, Galatians 4:13 fits in very well with Acts 13:14 on the S. Galatian theory; for the very thing that one attacked with an illness in the low-lying lands of Pamphylia would do would be to go to the high uplands of Pisidian Antioch. This seems to have been an unexpected change of plan (one which perhaps caused Mark’s defection). On the other hand, if a visit to Gralatia proper were part of the plan in Acts 16 to visit Bithynia, Galatians 4:13 jg unintelligible.

3. St. Paul’s autobiography.— In chs. 1. 2 the Apostle vindicates his authority by saying that he received it direct from God, and not through the older Apostles, with whom the Judaizers compared him unfavourably. For this purpose he tells of his conversion, of his relations with the Twelve, and of his visits to Jerusalem ; and shows that he did not receive his commission from men. Prof. Ramsay urges with much force that it was essential to Paul’s argument that he should mention all visits paid by him to Jerusalem between his conversion and the time of his evangelizing the Galatians. In the Epistle we read of two visits (l’« 2:1). the former 3 years after his conversion (or after his return to Damascus), to visit Cephas, when of the Apostles he saw only James the Lord’s brother besides, and the latter 14 years after his conversion (or after his first visit), when he went ‘by revelation’ with Barnabas and Titus and privately laid before the Twelve (this probably is the meaning of ‘them’ in 2:2: James, Cephas, and John are mentioned) the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. We have, then, to ask. To which, if any, of the visits recorded in Acta do these correspond? Most scholars agree that Gal l>8= Ac 9: and that the word ‘Apostles’ In the latter place means Peter and James only. But there is much diversity of opinion concerning Galatians 2:1. Lightfoot and Sanday identify this visit with that of Ac 15 (the Jerusalem Council), saying that at the intermediate visit of Acts 11:30 there were no Apostles in Jerusalem, the storm of persecution having broken over the Church (only the ‘elders’ are mentioned), and the Apostles having retired; as, therefore, St. Paul’s object was to give his relation to the Twelve, he does not mention this visit, during which he did not see them. Ramsay identifies the visit with that of Acts 11:30. since otherwise St. Paul would be suppressing a point which would tell in favour of his opponents, it being essential to his argument to mention all his visits (see above) ; moreover, the hypothesis of the flight of the Apostles and of ‘every Christian of rank’ is scarcely creditable to them. They would hardly have left the Church to take care of itself, or have allowed the elders to bear the brunt of the storm; while the mention of elders only in ll’" would be due to the fact that they, not the Apostles, would administer the alms (cf. Acts 6:2).

Other arguments on either side may perhaps balance each other, and are not crucial. Thus Prof. Ramsay adduces the discrepancies between Galatians 2:2 and Acts 15:2; in the former case the visit was ‘by revelation,* in the latter by appointment of the brethren (these are not altogether incompatible facts); in the former case the discussion was private, in the latter public (this is accounted for by the supposition of a preliminary private conference, but that greatly damages St. Paul’s argument). On the other hand. Dr. Sanday thinks that the stage of controversy in Galatians 2 suits Acts 15 rather than Acts 11. This argument does not appear to the present writer to be of much value, for the question of the (5en tiles and the Mosaic Law had really arisen with the case of Comehus (Acts 11:2 ff.). and from the nature of things_ must have been present whenever a Gentile became a Christian. The Council in Ac l5 represents the climax when the matter came to public discussion and formal decision; we cannot suppose that the controversy sprang up suddenly with a mushroom growth. On the whole, in spite of the great weight of the names of Bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Sanday, the balance of the argument appears to lie on the side of Prof. Ramsay.

St. Peter at Antioch. — ^This incident in the autobiography (2:11 ff.) is placed by Lightfoot immediately after Acts 15:35. Ramsay thinks that it was not necessarily later in time than that which precedes, though on his view of the second visit it is in its proper chronological order. He puts it about the time of Acts 15:1. The situation would then be as follows. At first many Jewish Christians began to associate with Gentile Christians. But when the logical position was put to them that God had opened another door to salvation outside the Law of Moses, and so had practically annulled the Law, they shrank from the consequences, Peter began to draw back (this is the force of the tenses in Galatians 21). and even Barnabas was somewhat carried away. But Paul’s arguments were convincing, and both Peter and Barnabas became champions of the Gentiles at the Council. It is difficult to understand Peter’s action if it happened after the Council.

