PHILARCHES PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO
Possibly this energy, bravery, and self-reliance is trace-
able to the infusion of Macedonian blood; for
Macedonian colonists (the Ivlysomakedones of Pliny,
HLV5rzo, and Ptol. v. 215) were planted among the
hlysians by the Seleucid kings, S. of Philadelphia, on
the road to Ephesus, in the modern Uzum-Ova (Ramsay,
09. sit. 1196).
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
2. NT the Apocalypse. Both Smyrna and
references* Philadelphia were troubled by those
‘who say they are Jews, and are not’ (Rev.29 39).
Ignatius, writing a few years later, also found it
necessary to warn the Philadelphians against the
preachers of Judaism ( a d Phil. 6 ) as well as against
disunion (chap 7). In Philadelphia the Jewish element
predominates. as against the Hellenism rampant in
Pergamos (Rev. 2 1 3 ) . The town is still to a large
extent Christian (cp Rev. 312). Its modern name is
ALa-Sheher.l
See Curtius, Nadtrag zu den Bcifr. zur Gcsck. z. to jog^.
KLeinas., 1873. W. J. W.
PHILARCHES ( 0 $ I y h a p x ~ c[VA]), 2 Macc. 832
AV, regarding the word as a prcper n a m e ; hut RV
‘the phylarch.’
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO (rrpoc $ I I ~ H M O:Nso~
Ti. W H with NA and other MSS, but fuller superscrip-
tions also occur mainly to indicate that the
Epistle was written by the apostle Paul
and at Rome, see Tisch. Sa) is the name of a short com-
position which has come down to us from antiquity as
the thirteenth in the N T collection of ‘ Epistles of Paul.’
Tertnllian ( a d v . Marc. 521) 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 ‘1. I t retained its
position undisturbed. although now and then (as, for
example, by Jerome) its right to do so had to he
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 (PasforaZbr. 1835 ; P a d u s .
1845)who found himself led by his one-sided preoccupa-
tion with the four ‘principal epistles‘ (see P A U L ;
P HILIPPIANS , E PISTLE TO THE, I ) 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-cr s m ’ failed him. The
considerations he urged in addition were certain &raE
XEybpEva,the romantic colour of the narrative, the small
probability of the occurrence, some plays upon words
and the perhaps symbolical character of Onesimns,-
points which, all of them, can be seen set forth in detail
in P a ~ L u s ~2~88-94.
)),
Thorough-going disciples of the Tiibingen school, such as
Rovers in his Nieuw TesfainenfischeZefterkude (1888), followed
in the footsteps of their leader although with occasional modi-
fications in detail. Rovers saw in the epistle a concrete illustra-
tion of what is laid down in Colossians as to the relation between
masters and slaves. Pfleiderer (Padinismus, 1890, pp. 42$),
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
~ ~.. ~ ~~~ __
1AZa-Sheher-the ‘spotted (or parti-coloured) city’ (see
Murray’s Handbook to A . M . 83). Older byoks call it, by a
mere error, ALZak-Sheher-the ‘City of God.
3693
the epistle as a symbolical illustration of the relation between
Christian slaves and their masters as set forth in Col. 3 22-4 I .
Similarly Weizsacker (Ajost. ZeilaZferl2), 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.
Those who did not adopt the Tiibingen 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 ZCVZ’, 1873, pp. 428-41 (with regard
to vv. 4-6, controverted hy Steck J P T , 1891, pp.
570-584),and W. Briickner, C h o n . ReihenfoZp, 1890,
pp. 200-3 (as regards vu. 5 J , controverted by Haupt,
Komm. 1897, p. Io).
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.12) 1322 [I~oo]). 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 S).’ 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 PhiZemon, 1875.
The criticism which refused to accept as a n axiom
the doctrine of the four ‘ principal epistles ’ of Paul (see
P AUL , §§ 30, 32. 34) $d not make itself much heard.
Bruno Bauer was quite silent, and its other repre-
sentatives contented themselves, as a rule, with the
declaration-sometimes more, sometimes less, fully
elaborated-that we do not possess any epistles of Paul
a t 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 I Cor. 721 f: ;
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 pre-
served in the EpistZes of Pliny (92124) to which Grotius
had long ago called attention (see below, 4). Van
Manen (Hand(. 59 [I~oo])devoted two sections to a
statement of his views as to Philemon.
On the assumption of the correctness of the received
2. Form a,
tradition regarding the canonical epistles of Paul,
and- of the identity of the Onesimus
of Philem. IO with the person named in
contents* Col. 49, 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
Colossze, where also lived his master Philemon, a man
of wealth inasmuch as he owned a slave (!), who, either
from Ephesus or perhaps a t 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
3694
 PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO
impression. There is in it no information as to who
Philemon was-he is mentioned in the N T nowhere else
and is kuown 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 (an. I 19). T h e 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 a n apostle, and Onesimus is reputed
to have been bishop of Ephesus. For the impreoc-
cupied 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 (uv. I za 3 z z b 25), now as written
by Paul alone to Philemon (-a. 26 4-22a 23 24). Sister
Apphia and Archippus, the fellowsoldier of Paul and
Timothy according to zf. 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 gratuitons 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 (uou).’
Paul a prisoner of Christ Jesus and brother Timothy, M we
learn from the epistle, address themselves with words of blessing
to the persons named (m. I za 3). or otherwise Paul alone does
so to Philemon (26). 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 rrpfuS6n)s
(the,aged) and a prisoner of Christ Jesus, beseeches hiin to
receive his son Onesimus whom he sends to him, though he
would willingly have kept him beside himself, as a beloved
brother (zw. 8-16). Whatsoever expenses may have been in-
curred the apostle promises to defray (7w. 17-20). He might
enjoin; but he trusts to the goodwill of Philemon, of whose
hospitality he hopes ere long to he able to partake (vu. 21-ma) ought to subsist between Christian slaves and their
through the mediating prayers of all of them (Srri&v r r p o u ~ ~ ~ L i u
8p&, 226); next he conveys to hint the greetings of Epaphras,
his fellow-prisoner in Cbrrst Jesus, and of Mark, Aristarchus,
Demas Luke; his fellow - workers (nv. 23 24), and the epistle
closes k t h a word of blessing upon all (v. 25).
A surprising mixture of singular and plural both in
the persons speaking and in the persons addressed.
3. Composition. This double form points a t 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 fofi
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. I I as Philem. I ‘ Brother Timothy.’ Again why does
Paul call hiinself in Philem. 9 SCup*rorX p r u m i ’I&b; and not
as elsewhere Soihor or brriu~ohos? The answer is found in Eph.
3 I 4 I . What is meant by the inclusion of other names besides
that of Philemon among the addressees? FOKanswer see I Cor.
12 2 Cor. 1 I. Archippus comes from Col. 417, the epithets
mvrpyis and a v v u ~ p a r i & n p from Phil. 2 25. The ‘ church
which is in the house’ from Col. 4 15. The prayer in v , 3 from
Ram. 1 7 I Cor. 1 3 z Cor. 1 2 Gal. 1 3 Eph. 1 z or Phil. 12. The
thanksgiving and commemoration of v. 4 from Ram. 1 8 9 I Cor.
1 4 Eph. 1 16 5 23 Phil. 1 3 Col. 1 3. The continual hearing of
Philemon’s love and faith towards all the saints(v. 5 ) from Eph.
1 I C Col. 1 4 . The expression Sw i y d v n p ~ a(v. IO) from I Cor.
4 1; cp Gal. 4 19. The sending of Onesimus in vv. IO$ from
Col. 4 8 or Eph. 6 21.f: although in these passages it is Tychicus,
a iree man ; rrpbr &pav of v. 15 from 2 Cor. 78 Gal. 2 j ; the
‘brother beloved’ and ‘servant in the Lord’ of 2,. r6 from Col.
4 7 9. The ‘reckoning’ of v. 18 from Phil. 4 15 ; ‘ I Paul ’ vv.
I 9 from Gal. 5 2 Eph. 3 I ; ‘with my hand’ from I Cor. 16 21
Gal. 6 I I Col. 4 18 ; the names in vv. 23f: from Col. 1 7 4 IO 12 14
although now Epaphras takes the place of Aristarchus ‘the
fellow-prisoner,’as Onesimus a slave takes the place of tie freq
3695
PHILEMON, EPISTLE O F
man, the ‘brother beloved’ in Col. 49. The final benediction
comes from Phil. 4 23.
Such phenomena are adverse to the supposition that
Paul can have written the epistle. The thing is possible
4. Authorship. indeed, but certainly not probable.
Rather may we say that no one could
repeat himself so or allow himself to be restricted t o
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. W e need not pause to conjecture what
was the relation between him and Philemon, or where
the latter had his home-whether in Colossze, Ephesus,
Laodicea, somewhere else in Asia Minor, or perhaps
even Lomewhere beyond its limits; nor pet 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? T h e romantic element in
the story does not need to be insisted on. I t 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. Epirt. 921 24).
A freedman (libertur) 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, a t
a n imniense distance from his home, with Paul,
Philemon’s spiritual father, who converts Onesimu,
also, and thereupon sends him back with a plea for
the slave from the standpoint of Christian faith and
Christian charity. H e has thus presented us with a n
ideal pictnre of the relations which. in his judgment,
that is according to the view of Pauline Christians,
masters, especially when the slaves have in some
respect miscondwted 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. 322- 25 Eph. 65-9 I Cor. 7 21-22
(see Steck).
The author’s name and place remain unknown. H e
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 ahout 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 hahit of adorning
him with titles of honour such as ‘ bondman ’ (&pros)
‘ of Christ Jesus,’ ‘ aged ’ ( a p u j 3 l ; r ~ s ’)being
, such a n
one as Paul, etc.’ ( T O L O C ~ O S Qv LIS IIaOXor, K . T . ~ . ) ,the
‘ I Paul’ (+I rIaGXos) implies a name of high authority
(m. I g 19). when further the Christology of the church
had already so far developed that it was possible to
iise 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 (vu.3 z j ) and as
‘the Lord’ who is the centre towards whom all the
thinking and striving of believers is directed (h. 35-9
2023). On the other hand, it is of course earlier than
Tertullian’s Marcion.
If the epistle can no longer be regarded as a direct
product of Paul’s spirit, so full of Christian charity, it
5. value.nevertheless remains to show by an example
what Christianity at the time of its com-
position. had been able to achieve as a gniding and
sanctifying force in the case of certain special problems
of life, and what the several relations were amongst
believers of that time.
3696
 PHILETUS
T h e commentaries of J. R. Lightfoot (Philippians, 1868, (lo1
18go), H. von Soden (HCPI, t891), Ellicott (PhiZifi$ians, 1861
1888), E. Haupt (Cefangensrha/sbriefe:
6. Literature. 1897), 111. R. Vincent (Philzj3jiuns, 1897:
will he found useful though all of them ac.
cept the Epistle as genuine. C p also Hhtzmann (EinLPI 246-7),
S. Davidson (fntrod.W 1 1 5 3 . 1 ~ ) Zahn
, (EinlPJ 1 pp. 311-326)
Steck ( J P Y ' , 1891, pp. 57o-584), Van hlanen (HumiL 59).
W. C. V . M.
PHILETUS ( ~ I A H T O C [Ti. WH]), mentioned with
Hymenreus in z Tim. 217t. That he was really a
teacher opposed to Paul, is altogether unprovable (see
HYMENAXIS) ; he is but a type of Gnostic teachers who
obtained influence after Paul's time. He takes the
place of the Alexander coupled with Hymenreus in
I Tim. 1 zo-why, it is useless to conjecture. T. K. c.
PHILIP (@lAlrrnoc [ANV]). Two of the five
Philips of Macedon are named in the Apocrypha.
I. Philip 11.. father of ALEXANDER the Great,
I Macc. 1 I 62 ; see A LEXANDER , I.
