[210] Note 1. {têv Phrugian kai Galatikêv chõran}. The use of to connect two epithets of the same person or place is regular in Greek (so {Saulos ho kai Paulos}, Saul alias Paul); e.g., Strabo speaks of a mouth of the Nile as {to Kav&0tilde;bikon kai hEpaklewtikon}, the mouth which is called by both names, Canopic and Heracleotic, where we should say, "the Canopic or Heracleotic mouth". I need not dwell on such an elementary point. Another point of Greek construction comes up in XVIII 23: when a list is given in Greek, the items of which are designated by adjectives with the same noun, the regular order is to use the noun [211] with the first alone. Strabo has numberless examples: 767, {tõn parakeimenõn Arabiõn Nabataiõn te kai Chaulotopaiõn kai Agraiõn}; 751, {ho Arkeuthês potamos kai ho Orontês kai ho Labõtas}; 802, {to Mendêsion stoma kai to Tanitikon} (there are some interesting and delicate examples in Strabo, on which we cannot here dwell, of the distinction between the double epithet and the double item); Herodotus, II 17, {to de Bolbitinon stoma kai to Boukolikon}; and so Luke groups two Regiones as {tên Galatikên chõran kai Phrugian}, XVIII 23. The North-Galatian theorists insist that {Phrugian} in XVI 6 must be a substantive; but they have not quoted any case in which a noun with its adjective is coupled anarthrously by kaiv to a preceding noun with the article. Dr. Chase quoted Luke III 1, {tês Itouraias kai Trachõnitidos chõras}; but the case tells against him, for Luke's intention to use {Itouraias} here as an adjective is proved by the following reasons: --

(1) Eusebius and Jerome repeatedly interpret Luke III 1 in that way (see Expositor, Jan. 1894, p. 52; April, p. 289). (2) {Itouraia} is never used as a noun by the ancients, but is pointedly avoided, even where h&etilde; Itouraiõn} was awkward: the reason was that {Itouraia}, as a noun, would indicate a political entity, whereas the Ituraei were a wandering nomadic race, who had not a definite and organised country. As my other reasons have been disputed, I do not append them here; though I consider them unshaken. [Mr. Arnold's attempt to find one instance of {Itouraia} as a noun in Appian seems to refute itself, Engl. Hist Rev., 1895, p. 553.]