4. Date and place of writing. — Upholders of the N. Galatian theory, understanding Acts 16:6 18:23 to represent the two visits to the Galatians implied in Galatians 4:13. usually fix on Ephesus as the place of writing, and suppose that the Epistle dates from the long stay there recorded in Acts 19:8 ff.: probably early in the stay (cf. Galatians 1:6 ‘ye are so quickly removing’); but Lightfoot postpones the date for some two years, and thinks that the Epistle was written from Macedonia (Acts 20:1). rather earlier than Romans and after 2 Corinthians. He gives a comparison of these Epistles, showing the very close connexion between Romans and Galatians: the same use of OT, the same ideas and same arguments, founded on the same texts; in the doctrinal part of Galatians we can find a parallel for almost every thought and argument in Romans. It is generally agreed that the latter, a systematic treatise, is later than the former, a personal and fragmentary Epistle. The likeness Is much less marked between Galatians and 1 and 2 Corinthians; but In 2 Corinthians the Apostle vindicates his authority much as in Galatians. The opposition to him evidently died away with the controversy about clrcumeision. Thus it is clear that these four Epistles hang together and are to be separated chronologically from the rest.

On the S. Galatian theory, the Epistle was written from Antioch. Kamsay puts it at the end of the Second Missionary Journey (Acts 18:22). Timothy, he thinks, had been sent to his home at Lystra from Corinth, and rejoined Paul at Syrian Antioch, bringing news of the Galatian defection. Paul wrote oft hastily, despatched Timothy back with the letter, and as soon as possible followed himself (Acts 18:23). On this supposition the two visits to the Galatians implied by the Epistle would be those of Acts 13 f. and 16. The intended visit of Paul would be announced by Timothy, though it was not mentioned in the letter, which in any case was clearly written in great haste. It is certainly strange, on the Ephesus or Macedonia hsrpothesis, that Paul neither took any steps to visit the erring Galatians, nor, if he . could not go to them, explained the reason of his inability. Ramsay’s view, however, has the disadvantage that it separates Galatians and Romans by some years. Yet if St. Paul kept a copy of his letters, he might well have elaborated his hastily sketched argument in Galatians into the treatise in Romans, at some little interval of time. Ramsay gives a.d. 53 for Galatians, the other three Epistles following in 56 and 57.

Another view is that of Weber, who also holds that Syrian Antioch was the place of writing, but dates the Epistle before the Council (see Acts 14:28). Hebrews 8 with Ramsay as to the two visits to Jerusalem; but he thinks that the manner of the Judaizers’ attack points to a time before the Apostohc decreee. Galatians 6:12 (‘compel ‘) suggests that they insisted on circumcision as necessary for salvation (§ 1). If so, their action could hardly have taken place after the Council. A strong argument on this side is that St. Paul makes’no allusion to the decision of the Council. The chronological difficulty of the 14 years (2:1) is met by placing the conversion of St. Paul in A.D. 32. Weber thinks that S’ could not have been written after the circumcision of Timothy; but this is doubtful. The two visits to the Galatians, on this view, would be those of Acts 13, on the outward and the homeward journey respectively. The strongest argument against Weber’s date is that it necessitates such a long interval between Galatians and Romans.

6. Abstract of the Epistle. — Chs. 1. 2. Answer to the Judaizers’ disparagement of Paul’s office and message. Narrative of his life from his conversion onwards, showing that he did not receive his Apostleship and his gospel through the medium of other Apostles, but direct from God.

3:1. Doctrinal exposition of the freedom of the gospel, as against the legalism of the Judaizers. Abraham was justified by faith, not by the Law, and so are the children of Abraham. The Law was an inferior dispensation, though good for the time, and useful as educating the world for freedom ; the Galatians were bent on returning to a state of tutelage, and their present attitude was retrogressive.

5:13. Hortatory. ‘Hold fast by freedom, but do not mistake it for licence. Be forbearing and liberal.’

6. Conclusion. Summing up of the whole in Paul’s own hand, written in large characters (6:11 RV) to show the importance of the subject of the autograph.