2. Philip V., mentioned together with his (illegitimate)
son P ERSEUS (4.v.) in I Macc. 85 as an example of the
warlike success of the Roman arms.
As is well-known, Philip V. was Cnally defeated a t Cynos-
c e p h a k in Thessaly (197 B.c.), Perseus a t Pydna (168 B.c.).
See further Smith's Dict. Class. Biog, s.o., and Ency. Brif.lY1,
S.O. ' M a c e d o n i a Empire.'
3. One of the ' friends ' (or, according to z Macc. 929,
a foster-brother) of Antiochus Epiphanes to whom was
entrusted the bringing up of the child afterwards known
as Antiochus Eupator (1645. c., I Macc. 6 14f: ). ' In
thus designating Philip and not Lysias (cp 3 3 2 8 ) as
regent and guardian to the minor Antiochus, he may
have been influenced by the utter failure of the campaign
conducted by Lysias against Judrea ' (Cumb. Bible,
ad loc.). For his fate see LYSIAS. Another tradition
tells that fearing the young son he fled to Ptolemy Philo-
metor ( z Macc. 929). He is commonly identified with :-
4. h barbarous Phrygian whom Antiochus Epiphanes
left in charge of Jerusalem (about 168 B.c.). which he
governed with great cruelty ( z Macc.522, cp 611).
Fearing the growing strength of Judas the Maccabee he
sought help from PTOLEMY [q.v., (j 4 ( I )], the governor.
of Coele-Syria, who sent GORGIAS and NICANOR (888)).
It is not improbable that he was the messenger who
brought the tidings of the ill S ~ I C C ~ S Sof Lysias to
Antiochus ( I Macc. 6 5). which makes the account of
his advancement to high office more intelligible.
5. '1he chancellor of Antioch whose excesses caused Lysias
a n a Antiochus Eupator to withdraw from the invasion of J u d x a
( z Macc. 13 23). I n spite of the difference in the traditions he is
pozsihly to he identified with (3) and (4) above.
6. For Philip (Herod), see HEKOD, FAMILY OF, 58 9, 11.
PHILIP, THE APOSTLE, and PHILIP, THE
EVANGELIST. In the N T two followers of Jesus,
1. Distinct both bearing the name of Philip, are
clearly distinguished. (i. ) The name
persons. holds the fifth place in all four lists of
the twelve apostles ; in Mt. (103) hlk. ( 3 18) and Lk.
( 6 x 4 ) that of Bartholomew is coupled with it, in Acts
( 1 13) that of Thomas (see A P o s r L E ) . Nothing further
is related concerning this apostle, save in the Fourth
Gospel (see lielow, § 5 ) . (ii.) I n Acts 6 5 a Philip is
reckoned as one of the ' seven ' at Jerusalem. Accord-
i n g to 85-40 he labours as a missionary in Samaria
after the death of Stephen his fellow deacon (by ZJV.
I 74 18 he is expressly distinguished from the apostle),
and baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. In 21 8f: (belong-
ing to the ' we '-source) we learn that he received Paul
on his last journey to Jerusalem as his guest at Ciesarea,
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 E VANGELIST . and
MINISTRY, 9: 3 9 ~ 6.) . Ewald attributed to him an
original gospel (see GOSPELS. I 57 A , ii d).
In the account of Philip in Acts there are various
points demanding attention.
3697
PHILIP, THE APOSTLE
( u ) In the first place it is surprising to find that in Acts
21 IO Agabns is brought in to foretell to
2.
of Acts. Paul his destiny.
This is no sufficient reason. however, for
regarding the mention of the prophetic daughters of Philip in
O. 9 as ( I ) 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 evaiigelist had
prophetic daughters, as against the assertion of the Church
Fathers that the prophetic women were daughters of the apostle
(see below, p 46,c) T h e deletion of z. g would not in any case
remove the difficulty that Agabus is in this chapter introduced
a s if he had never been mentioned before, while yet his name
is actually met with in 1128. 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 hearing in mind I Cor. 14 34 (women to keep silence) found
something objectionable in this and therefore put the prophecy
into the mouth of Agabus.
( b ) Whilst 3 4 0 prepares the reader for the presence of
Philip in Czsarea it is not easy to see why Ashdod is
named as the place to which he was ' caught away.'
If a n interval of time (a short interval, of course) had been
specified within which Philip had been found a t Ashdod, we
might suppose the true explanation to he that that city wasnamed
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 a t
this pdint contained a n account of some occurrence in Ashdod
which has not been preserved to us.
(6) T h e statement of 8 1 4 - 1 7 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 M INISTRY, 34c
and S IMON M AGUS ) must be regarded as quite un-
historical. 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 disappear-
ances suggested by I K. 1 8 18 z K. 2 1 6 ; clearly it
serves to bring the narrative to an effective close.
Even as regards those statements about Philip, how-
3. Significapce ever, which are not in themselves
it is neaessary to bear
of Philip in incredible.
always in mind their obvious suitability
A -
a
.
AUUm.
to the purpose of the writer of Acts.
T h e Samaritans occupy a n 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 tg
Judaism (827J). T h e person specially fitted to he the first
missionary of the gospel to people of this description will he not
m e who comes from thestraitest Jewish circles hut one who is
represented (6 I) 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
nany other Jews having relations with Greeks, bore a Greek
lame (cp NAMES, 8 86).
Thus Philip comes to be the character in Acts to whom
.he 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
ater stage. The difficulty as to whether a Jewish-
-hristian missionary may or may not enter a Gentile
louse is not raised so far as Philip is concerned, but
mly afterwards in the case of C ORNELIUS ( q . ~ . )who
.
n 102 is designated as proselyte indeed. but throughout
he whole of the rest of the narrative is treated as a
Gentile pure and simple. Thus the story advances
itep by step. This, however, raises the question
whether in what we are told about Philip there may not
,e much which, if not freely invented. has at least been
irranged and combined to snit the plan of the author.
Before passing on to what the Fourth Gospel has to
,ay about Philip, it will be well that we should notice
4. Statements at how early a date in the writings of
of the oldest the church fathers the evangelist Philip
*-L. begins to be taken for the apostle of
Iasners.
~
I
the same name, the explanation being,
)bviously, to be sought in the conscious or unconscious
3658
 PHILIP, THE APOSTLE AND PHILIP THE EVANGELIST
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 Eusehius (HEiii. 399) Papias recorded in his
book that he had received from the daughters of Philip the
account of a raising from the dead ( v f i 06 L v a ‘ m a u w ) which
had occurred in their father’s time and neigchourhood ( K a r ’ a C r d V ;
not ‘through his instrumentality’) as also the information that
Justus Barsabas drank deadly $oison with impunity. T h e
excerpt from Papias published by de Boor in T U V . 2 170 which
goes as far back perhaps as to Philip of Side (circa 430) proceeds
in immediate continuation of the words quoted under J OHN , S O N
O F ZEBEUEE(8 4 h ) to say: ‘The said Papias recorded, a s
having received [it] from the daughters of Philip, that Harsabas,
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 especi-
ally what happened in the case of the mother of Manaimns
[Acts13 I?], she who rose again from the dead.’l As Papias
carries hack his information only to Philip’s daughters, he would
appear not to have been personally acquainted with their father.
Zahn’s view (Forschuwen 6 166J) that the words of Eusehius
(HE iii. 3Yg).‘ P a ias beinga contemporary of theirs‘ ( r a r k TOPS
aho3s--i.e., of PRiliq and his daughters [not lark rks d r h s , of
Philip‘s danghters] o IIaaias yrv6pwoc) are to he taken a s
proving that Eusebius found in the book of Papias attestation
of that writer’s acquaintance, not only with the daughters of
Philip hut also with Philip himself, becomes all the more improh-
able if Zahn (19) is right in his conjecture that Papias had been
hrought up in the same city of Hierapolis in Phrygia where he
afterwards came to he bishop, and where Philip, after spending
the whole of the latter part of his life there, was also buried
(so Polycrates ; see 6, below).n I t thus becomes a possibility
that hy the Philip whose utterances, just like those of Andrew,
Peter, John, the son of Zehedee, and the rest, he had learned
only a t the mouth of third persons (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE,
$ 4 begin. and 6) Papias may have intended the evangelist a t
Hierapolis.3 H i d o e s not use, however, the distinctive designa-
tion ‘apostle‘ (Lrr6uroAos) but calls all his authorities simply
‘disciples of the Lord ’ ( & ’ q r a l TOO Kupiou), and distinguishes
them simply a s living or dead.
( b ) Iu 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. ’
Eusebius who has preserved these. words for us (HEiii. 31 3 =
v. 242) not only utters no caveat, a s he is careful to do in the
parallel case where Iremeus confuses the two Johns (JOHN SON
O F ZEBEDEE, s 7a, end), hut actually in his own words’with
which he prefaces and closes the citation in iii. 31 z 6 (notwith-
standing the reference h e makes in the intermediate passage-
iii. 31 5-to Acts21 s J ) a s also in iii. 399 designates the Philip
referred to by Polycrates as ‘the apostle’ (rbv Lrr6mohov). I t
is in the highest degree improbable, notwithstanding the con-
tention of Zahn (Lc. 16zJ), that he is here using the wor,!
‘apostle’in its widersense in which it is equivalent to ‘evangelist
(see M INISTRY g 396). Zahn (p. 7 n. z ) is able to adduce hut
one solitary paLsage in which Eusehius follows this wider usage,
and here he is following another writer pretty literally ( H E
i. 13 11) : ‘Thaddaeus an apostle, one of the seventy’ (@aGGa;ov
La6mohov &a 7i)v @BSop$~ovra).
(c) Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 6 5 2 J . p. 535.
ed. Potter; also in Eus. HE iii. 30 I ) enumerates
Philip along with Peter and Paul as belonging to the
category of married apostles : ‘for Peter indeed and
Philip both became fathers, and Philip also gave his
daughters to husbands ; and Paul in like manner,‘ etc,
(IIirpos pLBv yip K . + ~ ~ L H H O&rat6o*onjuavm,
S + . ~ ~ L H H O8.?
S ever said: ‘he that hath seen me hath seen the Father’ (149).
K . 7ds Buyadpas dvbpdu~v P.$C6we. Kai il Y EIIaGhos, etc.).
Accordinn to Zahn (179) Clement here reallv intends the
~~~ ~~ ~~
1 IIarias i, ripqpbos ; u ~ 6 p q u e v ir rapaha@v Lrrb 7i)v
~~ ~
Bvyaripov @L&WOU s a ~ r p a 5 6 p ~ w ~it is he who makes the first preparatory steps for the
i ; ~ r &pubpas h K a i ’ I o ~ u r o G
irao T&Y Lrriury ibv LxiBSvqs rrrLv Lv bvdparr TOO XprmoO Lraejs
Gre$uhbxBq. I m p a i 6; r a i ZhAa Ba6pam K a i pbhrma rb ad
dp p q r i p a Mavaipov 7iJv IKU C K P C Lvaur2uav.
~
2 Even if we hald with Corssen ( Z N T W , ~ p r p. , 292) that
Harnack ( A C L ii. [=Chronol.] 13-25) has proved that in Euseh.
(Z.C.) we must after a6roPp supply ~ p 6 w u s and , that in all such
cases the time of the emperor last mentioned is meant, the pas-
sage would not involve the view that Philip was still alive.
Moreover, Harnack‘s contention is difficult, and our passage is
not in his list. So also in a Z 5 (above), xp6vov (after K a r ’ a h % ) is
linguisticallyinadmissihl~,a;;d reference to a n emperor impossible.
3 T h e possibility is further increased if the view ofthe words of
Eusebius which is taken in GOSPELS, col. 1816, n. I, isaccepte?.
