Still a fourth Pontus is mentioned by Ptolemy and in inscriptions, as Pontus Capp.idocictis. This included the regions that lay east of Polemoniacus, bet« een the Euxine Sea and Armenia ; and it had been comprised in the dominions of Polemon I., whose realm extended so far as to embrace even Bosporus. Some modern authorities consider on account of the name Cappadocicus that it was not in the dominions granted to Polemon 11. in A.D. 38. Queen Pythodoris had married Archelaua king of Cappadocia after the death of Polemon I., and there is much obscurity as to the fate of the Pontic realm in the later years of the queen and immediately after her death until A.D. 38 ; and the opinion has been held by some that the eastern regions were attached to Cappadoci.a and assigned specially to Archelaus, so that at his dcaui in A.D. 17 Pythodoris continued to reign over only the western part of Polemon's former kingdom. But this is very improbable ; for Bos- porus was included along with Pontus in the
• Josephus, Ant. xx. vii. 3.
t IIo^.L, 5;c6tev iTfxrpi'iffo^, XX. vii. 3.
! Gazelonitis must also be added, as stated above
PONTUS
PONTUS
17
kingdom of Polenion II. from 37 to 41, and if so, eastern Pontiis also would naturallj' be comprised in liis dominions. Moreover, Archelaus' kingdom was made into a Roman province in A.D. 17, but Trapezus and Cerasus, two cities of Pontus Cap- padocicus (Trapezus being made capital of it by Trajan), dated from A.D. 63 as era, and this era must according to analogy be interpreted as the year when they were taken into the Roman Empire by being incorporated in a province. Now A.D. 63 was the year when Polemon's Pontic kingdom was taken into the empire, and the cities of Pole- moniacus date from that year as era (so Zela and Neociesareia) ; hence Cerasus and Trapezus would seem to have been included in the kingdom of Polemon II. ; and if so, then presumably all Cap- padocicus was similarly included. The difference of name, Polenioniacus and Cappadocicus, in that case, probably began only in A.D. 63, and was due to the fact that the eastern half of the kingdom was attached to the province Cappadocia and named accordingly, while the western half was attached to the pro\-ince Galatia, and retained its former name Polenioniacus in distinction from the older PontusGalaticus. An inscription, dating probably between 63 and 78, mentions Pontus Polemoniacus and Pontus Galaticus as parts of the province Galatia ; * but does not mention Pontus Cap- padocicus, thus proving that the latter was not m Galatia ; and, as we know that Trapezus by that time was Roman, Cappadocia is the only pro- vince to which it could have been attached. Such is the probable sequence of events.
Subsequently, Pontus Galaticus and Polemoni- acus, after being included in the united provinces of Galatia and Cappadocia from about A.D. 78 to 106, were attached permanently to Cappadocia, when the two pro^-inces were again separated by Trajan. Such Is the arrangement described by Ptolemy. Yet the three names, Pontus Galaticus, Polemoniacus, Cappadocicus, persisted, with their separate capitals, Amasia, Neoca;8areia, Trapezus, implying that they were considered for adminis- trative purposes as distinct regions of the vast Erovince of Cajipadocia, to which all three were enceforward attached.
iii. The Name Pontus in ttif. New Testa- ment.— When the name Pontvis occurs in the NT, what are we to understand by it amid this puzzling complicacy of three or even four distinct regions, all bearing the name? As we have seen, the simple name Pontus, without any qualifj'ing ejiithet, was regularly employed to designate the Roman pro- vince united with Bithynia ; t and the writers of the NT seem to have observed this rule of ordinary usage. In IP 1' Pontus is clearly the province. Few could douVit this ; and Uort has proved it beyond all question in his posthumous edition of part of the Kpistle. Similarly, when the Jew Aquila, who bore a Roman name, is called a man if Pontus, Ac 18', it is practically certain that tlie pro' ince Pontus is meant. The Roman name Oi'mands a Roman connexion. The suggestion that he was originally a slave from Pontus Pole- moniacus, who had been set free in Rome, seems impossible, as the freedman would not retain his slave nationality : the statement that Aquila was a iiian of Pontus, implies a lasting and present diaracteristic. Equally improbalilc is it that Pontus Galaticus is meant ; for in the imperial system that district was merely a part of the pro- vince (ialatia. In fact, there is practically no
• CIL iii. Suppl. 6818, with tlie rcniarlu Id Banway, Ilit- torical Ue^^graphy of Asia Jf tnor, p. 'ii:j.
t Excr-pt, of course, where the context iniposerl another »pn9i.' without any need for a distinctive epithet. K«j»»» IIctm/ on c«tinH of Neoca-tiareia the capital of Foleuioniacua means only that rt'tfion : similarly, on coins of Zela tov Wat%m. tlfiirn n«*Tou on coins of Amasia means Pontus Qslaticus. VOU IV.— 2
doubt that the intention in Ac 18' is to state that Aquila, though in recent time resident in Rome, was a provincial from Pontus, and not one « lio originally belonged to the city. The question then arises whetlier Aquila was a cinit Hownniis of the province Pontus (as St. Paul was a ih-ij EomanuJi of the province Cilicia). That, how. ever, is impossible, for he ranked to the Runians as a Jew, not as a Roman : the edict of Claudius, Ac 18', would not have applied to him if he liad been a Roman either by birth or as the freedman of a Roman master ; * but, being a Jew by natiiin, a provincial residing in Rome, he was expelled by the terms of the edict.