6. Genuineness of the Epistle .—Until lately Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians were universally acknowledged to be by St. Paul, and the Tubingen school made their genuineness the basis of their attack on the other Epistles. Lately Prof, van Manen (Encyc. Bibl. s.v. ‘Paul ‘) and others have denied the genuineness of these four also, chiefly on the ground that they are said to quote late Jewish apocalypses, to assume the existence of written Gospels, and to quote Philo and Seneca, and because the external attestation is said to begin as late as A.D. 150. These arguments are very unconvincing. the facts being improbable. And why should there not have been written Gospels in St. Paul’s time? (ef. Luke 1:1). As for the testimony, Clement of Rome explicitly mentions and quotes 1 Corinthians, and his date cannot be brought down later than a.d. 100. Our Epistle is probably alluded to or cited by Barnabas, Hermas, and Ignatius (5 times); certainly by Polycarp (4 times), the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It is found in the Old Latin and Syrian versions and in the Muratorian Fragment (c. a.d. 180-200), used by 2nd cent, heretics, alluded to by adversaries like Celsus and the writer of the Clementine Homilies, and quoted by name and distinctly (as their fashion was) by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, at the end of the 2nd century. But, apart from this external testimony, the spontaneous nature of the Epistle is decisive in favour of its genuineness. There is no possible motive for forgery. An anti-Jewish Gnostic would not have used expressions of deference to the Apostles of the Circumcision; an Ebionite would not have used the arguments of the Epistle against the Mosaic Law (thus the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work, clearly hits at the Epistle in several passages); an orthodox forger would avoid all appearance of conflict between Peter and Paul, After a.d. 70 there never was the least danger of the Gentile Christians being made to submit to the Law. There is therefore no reason for surprise that the recent attack on the authenticity of the Epistle has been decisively rejected in this country by all the best critics. A. J. Maclean.

6ALBANUM. — One of the ingredients of the sacred incense (Exodus 30:34). It is a brownish-yellow, pleasantsmelling resin from various species of Ferula; it is imported from Persia. E. W. G. Mastehman.

Galeed

(‘cairn of vritness’). The name which, according to Genesis 31:47, was given by Jacob to the calm erected on the occasion of the compact between Mm and Laban, There is evidently a characteristic attempt also to account in this way for the name Gilead. The respective proceedings of Jacob and of Laban are uncertain, for the narrative is not only of composite origin, but has suffered through the introduction of glosses into the text. It is pretty certain that we should read ‘Laban’ instead of ‘Jacob’ in v. 45. The LXX seeks unsuccessfully to reduce the narrative to order by means of transpositions.

Galilee

1. Position. — Galilee was the province of Palestine north of Samaria. It was bounded southward by the Carmel range and the southern border of the plain of Esdraelon, whence it stretched eastward by Bethshean (Scythopolis, Beisan) to the Jordan. Eastward it was limited by the Jordan and the western bank of its expansions (the Sea of Galilee and Waters of Merom). Northward and to the north-west it was bounded by Syria and Phoenicia; it reached the sea only in the region round the bay of Acca, and immediately north of it. Its maximum extent therefore was somewhere about 60 miles north to south, and 30 east to west.

2. Name. — The name Galilee is of Hebrew origin, and signifies a ‘ring’ or ‘circuit.’ The name is a contraction of a fuller expression, preserved by Isaiah 9:1. namely, ‘Galilee of the [foreign] nations.’ This was originally the name of the district at the northern boundary of Israel, which was a frontier surrounded by foreigners on three sides. Thence it spread southward, till already by Isaiah’s time it included the region of the sea, i.e. the Sea of Galilee. Its further extension southward, to Include the plain of Esdraelon, took place before the Maccabaean period. The attributive ‘of the nations’ was probably dropped about this time — partly for brevity, partly because it was brought into the Jewish State by its conquest by John Hyrcanus, about the end of the 2nd cent. B.C.

3. History.— In the tribal partition of the country the territory of Galilee was divided among the septs of Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, and part of Issachar. In the OT history the tribal designations are generally used when subdivisions of the country are denoted; this is no doubt the reason why the name ‘Galilee,’ which is not a tribal name, occurs so rarely In the Hebrew Scriptures — though the passage in Isaiah already quoted, as well as the references to Kedesh and other cities ‘in Galilee’ (Joshua 20:7 21:32. i k 9:11. 2 Kings 15:29. 1 Chronicles 6:76). show that the name was familiar and employed upon occasion. But though some of the most important of the historical events of the early Hebrew history took place within the borders of Galilee, it cannot be said to have had a history of its own till later times.

After the return of the Jews from the Exile, the population was concentrated for the greater part in JudEea, and the northern parts of Palestine were left to the descendants of the settlers established by Assyria. It was not till its conquest, probably by John Hyrcanus, that it was once more included in Jewish territory and occupied by Jewish settlers. Under the pressure of Egyptian and Roman invaders the national patriotism developed rapidly, and it became as intensely a Jewish State as Jerusalem itself, notwithstanding the contempt with which the haughty inhabitants of Judaea regarded the northern provincials. Under the Roman domination Galilee was governed as a tetrarchate, held by members of the Herod family. Herod the Great was ruler of Galilee in B.C. 47, and was succeeded by his son Antipas, as tetrarch, in B.C. 4. After the fall of Jerusalem, Galilee became the centre of Rabbinic life. The only ancient remains of Jewish synagogues are to be seen among the ruins of Galilsan cities. Maimonides was buried at Tiberias. But it is as the principal theatre of Christ’s life and work that Galilee commands its greatest interest. Almost the whole of His life, from His settlement as an infant in Nazareth, was spent within its borders. The great majority of the twelve Apostles were also natives of this province.