4 B U ~ m o vT ~ Yr& G A e m brromdhwv, 6s K C K O L ~ ~ T CY
‘Icparr6har, K a i 6th 0vyardp.s a$& y w p a x u i a r rrapBCvor, K a i +
~ C
+ ‘ p a a h 0 6 euydmD <V &+.p avniparr rrohrrcu~a&q ij CV ’E+y
avarraverai.
3699
apostle Philip, since be states ahout 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 a s a married wornan ;
and it has further to he observed that Polycrates regards the
third daughter a s having been married, for he mentions only
two a s being virgins. Thus the discrepancy between Clement
and Polycrates is not so great a s had been supposed.
In fact, Lightfoot (Lbfossiuns4 5 f : [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 a1l.l 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.
T h e variations in .the accounts of these dmghters
(according to the Montanist Proclus in the Dialogue of
Gaius directed against him [ap. Eus. HE iii. 31 41 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, heing granted, we must not overlook the
further circumstance that Clement (Slrom. iii. 425, p. 522 ed.
Potter) declares Philip to have been the person to whom Jesus,
according to Mt. 8zz=Lk.960, said ‘leave the dead to bury
their own dead, and follow me. This identification rests
assuredly on the simple fact that in Jn. 1 4 3 Jesus is represented
a s 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.Yg, and of the rich man in hZk.’lOzz=Mt.lSzi=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.
Stmm. iv. 973, p. 595, ed. Potter) Philip died a natural
death (see J OHN , SON OF ZEBEDEE, 5 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 then1 (Eus. HE v. 17 3 iii. 3 1 4 , Orig. in Catenae
[vol. 51 in Epist. ad Cor. [Cramer, p. 2791).
The Fourth Gospel, in virtue of its repeated references
to Philip, would supply material for some characterisation
~~ ~
6. The Fourth of the apostle were it not that unfor-
tunately all the most important of the
QospaL narratives in connection with which his
name occurs must be regarded as unhistorical.
T o 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
S 140c; JOHN, $ 27), that of the,call of Philip (143-46),-:
narrative which so far as its connection with the calling of Peter
and Andrew (135-42) is concerned is wholly irreconcilable with
the synoptists’ account of the call of the brothers (Mk. 176.18
and 11s); the narratives cannot refer to distinct incidents (it is
inconceivable that disciples, once called, should have left Jesus
and then have heencalled by him once more just a s if they had
never been with him). Equally unhistorical is it that Jesus
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 ;
admission of Gentiles to Christianity by heing, along
with Andrew (the only other of the twelve who bears
a Greek name), the intermediary through whom the
inqitiring 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. 144, recalled also in
1221).~ The same point of view would be,disclosed in
1 Similarly Corssen (ZNTW, i p r , p p 289-299),, who, how-
ever, charges the Montanists (below e) with identifying the two
Philips.
2 I t mnst not he overlooked that in Mk. 4 16-21 it is Caper-
naum rather than Bethsaida that appears to be the home of
Andrew, and that in the time of Jesus Bethsaida did not belong
3700
 PHILIPPI
its being Philip who brings N ATHANAEL [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.’ 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, 8s 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, 148-10 (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.
(a) Philip the evangelist is usually reckoned a s one of the
seventy (Lk. 10 I). (6) As for the apostle-the apostle a t least
of I n . 144 12 21-the only reminiscence in tra-
6. Later dition is the statement that he heean a mission-
traditions. ary journeying from Galilee. (CYAII the other
legends relating to the apostle rest upon what
we are told of the evangelist. Whilst Tischendorf(Actu upost.
apocr., 75.104 ; A#ocal. upocr., 141.156) and Wright (Apocr.
Actx of the Apostles, 18711 p p 69-92 of the English translation)
give fragments only, and Lipsius(Apokr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 2 1-53 and
#assinc) 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 TP&F of the Acta Philippi-was published by Batiffol
in the Anlrlectu BolZundianu, 9 ( 1 8 p ) 204-249, and dealt with
by Li sius (in his ‘Erganzungsheft,’ ~ 8 9 0 pp.
, 65-70), by Stolten
(in]& 1891, pp., 149-160), and by Zahn (6 18-24). T h e hasis of
this work is gnostic ; but tt has undergone much revision in the
catholic sense. It represents Philip a s having exercised his mis-
sionary activity not only in Phrygia (particularly a t Hierapolis)
hut also in almost every other province of Asia Minor as well a s
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 Candac;
in Acts 8 27), in ‘Carthage (a corruption from Kaddrrwv?) which
is in Ashdod,’ in ‘ Hellas the city of the Athenians’ (plainly due
to the ’ E M q v r g of Jn. 12 zo), in Nicaterapolis in Hellas, in
Scythia, in Gaul (=Galatia?), etc. He is accompanied by his
sister Mariamne instead of his daughters. His death is repre-
sented a t one time a s having been a natural one, a t others a s
having been by hanging, or crucifixion, head downwards, along
with stoning. When a t 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 a t Tralles’in
Caria. (d)On the Gosjel ofPhilij3 see A POCRYPHA, $ 26, 9.
In the Pistis Sophia there mentioned (32, 70f: of the MS trans-
lated by Schwartze, ET hy 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-I 768) that the gospel of Philip came into exist-
ence in the first decades of the second century rests on no solid
hasis (cp Harnack, A C L ii. (=C/zron.)l59zf:). p. q~.s.
PHILIPPI (@iAirrnol[Ti. WH]) in $arly Christian
times was a considerable city of Macedonia not far from
’. theEgean. It took its name from King
Ristory* 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 (Kpqvises) or ‘ Fountains,’ upon
the site of which he founded a frontier city which was
called after hiniself. 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
to Galilee a t all but to the tetrarcby of Philip. Perhaps Jn.
names Bethsaida because of the identity of name of tetrarch and
apostle (see HETHSAIDA, 5 3), but perhaps on account of the
e t mology, as both Andrew and Peter were fishermen.
Holtzm. B L iv., 1872 ; 0.Llorenz], ZWT, 1873, pp. 6-102 ;
Schwalb, Unsre 4 Evangelieien 1885 pp. 358-360; 8tleid
Urchrist. 7 m n. With ‘an 1sraelite”in 21. 47 cp =Cor. 11~;:
also Gal. 1 13J ; with ‘no guile,’ I Thess. 2 3 (66hop); with ‘any
good thingqutof Nazareth?’ in v. 46, cp Acts228269; with
‘ 1 saw thee, v. 48, cp Gal. 1 I;; with ‘of whom Moses and
the prophets did write,’ v. 45, cp Ram. 3 21 ; with ‘ come and
see,’ v. 46, cp I Cor. 9 I .
3701
PHILIPPI
-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, 4529j. 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 M ACEDONIA .
0 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 j u s ZtuLicum, .whereb+hey
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 PhiZ., xvi. [1897]).
There were at that time cities of first and second, third
and fourth rank, and perhaps even of still lower grade.
Marquardt ( R i m . Stuntmeno. 1188 [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 ’ ( r p d q ) had reference solely to the precedence in
the festival with which the games of the K O l U b U ’Auias
were inaugurated. However this may be, we now
understand what the much discussed expression (+TT
T ? ~ S M U K E ~ O V 7r6hrs)
~ U S used with reference to Philippi
in Acts 16 IZ means.
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
a’ laboms in Europe there, because he had
Of
1612. 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. T h e
variants clearly show how very soon the key to the only
true explanation had been lost.
Ti.WH and Nestle read, with NAC etc. i j n g < o r b r p i r q n j g
FepiSoc Mardoviac rrdhrs, rohwvia ; B has rp&q prpi8os n j c
M. ; E rphn) pepis M. ; D KC&+ +s M.,&Ars KOA. ; and
some cursives and translations follow D in taking no account a t
pll of pepi8os or pc 6. This word can safely be regarded a5 a
correction’ just life D s K+A’ or Blass’s conjecture ~ p & n ) g
again adopted by Zahn (EinL.&l376) a s if the division of
Macedonia in 767 B.C. into four regions’being Lalled to mind, it
were still possible to speak of the ‘first pepis,’ or Hort’s conjec-
ture of njs Ilrepi8os Mar. N o conjecture is necessary, nor need
we, with W H , seek the possible corruption in npJq n j s pcppi8os.
If we simply read with MSS ‘ which is a first (class)
city of Macedonia, a colony’ (+is C U T ~ U IT^ T?~S
M. r6X:s. K O X W V ~ U ) , 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.
In Old-Christian writings Philippi was mentioned as
the seat of a church, the first in Europe, founded by
P u l on his so-called second missionary
3.visits. ~ourney. 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
o f 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 narra-
tive 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
3702
 PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
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 P AUL ,
§ 37[a]); but as we now read it in Acts 1612-40 it is
assuredly not credible in its entirety, but has been
palpably retouched, and dates from a later time (cp
P AUL, § 33 ; and van Manen, PauZus, 119-111).
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 I Thess. 22 with
manifest reference to the events described in Acts16 12-40;
in Phil. 1 1 (cp 4 1 5 J ) as the abode of Christians who
have been long known to Paul (see P HILIPPIANS
[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. aa'f'of. 8 ; see P HILIPPIANS , 5 12).
w. c. v. M.
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES).
I. PAUL'SE PISTLE (8s 1-9). Value (5 8).
History of criticism (5 I). Eibliography (5 9).
What Phil. seems to be($z). 11. POLYCARI,'S E PISTLE (88
Contents (8 3). 10.14).
Difficulties ($ 4). Text (R. IO).
N o t a letter (B 4. Form and contents (4 11).
Composition (~6). Authorship (8 .)$I
Authorship (g 7). Bibliography ((i 14).
There fall to be considered two Old-Christian docu-
ments-those bearing the names of Paul and of Polycarp
respectively.
Z. Paul's Epistfe.
The first of the two constitutes one of the NT group
of ' epistles of Paul ' (8rwroXai IIutAou), ' to Philip-
pians ' (rppbs Q i X t r m p ~ i o u s )being the
'' History Of shortest forni of the title-adopted hy
criticism* Ti. W H after KABK, etc. Down to
1845-0r, shall we say, to 1835?-no one had doubted
its right to this position. Men saw in it an expres-
sion, greatly to he prized, of the apostle's love for a
church which he had founded, written while he was
languishing in prison, probably in Rome, and sent hy
the hand of Epaphroditus who had been the bearer of
material and spiritual refreshment for Paul, had fallen
sick, and was now on the point of returning to his home
in Philippi. ?'he only point on which doubt seemed
possible was as to the place of composition-whether
Caesarea or Rome.
Paulns (1799), Bottger (1837), Thiersch, and Bohmer
declared for Czsarea; elsewhere the voice was unani-
mous : 'the apostle's testament ; written in Rome' (Holtz-
mann). ' T h e testament of the apostle and the most
epistolary of all epistles '-' der brieflichste aller Briefe. '
Then came F. C. von Baur with his thesis that only
four of the epistles of Paul (Gal., I and z Cor., Rom.)
could be accepted as indisputably genuine-a thesis that
he employed as a criterion i n determining the genuineness
ofall therest (Diesogen.Pastorafbr. 1835, p. 7 9 ; Paufus,
IS45j. Tried by this standard Philippians had, in Baur's
view, to be at once rejected (PauZuus, 1845, pp. 458-
475).
The replies of Liinemann (1847), B. Bruckner (1848),
Ernesti (1848 and 1851), de Wette (1848), and others
were not effective. Indeed, the support given to Baur
by Schwegler (1846), Planck (1847), Kostlin (1850).
Volkmar (1856) did not advance the question more
than did Baur's own reply to Ernesti and others
published in Theof. Jahrbb. 1849 and 1852, and after-
wards incorporated in PauZusP', 1866-7, 350-88.
