Encyclopaedia Biblica/Persis-Philippi

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status



(nepcic [Ti. WH]), probably a deaconess, commended for her labours in the Christian cause (Rom. 16:12).


(Nn-115, 'separated' ; The b'ne Peruda, a group of 'Solomon's servants' (see special article) in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9); Ezra 2:55 (RVmg. PERIDA ; <}>aSovpa [BA]) = Neh. 7:57 (NTns ; EV PERIDA ; <^epei8a [BN], <f>ap. [A])=1 Esd. 5:33 (AV PHARIRA, RV PHARIUA, RVmg. PERUDA ; <j>ap(e\i&a. [BA]).


The different biblical terms for pestilence having been considered elsewhere (see DISEASES), we are able to confine ourselves here to historical and exegetical details.

1. Frequency.[edit]

The frequency of pestilences in ancient Palestine is strikingly shown by the words of Gad, 'David's seer', to his king, 'Shall seven years of famine come to thee in thy land ? or wilt thou flee three months before thy foes ? or shall there be three days pestilence in thy land?' (2 S. 24:13). There is no doubt a gradation in the calamities specified. To be three months at the mercy of a victorious foe, burning and spoiling in all directions, was worse than even seven years of famine ; and even three days pestilence of the most acute sort would be enough to destroy or to weaken a large part of the population of a city. The less severe calamity would also be more frequent than those which were more destructive. The fact remains, however, that famine, desolation from war, and pestilence, were three well-known terrors, and this is confirmed by 1 K. 8:37, Ezek. 5:12, 5:17, Am. 4:10, in which these three calamities are again given as parallel misfortunes.

2. Egypt.[edit]

The last of these passages (Am. 4:10) is historically very suggestive. EV renders 'I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt' (~~n3 D ,^. s ). G. A. Smith, 'by way of Egypt'. 1 'A pestilence' would be better. It is a pestilence of a bad type that is meant, just as in Is. 10:26b the 'rod lifted up in the manner of Egypt' is 'a divine judicial act such as Egypt experienced'. The NE. corner of the Nile delta was justly regarded in antiquity as the home of the plague. G. A. Smith has well described the conditions which favoured the outbreak of plague in that district.

'The eastern mouth of the Nile then entered the sea at Pelusium, and supplied a great stretch of mingled salt and fresh water under a high temperature [always accompanied by fevers, as round the Gulf of Mexico]. To the W. there is the swampy Delta ; and on the Asiatic side sandhills with only brackish wells. Along the coast there appear to have been always a number of lagoons, separated from the sea by low bars of sand, and used as salt-pans. In Greek and Roman times the largest of these was known as the Serbonian Bog or Marsh. ... In Justinian's time, the 'Bog' was surrounded by communities of salt-makers and fish-curers ; filthy villages of underfed and imbecile people, who always had disease among them. The extremes of temperature are excessive'. *

In such a country plague must always have been ready to break out, and the infection must often have been brought by trading caravans to Palestine. This illustrates, not only Am. 4:10, but also a passage mistranslated both in AV and in RV, owing to the influence of the traditional prejudice of the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. The threat which is dramatically attached to the non-observance of the Deuteronomic law is that Yahwe will bring upon Israel 'all the diseases of Egypt which thou wast (not art ) afraid of' (Dt. 28:60).

1 HG 157. Cp Book of Isaiah, 1:361.

3. OT references.[edit]

It may be partly owing to the consequences of plagues that we have so little historical evidence as to particular outbreaks of pestilence in ancient Palestine. The references to plagues in Ex. 11:4, 12:29-30 (the Tenth Plague), Nu. 11:33, (sickness following the quails), 25:18, 26:1 (plague through Baal-peor), belong to a cycle of highly legendary didactic narratives (see PLAGUES [TEN]). The story of the boils in 1 S. 5:9-12 * is also legendary. The honour of the ark of God had to be rescued ; the offenders against the sanctity of Yahwe are naturally punished by pestilence, and possibly would have been represented as so punished, even had they dwelt in the N. of Palestine, and not in a part which was closely connected with Egypt by the avenues of commerce. 2 The passage describing the punishment of David's numbering of the people (2 S. 24) is also a didactic narrative ; but we cannot deny that a pestilence may have coincided chronologically with the unpopular act of the king. A more authentic witness to a pestilence is the retrospective statement of Amos (4:10), referring to N. Israel. Lastly, we have the famous reference to a pestilence by which Sennacherib's army suffered greatly in 2 K. 19:35 ( = Is. 37:36) - a reference which, in the light of literary and historical criticism, is most probably altogether legendary.

4. Criticism of Sennacherib's pestilence.[edit]

It may be well to pause for a little on the Sennacherib passage, because of the new tradition which has sprung up among critics, to the effect that the main fact of 2 K has received independent confirmation from an Egyptian source. Herodotus, indeed, says (2:141) that when Sennacherib, 'king of the Arabians and Assyrians', invaded Egypt and besieged Pelusium in the days of king Sethos, field-mice gnawed the quivers and shield-handles of the invaders, who fled precipitately. As Skinner puts the common theory:-

'Since the mouse was among the Egyptians a symbol of pestilence, we may infer that the basis of truth in the legend was a deadly epidemic in the Assyrian camp ; and this is the form of calamity which is naturally suggested by the terms of the

biblical narrative. The scene of the disaster is not indicated in the OT record, and there is no obstacle to the supposition that it took place, as in the Egyptian legend, in the plague-haunted marshes of Pelusium' (Isa. 1-39, p. 275).

To this view there are several strong objections,

  • (1) The mouse was not a symbol of pestilence ; it is unwise to attempt to prove this by such a late authority as Horapollo (1:50), and such an obscure and corrupt narrative as that in 1 S. 6 (see EMERODS). The story of the field-mice is merely a mythological way of saying that Horus, to whom the mouse was sacred, repelled the foes of Egypt in an unaccountable way. 3
  • (2) The theory takes no account of the composite character of the Hebrew story. Two narratives of Sennacherib's dealings with Hezekiah have been welded together. According to the one (Is. 36:1-37:9), a report which Sennacherib heard, while still at Lachish, 4 caused him to move camp, and depart on his return to Nineveh ( 'Isa'. SBOT [Eng.], p. 49). According to the other ( Is. 37:9c-21, 37:33, 37:36), on the night after Isaiah had prophesied Sennacherib's failure to enter Jerusalem, a destroying angel went out and slew 185,000 warriors in the Assyrian camp. Both narratives are very late, but the former (rumour), being less didactic, is to be preferred to the latter (pestilence). For the origin of the story of the pestilence, 1 see HEZEKIAH, 2.

The prism-inscription of Sennacherib may also be quoted against the historicity of the pestilence narrative. If Hezekiah troubled himself to send a special messenger with tribute to Nineveh, it is by no means likely that Sennacherib had been compelled to return by a calamity which almost destroyed his army, and would doubtless be regarded by Hezekiah as a special act of God. On the other hand, the contemporary history of Assyria confirms the accuracy of the 'rumour' narrative. In the following year Sennacherib had as much as he could do in counteracting the restless Chaldaean princes, and we can well believe that the rumour which caused him to move camp from Lachish was really concerned with the machinations of these opponents. The assassination of Sennacherib in the first narrative, too, is undoubtedly historical. Not knowing of it, the second narrator was obliged to represent the pestilence as a just punishment of the enemy of Yahwe.

1 The text has suffered in transmission (see EMERODS).

2 G.A.Sm. (HG isSyi) supports the historicity of the narrative by the considerations that Philistia was closely connected with Egypt, and that armies are specially liable to infection. The Philistines, he thinks, were struck while they were in camp against Israel. If so, the tradition in 1 S. 5 seems to be not quite accurate (see vv. 6, 9, 10).

3 Use was made of the essay of A. Lang on Apollo and the Mouse in Custom and Myth by the present writer in his Introd. to Isaiah, 333. More recently, Meinhold has, with German elaborateness, worked on the same lines (Die Jes.-erzahlungen, Jes. 36-39, 33-42). He is not perfectly clear on the narrative of 1 S. 5-6, but inclines to follow Klostermann. In the article EMERODS, the investigation of the textual problems has been carried further. Wellhausen s treatment of the text of 1 S. 5-6 leaves much to be desired.

4 2 K. 19:8 (Is. 37:8) has been recast by the editor. See 'Isa'. SBOT(Eng.), l.c.

5. Sickness of Hezekiah.[edit]

Many writers have held that the sickness of Hezekiah, referred to in 2 K. 20 (Is. 38), was the plague; and some, following Hitzig, have supposed that it was a case of the same plague as the Assyrian army is said to have suffered from, which 'had got among the people of the country, as sickness in the train of an army usually does'. This view is at first sight plausible. The compiler of the 'second (the pestilence) narrative' certainly held it (cp 'Isa'. SBOT), and it is confirmed by Is. 386, which implies that Jerusalem is in great danger from the Assyrians. This, however, is, if recent criticism may be followed, an error. The embassy of Merodach Baladan must have preceded the Assyrian invasion. It cannot have had any smaller motive than the wish to organise a general resistance to Assyria (see MERODACH-BALADAN). 2

It is, however, by no means necessary to accept the compiler's arrangement of his material, any more than we always accept the arrangement of material in a gospel. The idea of the writer of 2 K. 19:35 is that the Assyrians who were attacked by the plague died suddenly. The boil (shehin) of Hezekiah seems to have lasted some little time, and need not have been a plague-boil. There are various boil-diseases, sometimes called after the respective cities where they are prevalent. That of Hezekiah may, for instance, have been a malignant carbuncle, for which (not less than for a plague-boil) a poultice of figs would be an appropriate remedy.

Dr. Lauder Brunton :t has been led to view the disease as 'tonsilitis' from the similarity of some of the symptoms described in the Song of Hezekiah (Is. 38:10-20) with those of some cases of quinsy. Unfortunately, the connection of the Song with an event in the life of Hezekiah is plainly a scribe's fiction, and the psalm, as we may call it, should be grouped with other national psalms of thanksgiving for deliverance. We should hardly think of discussing the symptoms of disease implied in Ps. 6:30 and 88. T. K. C.

1 Gesenius has already explained this. It should be observed that in Is. 37:36 the words 'that night' (see 2 K. 19:35) are omitted.

2 Cp Che. Intr. Is. 221, 227 ; Marti, Jesaia, 265.

3 Sir Risdon Bennett, M.D., The Diseases of the Bible, 144.


), Prov. 27:22. See MORTAR.




First Peter.[edit]

1. Its readers.[edit]

1 Peter. - The so-called first General Epistle of Peter is addressed to 'the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Asia, and Bithynia'. The hypothesis that the letter was written by Simon Peter naturally carries with it the presumption that the persons addressed were Jewish Christians, and the expression 'sojourners of the dispersion' (Tra/jeTriSiJ/xots dia.(nrop8.s, 1:1) lends it some support. But 'sojourners' (cp 2:11 ; Heb. 11:13) is probably employed figuratively of Christians in general as earthly pilgrims or strangers, and Weiss stands almost alone in supporting the opinion that the writer had in mind as his readers communities composed chiefly of Jewish Christians. Apart from the fact that the provinces referred to were the field of the Pauline mission, and the improbability that there were separate Jewish-Christian churches there, the epistle contains unmistakable indications that it was addressed to gentile believers, to whom alone are applicable the references to former practices and errors (1:14, 1:18, 2:9-10, 4:3-4). The readers are represented as persons who had not seen Jesus, who had been 'redeemed' from a former 'vain manner of life' and 'called out of darkness', and who as strangers and foreigners had a 'time of sojourn' to accomplish in the world, whilst their true fatherland was heaven.

2. Object.[edit]

The epistle has been variously interpreted as to its object. On the ground of 1:12, 1:25 and 5:12, it has been maintained that the author, whether Peter or another, wished to establish in the churches of Asia Minor, which had been founded by Paul, the authority of this apostle, so far as it could be confirmed by the approval of the great 'pillar' of the Jewish Christian community, and to show the essential agreement of the two. This view has been to some extent supported by a few scholars who believe that Peter was the author of the epistle. To the older Tiibingen school the writing had no other object than to mediate between the Pauline and Petrine factions in the early church. Schwegler accordingly says of the epistle that 'it is an apology for Paulinism written by a follower of Paul for the adherents of Peter - an apology which was effected simply that an exposition of the Pauline doctrine might be put into the mouth of Peter' (Nachap. Zeilalter, 22). A testimony from Peter to the orthodoxy of Paul was regarded from this point of view as a very effective means of reconciling the adherents of the two great teachers. If, however, such were the object of the writer, it is to say the least surprising that he did not make it more apparent and conspicuous. The passages referred to are too vague to admit of any such special application, and nothing seems to be farther from the writer s thought in general than the Pauline and Petrine controversy, which he stands far above and beyond. In 5:12, the 'grace of God' (xapiv TOU deov) does not necessarily refer to the Pauline 'gospel', but may be explained by 1:13 (the words ei s ty ffTTJre, 'wherein ye stand', are with doubtful propriety rendered in RV 'stand ye fast therein' ). Without a distinctive dogmatic purpose, the writer addresses himself zealously to the comfort, admonition, and encouragement of his readers, who are assumed to be in need of such an exhortation on account of the persecutions which they are suffering for the sake of their Christian profession (3:12, 3:16, 4:4, 4:12-13, 5:8-10). These persecutions are represented as proceeding from gentiles, and the writer's chief object is, as Lechler remarks, to impress upon his readers the indissoluble connection and succession of suffering and glory in the life of the believer as in that of Christ himself (1:11, 2:21, 3:18). Naturally related to this purpose is the prominence given to hope both expressly and indirectly (1:3, 1:21, 3:15, 4:13, 5:10).

3. Deutero-Pauline character.[edit]

If, however, the epistle shows distinctively neither a dogmatic nor a 'mediating' purpose, it is not without traces of the influence of Paul's theological ideas, and may properly be classified with the deutero-Pauline literature of the NT, which represents a weakened Paulinism, and may be regarded as denoting the transition from the thought of the great apostle to that of the fourth Gospel. Faith is made prominent, as 'unto', and 'the end of' 'salvation' (1:59) ; but its distinctively Pauline contrast with works is not expressed. The doctrine of atonement as set forth by Paul underlies the writer s apprehension of the death of Jesus, which he regards as 'fore-ordained from the foundation of the world' ; but it is weakened in the direction of an ethical significance (1:2, 2:24, 3:18, 4:1). The idea of substitution is scarcely expressed, and the blood of Christ is conceived as having a purifying efficacy. He suffered that he might bring us to God. Accordingly, the Pauline doctrine of justification does not find distinctive expression, and the apostle's terminology (5iKaio()(r()a.i, diKaioffuvij) is avoided.

