and others. Galatian tribes. PRAUSUS, 'the terrible' (Strab. iv. p. 137; see Thierry 1. p. 218, and especially Diefenb. II. p. 252). Again, another commander in this expedition is called CERETHRIUS, 'the famous, the glorious' (Pausan. I. 19. 4; certh, 'celebrated,' certhrwyz, 'glory'; Thierry I. p. 219, from Owen's Welsh Dict.). BOLGIUS again (Pausan. ib.), also written Belgius (Justin. xxiv. 3), presents the same Celtic root which appears in Belge' (comp. Diefenb. I. p. 200, II. pp. 61 sq, 267). The name of ACICHORIUS too (Pausan. 1. c.) or Cichorius (Diod. xxii. fragm.), who is associated with Brennus in the command, taken as a Celtic word, describes his office (cygwiawr, 'colleague,' Thierry 1. p. 225). Among later Galatian names of persons we meet with GEZATODIASTUS (Boeckh Inser. 4039), doubtless to be connected with the 'Gesata' of whom we read among the western Gauls, and whose name, signifying 'warriors,' is derived from the Gallic word gesum, 'a spear' (Ces. B. G. iii. 4; comp. Serv. in Virg. En. viii. 662, Diefenb. 1. p. 126); and EROGORIS (Boeckh Inscr. 4118), the root of which appears in Brogitarus, Allobroges, etc.; Zeuss G. C. p. 106; Glück p. 27. Again the name BITUITUS, Bitovitus, or Bitœtus, seems to occur both in Asiatic (Appian Mithr. 111) and in European Gaul ib. Celt. 12, Liv. Epit. lxi); for the reasons given (Wernsdorf p. 164) for assigning the first of these, who slew Mithridates, to the western nation seem insuficient. Nor is this the only proper name which links the two countries together. Strabo (xiii. p. 625) mentions one ADOBOGION, a Galatian; the name Adbogius appears on an inscription relating to Rhenish Gaul (Steiner Cod. Inscr. Rom. Rhen, no. 440). Again, of the three tribes which composed the Galatian people two at least proclaim their Celtic descent in their names. The TECTOSAGE or Tectosages bear identically the same name with a tribe of western Gauls (Cæs. B. G. vi. 24) whom we find moving eastward and occupying a district which was properly German (see Diefenb. II, p. 264 sq). Similarly both the component parts of TOLISTO BOGII, the name of the second of these tribes, claim a Celtic affinity. The word is variously written, but its original Celtic form would seem to be represented by Tolosatobogii. Tolosa was a common Gallic name for places (Diefenb. 11. p. 339), and has survived both in the French Toulouse and in the Spanish Tolosa. It is connected moreover with the name and history of the other Galatian tribe already discussed. Tolosa Tectosagum' is especially mentioned (Mela ii. 5; comp. Plin. iii. 5); and according to the ancient legend a portion of the Tectosages returning from the Delphic expedition to their ancient country Tolosa,' and being afflicted by a pestilence, bethought them of averting the wrath of heaven by sinking their ill-gotten gains in the neighbouring lake (Justin. xxxii. 3; comp. Strab. iv. p. 188, Dion. Cass. Exc. 1. p. 133, ed. L. Dind.). The riddle of this legend I shall not attempt to read; I simply quote it to show the connexion of the Gallic Tolosa with the Asiatic settlement. Indeed this name occurs in Galatia itself under the form Tolosocorium (Tab. Peut.), and Télaora xwpiov (Ptol. v. 4). The second element in the composition of Tolostobogii or Tolostoboii is no less Celtic. It is the name borne by the tribe of the Boil which plays so prominent a part in early Gallic history, and is not uncommon as a termination of other Celtic names (see instances in Zeuss G. C. p. 6p. comp. p. 53, and compare the proper name Alobogius already referred to). Even in the third and remaining tribe the TROCMI Celtic anities have been pointed out (Diefenb. 1. p. 256, Zeuss G. C. p. 28), but these are obscure and far from convincing. Galatian Of Galatian words besides proper names very few indeed have Other been recorded. The explanations given of these may be found in words. Diefenbach (see his references II. p. 251). Among others which are less patent, one is certainly a good Celtic word udoka, mentioned 1 Diefenbach, Celt. 1. p. 248. quotes Solinus (c.42) as mentioning a Galatian tribe Ambiani,' this being the ancient Gaulish name for the modern 'Amiens.' But there seems to be an accidental error here. In the most recent and most critical edition of Solinus (c. 41, ed. Mommsen, 1864) the word is 'Ambitoti'; and in the corresponding passage of Pliny (v. 42), from which Solinus borrowed, Sillig reads 'Ambitouti.' Though the ass in both authors pre sent some variations, there seems to be I notice also that the names of seve Result. by Pausanias (x. 19) as the name for a horse among the Gauls of the Delphic expedition (Diefenb. 1. p. 67). In gathering together the evidence in favour of the Celtic extraction of the Galatians as afforded by their language I have omitted many questionable affinities; and even of those which are given some perhaps will appear uncertain. But taken as a whole the evidence, if I mistake not, places the result beyond a doubt; and the few Supposed German etymologies real or imagined, which have been alleged on anities, the other side, will be quite insuficient to turn the scale. Thus it is asserted that the names of the leaders of the Asiatic expedition, LUTARIUS and LEONNORIUS, are both German; and that the Galatian tribe TEUTOBODIACI and the Galatian town GERMANOPOLIS point very clearly to the same origin. On these four words the whole stress of the Teutonic theory may be said to rest. German how to be explained. And if they had stood alone, the German affinities of these names might perhaps have been accepted. But with the vast mass of evidence on the other side, it becomes a question whether some more satisfactory account cannot be given of them. Thus Lutarius (or Luturius) is said to be the same name with