3703
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
Boekstra ( T h . T , 1 8 7 j ) and Holsten ( J P T , 1875-6)
sought to base the Tiibingen position as to Phil. upon
the solid foundation of a more strict and searching
exegesis, rejecting all that in their judgment could not
be relevantly urged, and adding such other arguments as
seemed to them to have weight. Both these critics,
however, still started from the genuineness of the four
' principal epistles.' S o Hitzig, Hiusch, Straatman.
Kneucker, Biedermann. and various others ranged theni-
selves more or less decidedly upon the same side.
At the same time, not merely among thorough-
going apologists, but also among friends of the Tiibingen
school, such as Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, Ffleiderer, Lipsius,
Hatch (Ency. Brit. o)), 1885), S. Davidson ( h ~ t r . ( ~ ) ) ,
1894),and others, there were very many who found them-
selves unable to accept the result of Baur's criticism so
far as the Epistle to the Philippians was concerned.
Without realising it very clearly, both advocates and
opponents of the genuineness found their stumbling-
block, from the beginning, in the axiom of the genuine-
ness of the ' principal epistles ' of Paul. Of necessity.
however closely attached to Baur and his school, or
however little bound to one another by common prin-
ciples, they at once fell into two groups-each of them,
in itself considered, most singularly constituted-which
felt compelled to maintain or to reject the Pauline origin
of our epistle, in the one case because it did not appear
to differ from the principal epistles as a whole more than
did these from each other, in the other case because
assuredly, whether in few or in many respects, it seemed
when compared with them to breathe another spirit, and
in language and style to betray another hand.
A way of escape has been sought-but unsuccessfully
-by means of the suggestion, first made by le Moyne in
1685 and afterwards renewed by Heinrichs (1803).
Paulus ( I ~ I Z ) , Schrader (1830), and Ewald, that the
Epistle was not originally a unity.
C. H. Weisse saw in it (Beifr. z. Kritik dw pad. BY.1867)
hesides some later insertions, two epistles : Phil. 1-3ra and th;
fragment 3 16.4. Similarly Hausrath ( N r / k h e Zeitgesc/L.(2)
3 398$) : one letter written after the first hearing a second
some weeks later after the gift of money from Phllippi. W.
Briickner (Chron. Rei?zmfo&e, 1890) assumed various Interpo-
lations : Volter (Tk.T 1892) a genuine and a spurious epistle
which have been fused' toge;her in that which we now possess.
Names and titles will he found more fully in Holtzmann, Einl.(J),
1892, 266-272; S. Uavidson, Introd.(Z), 1894, 1161-182;Vincent,
Comm. 1897 ; Zahn, Einl.('), IF, 1369-400; and other writers
of introductions and commentaries.
A newer way, at first allowed to pass unnoticed, was
shown by Bruno Bauer (Kritik der pauZ. Briefe, iii.
(1852), 110-117, cp Christus u. die Casaren, 1877.
pp. 373-,4), when he determined to make his judgment
upon this epistle independently of that upon the four
' principal epistles,' his main conclusion being that it
was not earlier than the middle of the second century.
H e was followed, so far as his leading principle was
concerned, by Loman, Steck, van Manen.
Loman. however, did not go more closely into the
question of the origin of Philippians. Steck intimated
his adhesion in an incidental statement in his Galatians
(p. 374) that in Philippians we hear some ' echoes ' of the
controversy between Paulinism and the older party of
the followers of Jesus. Van Manen's view was set
forth in his Handleidinx, 3, 55 51-58.
Thorough criticism has no other course open to it
but that of condemning any method which ties the hands
in a matter of scientific research. Before everything
else it demands freedom. Exegesis must not be content
to base itself on results of criticism that have been
arrived at in some other field; rather is it the part of
exegesis to provide independent data which may serve
as a foundation for critical conclusions. The epistle to
the Philippians, like all other Old-Christian writings,
requires to be read and judged entirely apart and on
its own merits, independently of any other Pauline
epistles, before anything can be fitly said as to its prob-
able origin (cp P AUL , 5s 34, 36).
3704 .
 PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
The writing comes before us as a letter, not of course
of the same type.. as those commonly written at the
2. what Phil, period, of which we have recently
8eems to be. received so many examples in the
Oxyv/zymhus Papyri (i. and ii. -
1898-99; cp PAPYRI, 2nd EPlSTOiiRY LITERATURE),
but as a letter of the sort that we know from the New
Testament, and especially from the Pauline group (see
O LD -C HRISTIAN LITERATURE, 18 ; P AUL , § 39) ;
a letter, to judge from the opening sentence, written
by Paul and Timothy, but, to judge from all that
follows, by Paul alone. In it we find Paul speaking,
as a rule, as if he were a free man, yet sometimes,
particularly in 17- 17, as if he were a prisoner. H e is
full of sympathetic interest in those whom he is address-
ing. H e tells them that his thoughts are continually
about them and their excellences (13-11 ZIZ), how he
yearns to see them once more (18 26 224 26), how they
are properly speaking the sole object for which he lives.
his joy and his crown ( 1 2 4 41). T h e epistle purports
to be addressed to all the saints in Christ Jesus a t
Philippi with the bishops and deacons ( 1 I 45), known
and loved brothers, disciples, and friends of the apostle ;
still, the impression it gives is rather as if it had been
written for a wider circle of readers, among whom the
Philippians play no other part than that of representing
the excellent Christians addressed, who nevertheless re-
quired to be spoken to seriously about many and various
things that demanded their unrernirting attention.
T h e writer as Paul declares his thankfulness to Cod for the
fidelity of h(s reader; to the gospel, and his earnest yearning
after them all and their continued spiritual
3. Contents. growth (1 3-11). H e refers to the misfortunes
that have recently happened to him and t o
that which in all probability lies before him, pointing out how
his bonds have served to promote the cause of Christ both
amongst unbelievers and amongst the brethren, and how Christ
to his great joy is being preached, whatever be the r e a o n s and
however diverse be the ways; how he is in a strait between his
desire to be released and his desire to go on with life, whilst in
a n y case hoping to be able to glorify Christ in his body(1 12-26).
Next, he exhorts his readers, whether he be present or absent
and very specially in the latter case, to let their manner of l i d
be worthy of the gospel of Christ, after the example of him who
being in the form of God, had humbled himself by taking thk
form of a boniiservant, being found in fashion as a man, and
hecoming obedient even to the death of the cross (1 27-2 18). He
then proceeds to speak of his intention to send Timothy-joint
author of the epistle, according to 11-whom he highly com-
mends and Epaphroditus his ‘brother ’ ‘fellow-worker’ and
‘ fello&ldier,’ and at the same time the kessenger ’ (drr6v~doc)
and ‘minister’ of the Philippians to the need of Paul.
Epaphroditus has been sick nigh unto death, and sore troubled
because they had heard he was sick, and yet he i s recommended
to the Philippians as if he were a stranger (219.30). T h e
writer, as Paul,,goes on, abruptly t o a vigorous onslaught on
his enemies, prides himqelf upon ’his Jewish birth, glories in
his conversion describes his unremitting efforts towards the
Christian ‘goal’ and exhorts to imitation of his example. For
those whom h i addresses he is himself a ‘type,’ his conversation
a ‘conversation in heaven’ ( 3 1 4 1 ) . Lastly, comes a new
series of exhortations, to Euodia and Syntyche, Synzygus and
all the other brethren, to conduct themselves in all things in
accordance with the word and example of Paul who is address-
ing them (4 2.9) ; an expresiion of thanks for the gift, received
from them by the hand of Epaphroditus, which has recalled the
memory of previous kindnesses, and has been welcome a t this
time, although not indispensable (4 IC-20): greetings t o and
from all the saints, and a benediction (421-23).
Some things here are certainly not easily intelligible
or very logical, whether we regard the form or the sub-
W e may point, for example,
4. Dimculties. stance.
to the unusual although genuinely
’ Pauline ’ ‘ Grace to you and peace from God our Father
and (the) Lord Jesus Christ ’ in the exordium (1z ) , ‘ Now
unto our God and Eather be the glory for ever and ever,
Amen’ at the close ( ~ z o ) followed
, by the prayer ‘ T h e
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ he with your spirit’
(423) instead of the well-known customary formula of
salutation and greeting. The address, moreover, to * all
the saints of Christ Jesus a t Philippi, with the bishops
and deacons’ (I 1) seriously raises the question, W h o
are they? Where d o they live? Contrast, too, the
double authorship (Paul and Timothy) of the Epistle 3s
seen in 1 1 with the fact that from 12 onwards Paul
3705
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
alone speaks and in 2 19 speaks of Timothy as if he had
nothing to do with the Epistle. Observe also the
peculiarly exaggerated manner in which the Philippians
are addressed, as if they and they alone were by way of
exception Christians, worthy to absorb the apostle’s
every thought, and as if it was for them alone that he
lived and endured, and how, once more, towards the
end (415) he names them in a singularly lofty tone as
‘ y e Philippians.’ How he again and again praises
himself, holds himself up as a pattern, as the best
example that can be given for the imitation of his
disciples and friends: not only when he speaks so
ecstatically of his thanksgivings and prayers, the
significance of his sufferings and possible death, the tie
between hiin and his present or absent readers (12-30
2 I 12 16f. 2 7 3 ), but also when he boasts of his pure
Hebrew d e s c h t , his faith, his unceasing effort to be
perfect, and to walk as an example (35-21 49-14).
Note how the writer salutes ’ e v e r y saint in Christ
Jesus ’ and sends greetings from ‘ all the saints, especi-
ally those that are of Czsar’s household’ (42rf.), he
being a prisoner yet apparently in free communica-
tion with the people of the Prztorium, the imperial
guard in Rome to whose charge he had been committed
(1 7 13f: 17). Consider how impossible it is to picture
clearly to oneself his true relation to the supposed
readers at Philippi, the circumstances by which he and
they are surrounded, the occasion for writing or sending
the epistle, unless a considerable part of its contents be
left out of account. All is confused and unintelligible
as long as one thinks of it as an actual letter written in
all simplicity and sent off by Paul the prisoner a t Rome
to his old friends a t Philippi after he has been comforted
and refreshed by their mission of Epaphroditns to him.
Wherefore, in that case, the bitter attack and the self-
glorification so intimately associated with it (4,-,) ?
W-herefore the Christological digression (26-11), with
the substance of which (on the assumed data) one might
presume the reader to have been already long familiar?
Why the proposal to send Timothy ’ shortly ’ ( T U X ~ W S ) .
whilst yet the writer himself hopes to come ‘ shortly,’
and Epaphroditus is just upon the point of setting ont
(21g24f: ) ? Could not Epaphroditus, if necessary by
letter, have sent the wished-for information touching
the Philippians which is spoken of in 2 1 9 ? What was
Epaphroditus in reality? a fellow-worker of Paul? or a
messenger of the friendly Philippians (22j)? Why did
he need to be warmly recommended to the Philippians
as if hc were a stranger, though they had already
been full of solicitude on account of the illness from
which he has now happily recovered (226-30)? How
can this give occasion for the exhortation to hold ‘ such ’
in honour (23o)? Even Euodia and Syntyche, Synzygus
and Clement (4zf:), simple though they seem, have
long been the subjects of various perplexing questiofis.
W h o were they? symbolical or real persons ? In what
relation did they stand to one another, to Paul, to the
community addressed? Why the reminiscence of what
Philippi had previously done for the apostle ( 4 q f . ) ?
Only to give him an opportunity to say that he valued
the good-will of the givers more than their gift (417)?