The writer s Christology is only partially disclosed by a few intimations which show its general similarity to that of the deutero-Pauline Epistles to the Hebrews and the Ephesians '(3:22, 4:11 ; cp Eph. 1:20, Heb. 13:21). The legend of the descent of Christ to the underworld (3:19) appears to be a development of Eph. 4:8-10. In the vague eschatology the prominent Pauline features do not appear ; but the idea of partaking of Christ's sufferings and rejoicings 'at the revelation of his glory' (4:13) is probably a reminiscence of Rom. 8:17, 'we suffer with [him] that we may also be glorified with [him]' (irv^TTa.cr\otiev Iva Kal ervv- Soa<T0ianei>).

The literary relations of the epistle to the NT literature are many and unmistakable, though the question of dependence is in some cases indeterminable. That the author was familiar with several of the epistles of Paul, and adopted to some extent their ideas and terminology is generally conceded.

Weiss's contention that Paul borrowed from 1 Peter has few if any supporters, and has been characterised as the most desperate step taken by modern apologetics. The parallels with Romans both in thought and phraseology leave no room for doubt of dependence on that epistle. Especially is this true of Rom. 12:1-13:14 : cp 1:14 with Rom. 12:2 (<rv<r\T)/ii.aTie<T#at [ouschematzesthai], not elsewhere in NT); 4:10-11 with Rom. 12:3-8 (after the appropriation of an idea from Rom. 12:13) ; 48 1:22 with Rom. 12:9 ; 3:9 with Rom. 12:17; 2:13-14 with Rom. 13:1 ; 2:19 with Rom. 13:5 (b10. (rvce<. 6i7<rti> [dia ouneidesin]) ; 2:1 and 4:13 (reminiscences of Rom. 13:12-13) ; 15413 with Rom. 8:17-18; 2:24 with Rom. 6:2, 6:8, 6:18; 3:3-4 with Rom. 2:15, 2:29 (itpi/Trra [krypta], xpuTTTos [kryptos], iv KpuTrTtp [in kryptoo]) ; 2:6 with Rom. 9:33 (citation from OT with Paul's deviations from the Septuagint). Several accords with other epistles of Paul indicate the writer's familiarity with Pauline ideas and forms of expression : cp 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:3 ; 2:2, 1 Cor. 3:2; 2:4-5, 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2:11, Gal. 5:17 ; 2:16, Gal. 5:13; 2:24, Gal. 3:13; 3:6, Gal. 4:26 ; 3:7, 1 Cor. 7:35; 3:9, 1 Thess. 5:15; 4:3, Gal. 5:21 ; 5:14, 1 Cor. 16:20. The writer employs a considerable number of terms 'specifically Pauline', among which may be mentioned aTroxaAui/iis [apokalypsis], eAevflepi a [eleutheria], erraii/os [epainos], fiofa [doxa], Ka\eii [kalein], K\r\povojiia [kleronomia], KarapTtfeir [katartizein], Tifirj [time], vapio-jaara [charismata], <rvcei-6170-15 [suneidesis], iv xpitTTta [en christoo]. The plan and grammatical structure of the epistle also are Pauline.

4. Other literary relations.[edit]

1 Peter contains, in proportion to its length, a large number of words not used elsewhere in the NT. The writer's acquaintance with Mt. , Lk. , and Acts is probable from 2:12, 3:14, 3:16, 4:13-14 (cp Mt. 5:10-12, 5:16); 56 (cp Mt. 23:12), 1:10-11 (Lk. 10:24), 1:13 (Lk. 12:35), 1:12 (Acts 2:2), 1:17 (Acts 10:34-35). The accords with Hebrews do not necessarily show a literary relation of the two epistles. Those with Ephesians have been investigated in great detail with out a conclusion on which scholars can agree. Perhaps the most that one is warranted in saying is contained in von Soden's remark that so many related expressions, thoughts, and interests indicate that both writers breathed the same atmosphere, and that possibly the writer of one of the epistles knew the work of the other. On relation of James see JAMES [GENERAL EPISTLE].

5. Not Petrine.[edit]

The dependence of the epistle upon the letters of Paul, and its Pauline tone, style, and doctrinal basis, indicate a writer who had made himself familiar with that apostle's works, and was in sympathy with his thought. The absence of the mystical profundity of Paul and the softening of some of the harder lines of his teaching as well as several striking accords with Hebrews, show the writer to have been in contact with the later Paulinism which marks the transition to the Johannine theology. Distinct foreshadowings of the ideas of the Fourth Gospel and the epistles ascribed to John are indeed not wanting, although there is no indication of the author s acquaintance with these writings. Cp 123 with 1 Jn. 3:9; 1:22 with 1 Jn. 3:3 ; 4:2, Jn. 10:16, 21:16 ; 3:18, 1 Jn. 3:7 ; 1:19, Jn. 1:29. These considerations render the Petrine authorship of 1 Peter very improbable. It is very unlikely, besides, that Peter should have written at all to the Pauline gentile churches in Asia Minor. But if he wrote this epistle to them after the death of Paul, as is generally assumed by the advocates of the traditional view, it is surprising that he should not have mentioned to them their revered teacher. Apart from the address there is nothing in the internal character of the epistle to indicate its Petrine authorship. An independent type of doctrine which can with propriety be called Petrine is wanting.

6. Not of apostolic age.[edit]

There is no trace of the questions mooted in the apostolic age. Whilst the writer shows some contact with the Gospel-literature, there is no indication of the fresh and vivid recollections of an eye-witness of the life of Jesus, and the conspicuous ideas of Jesus' preaching, the kingdom of God, eternal life, the Son of Man, repentance, and the Son of God, find no expres sion. The author s conception of faith is unknown to the synoptics. The goal is not the synoptic 'eternal life' (fwTj atwctos), but the Pauline 'glory' (36a [doxa]). The sympathetic student of Paulinism by whom this epistle to Gentile churches was written cannot have been Peter, the apostle of the circumcision (Gal. 2:7), who 'stood condemned' before Paul at Antioch for 'dissimulation' (Gal. 2:11-12) as to the vital question of the primitive Christian economy. The argument for an apostolical authorship based on 1:3, 1:8, 1:21 and 2:21-23 is groundless in view of analogous expressions in Hebrews. It is altogether improbable that the fisherman Peter who, according to Papias, required an interpreter should have command of a Greek style of the character of this writing. '1 am writing by Silvanus' (Aio. ZiXova.vov i!ypa.\j/a: 5:12) indicates Silvanus not as a translator or an amanuensis, much less as the author 92-96 A.D. (v. Soden), but probably as the bearer of the letter (see Acts 23). The reference to Silvanus and to Mark (5:12-13) doubtless belongs to the fiction of the authorship (1:1).

1 [Cp Zahn, Einl. 2 10, 38; B. W. Bacon (Introd., 1900, p. 157), who says, 'all things considered, 1 Peter may still represent to us the adoptive work of Peter, writing " by Silvanus " om Rome to the churches of Paul in Asia'. ]

7. The persecutions.[edit]

The historical conditions and circumstances implied in the epistle indicate, moreover, a time far beyond the probable duration of Peter's life. Ramsay (Church in Roman Empire, 284) calls attention to the fact that 'the history of the spread of Christianity imperatively demands for 1 Peter a later date than 64 A.D.', 1 the date generally assumed by the defenders of the Petrine authorship. These maintain that the persecutions implied in the passages previously referred to belong to the time of Nero. But the references to the trials to which the persons addressed are exposed do not well fit this period.

The persecution is of wide extent, 'accomplished in the brethren who are in the world' (5:9), whilst that under Nero was limited. It was not until later that the Christians were subjected to a judicial inquiry such as is implied in 3:15, and that they were put on trial for their name (iis XptoTiayos, 4:16 ; cp CHRISTIAN, 6). In the Neronian persecution they suffered for a special offence charged by the emperor in order to remove from himself the suspicion of having set fire to the city abolendo minori Nero subdedit reos, etc., Tac. Ann. 15:44), whilst in 1 Peter the Christians of Asia Minor are admonished not to subject themselves to punishment as 'evil-doers', but to glorify God in this name if they suffer as Christians.

There is really nothing in 1 Peter which, fairly considered, applies to the Neronian period. As to the precise later time, however, to which the writing should be assigned one can hardly be very positive. Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, and Pfleiderer, following Schwegler and Baur, are quite certain that it could not have been written earlier than the time of Trajan (about 112 A. D. ) ; and it must be conceded that the state of affairs regarding the Christians at that time, as set forth in 's letter to the emperor, accords with certain indications in 1 Peter. Ramsay, (op. cit. 288), whilst admitting the force of Holtzmann's argument so far as it bears against the date 64 A.D. , decides very positively in favour of 75-80 A. D. (cp PONTUS, 2), thus doubtless excluding the Petrine authorship. His reason for this judgment is that there were conditions similar to those described in 1 Peter earlier than the time of Trajan, that is, in the last quarter of the first century. But since they also fit the later date, they furnish no ground for excluding it in favour of the earlier. The data supplied in the epistle and in known and precisely determinable historical circumstances do not warrant us in placing its com position more definitely than in the last quarter of the first, or the first quarter of the second, century. The vague greeting (5:13) has given rise to uncertainty as to the place from which the epistle was written. The words 'the elect (one) in Babylon' (n tv Ba[3v\&vi crweK- \eKTr)) have been interpreted as referring

  • (a) to Peter's wife,
  • (b) to the church in Babylon, and
  • (c) to the church in Rome.

The view (a), though defended by Mayerhoff and Neander, has deservedly found little other support (see Zahn, Einl. 2:15-16, 38), and the view (b) is without probability even on the presumption of the Petrine authorship, since there is no historical evidence of a residence of Peter in Babylon. The later date of the epistle renders it very probable that Babylon is employed figuratively for Rome, according to Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21.

[ 1 Peter 5:13, d<r;reuJeTai v^ias T\ ev Ba/3uAa>i t <rvi>eK\(Krrj. Babylon might mean :

(1)the Egyptian Babylon, a view which Chase (Hastings, DB 8213/1) dismisses perhaps too quickly. For the Roman fortress of Babylon in old Cairo see Butler's Ancient Coptic Churches in Egypt. The city was of some importance(Strabo, 17, p. 807), and is sometimes mentioned in ecclesiastical literature; Epiphanius (Man. , eel Dressel, 6) even calls it TT\V /aeyoAr)!/ Ba. The Talmud confounds the Alexandrians with the Babylonians (Menahoth, 100a), because of the Egyptian Babylon. Could a similar confusion have been made by the writer of 1 Peter . To be sure, we should have to give up the opening verse in order to hold this theory, for tradition connected not Peter but Mark with the church at Alexandria. It is true the above-quoted passage adds, /cat MapKos o vios jxou. But cp 2 Tim. 4:11

(2) Babylon on the Euphrates. But what evidence is there that Peter was ever at Babylon? Besides, we have sufficient evidence of the growing decadence of ancient Babylon (see Strabo, 16, p. 738 ; Plin. NH 6:122 cetera ad solitudinent rediit ; Pausanias, 8:33:3, cp 1:6:3). The Jews dwelt chiefly in the neighbouring cities of Seleucia and Nehardea, and in villages (Jos. Ant. 18:9:1-9).

(3) The evidence, both external and internal, in favour of Rome, seems to most scholars overwhelming. See Zahn, Einl. 2:17+, 39. Asiatic Christians too would probably give this interpretation to the name (see Rev. as above ; cp ROMAN EMPIRE).


8. Extent of use.[edit]

The mention of 1 Peter in the spurious 2 Peter (3:1) as if written by the same author and addressed to the same readers, cannot of course be regarded as a witness for its authorship. The relation between 1 Peter and 1 Clement is doubtful (2:9, 4:8, cp 1 Clem. 362 and 495). The writer of Hermas furnishes a testimony only to its existence in the second quarter of the second century, and Papias and Polycarp were acquainted with it, according to Eusebius (HE 3:39, 4:14) - traces of this knowledge being found in fragments of Papias and the epistle of Polycarp. In the absence, however, of direct citation, and in view of the wavering and unsettled state of opinion as to canonicity during the second century, this use of 1 Peter by the writers in question furnishes no evidence even as to their own judgment regarding its authorship, if indeed, they may be supposed to have formed one. The case is similar with regard to Justin, 1 Peter is quoted as Peter s by Iren. , Clem. Alex. , Tert. , and Orig. As to Tertullian, however, there is some doubt, and according to Westcott the 'actual traces of its early use in the Latin churches are very scanty' (Canon, p. 263 n. ). It is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon.

Second Peter.[edit]

9. Its object.[edit]

2 Peter. - 2 Peter, like the epistle ascribed to Jude, is vaguely addressed to Christians in general - 'to those that have obtained the like precious faith with us' (1:1) - and ther is nothing in the contents to indicate that Jewish or Gentile believers were especially intended. Yet in 3:1 the writer inconsistently assumes that the First Epistle was addressed to the same readers, and tells them (1:16, 3:15) that they had received instruction from him (ostensibly Peter) and letters from Paul ! 2 Peter was plainly written partly for the same purpose as was Jude - to warn the Christians of the time against certain persons whose false teaching and loose living were a menace to the church. This note is struck in 1:16 (crecro$i<r/u& ots /j.6dois), in 2:1 (ifstvSodiSdcrKaXot, cupetreis aTrwXetas), in 2:2 (rcuy d<re\7etat5), and is emphasised, apparently in imitation of Jude, in 2:10-22. The warning is resumed in 3:14-18. The readers are put on their guard against 'mockers . . . walking after their own lusts', as in Jude 18, with the additional indication that their mocking is at the delay of the 'coming' (wapovffia [parousia]) of Christ. These mockers forget the Deluge, and are unmindful of the judgment of 'fire' reserved for 'the heavens that now are and the earth' (3:57).

In this connection appears another purpose of the writing, upon which some think the chief emphasis to have been placed, that is, to assure the readers of the certainty of the Parousia in opposition to the scoffers who, it appears (8:4), were talking of its non-arrival or indefinite postponement. The delay, the writer assures them, is due to the Lord's long-suffering, in order that 'all should come to repentance' (3:9) before 'the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men' (3:7).

Peculiar to the author is the eschatological catastrophe depicted in 3:10-12, which he thinks should be 'earnestly desired' and prepared for by 'holy living and godliness'. In the peculiar reference to Paul (3:15-16), Schwegler finds 'the real literary motive' of the epistle to be the reconciliation and blending, the final and enduring conclusion of peace between the Petrine and Pauline 'tendencies' (Nachap. Zeitalter, 1505). This reference, however, is too plainly incidental to the discussion of the Parousia to be regarded as the 'motive' of the letter. Baur reaches the same conclusion on the ground that the connection of the theoretical 'knowledge' (fTriyvuffis [epignoosis]) and the practical 'virtue' (apfrri [arete]) or 'love' (d-yaTrr/ [agape]) in the Epistle is only another expression for the formula 'faith and works' (Tritrrts /ecu Zpya), which in the formation of the Catholic church represented the union of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity (NT Theol. 297). This view perhaps shows a correct insight into the character, tendency, and age of the epistle ; but as an interpretation of a conscious purpose of the writer it must be regarded as somewhat fanciful.