the Frankish Lothaire and the Saxon Luther, and therefore Teutonic (see Graff Althochd. Sprachsch. IV. p. 555); but among the Gallic chieftains one Lucterius is mentioned (Cæsar B. G. vii. etc.), and the identity of the names Lutarius and Lucterius is at least not improbable (Diefenb. II. p. 253; Zeuss, G. C. p. 78, derives the name Lucterius from luct, agmen,' 'pars' see also p. 180). Again the other Galatian commander Leonnorius has certainly a namesake in a genuine Celtic saint, a native of Britain (leta Sanct. Jul. 1. see Diefenb. II. p. 254), and there seems to be no reason for assigning a Teutonic parentage to this word. In the name Teutobodiaci indeed the first component seems very plainly to mean 'German': but, even granting that this is not one of those very specious but very deceptive affinities which are the snares of comparative philology, the word need not imply that the tribe itself was Teutonic. If the second component is rightly taken to denote victory ('buad,' 'buaid,' comp. Boadicea, Bodiocasses, Bodiontici, Bodieus, etc.; see Zeuss G. C. p. 27, Glück p. 53), then the Teutobodiaci were not necessarily Teutons any more than Thessalonica was Thessalian. The remaining word Germanopolis seems in its very form to betray its later origin, or at all events to mark some exceptional occupants other than the main population of the country. German It is quite possible indeed, as Thierry supposes (1. p. 225), that A possible swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of element. Germans also settled in Asia Minor, and this may be the true account of the names Lutarius and Teutobodiaci. We know that of all the Gauls the Belgians were most mixed up with the Germans, and it is with the Belgian members of the Celtic family especially that the Gauls of the Asiatic settlement seem to be connected. But the evidence is scarcely strong enough to bear the strain of the German theory, even when pared down to these very meagre dimensions. Beyond this we cannot go without doing violence to history. There is every reason then for believing that the Galatian Conclusettlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions into which modern philologers have divided the Celtic race, they seem rather to have belonged to the Cymric, of which the Welsh are the living representatives. Thus in the age when St Paul preached, a native of Galatia spoke a language essentially the same with that which was current in the southern part of Britain. And if—to indulge a passing fancy-we picture to ourselves one of his Asiatic converts visiting the far West to barter the hair cloths of his native country for the useful metal which was the special product of this island, we can imagine that finding a medium of communication in a common language he may have sown the first seeds of the Gospel and laid the foundations of the earliest Church in Britain. Two rival theories. II. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD'. the early ages of the Church two condicting opinions were heid regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed the brethren of the Lord.' On the one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed; that 1 The interest in this subject, which was so warmly discussed towards the close of the fourth century, has been revived in more recent times by the pubHeation of Eerder e Briefe Zweener. der Jesu in unserem Kanon (1778), in which the Eelviin hypothesis is put forward. Since then it has formed the subject of numberless monographs, dissertations. and incidental comments. The most important later works, with which I am acquainted. are those of Blom, Derois ideÑools et rais ideλpais Toû Kvolov Leyden, 1839); of Schaf, Das Verhältniss des Jakobus Bruders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphai (Berlin, 1842); and of Mill, The accounts of our Lord's Brethren in the New Testa ment vindicated etc. (Cambridge, 1813). The two former adopt the Helvidian view; the last is written in support of St Jerome's hypothesis. Blom gives the most satisfactory statement which I have seen of the patristic authorities, and Schaf discusses the Scriptural arguments most carefully. I am also largely indebted to the ability and learning of Mill's treatise, though he seems to me to have mistaken the general tenor of ecclesiastical tradition on this subject. Besides these monographs I have also consuited, with more or less advantage, articles on the subject in works of re ference or reriodicals, such as those in Studien u. Kritiken by Wieseler; Die Sinne Zebedai Vettern des Herrn (1840, p. 618, and Ueber die Brüder des Herrn, etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for the second edition I looked over the careful investigation in Laurent's Neutest. Studien p. 185 sq (1866), where the Helvidian hypothesis is maintained, but saw LO reason to make any change in consequence. The works of Arnaud, Recherches sur l'Epitre de Jude, and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in Bishop Ellicott's Galatians i. 19, I have not seen. My object in this dissertation is mainly twofold; (1) To place the Hieronymian hypothesis in its true light, as an effort of pure criticism unsupported by any traditional sanction: and (2) To say a word on behalf of the Epiphanian solution, which seems, at least of late years, to have met with the fate reserved for rà ueca in literature and theology, as well as in politics, un' ἀμφοτέρων ἢ ὅτι οὐ ξυνηγωνίζοντο ἢ φθόνῳ τοῦ περιεῖναι διεφθείροντο. I suppose it was because he considered it idle to discuss a theory which had no friends, that Prof. Jowett (on Gal. i. 19), while balancing the claims of the other two solutions, does not even mention the existence of this, though in the early centuries it was the received account. |