T h e solution of these and other riddles of a like
nature raised by the Epistle lies in the recognition that
5. Not letter. it is not really a letter, in the proper
~
sense of that word (see above, 2).
but an edifying composition in the form of a letter written
by Paul to the church of Philippi and intended to stir
up and quicken its readers. Or rather, let us say, its
hearers ; for epistles of this sort were designed first and
foremost to be read in the religious meetings of the
congregation. No more precise determination of the
occasion for the composition and sending of the epistle
-such as is usually sought in the receipt of the gift
alluded to (for the first time) in 410-18 (cp 22530)-can
be given. The writer knows the proper form of a
‘ Pauline epistle ’ and he follows it without troubling
3706
 PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
himself as to whether everything that he says exactly
fits its place or not. Hence his naming of Timothy as
joint writer of the Epistle ( 1 1 ) although he makes no
further mention of him, apart from 2,923, where he
speaks of him as if he were a third person. Hence,
too, his vague expression ‘ all the saints in Christ Jesus
a t Philippi’ and the strange addition, explicable only
from I Cor. 12 and 2 Cor. 1 I , ‘ With the bishops and
deacons ’ (1 I ) , his benedictions (1z 4 23), his greetings
(421f.), his thanksgiving for, and high praise of, the
church he is addressing, which yet has to be admonished
with such earnestness ; his exaltation of Paul and his
relation to ‘ t h e whole Praetorian Guard and all the
rest ’ (113). his intercourse with them that are of Caesar’s
household (422); his praise of Timothy (220-22), of
Epaphroditus and of the always attentive Philippians
(225-30 4 1 0 . 1 8 ) ; in a word, everything that strikes the
reader as’strange and perplexing as long as he is
endeavouring to regard the epistle as a genuine letter of
Paul to the church he had founded a t Philippi. His
‘ Philippians ’ are ideal Christians of the good old times
to which the living generation may acceptably have its
attention directed, and a t the same time they are the
‘ you ’ amongst whom are found faults and shortcomings,
and even ‘ dogs,’ ‘ evil workers,’ and ‘ concision ’ (32).
T h e aim of the writer is no other than to edify, to incite
to patience and perseverance by pointing to the example
of Paul and others, including the church addressed,
with its illustrious past.
The author is acquainted with the canonical epistles
to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, perhaps
6a. composition. also the Ephesians, as is shown by
the ‘ parallel ’ pass-words and allu-
sions, to which defenders as well as assailants of the
‘ genuineness ‘ are accustomed to point in order to prove
either the identity of the writer with the author of the
’ principal epistles’ or his dependence on those writings.
A careful examination makes it evident that many of
the phenomena can be accounted for only by imitation.
For example : the naming of Timothy (1I ) as joint writer of
the epistle although its further contents show that he was not so,,
cp z Cor. 1I ; the expression ‘with the bishops and deacons,
alongside of all the saints at Philippi (1 I , cp I Cor. 1 2 2 Cor.
1I ) ; the expression ‘Jesus Christ’ in 1 2 after Christ Jesus’ in
u. I , cp Rom. 1 7 ( I Cor. 1 3 2 Cor. 1 z Gal. 1 3 Eph. 12); the
calling of God as witness of the sincerityof Paul‘s desire towards
his readers (1 8, cp Rom. 1 9); the expression ‘test the things
that differ’ (6oKipa‘<rrvr b GraQipovra, 1 IO), elsewhere only In
Rom. 2 18, cp 12 z : the bonds (0; Gcwpoi) of the risoner, who
nevertheless seems to walk at liberty (cp b Giwpror gph.31) ; thq
strange word (and therefore explained by ZArrk) ‘expectation
(&morap&oria) 120, elsewhere only in Rom. Y 19 : the great
importance attached, without any apparent reason, to Paul’s
coming (1 26, cp Rom. 1 10.13) ; the expansion ‘the same love
etc.’ (+ a&+ Aya‘qv K.T.A., 23-4) as compared with th;
exhortation, originally standing by itself, ‘to mind the Same
thing ’ (rb a h b Q p o m w ) , cp 2 Cor. 13 I T Rom. 12 I6 ; the use of
such words as ‘form’ 0.0 6) &paayp6c (AV ‘robbery,’ RV ‘ a
thing to be grasped at? ;quality’ Cia), ‘empty himself’
(KWOC#LU), ‘greatly exalted’(irsepu+oGv)in 2 6-11, even though
perhaps not borrowed from our existing Pauline epistles ; the
likeness of men i 2 7), cp with the likenas of sinful flesh (Rom.
8 3 ) ; the words in 2 IO/ borrowed from the OT in accordance
not with the text of Is. 45 23 but with that of Rom. 14 I I ;
the stringin- together of purely Pauline expressions (such as
&UTE, & q r o & a r r , aohhG pihhov, 6 rrapovwia and $ imouwia pou)
for which no reason is apparent in the co:text (2 12); the echo
of Rom. 7 18 ‘7 ? 1 2 3 . the expression to run in vain,’ ‘to
labour in vain praise. in the day of Christ,’ 2 16, cp Gal. 2 2
4 II 2 Cor. 11;; the sending of Timothy and the praise accorded
to him 2 19-22, cp T Cor. 4 17 16 I O ; the assurance, very
strange in the connection in which it occurs, that the writer
himself will speedily come 2 24 cp I Cor. 4 19 : the ‘ supposed
to he necessary’ and ‘speedy‘ &ding of Epaphroditus (22528,
cp 2 Cor. 9 5 8 2 2 ) ; the unintelligihle imperative (rrpow6+w!h)
in 2 29, with reference to the highly appreciated Epaphroditus,
cp Rom. 1 6 2 ; the deviation after ‘such’ (~o~oitror) i n 2 30, cy
I Cor. 16 16 18‘ the impossibility of explaining ‘the same things
( r h a h a ‘ ) in 3 otherwise than as referring to what occurred else-
where in some previous passage in the group of epistles to which
this originally belonged ; the keenness of t h e attack in 3 2-6 19,
which is fully in harmony with much in ? Cor. 10-13 and Gal.
but not with the present epistle. the unintelligibleness of the
assurance ‘for we are the circunhsion,’ 3 3, as long as we do
not bear in mind such words as those. in Rom. 2 25 28f: ; the
necessity for explanation of ‘glorying In Christ Jesus and not
trusting in flesh‘(KaUX6pcVor cv X p r u r + ’Iqwoii K & 061 ;v u a p d
3707
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
araor8drrc), 3 3, by referring to such texts as Rom. 2 17 23 11 I
2 Cor. 11 21-23 Gal. 1 13f: ; and so forth.
Perhaps the special features connected with Paul‘s
sojourn as a prisoner in Rome, as also the allusion to
succour previously received by him from the Philippians
according to 4 15f., may be both borrowed from some
written source; if this be so, the source in question
cannot, in view of the discrepancies, be the canonical
book of Acts, but must be rather a book of ‘Acts of
Paul’ which underlies it (P AUL , 5 37).
However many the traces of the writer’s use of earlier
materials, it does not seem advisable, and certainly in
no case is it necessary, to regard hi5
6b. Not work as a chance or deliberate combina-
patchwork.
tion of two or more epistles or portions
of epistles. The epistle as a whole does not present
the appearance of patchwork. Rather does it show
unity of form ; we find a letter with a regular beginning
and ending (1 I / 420-23) ; a thanksgiving at the outset
for the many excellences of the persons addressed
( 1 3-11, c p Rom. 18- 12 I Cor. 14-9) notwithstanding the
sharp rebukes that are to be administered later ; per-
sonalia ; exhortations relating to the ethical and
religious life; all mingled together yet not without
regard to a certain order. Here and there some things
may be admitted to intemipt the steady flow of the
discourse ; 3 I or 3 1 6 raises the conjecture of a new
beginning; the ‘things’ spoken of here are not
different from those which we meet with elsewhere in
other Pauline epistles-even in Rom., I and z Cor., Gal.
There also, just as here, we repeatedly hear a change
of tone, and are conscious of what seems to be a change
of spirit. Yet even apart from this, to lay too great
stress upon the spiritual mood which expresses itself in
32-6 as contrasted with that of 13-11, or, on the whole,
of 1-2, would be to forget what we can read in 115 ‘7
221 and the calm composure shown in 3f:
No unmistakable trace can be shown of conjunction
or amalgamation of two or more pieces of diverse
origin, apart from what admits of explanation from use
having been made of existing writings-say, the reading
of certain Pauline epistles. Rather does everything.
even that which has been borrowed, reach the paper
through the individual brain and pen of the writer.
Witness the unity of language and style which becomes
all the more conspicuous whenever we compare the
work with, for example, a Johannine epistle or a
chapter from the synoptical gospels.
There is but one so-called conclusive proof that there
were originally more than one epistle--u hether genuine
or not genuine-of Paul to the Philippians : the much-
discussed testimony of Polycarp (Phil. 3 2). There we
read of Paul that he had not only in hls time orally
instructed the Philippians but also written them ‘ letters,
into which if you look carefully you will be able to have
yourselves built up into the faith that has been given
you ’ (&muroAds, €is as 6dv &yKphrqre, 6 v v q B f u ~ u 8 ~
0i~080p&Oai €is T+Y lo8eiuav Cpiv & n u ) . I t is not
necessary, however, as is done by some scholars, to
explain the plural number (letteris]) by refercnce to
Latin idiom ( e p i s t o k ) , or, with others, to think that
Polyca;p is exaggerating. Chap. 132 clearly shows
that he well knows the difference between &rroToX?)
and 6 m m o A a L ; 1 1 3 (qui estis in principio epistulre
ejus), that he knows of but one epistle of Paul to the
Philippians ; 112, that he regards I Cor. 6 z as belonging
to the instruction given by Paul to the Philippians.
whilst we moreover meet with other traces of acquaint-
ance with Pauline epistles. T h e inference lies to our
hand: the plural form (&sruroXai) in 32 is to be
explained by the writer’s intention of pointing to a
group of epistles by Paul which his readers might read
for edification, and the Philippians also might regard
as written for them. A remarkable evidence indeed,
not of the earlier existence of more than one epistle of
Paul to the Philippians, but of the way in which in the
3708
 PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
middle of the second century the group of Pauline
epistles was regarded-not as a chance collection of
private letters, hut as one destined from the first for the
edification of various churches.
After what has been said it is hardly possible to
think of Paul as the writer of Phil.
In itself considered it is possible indeed that the
apostle should have written in the form of a letter to a
,a, author particular church a composition which was
in truth no real letter, but a writing designed
not for purposes of general edification. This
is not impossible ; but it is hardly a t all probable. The
same remark applies to the writer's method of borrowing
one thing and another from extant ' Pauline epistles '-
evrn if sometimes the borrowing amounts perhaps to n o
more than a slight unconscious reminiscence of what he
had a t some time read. Possible also, but still less
probable, is it that he should have written in so in]-
palpable a manner regarding his then surroundings-his
recent vicissitudes, what might be awaiting him in the
future, his relation to the community addressed, what
was happening within it-and above all that he should
write in so exalted a tone of himself as an 'example '
whose sufferings are significant for them all.
What finally puts an end to all doubt is the presence
of unmistakable traces of the conditions of alater period.
Amongst these are to be reckoned in the first instance
all that is vague and nebulous in the supposed historical
situation, the firmly held conception of 'Paul,' his
' bonds,' his presence and absence. More particularly.
everything that points to a considerably advanced stage
in the development of doctrine. Christianity has freed
itself from Judaism. a Saints' may he called so, not
because of their relation to the law, nor as children of
Abraham, but in virtue of their standing ' i n Christ
Jesus' (11 421). Righteousness, or the fruit of
righteousness, is attained not through the law hut
' through Jesus Christ ' (111. cp 39). Not the Jew but
the believing Christian belongs to the true Israel (33).