10. Relation to 1 Peter.[edit]

The relation of 2 Peter to 1 Peter renders a common authorship extremely doubtful. The name and title of the author are different. There are only a few words common to both which do not belong to the Christian vocabulary of the time or are not also found in the verses in Jude corresponding to a portion of 2 Peter. The style of the two epistles is different, that of 1 Peter being more facile, Hellenistic in vocabulary and form of words, and richer in thought, and that of 2 Peter showing an attempt to write in pure Greek, the formation of new words some of which belong to the technical-medical usage of the later Greek (see ^^pa/j.a [exerama], 222 and Kav<rovff6ai [kausousbai, 3:10), and repetition of the same words, particularly prepositions.

In 1 Peter the second coming of Christ is regarded as nearer than in 2 Peter, and is called ajro<cdAvi/<is [apokalypsis], whilst in 2 Peter it is designated irapowia [parousia] (1 Pet. 1:7, 1:13, 4:13; 2 Pet. 1:16, 3:4). The terms K^povofiia [kleronomia] (1 Pet. 1:4) and altut>ios /3a<riAei a [aioonios basilei] (2 Pet. 1:11) also are significant, as well as the two forms of expression en- ecrxaTOU riav \pov(av [ep eschaton ton chronon] (1 Pet. 1:20 [BNA; N* TOW Xpoi ou]) and eir e<7X<xT<oi ruv rujLtpaiv [ep eschaton ton emeroon] (2 Pet. 3:3 [BNA]). The prominent eAn-i s [elpis] of 1 Peter gives place to yvu><ris [gnoosis] or firiyv<o<ns [epignoosis] in 2 Peter and pai/ricr^ios [rantismos] to (caSaptcr^ids [katharismos]. In the first Epistle the diction shows the influence of the OT throughout, in the second not at all.

These differences in words and style have been noticed since the time of Jerome (Holtzmann, Einl. 526, and von Soden, HC 36193). Moreover, as to doctrinal differences, the atonement of Christ which is made prominent in the first Epistle is barely touched upon in the second. In contrast with the first Epistle the OT is little quoted in the second (2:22, 3:8); but dependence upon it is apparent in several instances (1:19-21, 211516 3:256), and the apocryphal is not distinguished from the canonical literature (3:4-8). The familiarity with the Pauline writings evident in the author of the first Epistle does not appear in 2 Peter, and apart from Jude the accords with the NT literature are unimportant. The reference in 1:14 to Jn. 21:18 is doubtful.

11. Late and non-apostolic.[edit]

Whilst all the indications point to a date later than that of the first Epistle, they do not serve for its precise An advanced period in the second century, perhaps the latter half, is indicated by the warning against false teachers who are not mentioned in 1 Peter. The manner, however, in which they are character ised is so confused and vague that it is hazardous to attempt to apply the features indicated to any particular sect, although the opinion that the writer had antinomian Gnostics in mind is well-grounded. He betrays uncertainty and want of independence in having recourse to the figures and allusions of Jude which he distorts and confuses (cp 2:11 with Jude 9 ; 2:12 Jude 10 ; 2:17 Jude 12-13 ; 3:2 Jude 17), and it is probable that he had in view the heretics against whom that Epistle was directed. They are false teachers who bring in 'destructive heresies' (2:11), and carry on their work of 'enticing unsteadfast souls' in a love of gain (2:14). The reference to Gnosticism is scarcely mistakable in trfcro<pi(r- jU^i ois /mtidois (1:16 ; EV 'cunningly devised fables' ), and its phase is indicated in the charge that the false teachers promise a certain (false) 'liberty' (\ev6epia [eleutheria]) while they themselves are 'bondservants' of corruption (2:19), and find support in the Pauline teaching, wresting it 'to their own destruction' (3:16). The opinion appears tenable that this appeal of the writer to 'our beloved brother Paul' (3:15) indicates a disposition not so much to 'mediate' between the Pauline and Petrine parties - a matter which was doubtless far from his thought - as to combat the Gnostic and libertine tendencies of the time by placing the great apostle at his side against those who as Antinomians were perverting that apostle s teachings.

The reasons based on the character of the Epistle for doubting its Petrine authorship have been repeatedly stated and elaborated by the critical school, and no valid refutation of them has ever been effected. Although the writer s dependence upon Jude cannot now, as in Schwegler's time, be regarded as 'an axiom of NT criticism', its probability and the consensus of authorities may be said to furnish a presumption against an apostolical authorship. The author endeavours rather too earnestly to make it appear that he is the original apostle Peter (1:1, 1:14, 1:18, 3:15), and yet his appeal to an apostolic authority does not accord with this assumed role (3:2), even if 'your' (VIJ.QIV [BNA]) be the correct reading. The doubts regarding the Parousia implied in the Epistle and the expedient resorted to in order to answer them belong to a time far beyond the apostolic age. The classification of the Pauline Epistles with 'Scriptures' indicates a period not very remote from that of a developed conception of the canonicity of the NT writings, as does also the apparent reluctance to follow the writer of Jude in quoting the apocryphal Enoch. The supposition that an apostle should have written a letter like this addressed to no churches with which he had ostensibly had relations, touching no special needs or conditions of theirs, and warning against false teachers located nowhere and described partly in a vague and confused manner, partly in terms borrowed from another Epistle, is in the highest degree improbable.

12. Recognition.[edit]

The tardy recognition of 2 Peter in the early church supports the judgment of the critical school as to its unapostolical authorship. The few verbal accords in Clemens Romanus do not even show a literary dependence, much less the priority of 2 Peter. The case is similar with Hermas, 2 Clement, and the Martyrium Polycarpi. The apparent contact in Barnabas 154 (^ yap i)/j.tpa irap airrcp X&ia frr)), and in Justin and Irenaeus is explicable from Ps. 90:4. The passage in Theophilus ad Autol. 29, cited by Zahn, is questionable. According to Cassiodorus Clement of Alexandria commented on the writings of the Bible ab ipso principio usque adfinem, and Eusebius says that he explained all the canonical Scriptures, not omitting those which are disputed - the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles. These statements render his acquaintance with 2 Peter probable but not certain. It is, however, worthy of note that in a passage in the Stromata Clement appears, like Irenaeus, to have known only one Epistle of Peter (6 Tlirpos ev rrj 67rt<TTO\77 . . . X^yei). His attitude toward the second Epistle, if he knew it, was probably that of Origen, who speaks of it as 'doubted' (d/j.(pi^d\\fTai ydp, Eus. HE 6:25). Eusebius says it was controverted and not received into the canon (owe fvdidOrjKov (ttv elvat, HE 3325). Didymus mentions it as a fact not to be concealed that it was regarded as forged (falsatam) and was not in the canon, and Jerome says that most persons deny it to have been written by Peter on account of its disagreement in style with the first. It does not appear in the Muratorian canon or in the Peshitta.

13. Literature.[edit]

Besides the standard German and English Introductions to the NT and the works referred to in this article, the most important discussions of the two Epistles are contained in the commentaries or special works of Dietlein (1851 ; 2 Pet. only), Schott (1863), Huther in Meyer (1852, ET 1881), Frohnmiiller 3 in Lange(i87i), Ewald (Die Sieben Sendsckreiben, etc. [1870]), Hundhausen (Die beiden Pontifical-schreiben, etc. [1873-1878]), Keil (Pet. u. Judas [1853]), Holtzmann and Schenkel (Bib. Lex.), SiefFert (PR AT- ) [1883]), B. Weiss (Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff [1855], and St. Kr., 1866, pp. 256^7, Die Petrinische Frage ; Das Verhaltness zum Judasbrief ), Spitta (Der 2 Brief des Pet. u. der Br. des fudas [1885]), Hilgenfeld (ZWTh. [1873]), Immer (NT TheoL\ Pfleiderer (Das Urchristenthuni), E. A. Abbott (Expositor, 2nd Series, 849^, on relation of 2 Peter to Jos.), Deissmann (tiiMstitftien [1895], 2447: 277^), M Giffert (Hist, of Christianity in the Apostolic Age [1897], 482^ 596^ 600 ff.), Harnack (Die Chronologie [1897], 450-475, Die unter dem Namen des Petrus fiinf Schriften ), Bigg, Peter and Jude ( Intern. Crit. Comm. ), J. Monnier, La frem. />. de l af>6tre Pierre (1900), Hort (a fragment, on 1 Pet. 1:1-2:17, published posthumously 1898), and F. H. Chase (articles in Hastings, DB, vol.3; non-Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is granted).

[See also van Manen, Handleiding voor de oudchristelijke Letterkunde (1900), pp. 64-67 ; i Peter probably written in Asia Minor between 130 and 140, 2 Peter about 170, perhaps in Egypt. Van Manen regards the stay of Peter at Rome as highly un certain, not to say, improbable, in spite of what Lightfoot brings forward in Clement of Rome, ii.493.] o. C.

[The present position of conservative criticism may be seen from the sixth edition of part 12 of Meyer's commentary on the NT, which is the work of Prof. E. Kuhl (1897). The attempt is there made to prove critically the authenticity of 1 Pet. and of Jude, as well as of 2 Pet. 23:3-18. The first Epistle of Peter was, Kiihl thinks, addressed to Jewish Christians, and the passages 1:1, 2:25, 4:3, 2:2, 1:14, 1:18 2:9-10, 3:6 are carefully studied in order to prove this. Unfortunately there is no trace of Jewish-Christian views (maintenance of the political forms of Judaism, of the prerogative of the Jewish people, and of the Mosaic Law as necessarily to be observed by those who are born Jews) anywhere in the epistle, which (as Weiffenbach has pointed out) may much more correctly be regarded as a monument of a mild and liberal Petrinism (cp Gal. 2:7+), which made salvation depend exclusively on faith in Christ, and transferred the observance of the law by born Jews to the domain of custom. But this view of Christianity is not even conceivable apart from the influence of Paulinism. Nor has Kiihl succeeded in making the existence of Jewish-Christian communities in the provinces of Pontus, etc. (1:1) in the pre-Pauline peiiod at all probable. The opening verse (with the address of the epistle), together with the literary relation of 1 Peter to the Pauline epistles, points decidedly to the later - i.e. , post-Pauline - period. See further Chase, 'Peter, First Epistle', Hastings, DB 3:782-783 (small type passage).

In his introduction to 2 Peter, Kuhl begins by discussing the relation of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude and also the question of its unity. His result is that at any rate 2 Pet. 2:1-3:2 was written under the influence of the Epistle of Jude. The picture of the 'libertines' in Jude is evidently a description of phenomena actually present to the writer ; it has in a high degree the note of unity. The second chapter of 2 Peter, however, has a Janus-face, inasmuch as the first half of it deals with the lying teachers of the future, and the second with the errors of the present. It is, therefore, as compared with Jude, secondary. On the other hand, there are passages in the other parts of 2 Peter which either are (2:3, cp Jude 17-18) or, apart from preconceived theory, may possibly be original as compared with passages in Jude. On the whole, the second Epistle of Peter, without this interpolation, is to be regarded as authentic.

It should be added that Bertholdt (Kinl. [1819], pp. 3157^) had already declared 2 Pet. 2 to be an interpolation dependent on Jude, that Ullmann (Krit. Unters. des 2 Pet. [1821]) would only allow chap. 1:1 to be the work of Peter, and that Gess (Das apost. Zeugniss von Chr. Person, 2:2 [1879], pp. 412+) regarded 1:20b (oTL n-acra)- 3:3a (yii>ai<7/coi Te) as an interpolation. Weiffenbach, too (TLZ, Nov. 26, 1898, col. 364^), agrees with Kuhl that 2 Pet. 2:1-32 is an interpolation dependent on Jude.]


(JTnn?, 27; 'Yahwe opens [the womb]', but adapted perhaps from an ethnic name such as n-ISFl, 'a Tappuhite' [Che.]).

1. Eponym of one of the twenty-four priestly courses ; 1 Ch. 24:16 (^eraia [H], 0e0<:ta. [A], <a0ia [L]).

2. A Levite, temp. Ezra; Ezra 10:23 (<oSaia [B], <aata [], Aefleiafs] [AL]), Neh. 9:5 (BKA om.; 4>e<r<rta? [L])= 1 Esd. 9:23 PATHEUS (7ra0<uo [B], $a0. [A], c^efoia.; [L]).

3. b. Mesbezabel, of the Zerahite branch of the tribe of Judah, was 'at the king's hand in all matters concerning the people', by which expression we are most probably to understand that he acted as commissary of the Persian king at Jerusalem in the absence of Nehemiah (Neh. 11:24, Traflcua [B], $a0. [AL], jrafoia K], $0.6. [Nc.a]).


pinS ; ^AGOYPA [ BF L]), a place 'by the river', where, according to the present text of Nu. 22:5 (BaeOYPA L A ]), Balaam dwelt. In Dt. 23:4 [ 23:5 ] (LXX{AL} om. ) it is called 'Pethor of Aram-naharaim', a phrase which seems to imply an identification of Pethor with a place called Pitru (see inscr. of Shalmaneser II., RP{2} 440, KB i. 133:162+:, and cp Schr. KGF 220+, and, for Egyptian notices, RP(^) 5:38 632 ; WMM, As. u. Eur. 98 267). This important city lay on the \V. of the Euphrates, or, more precisely, at the point where that river is joined by the Sagur (mod. Sajur), therefore a few miles S. of Carchemish. The district containing it belonged to the Aramaeans, who had been expelled by Tiglath-Pileser I. , but had won Pitru back from a later Assyrian king. Shalmaneser II. adds that he himself recovered the place, and settled it anew with Assyrian colonists. In modern times this identification was first made by E. Hincks ; it has been adopted by Sayce, Schrader, and Frd. Delitzsch.

See especially Sayce, The Site of Pethor, Acad. Sept. 16, 1876, p. 291 ; Schr. KGF 220 ff.; Del. Par. 269.

That Pethor rightly stands in Dt. 23:5 [23:4] cannot be doubted, and it must have been read very early in Nu. 22:5, for on this passage Dt. 23:5 [ 23:4 ] is based. Nevertheless the earliest form of the story of Balaam cannot have traced his origin to a place called Pethor. For no such place as Pethor existed in the Euphrates region. Pethor would be in Assyrian Pitaru, while Pitru would be in Hebrew Pether (Pathar). Nor is it even certain that the true text of Dt. 23:5 placed Pethor in the far north ; D vo. in the phrase D lriJ Ditf (Aram-naharaim), may perhaps be a corruption of jxsnT, a frequent gloss on DIK. If so, 'Pethor of Jerahmeel' refers to some place on the N. Arabian border.