4. Physical Characteristics. — Owing to moisture derived from the Lebanon mountains, Galilee is the best-watered district of Palestine, and abounds In streams and springs, though the actual rainfall is little greater than that of Judsea. The result of this enhanced water supply is seen in the fertility of the soil, which is far greater than anywhere in Southern Palestine. It was famous for oil, wheat, barley, and fruit, as well as cattle. The Sea of Galilee fisheries were also important. The formation of the country is limestone, broken by frequent dykes and outflows of trap and other volcanic rocks. Hot springs at Tiberias and elsewhere, and not infrequent earthquakes, indicate a continuance of volcanic and analogous energies.

5. Population. — Galilee in the time of Christ was inhabited by a mixed population. There was the native Jewish element, grafted no doubt on a substratum of the Assyrian settlers and other immigrants, whose intrusion dated from the Israelite Exile — with probably yet a lower stratum, stretching back to the days of the Canaanites. Besides these there was the cultivated European class — the inhabitants of the Greek cities that surrounded the Sea of Tiberias, and the military representatives of the dominant power of Rome. We have seen that in Judaea the Galilaeans were looked down upon. ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ (John 1:46) was one proverb. ‘Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet’ (y^) was another, in the face of the fact that Galilee was the home of Deborah, Barak, Ibzan, Tola, Elon, with the prophets Jonah, Elisha, and possibly Hosea. The Galilseana no doubt had provincialisms, such as the confusion of the gutturals in speech, which grated on the sensitive ears of the Judseans, and was one of the indications that betrayed Peter when he endeavoured to deny his disoipleship (Matthew 26:73).

R. A. S. Macalistee. GALILEE, MOUNTAIN IN.— After our Lord’s resurrection, the eleven disciples went away from Jerusalem ‘into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them’ (Matthew 28:16). No record or hint indicates to us what mountain is meant. There is no foundation for the theory that it is the Mt. of Olives, whose north point is said to have borne the name ‘Galilee.’

Galilee, Sea of

1. Situation, etc.— The Sea of Galilee is an expansion of the Jordan, 13 miles long, about 8 miles in maximum breadth; its surface is 680 feet below that of the Mediterranean; its maximum depth is about 150 feet. In shape it is like a peat, the narrow end pointing southward. Like the Dead Sea, it is set deep among hills, which rise on the east side to a height of about 2000 feet. At the emergence of the Jordan, however, the Lake impinges on the plain of the GhOr.

2. Names. — The original name of the Sea seems to have been Chinneretb or Chinneroth, which a hazardous etymology connects with the Heb. kinnSr, ‘harp.’ The name is supposed to be given to the Sea on account of its fancied resemblance to such an instrument. It more probably takes its name from an as yet unrecognized town or district in Naphtali (which bordered the Lake on the west side) referred to in Joshua 11:2 W^, 1 Kings 15:20. By this name it is referred to in assigning the border of the Promised Land (Numbers 34:11), in stating the boundary of the trans-Jordanic tribes (Deuteronomy 3:12, Joshua 13:27), and in enumerating the kings conquered by Joshua (Joshua 12). The Lake is referred to also by the name Gennesar in Josephus (always), and in 1 Maccabees 11:67 (AV). This name also is of uncertain origin; strong grounds exist for questioning its derivation as a corruption of the earlier appellation. In the Gospels it is referred to under a variety of names: besides such general terms as ‘the lake’ (Luke 8:22 etc.), or ‘the sea’ (John 6:16), we find Lake of Gennesaret (only in Luke 5:1). Sea of Tiberias ( 21:1, and also as an explanatory or alternative name in John 6:1). but most frequently Sea of Galilee, which seems to have been the normal name. The modern name is Bahr Tubanya, which is often rendered in English as ‘Lake of Tiberias,’ by which name the Sea ls now frequently described (as in Baedeker’s Syria and Palestine).