It is no longer Jesus who is by preference spoken of
-the expression occurs only twice (2 IO 19) according to
Tischendorfs text; usually it is ' Christ Jesus,' or
'Christ,' sometimes 'Jesus Christ.' God is in a
special sense his father ( 1 2 ) . His ' d a y ' is spoken
of (16 TO 2 16), the righteousness obtained through him
(1I , ) , the abundance that is had in him (126). H e can
be the subject ofpreaching(11517f.); thelife(l21); his
spirit a stay for believers (119), and he himself glorified
in the body of the apostle (120). In him is comfort
(21), he is the highest object of human striving (221).
whose work must be done (230), in whom alone can
there be glorying (33). for whom everything may well
be sacrificed (371, the know!edge of whom is worth all
else (38), who lays hold of those who are his (3121,in
whom is the calling of God (314), to he hostile to whose
cross is the saddest of all.things (318), who is to be
looked for from heaven as Lord and Saviour (320),who
shall make us like unto himself (321), in whom we
must stand fast ( 4 I ) , whose ' thoughts ' ( v o $ p a ~ awe
) light for us upon the history of Paulinism and the course
must have (47). through whom or in whom God blesses
us (119), whose grace may be invoked upon us (423),
our Lord a t whose name every knee must bow (210f.).
who came down from heaven, who was in the form of
God and who humbled himself, became man, suffered
and died, and was glorified above all (26-11).
The church already possesses its 'bishops and
deacons' ( l , ~its ) , factions, its parties and schools
( 1 1 5 17 32), its good old times ( 1 5 212). The unity of
the faith is in danger (127$, cp 2:tf. ), there is suffering
on account of the faith ( 1 ~ 9 J ) .there is a n aiding of
prisoners (22530), with regard to which we find a
testimony in Lucian's De Morte Peregrini.
I n a word : all points back to an Old-Christian de-
velopment that cannot a t so early a date as 64 A . D . ,
the assumed death-year of Paul, have attained to such a
degree of maturity as we see it here possessing. Let it
3709
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
not be said, however, on this account, that the unknown
writer who conceals himself behind the name ' Paul ' or,
if you will, ' Paul and Timothy,' was a forger or fraudu-
lent person. Nothing gives us the smallest title to cast
any such imputation on his character. H e simply did
what so many had done before him, and so many
others were to do after his d a y ; more from modesty
than from any arrogance or bluntness of moral sense do
such men write under the name of some one whom they
esteem, in whose spirit they wish to carry on their
labours, and under whose spiritual protection, as it
were, they wish to place their literary efforts. T h e
' Paul' whom this author brings before his readers
is the motive-indispensable or at least desirable-
for glorying over against those who are accustomed to
exalt themselves over well-known predecessors, as we
learn from 2 Cor. 5 12.
The author himself lived at a later date ; we know
not where. Presumably in the same circle as that in
,b. Real which the ' principal epistles ' had their origin,
author. and not long after the production of these,
probably in Syria or Asia Minor, about the
year 125 AI). I n any case not earlier than the
beginning of the second century and not later than the
testimony of Polycarp already cited, dating from the
middle of the century, or indeed, when we bear in mind
Marcion's use of the letter, not later than 140 A . D .
What we can securely infer from the epistle itself is n o
more than this ; that it appeared after the a principal
epistles.' and in dependence on them, yet by another
hand than any of those which we find at work there, as
is shown by the divergences by which, notwithstanding
many things they have in common, its language and
style are distinguished.l Our author, like the writers
of the 'principal epistles.' belonged to the Pauline
school. Yet he was, so far as we can judge, less
dogmatically inclined than these writers, or at least than
the authors of Rom. and Gal. ; rather was he one who
directed his thoughts by preference to the practice of
the Christian life. H e knows well of conflicting
tendencies and divergent schools and parties. yet he
glides lightly over them and in the character of Paul
unhesitatingly places himself above them all (118), if
only his readers are obedient and adhere to that which
has once been taught (212 316$ 49). Questions of
doctrine leave him unmoved, if only his readers will
bear in mind the watchwords: struggle, ceaseless
struggle (312-16) ; a walk in accordance with the
gospel of Christ, in unity of the spirit ( 1 2 7 ) ; after the
pattern given by Paul (passim, especially 121-26 217f.
3 17 49-13), Timothy, Epaphroditus ( 2 19-30). and other
Philippians of the good old days (13-11 410-18), only
thinking the thoughts which were in Christ Jesus
(25).
The historical as distinguished from the abiding re-
ligious and ethical value of this writing, even although
8. Value. it makes no contribution to our knowledge
of the life of Paul, is not slight. I t throws
of this quickening practical movement within Christianity
during the first half of the second century.
Useful commentaries though all written from the standpoint
which accepts the genkneness as proved are those of R. A,
Lipsius (NCPJ, 1892)) Meyer- Haupt (1897)~
9. Literature. M. R. Vincent (1897), J. B. Lightfoot (1868,
1891), A. Klijpper, Der Byief des .4posfels
PauZus un die Phi/ij?ber (1893). Valuable discussions will be
found in F. C. Baur (PnuZadZ), 2 o 88, 1867), Hoekstra(Th.7;
'879, Holsten (IPY', 1875-1876),drimm (ZWT 1873) Hilgen-
feld (ihid., 1873-1877-1884), J. Cramer (Nieuzue &d?&en, 1879
1-98); cp Holtzmann (Einl.lJ),,892, g., 266-272), S. Davidsoi
(Intr.l3), 1894, 1161-182), Zahn (EinZ.i ) 1369 400), Van Manen
(HaxdZ. 49-51).
1 The divergencesare best set forth by Hoekstra, Th.T,1875,
pp, 4 3 ~ ~ 4 3and
5 Holsten, fPT,1876, pp. 2 9 7 3 although in
using either of these studies, one cannot escape th; feeling that,
throughout, both of these scholars have given too much weight
to the dogma of the genuineness of t h e 'principal epistles.
3710
 PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
(1. Polycarp's Epistle.
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians has long
held a place, by universal consent, among the writings
lo. p&carp,~ of the ' Apostolic Father;' Its title i n
epistle: text. that group according to Zahn (ed.
Gebhardt-Harnack-Zahn, 1876, p. 110,
also in the editio minor P), 1900. p. 114). runs : TOO
dyiou IIoXu~dpxouQxiuK6xou Zp(L;pvqs Kal icpopdprupos
rpds Q i h i x q u i o u s QxiuroX?j. In LightfootlZ) (1889,
pt. ii. vol. 3, p. 321) it is simply xpbs ~ihrxrquious.
Neither the longer nor the shorter title can be regarded
as original. The epistle IS now extant in its entirety
only in a faulty Latin rendering by the same hand as
that which translated the longer recension of the Ignatian
epistles. W e know the Greek text of chaps. 1-9 from
nine MSS. which all go back to the same ancestor
( v o f g b c n s a = G ) , and are usually called dKhq4ahoi
because they contain the Greek text of the acephalous
.
'Barnabas'-Le., of Barn. 5 7 ( . . ~ b Xabv v ~7.h.)-
21. Chap. 13 is found in Eus. HE iii. 36 r4-15.
The work is in the form of an epistle written by
' Polvcaro and the Dresbvters
, I . > who are with him.' or bv
ll. Form and Polycarp alone, to the church of God
at Philippi which had invited him to
contents. write the eoistle ( 8 1 1821. we are not
~~
~~ ~ ~.
I. ,.
told how or why. The ' presbyters' are mentioned as
joint writers of the epistle only in the exordium ; for the
repeatedly recurring ' we ' elsewhere does not necessarily
imply them. Polycarp' speaks in chaps. 1 - 1 4 to
' brethren.' to whom his attitude is after the manner of
' P a u l ' in his epistles. He declares his joy a t their
friendly reception of Ignatius and his companions on
their journey to Rome ( l ) , gives some exhortations
(Z), declares that he cannot compare himself with Paul
( 3 ) , gfves directions and precepts for married women
and widows (4), for deacons, youths ( i . e . , laymen) (5),
presbyters, himself and others ( 6 ) . H e warns against
Docetism and exhorts to faithful adherence to the views
that have been handed down (7). H e points to the
perseverance of Christ Jesus, the blessed Ignatius,
Zosinitis, Rufus, Paul and the rest of the apostles
( S J ) , urges his readers to follow their example (lo),
laments the falling away of the former presbyter Valens
and his wife. yet desires that they should be gently
dealt with (11). H e incites to the examination of the
scriptures, to a holy walk, to prayer for others (12).
H e will take care, on the request of the Philippians
and Ignatius (see Ign. ad Pol. 8), that letters should
be sent to Antioch in Syria, and says a word in com-
niendation of the epistles of Ignatius accompanying his
own ; also of Crescens. the bearer, and his sister (13J).
The author of this epistle, according to tradition, was
Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, especially of John,
12.polycarp who made him bishop of Smyrna, where
the author? about 166 or 167-168 A. D ., he suffered
martyrdom at an advanced age. The
difficulties, however, in the way of our accepting this
tradition are insuperable.
I n the first place, it has to he asked what motive
was there for Polycarp. the bishop of the church at
Smyrna, to address such an epistle a t all to the church
a t Philippi-with which so far as we can trace, he had
nothing to d o ? What is said in 3 r (cp 132) about the
epistle having been invited is manifestly invention.
Further, we must not overlook that, though doubtless
the writing gives itself out to be a letter, it is in reality
nothing of the sort, but rather, in the author's own
lanwage. a treatise ' concerning righteousness ' ( m p l
7 6 s biKaiouhqs, 31, cp 91). The form is taken from
the Pauline epistle,' on the whole coinciding most with
that of the pastoral letters, or those of Ignatitis, though
also now and then showing affinities with the first
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. Its dependence
on all these continually strikes the eye.
Now, it is, in itself considered, certainly possible,
3711
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES)
yet a t the same time it is not at all likely, that Polycarp,
under his own name or as ' Polycarp and the presbyters
that are with him,' should have written a treatise ' con-
cerning righteousness ' in the form of an epistle to the
church at Philippi. Rather does it lie in the nature of
the case that a third person should have made use of
his name in this manner.
The same observation has to be made upon the
circumstance that the w-riter, in the character of
Polycarp, refers to the charge laid upon him by
Ignatius. Ignatius himself, however, in his letter to
Polycarp (81) had said that on account of his hasty
departure from Troas for Neapolis he w-as no longer
able to write to a11 the churches, wherefore he, Polycarp,
must now instead send letters ' to the churches in front '
- a fiction upon which the real Polycarp could hardly
have proceeded, though for a third party this would
have presented no difficulties. Or if it he held that we
are not a t liberty to speak of fiction in this connection
because Ignatius had really said what we read in the
passage cited above, how then could his friend Polycarp
have passed over his words, have written a treatise in
place of a n epistle to the Philippians, and in the so-
called letter assume the appearance of having written,
not to please Ignatius, but because the writing had
been called for by the persons addressed (31, c p 132)?
There are other difficulties also. The date of Poly-
carp's death is unknown.
The tradition that speaks of 166 or 167-8as Polycarp's death-
year rests upon some indications of Eusebius (Chron. and H E
4 14J.55 zo), yet it appears to be inadmissible. The same
authority, however, speaks ( H E 3 36) of Polycarp not only as a
contemporary of Ignatius and Papias, hut also as already in the
third year of Trajan (98-117) bishop of Smyrna and at that time
in his full vigour. For this reason many scholars, such as Hase,
Wieseler, Duker, Keim, Uhlborn J. Revilk Rovers (Th. T ,
18C1, pp. 450464), Killen, van Loon)(TII.T,18& p. 31zJ), have
during ever so many years not hesitated to use their freedom in
this connection, and have assigned as the death-year of Polycarp
various dates between 147 and 178 : more particularly, however,
many scholars since Waddington (r867bsuch as Renan, Aubk,
Hilgenfeld, Gebhardt, Harnack, Volter, Lightfoot, Zahn, and
again Harnack ( A C L 2 I [1897], pp; 325-9,. 3 3 4 - 3 5 6 ~ h a v efined
upon the year '55-6 as the date basing their conclusion on what
they read in the Ma,tyrium Po&z@i, chap. 21. Unfortunately
it is not possible to place reliance even on this passage. The
purport of the supponed statement is uncertain : it requires a
number of guesses to be made before it can Iw taken in the sense
that is desired ; and in the most favourable event yields a state-
ment that stands a n d falls with the twofold, far from probable,
view ( I ) t h a t chap. 21 is a n integral part of the main work
although it was still unknown to Eusebius and Jerome ; (2) tha;
the Martyrizrm itself is as old as it claims to be, and was written
within a year after the martyrdom of Polycarp (see O LD-
CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, $ 14).