The Euphrates is not the only stream called par excellence "in|,l, 'the river' ; there is another - that near which Rehoboth lay, the city of the Aramite king Shaul (see SAUL, 2). It was in short the river of Misrim, miscalled traditionally 'the river of Egypt' (see EGYPT, RIVER OF). This is the Wady el-'Aris, the border-stream of the N. Arabian land of Musri or Musur (see MIZRAIM). To obtain a clear and consistent geography the river beside which was the home of Balaam, must be the river by which Rehoboth lay. This is confirmed by the fact (as we may fairly regard it) that Misrim (i.e., Musri) occurs twice in a corrupted form in the list of Edomite (or perhaps, rather, Aramite - i.e., Jerahmeelite) kings in Gen. 36:31-39 (see BELA, DISHAHAH, ME-ZAHAB). No such place-name as Pethor, however, is known to have existed S. of Palestine. The name suggests a connec tion with -ins. 'to interpret (a dream)', and is improbable ; indeed, in Nu. 22:5 Pesh. renders, not 'to Pethor', but 'an interpreter of dreams' (pasora). There must be a corruption in the text. Probably n!ins is due to an accidental shifting of the letters of the true word, which must have been nnS"lX, 'to Zarephath'. The earlier form of Nu. 22:5 was, 'So he sent messengers to Bil'am ben Beor (or rather Achbor) to Zarephath, which is by the river, to the land of the b'ne Jerahmeel' (i cj ; comes from pot;, which is not unfrequently a corruption ~o{ 7KCm ). C. Niebuhr's bold conjecture (Cesch. 1 295), 'Pathros' for 'Pethor', at any rate implies a just disbelief in Pethor. See Che. The Land of Musri, etc., OLZ, May 1899.

T. K. C.


(AS-in?, 'God's simple one' ? cp Ps. 19:7 [19:8]; Merx and Nowack prefer LXX's B&6OYHA [see JOEL, i]), father of the prophet Joel (Joel 1:1).

An examination of the occurrences of the name JOEL (q.v.) suggests that it was a favourite S. Israelitish name, and it may even be held that there is a group of similar names, such as Eliel, Elijah, Elihu, and Eliab, and also Joel, which arose out of corruptions of Jerahmeel. It is noteworthy, as indicating one stage in the process of development, that one of the Joels also appears under the name IGAL (Sxr) ; see 2 S. 23:36 ; his father's name was Nathan (an expansion of the Jerahmeelite name Ethan). Kuenen (Otu/.fi), g 69, n. 14, p. 354) has already suggested that 'Joel' may be an assumed name, and that the writer of the prophecy (who in 2:11, 3:1 [3:4] alludes to Mal. 4:5, [3:23]), may call himself Joel (= Elijah) to indicate that he is 'the teacher for righteousness' (Joel 2:23 ?), the true Elijah announced in Mal. 4:5 [3:23]. Now it is far from improbable that Elijah was a Jerahmeelite - of 'Zarephath-jerahmeel' (see THISBE) - and that not only Elijah and Joel [see above] but also Bethuel (see LABAN) or Pethuel is a worn-down form of Jerahmeel. The impulse to prophesy was perhaps specially strong among Jerahmeelites. Cp PKOPHECY, 7. T. K. C.


(y;D), Is. 16:1 AVmg, EV SELA.


RV Peullethai (TI^B, like *rbs), a distortion of OS li , Zarephathite, X and J?, T and 7 being confounded ; la^Soo-Aaafli [B], <f>o\\a9i [A], $eAAa0i [L]), one of the sons of OBED-EDOM (q.v.), 1 Ch. 20:5+, in a context full of distorted ethnic and gentilic names. T K C


(cp&Ae MOO<\B [A]), 1 Esd. 5:11 = Ezra 2:6, PAHATH-MOAR


(cpAKApee [BA]), i Esd. 5:34 = Ezra 2:57, POCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM.


(cp&HzeAA<MOY [ R J)> 1 Esd. 5:38 RVmg = Ezra 2:61, BARZILLAI.


[B]), 1 Esd. 9:22 = Ezra 10:22, PASHUR, 3.


RV Phaldeus (cpA.A(<5,)A<Moc 1 Esd. 9:44 = Neh. 8:4, PEDAIAH, 5.


(<J>\A(MOY [BA]), 1 Esd. 5:29 = Ezra 2:44 , PADON.


(4>\AeK [Ti. WH]), Lk. 3:35 AV, RV PELEG (q.v.).


((PA.AIA.C [B]), 1 Esd. 9:48 RV = Neh. 8:7, PELAIAH, 2.


(N-1j>B), Gen. 46:9 AV, RV PALLU (q.v.).


( P^S), 1 S. 25:44 AV, RV PALTI (q.v.).


( pJOp pS), 2 S. 3:15 AV, RV PALTIEL.


((}>ANOYHA t ri - WH 1 : C P PENUEL), of the tribe of Asher, father of Anna the prophetess (Lk. 2:36). See ANNA.


RV Pharakim (c}><Np<M<eM [B], 4Ap<\-KEIM [A], om. L), a post-exilic family of Nethinim (1 Esd. 6:31) unmentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah. 'Sons of Pharakim' perhaps represents an original c ^ibn J3 - the guild who had the care of the temple-hangings ; cp C3ia in Phoen. CIS i. no. 86 A 5 10. See NETHINIM.

S. A. C.


(n jr)S ; (J>Ap,\co ; Pharad), the name given to all Egyptian kings in the Bible.

1. History of name.[edit]

Evidently like our expressions 'the Tsar', 'the Mogul', etc. , it must have been a native word for 'king', or one of the chief titles of the Egyptian rulers. The omission of the article shows its stereotyped use among the Hebrews. Later, the connection : Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Ex. 6:11, etc.), shows a tendency of the word Pharaoh to become a proper name, as which it seems to stand in the NT, etc. Josephus (Ant. 8:6:2, 155) correctly states that Pharaoh meant 'king' in Egyptian.

We are now certain that the word is derived from the expression for 'king' used by the later Egyptians.

The Coptic form is (e)ppo [(e)rro], Lower Egyptian GYRO [ouro] with the article n(e)ppC [p(e)rro)), (J>OYPO [phouro]. So, already, Tablonski (Opusc. 1:376). The group of signs corresponding to this in the latest writings of the pagan Egyptians can be traced back through its representatives in demotic and hieratic to the early form Per-o l (originally, 'o', final Aleph having fallen away) 'the great house, the palace'. This hieroglyphic group was first compared with the Hebrew word by de Rouge (cp Ebers, Ag. u. Bucher Mosis, 264). It is remarkable that the Greek tradition in Horapollo still knew that OIKOS /u.e yas [oikos megas] = 'king'.

The expression occurs already in the texts of the pyramid-period from dynasty four onwards (later, e.g., in the famous inscription of 'Una', l. 8) in titles like 'only friend of the Great House'. 'Great House' is a paraphrase for 'king' due to reverence, exactly like the modern expressions 'the holy see' for 'pope', 'the Porte' or 'the Sublime Porte', etc. In the early period referred to, it was not yet possible to use 'great house' as perfectly synonymous with 'king'. Expressions like 'to follow the Great-House on his chariot' (Pap. Orbiney, 17s ; dyn. 19), in which the etymology begins to be forgotten, do not occur in the time of the Old or the Middle Empire. It is only in the vernacular style of the New Empire that the title can be used in the loose way quoted above ; 2 it becomes the usual word for 'king', superseding the earlier expressions like hnf ( 'His Majesty' ) and stn, only at a much later date. Consequently the Hebrews can have received it only after 1000 B.C.

In confirmation of this, we see from the Amarna letters that the title was unknown in Asia about 1400 B.C. The absence of the word in the Assyrian texts (the alleged Pir'u, king of Egypt, belongs rather, as Winckler has shown, to the Arabian country Musri) is, however, no cogent argument. No Semitic language except Hebrew adopted the word ; the Koranic form Fir'aun shows the influence of Syrian Christianity.

The rendering in Hebrew orthography is remarkably good and archaic. The strange vocalisation is supported by LXX and, therefore, must not be abandoned too lightly ; 3 perhaps it represents an archaic pronunciation.

Other Egyptian etymologies which have been suggested cannot be upheld. p-Re 'the sun' (Kosellini, Wilkinson, etc.), for example, never was the common designation of the king, and would, in Hebrew letters, give only y-\s- Lepage Renouf, PS ft A 10421, proposed a Hebrew derivation from the root jns [PR'], ( 'to be noble' ) with little probability.

1. [hieroglyph goes here]. The later Egyptians omitted the initial p, a popular etymology taking it for the article, which was felt to be ungrammatical as long as the expression was used for 'the king' - i.e. of Egypt, i \ i i

2 [hieroglyph goes here] In this period it is frequently written playfully 'the great (double) house', which does not alter the pronunciation. In Greek times, even a feminine t-[p]er-'o, Copt. TppO [terro] 'the queen' can be formed.

3 The only analogy would be pe/VXACO 'rich man'. This stands, however, for reme-'o, and the short vowel has been coloured to a by the 'Ain. Per, 'house', on the other hand, has in all cases been shortened down to P (cp PIBESETH, PITHOM) and does not seem ever to have had two syllables. The question remains open. The king Pheron of Herodotus may be one of that historian's many misunderstandings, and may simply have meant 'king'.

2. OT Pharaohs.[edit]

We proceed to an enumeration of the various Pharaohs mentioned in the OT.

i. Abraham's Pharaoh (Gen. 12:15-16) has, on the basis of a computation of the lives of the patriarchs, been placed in dynasty 12. If the latest chronology is to be followed, we ought rather to go back to dynasty 11. As, however, this Pharaoh seems to be only a misunderstood prince of southern Palestine (cp the parallel Gen. 26 and see MIZRAIM, 26), all discussions are idle.

2. Joseph's Pharaoh lived, according to Ex. 12:40, some 430 years before the Exodus. The usual theory with regard to the Exodus (see below, 3) would bring us down to about 1700 B.C. That would correspond with the period of the Hyksos dynasty, perhaps more accurately with the reign of its first kings. The tradition of Apophis (EGYPT, 52) - whether it rest on a correct calculation or on Josephus' confusion of Hyksos and Israelites - is remarkable, but would bring us to the end of the Hyksos-time, which does not seem to furnish a smooth calculation. All this depends, however, on the Exodus-chronology.

3. The Pharaoh of the oppression and his successor (cp Ex. 2:23, 4:19) would according to Ex. 1:11 be undoubtedly Rameses II. and his son, Me(r)neptah. This theory has now, hosvever, been finally upset by the discovery of the Israel-stele which proves that in Merneptah's fifth year Israel was in Asia. See EGYPT, 58-60, on this conflict. It may be mentioned that the mummy of the alleged Pharaoh of the Exodus (Merneptah) has recently been found in Thebes and is now in the museum of Cairo. A theory of Bunsen, placing the Exodus in the troubled time of Amenophis IV. and his immediate successors (1400 B.C. and later ; EGYPT, 56), might be supported by Josephus s extract from Manetho ; but its four or five kings are in such inextricable confusion that nothing can be proved by the passage. For the rest, there is much that militates against such theories. [Cp MOSES.]

4. The Pharaoh contemporary with Solomon, father-in-law of the Israelite king (1 K. 9:16, 9:24, 11:1, etc.), and also of his adversary Hadad (11:18), - if one and the same person are meant, - would be one of the last kings of the twenty-first Tanitic dynasty, or Shoshenk I., the founder of dynasty twenty-two (EGYPT, 63). It is, however, again very doubtful whether originally the reference was really to some Egyptian ruler(s) and not rather to Musrites (see HADAD, MIZKAIM, 2 b).

5. In 1 K. 14:25, it is very remarkable that Shishak - Shoshenk I. - is called not Pharaoh, but simply king of Egypt. Griffith (in his most valuable article 'Pharaoh in Hastings' BD) draws the conclusion that the verse containing the expression belongs to a source earlier than the Pentateuchal sources, which employ regularly the expression Pharaoh. [But cp Crit. Bib., where it is held that there is a confusion between Cushi, king of Misrim, and Shishak, king of Misraim. ]

6. On Pharaoh - Necho see NECHO, and (7) on Pharaoh Hophra see HOPHRA. The latter is meant by the Pharaoh of Ezek. 29:32. [Cp, however, PROPHECY, and Crit. Bib.} w. M. M.


(4>ApAeu>N [AN c - a V]), 1 Macc. 9:50 RV, AY Pharathoni. See PIRATHON.


(cpApec [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1:3, Lk. 3:33 AV, RV PEREZ (q.v.).


i. (} -))), Gen. 38:29 AV, RV PEREZ.

2. (4>ap<rs [BL]), 1 Esd. 8:30 AV = Ezra 8:3, PAROSH.


(<}>Ap[e]iAA [BA]), 1 Esd. 5:33 RV, AV Pharira = Ezra 2:55, PERUDA (q.v.).




(trinS), Ezra 8:3 AV, RV PAROSH (q.v. ).


pans ; A4>Ap4>A [B], <}>Ap<t>A [B am e- b ], <bAp4>ApA [A], <J>APCpAp [L] ; Pharphar [Vg.]), one of the 'streams (nm:) of Damascus', 2 K. 5:12. The identification of the Pharpar can hardly be doubtful, though it has not been so unanimously agreed upon as that of its fellow-stream, the ABANA or AMANA [q.v.]. Those who insist on interpreting 'Damascus' in the question of Naaman to mean the city of that name have to identify the Pharpar with the Nahr Taura, 1 which is one of the principal streams into which the Nahr Barada is divided, and contributes largely to the fertility of tje meadow-land (el-merj) of Damascus. It may of course be permitted to assume that there was a time when the Nahr Taura flowed through Damascus, not merely, as it does now, a little to the N. , for the site of the city of Benhadad cannot have been exactly coincident with that of the Damascus of to-day. 1 But how unnecessary it is to put this limitation on the meaning of 'Damascus', will be seen by comparing 2 S. 8:5-6, 1 Ch. 18:5-6, Is. 7:8, Am. 1:3 (?), where Damascus is used as the name of the leading Aramaean state. In the question of Naaman, it is not Damascus the city but Damascus the country that forms the natural antithesis to Israel. As soon as these facts are grasped, it becomes natural to identify the Pharpar with the Nahr el-A'waj ( 'the crooked' ),2 which is the only independent stream of importance in the required district besides the Barada. This river has two principal sources.

One source is near the village of 'Arni, on the E. side of Hermon, the other, in a wild glen, 2 mi. above the village of Beit Jenn, known to travellers on their way from Banias to Damascus. The two streams, called the Nahr 'Arni and the Nahr Jennani, unite at Sa'sa and form the A'waj which flows from this point onwards in a general direction NW. by N. ; it is no brawling brook (VV. Wright) but a copious stream, from which, according to Porter, ancient canals carry the water to places in the neighbourhood of Damascus. It dies out at last in a marsh a little to the S. of that in which the Barada disappears.

The name Pharpar has been thought to survive in that of the Nahr (Wady) Barbar, which also rises on the E. side of Hermon, but farther to the N., and flows S. of Damascus. 3 Burton indeed declares, There is absolutely no Wady Barbar. . . . But there is a Jebel Barbar which may be seen from Damascus ( Unexplored Syria, 1 115, n. 8). This, however, does not really touch the identification of names. T. K. C.