3. Importance in NT Times.— The Sea in the time of Christ was surrounded by a number of important cities, each of them the centre of a cultured population. Such were Tiberias, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Chorazin, Magdala, and others. The fishing industry was extensive, and where now but a few small boats are to be seen, there evidently were formerly large fleets of fishing vessels. The fishing trade of Galilee was of great importance, and was renowned throughout the world. Owing to the great height of the mountains surrounding the Lake, differences of temperature are produced which give rise to sudden and violent storms. Two such storms are mentioned in the Gospels — one in Matthew 8. Mark 4:36. Luke 8:22, the other in Matthew 14:22. Mark 6:45. Jn "6". The repetition of the event within the narrow historical limits of the Gospels indicates that such tempests, then as now, were matters of frequent occurrence.

R. A. S. Macalisteb.

Gall

(1) rdsh, some very bitter plant, Deuteronomy 29 Lamentations 3:19; ‘water of gall,’ Jeremiah 8:14 9:15; tr. ‘hemlock,’ Hosea 10:4; ‘poison,’ Job 20:16. Hemlock (Ctmium maculaturn), colocynth (CUruUus colocynthia), and the poppy (Papaver somniferum) have all been suggested. The last is perhaps most probable. (2) mer^ah (Job 16:15) and merSrah (20:25) refer to the bile. The poison of serpents was supposed to lie in their bile (20:14). The gall (Gr. chole) of Matthew 27:34 evidently refers to the LXX version of Psalms 69:21, where ehoB is tr. of rosh.

E. W. G. Masterman.

Gallery

1. AV in Song of Songs 7:5 reads ‘The king is held in the galleries.’ The Heb. is barehstim, which, there is no reasonable doubt, means ‘in the tresses’ (so RV). The king is captivated, that is to say, by the tresses of this ‘prince’s daughter.’ 2. AV and RV tr. of aitiq, a word whose etymology and meaning are both obscure. It is found only In the description of Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 41:15, 16 42:3, 5).

Gali

Gali iET.— See Ships and Boats.

6ALLIM C heaps’). — A place near Jerusalem (1 S 25"). It is personified, along with Anathoth and other towns, In Isaiah 10. It is generally placed to the N. of Jerusalem, but the exact site Is unknown.

Gallio

The elder brother of Seneca. According to Acts (18"-"), he was proconsul of Achaia under the Emperor Claudius a.d. 63, when St. Paul was in Corinth. Seneca mentions that his brother contracted fever in Achaia, and thus corroborates Acts. The Jews of Corinth brought St. Paul before Gallio, charging him with persuading men ‘to worship God contrary to the law’ (v.’3). When, however, Gallio found that there was no charge of ‘villainy,’ but only of questions which the Jews as a self-administering community were competent to decide for themselves, he drove them from the judgment-seat (v.»‘). Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, was then dragged before him and beaten; but such’ Lynch law’ had no effect upon the proconsul (v.").

Pliny tells us that Gallio after his consulship travelled from Rome to Egypt in consequence of an attack of haemorrhage from the limga. Eusebiua quotes Jerome as saying that he committed suicide a.d. 65; it is also said that he as well as Seneca was put to death by Nero; but these reports are unsubstantiated. Seneca speaks of him as a man of extreme amiability of character.

Chahles T. p. Grierson.

Gallows

This word occurs eight times in EV in the Book of Esther only (5" etc.) as the rendering of the ordinary Heb. word for ‘tree’ (see margins). It is very doubtful if death by strangulation is intended — ‘tree’ in all probability having here its frequent sense of ‘pole,’ on which, as was customary in Persia, the criminal was impaled (see Crimes and Punishments, § 10) . A. R. S. Kennedy.

Gamael

1 Es 8»= DaiueI, No. 3 (Ezra 8:2).

Gamaliel

1. The son of Pedahzur, and ‘prince of the children of Manasseh’ (Numbers 1:10 2:20. etc.). 2. Gamaliel I., the grandson of Hillel, was a Pharisee, and regarded as one of the most distinguished doctors of the Law of bis age. He was a member of the Sanhedrin during the years of our Lord’s ministry. His views were tolerant and large-hearted ; he emphasized the humaner side of the Law, relaxing somewhat the rigour of Sabbatical observance, regulating the customs of divorce so as the more to protect helpless woman, and inculcating kindness on the part of Jews towards surrounding heathen. The advice given by him to the chief priests (Acts 5:34–40) in reference to their dealing with the Apostles shows similar tolerance and wisdom. At his feet St. Paul was brought up (Acts 22:3).

The Clementine Recognitions absurdly state that by the advice of the Apostles he remained among the Jews as a secret believer in Christ. The Mishna deplores that ‘with the death of Gamaliel i. the reverence for Divine Law ceased, and the observance of purity and piety became extinct." Charles T. P. Grierson.