T h e oldest tradition we possess regarding the date of
Polycarp is that given by Irenzeus, who ( A d z . HEY.
33-4. written about 180) speaks of him as one whom he
had known in his earliest youth (8v ~i
T ~ P L S T ~ +p3v
+hidp), who at that time was bishop of the church of
Smyrna, and of whose successors ' down to the present
time' (oi &pi vFv Gia&&yphvoi 7bv IIohdKapxov) he
is able to speak. To what is said by Irenzeus here and
elsewhere, as also in the Epistle to Florinus wrongly
attributed to him (see O LD -C HRISTIAN L ITERATURE ,
§ z s ) , Eusebius has nothing new of any consequence
to add, beyond his indications as to the death-year in
167-8, which are certainly not to be accepted. Irenaeus
names no such year.
W e should certainly not go very far astray if, in
view of what Irenzeus tells us about Polycarp, we were
to seek his death about the middle of the second
century. At that date the Ignatian letters, with which
our present epistle is connected, had not yet been
written (see OLII-CHRISTIAN L ITERATURE , 5 zz), and
thus the latter cannot have been the work of Polycarp.
I t is of no avail to attempt-as some scholars have
done, with Daille (1666), and others with A. Ritschl
(1857), Volter (1892), Meyboom (1897)-to meet these
difficulties by assuming our present epistle to he greatly
interpolated, so that in its original form it can still he
regarded as older than the Ignatian Epistles. The
3712
 PHILISTINES
assumption of the many interpolations required finds
no support in the MS tradition nor yet in the textual
phenomena or in external testimony-as has been rightly
pointed out by Zahn and Lightfoot among others.
The conclusion remains-notwithstanding Zahn and
Lightfoot, who (albeit supported by Harnack) have not
13. Author siicceeded in proving the ' genuineness '
unknown. -that our 'Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians' is the work of an unknown
hand, in the spirit-of the epistles of Ignatius, though
not, in view of the differences in style and language, by
the same author, as a sequel to that group, and not, as
has been conjectured, with the object of recommending
them, or of controverting Docetism. T h e ' Pauline '
epistles are much more strongly recommended ( 3 3 )
than the Ignatian ( 1 3 2 ) ; and the polemic against
Docetism in chap. 7 comes too little into the foreground
for us to be able to regard it as one of the main objects
of the writing. The epistle is a well-meant, though by
no means important, composition of the edifying order,
made up in great part of borrowed words, and in no
respect showing much independence, written after
Polycarp's death about the middle of the second
century, and before Irensus, who (Adz,. Her. iii. 3 4 )
praised it as ' an ahle epistle ' (&~UTOX+J i K a v w T d q ) from
which we can learn the manner of Polycarp's faith and
how to preach the truth ; probably, therefore, about
160 A . D .
The best editions, with introductions and running commen-
taries, though from first to last dominated by the view that the
work is really an epistle written by Polycarp
14. Literature. and sent to the church a t Philippi, are those
of Theod. Zahn (Ignatii et Polycarpi Epis-
tule in Patmm apostolicovum ojeya ed. Gehhardt Harnack
Z a h i Fasc. ii. 1876) and J. B. LIghtfoot (Tha' Aposfoli;
Fat&: ii. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, vol. i. and iii.(zJ, 18e9).
Cp Zahn, Foyscltungen, 4 (1891) 249-283, 'Zdr Biographie des
Polycarpus und des Irenreus'; Harnack, A C L l(1893) 69-74,
on the transmission of the text, and A C L ii. 1 (=Chronologie
1897) 325-9. 334-356 8 1 - 4 6 on Polycarp's person, his death:
year and the genuj2eness of the epistle. G. Kriiger Gesch. d.
+bi>t/., Litt. 1895, p.<17f:; G. dhlhorn, P k E ( z ) S.U.
Polykarp : Waddington, Mkm. sur la Chronol. de la Ae d u
rheteur f i l i u s Aristide' in MPm. de I'inst. imj. de la France, t.
XXVI., 1867; J. Rkville, De anno a'ieque qui& PoGcarjus
S m y r w martyrizm fulit, 1880; Rovers, Tlt.T, 1881, pp. 450-
464 ( ' D e marteldood van Polycarpus'); W. D. Killen, Anc.
Church, 1883('J ; van Loon, Th. T,1893, p. 312f: ; Van Manen,
HandI. d. Oudchrist Ietf., 1900, pp. 82-84. w. c. V. M.
PHILISTINES
Name (6 I). Civilisation (8 1 2 . cp $ 6).
Country (p 2). Later OT reff. (s '13).
Purusati (8 3). Relations with Assyria (5 14).
Whence come? (58 4.6). Persians and Greeks (p 15j9.
When?(B 7). Greek civilisation (8 17).
Earlier history ($5 8-11). Asmonreans and Romans (8 1 8 x ) .
Literature (p 20).
Philistines is the name of a people whose territory in
the time of the Israelite kingdoms adjoined that of
Israel on the SW. and separaied Judah from
" Name' the sea.'
a*n@>?jilishtim (seldom with the article), rarely a*%&,
pilisitiyyZm ; sing. ?I$$? ; IlgiB, PZkslteth, the country, or
its inhabitants collectively, appears-so far as O T usage goes-
to he apoetical hack-formation from .?W\S, PZlishti, ' Philistine,'
taken naturally as a gentile adjective ;2 @ in the Hexateuch-
also Ecclus. 46 18 477 50 26 I Macc. 3 24 and cod. B in JndFes-
@ ~ I \ L U ~ F Loccasional
J*, variant @ L ~ L O T L C L J * , elsewhere @ aAh6-
+vvhor ;:% Aq. Symm. @vhro.rraZor ; Jos. IIahaclrrZvor ; Vg.
Philisthiiin, Philistini, Palestini.
. ~ _ _ _ _ ~
1 [On certain questions raised in other articles such as the
possihility of a confusion between the rightful posiessors of the
name Pilishtiin and a people with whom the Israelites were in
frequent relation, dwelling in N. Arabia and especially in the
NEGER(q.u.), and called properly JrfrZjhdthim or ]eyalt-
me'elim see Critica Biblica, and for the data on which in
other articles frequent emendations of M T have been proposed
leading up to new views of Israelitish history see a series of
articles in the present work, especially SAUL ; cp also JERAH-
MEEI., s 4, L AMENTATIONS OBADIAH, PELETHITES P s A L h l s . ]
2 Possihly a poetical archkism : cp A3syr. Palastu: Pilistu.
3 On the usage of dhh6rpvhos in Greek and the significance of
thrs rendering in @, see Stark, Gaza, 67&, Rel. Pal. 7 j j : In
119 3713
PHILISTINES
T h e Philistine country at this period embraced the
maritime plain from somewhere near Joppa in the N.
to the desert S. of Gaza, a district about 40 m. in length ;
the line of low hills between the plain and the Judzzan
highlands, with the broad valleys running inland, was
debatable ground between Philistines and Israelites (see
below, 13); the boundaries-except on the S . , where
they are fixed by nature---shifted a t different times
(see G.-\Sm. H G , chaps. Sf:). To this country the
name Palestinu, properly equivalent to Philistia, and
so used in AV (Palestina: Ex. 1514 Is. 1 4 2 9 y ) , was
first applied by the Greeks; in a less precise use it
was, however, early extended to the hinterland as far
as the Jordan, thus including Judzza (see Kel. Pal.
3 8 8 ; Stark, &sa, 5 8 8 ) .
The southern part of the maritime plain is level or
gently undulating, with a rich soil, well-watered, and
ar y all capable of cultivation. Between
2.
:he blain and the steep western slope of
the J u d s a n plateau, separated from the latter by a
series of longitudinal valleys, is a curving line of bills,
rarely rising to an elevation of 1000 ft., cut through in
three or four places by wide valleys which run to the
very foot of the mountains of Judah, whence a defile
ascends to the central highland. The coast from Carmel
to Gam, a line of sandhills and cliffs from 30 to 100 ft.
high, is without a natural harbour even for small vessels ;
the cities near the sea (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Joppa,
Dor) provided themselves for their need with such
havens ( p a r o u / ~ i s )as they could, but never rivalled
the Phcenicians in commerce or sea-power. One of the
world's great thoroughfares of land traffic, however,
traversed the country. At Gaza the road from Egypt,
through the desert and the roads from Arabia over
which were brought the products of Yemen and yet
more distant climes met ; thence led N. along the coast
the route to Phcenicia. Syria, and the East. T h e
position of Gaza gave it also great political and military
importance (see GAZA).
There can be no doubt that this part of the coast was
settled and civilised at a very remote time. T h e Amarna
despatches (about 1400 B .c.) by their very form prove
that, with the whole of Western Syria, it had been, a t
a n earlier period. for many generations under the in-
fluence of Babylonian culture, and doubtless under
Babylonian dominion. The Pharaohs of the eighteenth
dynasty included it in their empire as part of the
district which in their inscriptions is called p u r u (HGr),
and some of its cities are repeatedly mentioned on their
monuments as well as on those of their successors (see
WMM, As. u. Eur. 148fl) In the Amarna despatches
we find the names of Gaza, Lachish, Ashkelon, Gath.
Gezer, Jabneel. Joppa, Aijalon, and other cities. T h e
inhabitants belonged-as names of places, persons, and
deities, as well as expressions and idioms in the corre-
spondence, prove-to the stock which we call compre-
hensively Canaanite.
In Dt. 2 23, in a catalogue of the former populations of Pales-
tine and its neighbour lands, an antiquarian author tells us that
the Caphtorim (i.e., Philistines, see below, 4) exterminated the
AvvIhi (O'!p, @ Elracor) who dwelt in villages as far as Ga-ra ;
and Josh. 13 3 includes the Avvim with the five tyrants of the
Phihstines as occnpnts a t the time of the Israelite settlement,
of the southern end of t i e maritime lain 'which is reckoned to
belong to the Canaanites.' The anttor a parently does not re-
gard the Avvim as Canaanites ; whether t%ey were an historical
people, or, like the giant Rephaim in the land of Ammon (Dt.
2 zo), a legendary race,z can hardly he determined.
-
the age of the translation the hellenised population of the sea-
board wereinapeculiarsense'aliens'tothe Jews; cpIs.911 [IZ],
where @ gives EhAqvsr. T h e hatred expressed in Ecclus. 50 26
i5 not a mere reminiscence of ancient wrongs, as the deeds of the
Maccahgan time prove. T h e translation & A 6 ~ v h o r is therefore
not an etymological attempt on the name o?n&9 or .nk, as has
jometimes been surmised nor does it preserve the historical
memory that the Philistitk were of a different (non-Semitic)
race. An ancient etvmolonv is found in Onom. Vatic.(Laaarde,
. -
200 99), eavpaoroi (&). I.