1 So Rev. W. Wright of Damascus, Leisure Hour, 1874, p. 284 (cp Expos., Oct. 1896, p. 295^), and long ago Benjamin of Tudela. This identification is supported by the Arabic version.




npS), Neh. 7:51 AV, RV PASEAH (q.v.}.


(chACHAic [KV], B^ciAeiAAN [A], 1 Macc. 15:23), a Dorian colony on the confines of Lycia and Pamphylia, standing on a small peninsula, the first land sighted on the voyage from Cilicia to Rhodes (Livy, 37:23), over the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia (Acts 27:5). It was not originally Lycian (cp Strabo, 667) ; but later it was incorporated, and finally became a member of the Lycian League (cp coins, and CIG 4324, 4332 : so Kalinka in Kiepert's Festschrift, 1898, p. 167-168), and marked the eastern limit of Lycian extension. The town possessed no fewer than three harbours, and was a great place of maritime trade (Strabo, 666 ; Thuc. 26g, rbi> TrXoOf T&V 6\KaSwv TUV dwo t acr^XtSos, and id. 888; Pol. 30:9). A testimony to its far-reaching commerce is the fact that, before the middle of the sixth century B.C., it shared in the Hellenion, or sanctuary and emporium of the Greeks at Naucratis in Egypt (Herod. 2:178). 5 Hence Phaselis had a Jewish colony in 139 B.C. (1 Macc. 15:23).

The importance of Phaselis lay not solely in commerce. Above it rose the Solyma mountains (Takhtati Dagli), which left only a narrow passage by the sea - the pass of Mt. Klimax - which was often overflowed by the waves when the wind was E. : here Alexander and his army barely escaped with their lives in 334 B.C. (Strabo, 666-667 ; cp Spratt and Forbes, Travels, 1:197). In Roman times the commerce of Phaselis had degenerated into piracy, with the result that the town lost its independence in 77-75 B.C.l

The place is now called Tekir-ova : it shows considerable remains of its harbours, and of a theatre, stadium, and temple. The temple of Athens at Phaselis claimed to possess the spear of Achilles (Paus. iii. 38).

See further description in Beaufort, Karaiaania, 56/1

W. J. W.

1 Cp Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, p. 24.

2 So Noldeke, Robinson, and especially Porter (Five years in Damascus, 1:299 ; 'The Rivers of Damascus', Journ. of Sacred Lit., July and Oct., 1853). Burton doubtfully identifies with the stream of 'Ain Fijeh (Unexplored Syria, 1 115). But this stream joins the Barada.

3 It has been surmised that anciently the stream joined that now called the Nahr A'waj, and was popularly confounded with it, and Dr. Thomson (LBS^o) states that one of the existing smaller tributaries of the Sabirani (the name of the Nahr A'waj in the first pait of its course) comes down the Wady Barbar.

4 "I acrrjAi;, authors ; <l>a<n)Ais, inscrr. ; <t>a<rT)A(e)tTuH , coins.

5 It struck coins with a variety of types in the sixth and early part of the fifth century B.C., ceasing on the rise of the Athenian empire (about 466 B.C.). Cp Hill, Brit. Mus. Cat. of Greek Coins, [Lycia].


an unknown Arabian tribe whom Jonathan the Maccabee smote ( 1 Macc. 9:66 <f>&Clp6GN [A], (pACeipCON [N], (b&plCOON [V]). if 'sons of Pharison' (so V) is not due to a misunderstanding of D sns JO- 'members of a robber-band' ; cp Dan. 11:14. T. K. c.


RV Phassurus ((bAccoypoy [ A l) 1 Esd. 5:25 = Ezra 2:38, PASHHUR (RV), 3.


(<J>oiBH [Ti. WHJ), Rom. 16:1 AV, RV PHOEBE (q.v.).


i. (cboiNiKH [Ti.WH]), Acts 11:19. etc., AV, RV PHOENICIA (q.v.).

2. (4> ri/i, or *oi.Vtf [Ti. WH]), Acts 2V 12, AV, RV PHOENIX.

The corn-ship from Alexandria in which Paul was being conveyed to Italy (Acts 27:6) was so long weather-bound at Fair Havens on the S. coast of Crete that the voyage could not be accomplished that year (v. 9), and it became necessary to select a harbour in which to winter (v. 12). The centurion, who in a ship of the imperial corn-fleet ranked as senior officer (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 323 f. ), took the advice of the captain and the sailing-master (EV wrongly the 'master and the owner' for Kv^fpvqr^ and vavK\T)pos of v. n), and resolved to run westwards if possible to port Phoenix (in which attempt, however, they failed).

To this course Paul himself was opposed, on what grounds we are not told ;2 nor again is his precise position in the ship made clear.

The expression in v. 12 (oi irAei oves, 'the more part advised' ) must not be taken to imply a general consultation of the entire ship's company (Weiss, Apostelg., l.c.). Nor can we accept the vague statement that Paul was a person of rank whose convenience was to some extent consulted, and whose experience as a traveller was known to be great (so Ramsay, op. cit.) as helping to explain how a prisoner should have taken part in a council of experts. The liberty accorded to Paul at Sidon (v. 3) obviously stands in a quite different category. Paul had absolutely no experience of the central or western Mediterranean ; and captains and sailing-masters were scarcely likely to ask the opinion of amateur sailors. We must be on our guard against the falsity of the perspective of the writer of Acts, who of course looks at all from the point of view of his hero, and depicts Paul everywhere as the central figure. It may be doubted whether anything more ought to be extracted from the narrative of events at Fair Havens than the fact of a general objection urged by Paul with characteristic vigour and directness against the proposal when it became known to the ship's company. Is it possible that Paul's desire to remain at Fair Havens had its origin in a prospect of missionary work ? The important town of Gortyna was only a few miles from this point of the coast (Strabo 478. See GORTYNA).

It is clear from a general consideration of the circumstances (see FAIR HAVENS) that Phoenix must be sought to the westward of the great gulf of Messara, which begins at Cape Matala, about 6 mi. W. of Fair Havens. It was during the run across this gulf that the squall broke which drove the ship off her course (v. 15), and ultimately caused her to drift upon the coast of Malta (v. 27).

Phoenix is mentioned by Strabo as a coast settlement on what he calls the 'isthmus' of Crete - i.e., the narrow part of the island between Mount Ida and the mountains of the broad western end (475, KaroiKiar. . . irpbs rri vor up QoiviKa rbv Aa/jLTr^uv). 1 Phoenix is commonly identified with the modern village and harbour of Loutra some miles to the SW. , a position in conformity both with the notice in Strabo and with that of Ptolemy (3:17:3).

1 Cic. Verr. 4:10:21, Phaselis ilia, quam cepit P. Servilius, non fuerat urbs antea Cilicum et praedonum : Lycii illam, Graeci homines, incolebant . . . asciverunt sibi illud oppidum piraice primo commercio, deinde etiat societate.

2 Acts 27:10 merely gives his summing up of the consequences foreboded by him if the present anchorage was abandoned : 'voyage' (T OV TrAoOi/) refers of course only to the proposed run to port Phoenix, not to the entire voyage.

Ptolemy locates in this part of Crete a harbour Phoenicis (4>oii icou5 Aijurjy) and a town Phoenix (4oiVi TrdAts). In the Synecdemus of Hierocles (14, ed. Parth) Phoenix appears, under the form Phoenice, as a bishopric, along with a place Aradena - both in the neighbourhood of the island of Clauda (4>otci<oj TJrot \paSeva, nij<7os KAaC6os). Aradena is further mentioned by Steph. Byz. , under the name Araden, as a Cretan town which was also called from its position Anopolis, 'Upper City' ( \paSrjv jroAts KprjTrjs t\ 6f AyouroAts Ae yerai 610 TO elvai avia). Both the name Araden or Aradena and the name Anopolis survive unchanged - Ampolis or Anapolis being that of a group of villages on the plateau N. of Loutra, W. of which, about a mile inland from the harbour, is the village of Aradhena. Both at Aradhena and at Loutrd are found ancient remains (those at the latter place Roman) ; but the chief ancient Greek site is on a hill on the southern edge of the plateau. Here was the ancient Araden to which was transferred the name of the harbour Phoenix (Loutro). 2

Loutro is described as 'the only secure harbour in all winds on the S. coast of Crete' (cp Smith, op. cif., 261), and Captain Spratt writes that it is 'the only bay to the westward of Fair Havens in which a vessel of any size could find any shelter during the winter months' (quoted by Smith, op. cit., 92, where similar testimony by others is collected). That imperial ships were some times to be found there is proved by an inscription from Loutr6 (dating from the reign of Trajan) given in full by Smith, op. cit. , 269-270

It is all but impossible, however, to make the identification which thus appears so conclusive agree with the description of the harbour in Acts 27:12.

There it is described as At/ueVa rjs Kptjrrjs /3A jrOVTO Kara At jSa icai. Kara vwpoi (AV 'and lieth toward the south west and north west' ; RV 'looking north-east and south-east', RVmg. Gk. 'down the south-west wind and dtnvn the north-west wind' ).

1. If we adopt the rendering of AV, the identification of Phoenix with port Loutro must be surrendered ; that harbour faces E. - i.e., is open to winds ranging from NE. to SE. We must then identify with the harbour W. of the promontory of Loutrd (ending in Cape Muros), called Phineka Bay in the Admiralty Chart. 3 Soundings ranging from three and a half fathoms to one would make it as good an anchorage as Loutrd port. If the objection to wintering at Fair Havens was that it lies open to the E. (Acts 27:12), the same objection would apply to port Loutro. 4 The evidence of navigators acquainted with the coast (cp Smith, l.c.) is against the actual existence of a sheltered anchorage on the W. of the peninsula, and the charts do not decide the point.

2. If we adopt the rendering of RV ( looking NE. and SE. ) we must interpret Kara. Ai jSa [kata liba] and Kara \iapov [kata chooron] as 'looking down the direction of' the winds named.

This translation is supported by reference to Herod. 4:110, 'they were borne along by wind and wave' (i<j>epovTO Kara KU/UO- (eat ai ffiov), to which objection is made on the ground that there the usage is of a ship in motion (the objections urged by Page, Acts of the Apostles, note in loc., that 'a harbour does not move and must look Kara. Ai /3a [kata liba] whether At i|< [lips] is blowing or not', and that if At i/; [lips] and \wpos [cooros] represent, not points of the compass, but winds in motion, then Kara Ai jSa Kai Kara xuipov involves the assertion that two winds are blowing at the same time, are surely in the highest degree sophistical). The expression of Arrian {Per. Eux. 3, a^via vf>t\i) (irava<na.cra. ep- pa-yj) (car eupoc) is not clear (see Smith, op. cit., 89, note, for discussion). Josephus, speaking of the places between Joppa and Dora, says that they were all 6u<rop^a Sia ras Kara Ai/3a 7rpocroAas [dysorma dia tas kata liba prosbolas] (Ant. 15:9:6). Thucydides describes a steady N. wind as KO.TO. {Sopeav etmjitui? [kata borean estekoos] (6:104).

In spite of the examples quoted, however, the phrase in Acts is obscure : it seems due to a confusion of ideas. Just as in English 'to look down the wind' means to look in the direction in which it is blowing, so in Greek ; nevertheless, |3AeVa> [blemoo] used of a harbour would naturally imply 'facing', 'turned towards'.

3. The explanation of Conybeare and Howson (Life and Ep. of St. Paul, 2:400) is that 'sailors speak of everything from their own point of view, and that such a harbour [as that of Loutro] does "look" - from the water towards the land which encloses it - in the direction of south-west and north-west. (Similarly what we read in Farrar [St. Paul, 711] is surely not to be justified by appeals to the natural phraseology of v. 27 ; cp Page, l.c.)l

It must be remembered that neither Paul nor the writer of Acts ever saw the harbour.

Literature. - Chiefly J. Smith's Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul ('), 1880. Bursian, Geogr. v. Griech., with authorities therein mentioned. w. J. W.

1 Lampa (Lappa, coins and inscr.) was at a site in the interior now called Palis.

2 There is some evidence that the name Phoenix still survives in the locality (cp J. Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (^), 258); it probably bears reference to the existence in early days of a Phoenician trading-post at this point.

3 (Pub. 1861, from survey by Mr. Millard in 1859; large corrections, July 1864.)

4 This objection would be met, however, by what we read in Smith, 261, 269.


((})pezAloi [BAL]), 1 Esd. 8:69 AV. (RV Pherezites) = Ezra 9:1, PERIZZITE.


(fe S; <|>IKO\ [AD], 4>| XO A [DEL]), general of Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 212232 [RV Phicol]; 26:26). The name, like MICHAL (q.v. ), is probably corrupted from ^ n 3K, Abihail, but ultimately, like Abimelech, from Jerahmeel.

The absurd rendering 'mouth of all' (cp Gen. 41:40) is as old as the Midrash (Ber. rabba, on Gen. 21:22). Whiston, the translator of Josephus, connects Phicol with *I>iicoAa [phicola], the name of the native village of Joseph, the famous tax-collector under Ptolemy Euergetes (Jos. Ant. 12:4:2); so also Furst. An Arabic etymology (fakala, 8, 'to give attention to' ) has also been ventured. Delitzsch (Par, 270) compares the Hittite name Pisiri ; but we require a Semitic name like Abimelech.

T. K. C.


(cJxAAAeA^iA, Rev. 1:11, 1:37 [WH], 4>iA&AAcbei&i most minuscules, inscrr. and classical authors).

1. History.[edit]

A Pergamene foundation, as is evident from its situation on the gentle slopes at the base of the steeper hills (Mt. Tmolus) commanding the site, a position dictated, not by military, but by commercial considerations (Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of AM 86, Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, 2353 n. ; cp Holm, Gk. Hist. ET 4477). It was built by Attalus II. Philadelphus (159-138 B.C.), who also founded Attaleia in Pamphylia (see ATTALIA). The town lay on the southern side of the valley of the Cogamus (or Cogamis : Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of Phryg. 1:196 n. ), a tributary of the Hermus, near the road uniting the Hermus and Mreander valleys. It stood, therefore, on the confines of Lydia and Phrygia, on the south-western edge of the volcanic region called Katakekaumene, or 'Burnt Region' : it was, however, properly a Mysian town (Strabo, 628) separated from the bulk of the Mysians by the aforesaid 'Burnt Region', which itself also was variously claimed as Lydian, Mysian, or Phrygian, from the interlacing of the bounds of the three peoples in this district. The volcanic nature of its soil was the cause alternately of the prosperity and the misfortunes of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia's staple export was wine : its coins show the head of Dionysos, the type being doubly appropriate, as Dionysos Kathegemon was a great deity at Pergamos (cp the coins of Dionysopolis, also founded by Attalus II., Ramsay ; op. cit. 1:126). Some part of its prosperity was doubtless derived from its hot springs (cp Joan. Lyd. 75, 349, where the hot springs of Hierapolis and LAODICEA [q. v.] are also mentioned), which are still much used ; probably connected in some degree with these was the celebrity of the city for its festivals and temples, the number of which gained it the title of 'miniature Athens'. Frequent destructive earthquakes, however, threw heavy burdens on its finances (Strabo, 579, 628). The status of the town is evidenced by the fact that the Koinon of Asia, which, according to some unknown rule of rotation, held its festival in the chief cities of the Province (e.g., Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Pergamos, Laodiceia), met also at Philadelphia (CIG 1068, 3428). For some time the town even changed its name to Neoc<esareia, and struck coins under that name during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius (Ramsay, op. cit. 1:201). The change was made in recognition of the aid rendered by Tiberius on the occasion of the great earthquake of 17 A.D. (Tac. Ann. 2:47).

In later Byzantine times, Philadelphia was a large and warlike city (Georg. Acropol. 111, neylff-nr) KOI iroXudvOpuiros), and was a bulwark of civilisation in this quarter, until, in 1379 or 1390, the united forces of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II. and the Osmanli Sultan Bayezid I. compelled its surrender to the Turks.

Possibly this energy, bravery, and self-reliance is traceable to the infusion of Macedonian blood ; for Macedonian colonists (the Mysomakedones of Pliny, HN 5:120, and Ptol. 5:2:15) were planted among the Mysians by the Seleucid kings, S. of Philadelphia, on the road to Ephesus, in the modern Uzum-Ova (Ramsay, op. cit. 1 196).

1 Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 326) suggests that 'the sailors described the entrance as one in which inward-bound ships looked towards NW. and SW., and that in transmission from mouth to mouth the wrong impression was given that the harbour looked NW. and SW'.

2. NT references.[edit]

The church of Philadelphia, though not unreservedly praised, like that of Smyrna, stands second in point of merit in the list of those addressed in the Apocalypse. Both Smyrna and Philadelphia were troubled by those 'who say they are Jews, and are not' (Rev. 2:9, 3:9). Ignatius, writing a few years later, also found it necessary to warn the Philadelphians against the preachers of Judaism (ad Phil. 6) as well as against disunion (chap 7). In Philadelphia the Jewish element predominates, as against the Hellenism rampant in Pergamos (Rev. 2:13). The town is still to a large extent Christian (cp Rev. 3:12). Its modern name is Ala-Sheher. 1

See Curtius, Nachtrag zu den Beitr. zur Gesch. u. Topogr. Kleinas., 1873. W. J. W.


(o cpyAARXHC [VA]), 2 Macc. 8:32 AV, regarding the word as a proper name ; but RV 'the phylarch'.


(npoc (piAHMONA ; so Ti. WH with NA and other MSS, but fuller superscriptions also occur mainly to indicate that the Epistle was written by the apostle Paul and at Rome, see Tisch. 8a) is the name of a short composition which has come down to us from antiquity as the thirteenth in the NT collection of 'Epistles of Paul'.

1. History.[edit]

Tertullian (adv. Marc. 5:21) is the first who expressly mentions the writing as included by Marcion among the ten epistles of Paul accepted by him, adding the remark that this was the only epistle whose brevity availed to protect it against the falsifying hands of the heretic ( 'soli huic epistolae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet' ). It retained its position undisturbed, although now and then (as, for example, by Jerome) its right to do so had to be vindicated against some ( 'plerique ex veteribus' ) who thought the honour too great for an epistle having no doctrinal importance. Others did not fail to praise this commendatory letter of the apostle on behalf of a runaway slave as a precious gem showing forth Paul's tenderness and love for all his spiritual children, even those who were the least of them if judged by the standard of the world.

F. C. Baur was the first (Pastoralbr. 1835 ; Paulus, 1845} who found himself led by his one-sided preoccupation with the four 'principal epistles' (see PAUL; PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE, 1) to raise difficulties with regard to the Epistle to Philemon. Its close relationship to Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, especially the last-named, which he found himself unable to attribute to Paul, was too much for him, although in this case his 'tendency-criticism' failed him. The considerations he urged in addition were certain et7ra Xe76/aei a [hapax legomena],the romantic colour of the narrative, the small probability of the occurrence, some plays upon words and the perhaps symbolical character of Onesimus, - points which, all of them, can be seen set forth in detail in Paulus, (), 2:88-94.

Thorough-going disciples of the Tubingen school, such as Rovers in his Nieuw Testamentische letterkunde (1888), followed in the footsteps of their leader although with occasional modifications in detail. Rovers saw in the epistle a concrete illustration of what is laid down in Colossians as to the relation between masters and slaves. Pfleiderer (Paulini sinus, 1890, pp. 42-43), although impressed by the simplicity and naturalness of the motive of Philemon, could not get over its agreement with Colossians, and, taking refuge in the consideration that Onesimus seemed to betray an allegorical character, ended by regarding the epistle as a symbolical illustration of the relation between Christian slaves and their masters as set forth in Col. 3:22-4:1. Similarly Weizsacker (Apos t. Zeitalter (P), 1892, 545), who found himself compelled in view of Colossians to regard Philemon as an illustrative example of a new doctrine bearing on the Christian life, the allegorical character of which is already shown by the very name of Onesimus.

1 Ala-Sheher - the 'spotted (or parti-coloured) city' (see Murray's Handbook to A.M. 83). Older books call it, by a mere error, Allah-Sheher - the 'City of God'.

Those who did not adopt the Tubingen position in its entirety, but endeavoured to rescue at least some of the 'minor' Pauline epistles - such critics as Hilgenfeld and S. Davidson - either argued for the genuineness or sought a way out of the difficulty of maintaining its genuineness as a whole by a hypothesis of interpolations. So Holtzmann ZWT, 1873, pp. 428-41 (with regard to vv. 4-6, controverted by Steck JPT, 1891, pp. 570-584), and W. Bruckner, Chron. Reihenfolge, 1890, pp. 200-3 (as regards vv. 5-6., controverted by Haupt, Komm. 1897, p. 10).

The conservative school carried on its opposition to Baur and his followers with greater or less thorough ness in various introductions and commentaries, the most recent being that of M. R. Vincent who (Comm. 160 [1897]), after briefly summing up the objections, proceeds : 'It is needless to waste time over these. They are mostly fancies. The external testimony and the general consensus of critics of nearly all schools are corroborated by the thoroughly Pauline style and diction and by the exhibition of those personal traits with which the greater epistles have made us familiar'. So also Zahn (Einl.W 1322 [1900]), with the usual pathos, and adding a couple of notes : 'That this epistle also, with its fullness of material which could not have been invented (note 7), should without any support for tradition and without any adequate reason whatever having been suggested for its invention, have been declared to be spurious, does not deserve more than a passing mention (note 8)'. J. P. Esser also expresses himself in a similar manner in an academic thesis that seeks to treat the subject with the utmost possible exhaustiveness, De Brief aan Philemon, 1875.

The criticism which refused to accept as an axiom the doctrine of the four 'principal epistles' of Paul (see PAUL, 30, 32, 34) did not make itself much heard. Bruno Bauer was quite silent, and its other representatives contented themselves, as a rule, with the declaration - sometimes more, sometimes less, fully elaborated - that we do not possess any epistles of Paul at all. R. Steck wrote the treatise already referred to (JPT, 1891) in which he concentrated attention upon the double character of the epistle, as a private letter and as a writing apparently intended for the Pauline church ; repeated some of the objections of Baur and others ; maintained that the ultimate design of the author was to 'present vividly' the apostle's attitude to the slavery question, as seen in 1 Cor. 7:21-22 ; and took special pains to emphasise the view that the unknown writer had made use, in his composition, of a correspondence between Pliny and Sabinianus preserved in the Epistles of Pliny (9:21, 9:24) to which Grotius had long ago called attention (see below, 4). Van Manen (Handl. 59 [1900]) devoted two sections to a statement of his views as to Philemon.

2. Form and contents.[edit]

On the assumption of the correctness of the received tradition regarding the canonical epistles of Paul, and of the identity of the Onesimus of Philem. 10 with the person named in Col 4:9, the statement usually met with is that Onesimus, a runaway slave, christianised by Paul and sent back by the apostle to his master with our present 'letter to Philemon', originally belonged to Colossas, where also lived his master Philemon, a man of wealth inasmuch as he owned a slave (!), who, either from Ephesus or perhaps at Ephesus itself (for we cannot be certain that the apostle ever visited Colossae), had been converted by Paul.

Any one, however, who will allow the epistle to tell its own story must receive from it a somewhat different impression. There is in it no information as to who Philemon was - he is mentioned in the NT nowhere else and is known only by later tradition - nor as to where he was living when Paul, according to Philem. 10-20, sent back to him his former slave Onesimus, after he had christianised him and so made him a brother of the master who could be spoken of as a beloved fellow-worker of Paul and Timothy, owing his conversion to Christianity to the former (vv. 1:19). The reader is not further ad vanced in his knowledge when Philemon is named by the tradition of a later age as a presbyter, a bishop, a deacon, or even an apostle, and Onesimus is reputed to have been bishop of Ephesus. For the unpreoccupied reader this little document of ancient Christianity represents itself in various lights, now as a letter written by Paul and Timothy to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and a domestic church (vv. 1-2a, 3, 22b, 25), now as written by Paul alone to Philemon (vv. 2b, 4-22a, 23-24). Sister Apphia and Archippus, the fellowsoldier of Paul and Timothy according to v. 2, are nowhere else met with in the NT, unless Archippus be, as many suppose, identical with the person named in Col. 4:17 - which may or may not be the case. That Apphia and Archippus should be respectively the wife and the son of Philemon, as many are ready to assume, is a gratuitous supposi tion which has no solid ground, and has against it the strangeness of the collocation 'Apphia the sister, Archippus our fellowsoldier and the church in the house that is thine, Philemon (<rov [son])'.

Paul a prisoner of Christ Jesus and brother Timothy, so we learn from the epistle,

  • address themselves with words of blessing to the persons named (vv. 1-2a, 3),
  • or otherwise Paul alone does so to Philemon (2b).
  • Next Paul goes on to say to Philemon that he thanks God always for his well-known love and his exemplary faith (vv. 4-7),
  • upon which he, as Paul Trpe^/SOrr;? [presbytes](the aged) and a prisoner of Christ Jesus, beseeches him to receive his son Onesimus whom he sends to him, though he would willingly have kept him beside himself, as a beloved brother (vv. 8-16).
  • Whatsoever expenses may have been incurred the apostle promises to defray (vv. 17-20).
  • He might enjoin ; but he trusts to the goodwill of Philemon, of whose hospitality he hopes ere long to be able to partake (vv. 21-22a)
  • through the mediating prayers of all of them (6ia rtav irpoaevxiav vfjuai , 22b) ;
  • next he conveys to him the greetings of Epaphras, his fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus, and of Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, his fellow- workers (vv. 23-24),
  • and the epistle closes with a word of blessing upon all (v. 25).

3. Composition.[edit]

A surprising mixture of singular and plural both in the persons speaking and in the persons addressed. This double form points at once to some peculiarity in the composition of the epistle. It is not a style that is natural to any one who is writing freely and untrammelled, whether to one person or to many. Here, as throughout the discussion, the constantly recurring questions as to the reason for the selection of the forms, words, expressions adopted find their answer in the observation that the epistle was written under the influence of a perusal of 'Pauline' epistles, especially of those to the Ephesians and the Colossians. Take the examples in which one or more persons near Paul are named as the writers :-

Col. 1:1 as Philem. 1 'Brother Timothy'. Again, why does Paul call himself in Philem. 9 6e cr/xios \punov IijtroO [o desmios christou iesou], and not as elsewhere SoOAos [doulos] or aTrooroAos [apostolos] ! The answer is found in Eph. 3:1, 4:1. What is meant by the inclusion of other names besides that of Philemon among the addressees? For answer see 1 Cor. 1:2, 2 Cor. 1:1. Archippus comes from Col. 4:17, the epithets <ruvepyo<; [synergos] and <TW0TpaTiioTT)s [synstratiootes] from Phil. 2:25. The church which is in the house from Col. 4:15. The prayer in v. 3 from Rom. 1:7, 1 Cor. 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:2, Gal. 1:3, Eph. 1:2 or Phil. 1:2. The thanksgiving and commemoration of v. 4 from Rom. 1:8, 1:9, 1 Cor. 1:4, Eph. 1:16, 5:20, Phil. 1:3, Col. 1:3. The continual hearing of Philemon's love and faith towards all the saints (v. 5) from Eph. 1:15, Col. 1:4. The expression "ov eyfrnjo-a [on eggenesa] (v. 10) from 1 Cor. 4:15, cp Gal. 4:19. The sending of Onesimus in vv. 10-11 from Col. 4:8 or Eph. 6:21-22, although in these passages it is Tychicus, a free man; Trpbs iapav [pros ooran] of v. 15 from 2 Cor. 7:8, Gal. 2:5 ; the 'brother beloved' and 'servant in the Lord' of v. 16 from Col. 4:79. The 'reckoning' of v. 18 from Phil. 4:15; 'I Paul' vv. 1, 9 from Gal. 5:2, Eph. 3:1 ; 'with my hand' from 1 Cor. 16:21, Gal. 1:11, Col. 4:18 ; the names in vv. 23-24 from Col. 1, 7, 4, 10, 12, 14 although now Epaphras takes the place of Aristarchus, 'the fellow-prisoner', as Onesimus a slave takes the place of the free man, the 'brother beloved' in Col. 4:9. The final benediction comes from Phil. 4:23.

4. Authorship.[edit]

Such phenomena are adverse to the supposition that Paul can have written the epistle. The thing is possible indeed, but certainly not probable. Rather may we say that no one could repeat himself so or allow himself to be restricted to such a degree by the limitations of his own previous writings. Nor can we think of Paul, however often we are told that he did so, as having put a private letter, after the manner here observed, into the form of a church epistle. We need not pause to conjecture what was the relation between him and Philemon, or where the latter had his home - whether in Colossce, Ephesus, Laodicea, somewhere else in Asia Minor, or perhaps even somewhere beyond its limits ; nor yet as to the circumstances and date of his conversion by the apostle, or as to the reason why the runaway slave Onesimus, who as yet was no Christian, should have betaken himself precisely to Paul the prisoner - at Caesarea, shall we say, or at Rome? The romantic element in the story does not need to be insisted on. It is to be put to the credit of the writer who may very well perhaps have made use of the story which has been so often compared with it (see above ; Plin. Epist. 9:21, 9:24). A freedman (libertus} of Sabinianus makes his escape and seeks refuge with Pliny, who was known to him as a friend of Sabinianus who also lives in Rome, where upon Pliny sends him back with a commendatory letter in which he pleads for the runaway from the standpoint of pure humanity. Our unknown author makes the freedman into a slave whom he brings into contact, at an immense distance from his home, with Paul, Philemon s spiritual father, who converts Onesimus also, and thereupon sends him back with a plea for the slave from the standpoint of Christian faith and Christian charity. He has thus presented us with an ideal picture of the relations which, in his judgment, that is according to the view of Pauline Christians, ought to subsist between Christian slaves and their masters, especially when the slaves have in some respect misconducted themselves, as for example by secretly quitting their master's service. One might also add that he thus has given a practical commentary on such texts as Col. 3:22-25, Eph. 6:5-9, 1 Cor. 7:21-22 (see Steck).

The author's name and place remain unknown. He is to be looked for within the circle from which the epistles of Paul to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, emanated ; nor can Philemon be much later in date. Probably it was written in Syria or, it may be, in Asia Minor about 125-130. In any case, later than Paul s death about 64 A. D. and at a time when men had begun to publish letters under his name, when also they had formed the habit of adorning him with titles of honour such as 'bondman' (d^cruios [desmios]) 'of Christ Jesus', 'aged' (irpeafivTris [presbytes]), 'being such an one as Paul', etc. (roioOTOs &v ws IlaPXoj, K.T.\.), the 'I Paul' (e7cb HaOXos) implies a name of high authority (vv. 1, 9, 19), when further the Christology of the church had already so far developed that it was possible to use convertibly the designations Christ, Jesus, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, and to speak of him as the fountain of grace and peace as God himself is (vv. 3, 25) and as the Lord who is the centre towards whom all the thinking and striving of believers is directed (vv. 3:5-9, 20, 23). On the other hand, it is of course earlier than Tertullian's Marcion.

5. Value.[edit]

If the epistle can no longer be regarded as a direct product of Paul's spirit, so full of Christian charity, it nevertheless remains to show by an example what Christianity at the time of its composition had been able to achieve as a guiding and sanctifying force in the case of certain special problems of life, and what the several relations were amongst believers of that time.

6. Literature.[edit]

The commentaries of J. B. Lightfoot (Philippians, 1868, ( 10 ) 1890), H. von Soden (HCft), 1891), Ellicott (P/tilityians, 1861, 1888), E. Haupt {Gefangenschaftsbrieft:, 1897), M. R. Vincent (PhUippians, 1897) will be found useful, though all of them ac cept the Epistle as genuine. Cp also Holtzmann (AY/.( 3 I 246-7), S. Davidson (Introii.^ 1 153-160), Zahn (> /. ( 2 ) 1 pp. 311-326), Steck (// J 1 , 1891, pp. 570-584), Van Manen (Handl. 59).

W. C. v. M.


(4>iAHTOC [Ti. WH]), mentioned with Hymenaeus in 2 Tim. 2:17+. That he was really a teacher opposed to Paul, is altogether improvable (see HYMENAEUS) ; he is but a type of Gnostic teachers who obtained influence after Paul s time. He takes the place of the Alexander coupled with Hymenaeus in 1 Tim. 1:20 - why, it is useless to conjecture. T. K. c.


(<J>iAlTTTTOC [ANV]). Two of the five Philips of Macedon are named in the Apocrypha.

1. Philip II., father of ALEXANDER the Great, 1 Macc. 11:62; see ALEXANDER, i.

2. Philip V. , mentioned together with his (illegitimate) son PERSEUS (q.v. ) in 1 Macc. 8:5 as an example of the warlike success of the Roman arms.

As is well-known, Philip V. was finally defeated at Cynos-cephalae in Thessaly (197 B.C.), Perseus at Pydna (168 B.C.). See further Smith's Dict. Class. Biog., s.v., and Ency. Brit.W), s.v. Macedonian Empire.

3. One of the 'friends' (or, according to 2 Macc. 9:29, a foster-brother) of Antiochus Epiphanes to whom was entrusted the bringing up of the child afterwards known as Antiochus Eupator (164 B.C., 1 Macc. 6:14-15). 'In thus designating Philip and not Lysias (cp 3:32+) as regent and guardian to the minor Antiochus, he may have been influenced by the utter failure of the campaign conducted by Lysias against Judaea' (Camb. Bible, ad loc. ). For his fate see LYSIAS. Another tradition tells that fearing the young son he fled to Ptolemy Philometor (2 Macc. 9:29). He is commonly identified with :

4. A barbarous Phrygian whom Antiochus Epiphanes left in charge of Jerusalem (about 168 B.C.), which he governed with great cruelty (2 Mace. 622, cp 6u). Fearing the growing strength of Judas the Maccabee he sought help from PTOLEMY [q. v. , 4(1)], the governor, of Coele-Syria, who sent GORGIAS and NICANOR (8:8+). It is not improbable that he was the messenger who brought the tidings of the ill success of Lysias to Antiochus (1 Macc. 6:5), which makes the account of his advancement to high office more intelligible.

5. The chancellor of Antioch whose excesses caused Lysias and Antiochus Eupator to withdraw from the invasion of Judtea (2 Macc. 13:23). In spite of the difference in the traditions he is possibly to be identified with (3) and (4) above.

6. For Philip (Herod), see HEROD, FAMILY OF, 9, n.


1. Distinct persons.[edit]

In the NT two followers of Jesus, both bearing the name of Philip, are clearly distinguished.

  • (i.) The name holds the fifth place in all four lists of the twelve apostles; in Mt. (10:3) Mk. (3:18) and Lk. (6:14) that of Bartholomew is coupled with it, in Acts (1:13) that of Thomas (see APOSTLE). Nothing further is related concerning this apostle, save in the Fourth Gospel (see below, 5).
  • (ii. ) In Acts 6:5 a Philip is reckoned as one of the 'seven' at Jerusalem. According to 8:5-40 he labours as a missionary in Samaria after the death of Stephen his fellow deacon (by vv. 1, 14, 18 he is expressly distinguished from the apostle), and baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. In 21:8-9 (belonging to the 'we'-source) we learn that he received Paul on his last journey to Jerusalem as his guest at Caesarea, and that his four unmarried daughters, endowed with the gift of prophecy, were there with him. In this passage he is described as one of the seven and also as 'the Evangelist' (on the title see EVANGELIST, and MINISTRY, 3911, b}. Ewald attributed to him an original gospel (see GOSPELS, 157 A, ii. d).

2. Credibility of Acts.[edit]

In the account of Philip in Acts there are various points demanding attention.

(a) In the first place it is surprising to find that in Acts 21:10 Agabus is brought in to foretell to Paul his destiny.

This is no sufficient reason, however, for regarding the mention of the prophetic daughters of Philip in v. 9 as (1) a mistake of the author's, or (2) as a gloss. Both allegations are simply bold attempts to escape the difficulty involved in the statement in the verse, that the evangelist had prophetic daughters, as against the assertion of the Church Fathers that the prophetic women were daughters of the apostle (see below, 4 b, c) The deletion of v. 9 would not in any case remove the difficulty that Agabus is in this chapter introduced as if he had never been mentioned before, while yet his name is actually met with in 11:28. A much preferable supposition would be that according to the 'we'-source it was the daughters of Philip who made the prediction to Paul and that a redactor of Acts bearing in mind 1 Cor. 14:34 (women to keep silence) found something objectionable in this and therefore put the prophecy into the mouth of Agabus.

(b) Whilst 8:40 prepares the reader for the presence of Philip in Caesarea it is not easy to, see why Ashdod is named as the place to which he was 'caught away'.

If an interval of time (a short interval, of course) had been specified within which Philip had been found at Ashdod, we might suppose the true explanation to be that that city was named on account of its considerable distance from the place where the eunuch had been baptized. This specification of time being absent, perhaps the source used by the author of Acts at this point contained an account of some occurrence in Ashdod which has not been preserved to us.

(c) The statement of 8:14-17 that the converted Samaritans were not able to receive the Holy Ghost save by the laying on of hands of the apostles, as well as the whole story of Simon Magus (see MINISTRY, 34c and SIMON MAGUS) must be regarded as quite unhistorical. The account of Philip's missionary activity in Samaria, on the other hand, is not similarly open to question, nor yet that of the conversion of the eunuch, although it will hardly be denied that this last seems to have received later touches. Such a touch, in particular, may be seen in the miraculous 'rapture' of Philip, parallel to that of Habakkuk in Bel and the Dragon (v. 35 [36]) or to the sudden appearances and disappearances suggested by 1 K. 18:18, 2 K. 2:16; clearly it serves to bring the narrative to an effective close.

3. Significance of Phillip in Acts.[edit]

Even as regards those statements about Philip, however, which are not in themselves incredible, it is necessary to bear always in mind their obvious suitability to the purpose of the writer of Acts.

The Samaritans occupy an intermediate position between Jews and Gentiles. As for the eunuch, he is indeed a Gentile, yet a Gentile of the class which already stands very near to Judaism (8:27-28). The person specially fitted to be the first missionary of the gospel to people of this description will be not one who comes from the straitest Jewish circles but one who is represented (6:1) as having been chosen in the interests of the Hellenists, - that is, of the Jews of the Dispersion resident in Jerusalem, - and who therefore also, after the manner of so many other Jews having relations with Greeks, bore a Greek name (cp NAMES, 86).

Thus Philip comes to be the character in Acts to whom the preliminary stages of the mission to the Gentiles are assigned. The original apostles take knowledge of the Samaritan mission and give it their sanction only at a later stage. The difficulty as to whether a Jewish-Christian missionary may or may not enter a Gentile house is not raised so far as Philip is concerned, but only afterwards in the case of CORNELIUS (q.v.), who in 10:2 is designated as proselyte indeed, but throughout the whole of the rest of the narrative is treated as a Gentile pure and simple. Thus the story advances step by step. This, however, raises the question whether in what we are told about Philip there may not be much which, if not freely invented, has at least been arranged and combined to suit the plan of the author.

4. Statements of the oldest fathers.[edit]

Before passing on to what the Fourth Gospel has to say about Philip, it will be well that we should notice at how early a date in the writings of the church fathers the evangelist Philip begins to be taken for the apostle of the same name, the explanation being, obviously, to be sought in the conscious or unconscious wish to have an apostolic head to whom reference can be made, especially in dealing with heretics.

(a) Whether Papias shared the confusion is uncertain. According to Eusebius (HE 3:39:9) Papias recorded in his book that he had received from the daughters of Philip the account of a raising from the dead (i/expov a.va<rra<Tii>) which had occurred in their father's time and neighbourhood (Kar aiirop ; not 'through his instrumentality' ), as also the information that Justus Barsabas drank deadly poison with impunity. The excerpt from Papias published by de Boor in TU 5:2:170 which goes as far back perhaps as to Philip of Side (circa 430) proceeds in immediate continuation of the words cjuoted under JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE (4h) to say : 'The said Papias recorded, as having received [it] from the daughters of Philip, that Barsabas, who also is Justus, having when put to the trial by unbelievers drunk the poison of a serpent, was kept unharmed in the name of Christ. He records, moreover, yet other wonders and especially what happened in the case of the mother of Manaimus [Acts l3:1 ?], she who rose again from the dead'. 1 As Papias carries back his information only to Philip s daughters, he would appear not to have been personally acquainted with their father. Zahn's view (Forschungen, 6:166-167) that the words of Eusebius (HE 3:39:9) 'Papias being a contemporary of theirs' (Kara. TOUS OUTOUS 0 i.e., of Philip and his daughters [not Kara ras auras, of Philip's daughters] 6 llanias -yefd^eyos) are to be taken as proving that Eusebius found in the book of Papias attestation of that writer s acquaintance, not only with the daughters of Philip but also with Philip himself, becomes all the more improbable if Zahn (109) is right in his conjecture that Papias had been brought up in the same city of Hierapolis in Phrygia where he afterwards came to be bishop, and where Philip, after spending the whole of the latter part of his life there, was also buried (so Polycrates ; see b, below). 2 It thus becomes a possibility that by the Philip whose utterances, just like those of Andrew, Peter, John, the son of Zebedee, and the rest, he had learned only at the mouth of third persons (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 4 begin, and 6), Papias may have intended the evangelist at Hierapolis. 3 He does not use, however, the distinctive designation 'apostle' (arroo ToAos), but calls all his authorities simply 'disciples of the Lord' (/u.a0r/Tai rov Kvpiov), and distinguishes them simply as living or dead.

(b) In Polycrates of Ephesus (circa 196 A.D. ) the confusion of the two Philips is express and complete : 'Philip, him of the twelve apostles, who lies buried in Hierapolis, and two daughters of his who grew old as virgins, and that other daughter of his who after having discharged her citizenship in the Holy Ghost is at rest in Ephesus'. 4

Eusebius who has preserved these words for us (HE 3:31:3 = v. 24:2) not only utters no caveat, as he is careful to do in the parallel case where Irenaeus confuses the two Johns (JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 7a, end), but actually in his own words with which he prefaces and closes the citation in 3:31:2, 3:31:6 (notwithstanding the reference he makes in the intermediate passage 3:31:5 to Acts 21:8-9) as also in 3:39:9 designates the Philip referred to by Polycrates as 'the apostle' (rov aTroo-roAop). It is in the highest degree improbable, notwithstanding the contention of Zahn (l.c. 162-163), that he is here using the word 'apostle' in its wider sense in which it is equivalent to 'evangelist' (see MINISTRY, 39b). Zahn (p. 7 n. 2) is able to adduce but one solitary passage in which Eusebius follows this wider usage, and here he is following another writer pretty literally (HE 1:13:11) : 'Thaddaeus an apostle, one of the seventy' (QaS&alov ajrdo-roAop eVa riav fjSo ojU.Tjicoi Ta).

(c) Clement of Alexandria (Strom, 3:6:52-53, p. 535, ed. Potter ; also in Eus. HE 3:30:1 ) enumerates Philip along with Peter and Paul as belonging to the category of married apostles : 'for Peter indeed and Philip both became fathers, and Philip also gave his daughters to husbands ; and Paul in like manner', etc, (HfTpos/j,ev yap K. I tXtTrTros dwaidoTroiriaai To, <$>i\nnros 8f K. ras Ovyartpas dvdpdaiv e^dwKf. KaiSye IlaOXos, etc.).

According to Zahn (173) Clement here really intends the apostle Philip, since he states about his daughters something different from what was known about the daughters of the evangelist. We find, however, that Zahn himself (170) infers from Polycrates that the fourth daughter of Philip the Evangelist must have died or remained in Palestine as a married woman ; and it has further to be observed that Polycrates regards the third daughter as having been married, for he mentions only two as being virgins. Thus the discrepancy between Clement and Polycrates is not so great as had been supposed.

In fact, Lightfoot (Colossians 45-46 [1875]) found him self able to make the assertion that Polycrates intended by the Philip who lived in Hierapolis, not the evangelist with his four prophetically-gifted daughters, but the apostle, who had three daughters, not so endowed, one of whom was a married woman, and that there has been no confusion between the two men at all. 1 This, however, is quite unlikely, as the church fathers never bring the two men into contrast as Lightfoot does, but invariably speak of only one Philip as having had daughters about whom there was something to say. The variations in the accounts of these daughters (according to the Montanist Proclus in the Dialogue of Gaius directed against him [ap. Eus. HE 3:31:4] all four daughters of Philip were buried in Hierapolis) are, we may rest assured, merely variants of an identical story relating to one family only.

This, however, being granted, we must not overlook the further circumstance that Clement (Strom, 3:425, p. 522 ed. Potter) declares Philip to have been the person to whom Jesus, according to Mt. 8:22 = Lk. 9:60, said 'leave the dead to bury their own dead, and follow me'. This identification rests assuredly on the simple fact that in Jn. 1:43 Jesus is represented as saying to Philip 'follow me' (the other cases where the word is employed are those of Levi or Matthew, in Mk. 2:14 = Lk. 5:27 = Mt. 9:9, and of the rich man in Mk. 10:22 = Mt. 19:21 = Lk. 18:22). Thus here also Clement is thinking of the apostle, and nowhere seems to mention the evangelist as a different person ; so also later writers (see in Zahn, p. 171, n. i).

(d) According to Heracleon (circa 190 A.D. in Clem. Strom, 4:9:73, p. 595, ed. Potter) Philip died a natural death (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 5, end). Whether Heracleon intends the apostle or the evangelist or does not at all distinguish between the two remains uncertain.

(e) The Montanists towards the end of the second century referred to the four daughters of Philip, along with Agabus and other Old-Christian prophets in justi fication of their claim that the gift of prophecy was still among them (Eus. HE 5:17:3, 3:314, Orig. in Catenae [vol. 5] in Epist. ad Cor. [Cramer, p. 279]).

1 IIa;n. a 6 fipij/ouVos i<rr6pr)<rev (us 7rapaAa|3u>p aTrb TOP Ovyarepiav <I>iAi7r;rov on Bap(raas 6 Kal Iou<TTO? 6o/cijua<Jojuepos VTTO riav aTri<rrtai> lop evi ipjji irilov iv bvofiari rov Xpio-rou an-aSr;? &Lf<j>v\d\9ri. Icrropei 6e ica! aAAa 0av/j.ara Kal judAiora TO Kara riji /J.r)rfpa Mai/aijoiov TTJI fK vexpiav avaaraaav.

2 Even if we hld with Corssen (ZNTW, 1901, p. 292) that Harnack (ACL ii. [ = Chronol.] 1 3-25) has proved that in Euseb. (l.c.) we must after aurous [autous] supply ^popovs [chronous], and that in all such cases the time of the emperor last mentioned is meant, the passage would not involve the view that Philip was still alive. Moreover, Harnack's contention is difficult, and our passage is not in his list. So in a. l. 5 (above), Xpovov [chronon] (after KaT auTov) is linguistically inadmissable, and reference to an emporer is impossible.

3. The possibility is further increased if the view of the words of Eusebius which is taken in GOSPELS, is accepted.

4. 0ixinnov tov twv dwdEKa anoo-ToXwv, os KEKoiunTai Ev 'IEpanoXEi, Kai duo 0uyaTEpEs autou yeynpaKuiai nap0Evoi, Kai n ETEpa auTou 0uyaTnp Ev ayip nveuuaTi noXiTEuo-auEvn Ev 'E0Eo-w avanauETai

5. The Fourth Gospel.[edit]

The Fourth Gospel, in virtue of its repeated references to Philip, would supply material for some characterisation of the apostle were it not that unfortunately all the most important of the narratives in connection with which his name occurs must be regarded as unhistorical.

To this category belong that of the feeding of the five thousand (6:5-7), that of the visit of the Greeks (12:20-22; cp GOSPELS, 140c; JOHN, 27), that of the call of Philip (1:43-46), a narrative which so far as its connection with the calling of Peter and Andrew (1:35-42) is concerned is wholly irreconcilable with the synoptists account of the call of the brothers (Mk. 1:16-18 and 11:8); the narratives cannot refer to distinct incidents (it is inconceivable that disciples, once called, should have left Jesus and then have been called by him once more just as if they had never been with him). Equally unhistorical is it that Jesus ever said: 'he that hath seen me hath seen the Father' (14:9).

If, however, we decide that the figure of Philip serves in Jn. as the embodiment of an idea, then we shall find the idea so expressed to be the same as that in Acts ; it is he who makes the first preparatory steps for the admission of Gentiles to Christianity by being, along with Andrew (the only other of the twelve who bears a Greek name), the intermediary through whom the inquiring Greeks are brought to Jesus. Perhaps this is also the reason why his home is given (as also that of Andrew) as having been a city of Galilee with a mixed Gentile population (Jn. 1:44, recalled also in 12:21). - The same point of view would be disclosed in its being Philip who brings NATHANAEL (q.v.) to Jesus, if indeed we are to understand by this mysterious personality the apostle Paul for whose activity Philip prepares the way in Acts. 1 Philip s appearing also among the seven may moreover explain why it is to him that the question of Jesus in 6:5 is addressed: 'whence are we to buy bread?' It is thus the figure of the evangelist that underlies the Philip of the Fourth Gospel. Since, however, he is represented as an apostle, we see that the confusion of the two persons already spoken of can be traced back even to this gospel. After the same fashion as the non-apostolic John of Ephesus (see JOHN, 3-7), the other non-apostolic church-head of Asia Minor is elevated to the apostolic dignity. Finally, as Philip has assigned to him a rank in the apostolate that is inferior to the highest, we can perceive that both in 6:7 and in a less characteristic passage, 14:8-10 (Lord, shew us the father), he is intended to figure as one of the many persons in the Fourth Gospel who are still deficient in the true knowledge of the divinity of Christ.

1 Similarly Corssen (ZNTH , 1901, pp. 289-299), who, however, charges the Montanists (below c) with identifying the two Philips.

2 It must not be overlooked that in Mk. 4:16-21 it is Capernaum rather than Bethsaida that appears to be the home of Andrew, and that in the time of Jesus Bethsaida did not belong to Galilee at all but to the tetrarchy of Philip. Perhaps Jn. names Bethsaida because of the identity of name of tetrarch and apostle (see BETHSAIDA, 3), but perhaps on account of the etymology, as both Andrew and Peter were fishermen.

6. Later traditions.[edit]

(a) Philip the evangelist is usually reckoned as one of the seventy (Lk. 10:1).

(b) As for the apostle the apostle - at least of Jn. 1:44, 12:21 - the only reminiscence in tradition is the statement that he began a missionnary journeying from Galilee,

(c) All the other legends relating to the apostle rest upon what we are told of the evangelist. Whilst Tischendorf (Acta apost. apocr., 75-104; Apocal. apocr., 141-156) and Wright {Apocr. Acts of the Apostles, 1871, pp. 69-92 of the English translation) give fragments only, and Lipsius {Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 2:2:1-53 and passim) had access to no further materials, a large part of a consecutive work - viz. the first to the ninth and also the fifteenth and last n-pafi? [praxis] of the Acta Philippi - was published by Batiffol in the Analecta Bollandiana, 9 (1890) 204-249, and dealt with by Lipsius (in his Erganzungsheft, 1890, pp. 65-70), by Stolten (inJPT, 1891, pp. 149-160), and by Zahn (6:18-24). The basis of this work is gnostic ; but it has undergone much revision in the catholic sense. It represents Philip as having exercised his mis sionary activity not only in Phrygia (particularly at Hierapolis) but also in almost every other province of Asia Minor as well as in the 'city of Asia', in addition to Samaria, Ashdod (cp Acts 8:5-40), from Parthia 'to the cities of the Candaci' by the sea, or 'in Parthenia by the sea of the Candaci' (cp Queen Candace in Acts 8:27), in 'Carthage (a corruption from Kai fiaKwi [kandakoon]?) which is in Ashdod', in 'Hellas the city of the Athenians' (plainly due to the "EAArji/e? [hellenes] of Jn. 12:20), in Nicaterapolis in Hellas, in Scythia, in Gaul ( = Galatia?), etc. He is accompanied by his sister Mariamne instead of his daughters. His death is represented at one time as having been a natural one, at others as having been by hanging, or crucifixion, head downwards, along with stoning. When at a later date it came to be perceived that the evangelist was a different person from the apostle, a see and place of burial were assigned to him at Tralles in Caria.

(d) On the Gospel of Philip see APOCRYPHA, 26, 9. In the Pistis Sophia there mentioned (32, 70 f. of the MS translated by Schwartze, ET by G. R. S. Mead, 1896) it is Philip (along with Thomas and Matthew) who has to write out all the words of the risen Jesus. Zahn's view (Gesch. d. NTlichen. Kanons, ii. [761-] 768) that the gospel of Philip came into existence in the first decades of the second century rests on no solid basis (cp Harnack, ACL ii. ( = Chron.) 1:592-593).

P. W. S.

1 Holtzm. BL iv., 1872 ; O. Lforenz], ZWT, 1873, pp. 96-102 ; Schwalb, Unsre 4 EvdHfelifn, 1885, pp. 358-360; Pfleid., Urchrist, 700n. With 'an Israelite' in v. 47 cp 2 Cor. 11:22, also Gal. 1:13-14; with 'no guide', 1 Thess 2:3 (doxos); with 'any good thing out of Nazareth?' in v. 46, cp. Acts 22:8, 26:9; with 'I saw thee', v. 48, cp. Gal 1:15; with 'of whom Moses and the prophets did write', v.45, cp. Rom 3:21; with 'come and see', v.46, cp. 1 Cor. 9:1


(d>iAiTTTTOI [Ti. WH]) in early Christian times was a considerable city of Macedonia not far from the Aegean.

1. History.[edit]

It took its name from King Philip (the father of Alexander the Great) who towards the middle of the fourth century B.C. had made himself master of the neighbouring gold mines and the ancient Crenides (Kpyvides) or 'Fountains', upon the site of which he founded a frontier city which was called after himself. About 167 B.C. it came into the possession of the Romans, who divided Macedonia into four regions or free republics - having for their respective capitals Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella, and Pelagonia - the inhabitants of which, however, were not allowed to have connubium or commercial dealings with each other outside the limits of their respective regions (see Livy, 45:29). This policy ot isolation broke the power of 'free' Macedonia. In 42 B.C. Macedonia became the scene of the struggle between the opposing forces in the civil war ; and by the beginning of the Christian era we find it a Roman province governed now by a senatorial, now by an imperial legate (see MACEDONIA, 2, end). Philippi was fortified and raised to the rank of a military colony by Octavianus, the conqueror on the adjoining plains of Pharsalia, under the title of Colonia Julia Augusta Victrix Philippensium. The inhabitants both old and new and the latter class was exceptionally numerous - received the jus Italicum, whereby they practically enjoyed equal privileges with the citizens of Rome itself. As a 'colony' Philippi henceforth became much more than a mere city with suburbs ; rather it became a great department, 'with boroughs and secondary towns' of which it formed the administrative centre, as Vincent remarks ( Comm. on Phil. , 16 [ 1897]). There were at that time cities of first and second, third and fourth rank, and perhaps even of still lower grade. Marquardt (Rom. Staatsverw. 1:188 [1873]) himself speaks in one case of a 'seventh' alongside of the 'first' - the title borne by Ephesus, Pergamus, and Smyrna in Asia. He regards it as indubitable that the expression 'first' (TrpuTTj [proote]) had reference solely to the precedence in the festival with which the games of the KOIVOV Acrias [koinon asias] were inaugurated. However this may be, we now understand what the much discussed expression (irp&T-r] TTJS MaKedopvias TroXis) used with reference to Philippi in Acts 16:12 means.

2. Explanation of Acts 16:12.[edit]

It is not said that Philippi was the first city or the capital of Macedonia, or the first city of Macedonia - Paul being supposed to have begun his labours in Europe there, because he had not halted at Neapolis or because that city did not count, belonging as it still did to Thrace (?). All that is said is that Philippi at that time was regarded in those parts as a 'first', that is, 'first class' city. The variants clearly show how very soon the key to the only true explanation had been lost.

Ti. WH and Nestle read, with NAC etc. JJTIS cariy TrpoJTT/ rrj? fiept Sot Meucefioi t as TroAis, KoAuwa ; B has nptarrj /xepi Sos Trj? M. ; E TTpu>Tr) juiepi s M. ; D Kt>a\rf TTrjs M. TroAi? icoA. ; and some cursives and translations follow D in taking no account at all of /ttept Sos [meridos] or fiepi s [meris]- This word can safely be regarded as a correction just like D's Kj>a\ri [kaphale] or Blass's conjecture TrpuJTT)? [prootes] again adopted by Zahn (Einl. (2) 1:376), as if, the division of Macedonia in 167 B.C. into four regions being called to mind, it were still possible to speak of the 'first /nepi s [meris]', or Hort's conjecture of TTJS Iliepi Sos Max. No conjecture is necessary, nor need we, with WH, seek the possible corruption in irpcurr/ rrjs /iepi fios [proote tes meridos].

If we simply read with MSS 'which is a first (class) city of Macedonia, a colony' (rjris tariv Trpurr) rrjs M. Tr6\is, KoXuvia [etis estin proote tes M. polis kolonia]), all the variants are explained, the meaning being perfectly intelligible.

The name of the ancient Philippi long survived in that of the now extinct village of Filibedjik or Filibat. Of the city colony only a few ruins are extant.

3. Paul's visits.[edit]

In Old-Christian writings Philippi was mentioned as the seat of a church, the first in Europe, founded by Paul on his so-called second missionary journey. Here on a certain Sabbath day, at a place of prayer by the river, outside the city gate, he is said to have come into contact with the worshippers, especially the devout women, and to have made the acquaintance of a certain Lydia, a seller of purple from Thyatira in Asia, 'who worshipped God' and after having been baptized along with her family by Paul received him in her house. Then comes the narrative of the maid - probably a slave - with a spirit of divination who had brought her masters much gain by her soothsaying. These men now came forward as accusers and prosecutors of Paul and his companion Silas, who are beaten with rods and cast into prison, but delivered from it in a miraculous way, the jailor and his household being baptized and the apostles honour ably restored to freedom. This narrative may embody some kernel of truth, taken from the journey-narrative which was incorporated with the lost Acts of Paul underlying our canonical book of Acts (see PAUL, 37[a]); but as we now read it in Acts 16:12-40 it is assuredly not credible in its entirety, but has been palpably retouched, and dates from a later time (cp PAUL, 33 ; and van Manen, Paulus, 1:109-111).

In Acts mention is made a second time of a visit by Paul to Macedonia, in which connection Philippi is again named ; this was on the third so-called missionary journey, and when Paul was turning his steps for the last time towards Jerusalem (Acts 20:1-6).

Philippi is once more mentioned in 1 Thess. 2:2 with manifest reference to the events descriljed in Acts 16:12-40; in Phil. 1:1 (cp 4:15-16) as the abode of Christians who have been long known to Paul (see PHILIPPIANS [EPIST. ], 3); and in the superscription of the epistle of Polycarp as the seat of the church of God to which Polycarp and the elders with him are represented as having sent an epistle when Polycarp had taken over from Ignatius the task laid upon him of sending epistles to various churches (Ign. ad Pol. 8 ; see PHILIPPIANS, 12).

w. c. v. M.