1 See GASm. HG 148f: 2 0 1 8
2 So, e.g., Bertheau, Zur Gesclt. d. Zsraelifen, 142.
3714
 PHILISTINES
Hebrew tradition preserved the memory of the fact
that, like the Israelites and the Aramzeans, the Philistines
were immigrants or invaders in historical
3. The
phiIistine times. They came, according to this
tradition, from Caphtor (Am. 9 7 , c p Dt.
invaders. 2 2 3 ) . l In both ancient and modern times
there has been wide divergence of opinion as to the
country intended by this name-Cappadocia, the
Egyptian delta, Cyprus, Crete.z T h e question can be
settled only by other evidence about the origin of the
Philistines, and fortunatelysuch evidence is not altogether
lacking. From the monuments of Rameses 111. we
learn that in his eighth year he carried on a campaign
in Palestine against foes who had invaded Syria from
the N., overwhelming the kingdoms which lay in their
path :
No country,’ we read ‘could withstand their arms-Heta,
Kode (the coast N. of Arvad), Carchemish, Arvad, nor Alashia.
The invaders annihilated them, and all encamped in the heart
of Amara’ (iz., the region of the southern Lebanon and the
Bika‘ on the borders of territory which acknowledged the
domilllion of Egypt). ‘Their main force was made up of Puru-
sati, Takkara (pronounced, perhaps, Zakkara), Shakrusha,
Dano(e1sewhereDanona), Vashasha’ ; in another text the Shar-
dana also (who probably came by sea) are named. The Pharaoh
marched against them into Palestine; he commemorates in
reliefs as well as inscriptions a battle on both land and sea,4
in which he gained a great victory over the invaders. The
scene of this battle at the ‘Tower of Rameses 111.’ is not
certainly known; it seems clear, however, that it was in Palestine
or Phcenicia (De Rouge Brugsch), not on the coast of the Delta
(Chabas and many a b , him); Miiller ( A s . u. Eu7. 177J)
locates it on the Phamician coast ; Maspero (Strug& 466f ;
cp 470, n. 4) somewhat farther S., poS$bly at the mouth of the
Belos, in the Bay of Acre, or in the vicinityof Turris Stratonis.5
T h e Purusati were manifestly the leading people
among the invaders ; they are always named in the first
place, and sometimes alone. Champollion recognised
in the name Purusati the PJZishtim of the OT, a n d the
identification of the names has Seen accepted by an
increasing number of Egyptologists and biblical scholars.
It is formally unimpeachable ; the Egyptian r in proper
names often represents a foreign 1, a sound which the
Egyptian language did not possess. Historically, also,
as we shall see, the combination has a very high degree
of probability (see § 8, and c p CAPHTOR).
Purusafi is then the national name of this people (observe
also the regular anarthrous use in OT). Therewith the etymo-
logies which derive thewords O’&B .??? from a Semiticroot
(Eth. Jaiasa, migrate, emigrate; wander abroad ; filiisatc,
migration, wandering ; f a h i sojourner, foreigner ; cp Arab.
j a l q a , faiaia, Heb. #&Zag [des., Movers, Stark, and many])
assuming that the name was given to these immigrants by a i
indigenous Semitic people (Canaanites or Hebrews) fall to the
ground ; and formal objections, though of themselvk decisive,
may be waived.7 On other etymological conjectures, see below,
5 4.
I n the representations of these peoples on the monu-
ments we find peculiarities of garb, armour. and type
..
4. Whence did of feature which, by the aid of other
monuments, we recognise a s distinctive
they of the populations of the southern coasts
of Asia Minor and the iilands of the Egsean.8 This
is confirmed by the names of these ‘ sea peoples’ so
far as they can with any confidence be identified; in
1 In Jer. 474 (=294 @), Caphtor is not in 6. In Gen. 10 14
the gloss, ‘whence proceeded the Philistines,’ was probably
meant to be attached to Caphtorinz rather than to Caslu&n as
in the present text.
; Stark, Gana, 75 fl; Dillm. on Gen. 10 14.
2 See CAPHTOR
3 See WMM, A s . u. Eur. 359.f.; M V G v . (1900) 1 3 2 8 ;
Maspero SfrugeZe ofNafzons, 465J
4 See,’however, WMM, A s . u. Em-. 177 n. : the inscription
would seem to imply that the two engagements were distinct.
5 The brief statement of Justin (xviii. 3 5) that the Sidonians,
driven from their city by a king of the Ascalonites, founded
island-Tyre (1209 B.c.) has often been thought to refer to the
invasion or early conqueits of the Philistines. See Movers,
Phbnizier, ii. 1 3r5X ; Stark, Gaza, 155 ; WMM, As. U. EUP:
388 ; confra, Winckler, GZ 1223.
6 See Maspero, .Strug& of Nafions, 463, n. I.
7 Against t h e whole theory see Hitzig, Kneucker, etc. ; most
recently WMM, M V G v. (r9w) 1 3 n.
fl See WMM, As. u. Eur., chaps. 26-20; MYG g fi;
Maspero, Struggle, 4618.
3715
PHILISTINES
particular instances the identifications may be questioned ;
but several of them are seemingly beyond dispute, a n d
the concurrence cannot be fortuitous.
De Rouge saw in the Ruku of Merneptah the A ~ I C ~ Ohis L;
Akayvae may perhaps be ’AxarFoi; Danona has been combined
with Aavaoi, the Takkara with Tfurpoi-the last very improh-
ably.’ At an earlier time Lycians, Ionians, Dardanians,
Sardinians, Tyrsenians, appear among the foes of the Egyptians
as mercenaries or as pirates.% The Cherethites of the OT are
not improbably islanders from Crete, as @ in the prophets
understands (see CHERETHITES) ; the connection of the
Cherethites with the Takkara (CAPHTOR, 8 2) is phonetically
impossible (Muller, MVG 5, n. 2). The attempt to connect
the name PCZiSfim with IlfAao-$ (Hitzig, Urgesch. 5 z z J ) , or
with the I l w & m r in Thessaly( iteig, G V f 1 3 8 ; see Kneucker,
BL 4 542) requires no discussion. Renan traces to the Philin-
tines some European words very early natnralised in Hebrew
such as pa76n7 (mpif?oAos), m;k#r&h (Gen. 49 5 , p&i)(arpa),
p%ZPgei(pellex),ZiSkrih (A&rxq), kaplrfc7r(ca#ifuC;Hisf. 1 I j7f: ;
CP 2 33).
T h e southern cwast of Asia Minor is called in the
Egyptian inscriptions Keftd,s a name which we are thus
warranted in connecting with Caphtor, whence, accord-
ing to Hebrew tradition, the Philistines came.4 A form
still more closely approximating to Caphtor occurs in a
catalogue of African and Asiatic names with which the
walls of a temple a t Ombos are decorated-viz., KptZr
(Sayce, Crit. ili‘on.(21 13, W M M , M G V 5 3). T h e
material of these lists, compiled in the last century
B.c., is taken from older sources ; no principle of order
is observed, and the position of the name gives no
further clue to the situation of Caphtor. T h a t in the
ethnographical table (8th cent.) in Gen. 10 (v. 14) the
Caphtdrim are set down as descendants of Miyaim-
Egypt can no more be used to determine the position
of Caphtor than to establish the ethnic affinities of the
people ; the Caphtdrim are here simply the Philistines
of the author’s time, whose dependence upon Egypt is
expressed in the familiar genealogical scheme, just as
in P’s table the intimate political and commercial rela-
tions of the Canaanites to Egypt are expressed by
making Canaan a brother of MiSraim.
To what race the Purnsati and their allies belonged
is again a question upou which the monuments cast
8. Ofwhat some light. The Egyptian artists mani-
festly meant t o represent the sea peoples
lace ~
as distinct from the Semitic populations
of Palestine and Phoenicia in complexion a n d physi-
ognomy as well as in civilisation; their traits differ
hardly less from the Heta, and resemble those of
peoples whom we have good reason to regard as
European. Their armour also is of a Western type
(WMM, As. u. Eur. 3 6 2 8 ; MVG I I ~ . ) .
The evidence of language unfortunately fails us. T h e
names of the peoples which took part in the invasion
have been referred to above ( 5 4) ; n o personal names of
kings o r chiefs occur in the Egyptian inscription^.^ I n
the O T not only are the names of places in Philistia-
as we should expect-native, that is, Canaanite (see
above, z ) , but also, with very few exceptions, the n a m a
of persons who figure in the story as Philistines. T h e
same is true of the names in Assyrian inscriptions. To
infer from this, as has sometimes been done,6 that the
Philistines were a6 origine a Semitic race is unwarranted;
the utmost that the facts prove is that they early
adopted the language of the country in which they
settled (see below, § 12). Almost the only certainly
Philistine proper name in the O T is Achish (c+?r,
Ayxous,
A q o u s ) king of Gath in the time of David and Solomon
1 See De Rouge Revue archloologique, new ser., 1631-45
81.103 (1867); Masbero, SiruKgk, 464, n. 3 ; WMM, As. u.
En7. 157. 368 ; cp MVG 3.
2 \VKlM- As. 2. Eur. 3 6 9 3
3 See w h n i , AS. u. Eur. 3 3 7 ~ : especially
; FVG 9 fi
where it is shown that this name is not applied to Cilicia alone.’
4 On this ooint see the new evidence adduced by Muller,
‘VV?: 6 8
5 The ruler of Dor in the Papyrus Golenischeff is Bidir.
6 See especially Schwally, ‘Die Rasse der Pbilistier,’ Z W T
34 103fi (1891).
3716
 PHILISTINES
(I S. 2 1 1 [I.]
~ 8 I K. 2 3 9 f . ) , l withwhich we may
compare Ikausu king of Ekron in the seventh century (in
inscriptions of Esarhaddon and A h r - b k i - p a l ; K B
2148 240) a n d EkaHo in a recently published Egyptian
text, containing names from Kefto.2 T h e title st'ven
(p), used in the phrase the 'five lords of the Philistines'
(see below, $ 12), is probably a word of their own
language, and may be connected with ~lipavvos, by
which it is rendered in the Targum and the P e ~ h i t t a . ~
Another fact which is not without a bearing on the
question of the origin of the Philistines is that they did
not practise circumcision ( I S. 1 8 2 5 8 ): in the older
historical books of the O T (Judges, Samuel) the oppro-
brious epithet ' uncircumcised ' (5-y) is applied only to
them (Judg.143 I S.1726). and is repeatedly used
alone as a self-evident equivalent of ' Philistine ' (Judg.
1518 I S. 1 4 6 3 1 4 , especially 2 S. l ~ o ) . This
~ usage
shows that they differed in this respect from the other
neighbours of Israel in that age (cp Jer. 9 2 5 [ ~ 4 ]f:);
it may with some confidence be inferred that the
Philistines were neither Semites nor Egyptians.6 T h e
' sea-peoples' of Merneptahs monuments were uncircum-
cised,6 and the same may safely be affirmed of their
successors in the time of Rameses 111. among whom
the Purusati appear.
If the opinion that the Philistines came from southern
Asia Minor and the regions beyond be correct, we
shall not think of their appearance in
6. Not
barbarians. Palestine as the irruption of a horde of
barbarians. Their homes lay withiti the
sphere of that ancient Xgean civilisation which re-
searches on the continent and the islands have brought
to light in our own time. The vases and other products
of the art of KeftG depicted in the tomb of Rehmird
give evidence that its inhabitants were not inferior in
taste or skill to those of Western Asia Minor a n d
Greece in the ' Mycenzan' age (see W M M , As. u. Bur.
347f). Recent excavations in Crete have added
greatly to our knowledge of this civilisation ; and it is
not unreasonable to expect that from them some fresh
light may fall on the problems of these paragraphs.7
What we learn of the Philistines from the OT gives
no ground for the common opinion that they were
merely warlike barbarians. The rapidity and perman-
ence of their conquests, their political organisation and
administration. may fairly be urged on the other side.
W e have seen ($ 3) that the Purusati first appear on
the Egyptian monuments in the reign of Rameses 111.
*. Time of(see below, fj 8 ; W M M , M V G 3 5 ) . From
invasion. his inscription we learn that they had already
conquered all northern Syria W. of the
Euphrates. There is good reason to believe that the
Hittite empire, which even in its decadence must have
been a considerable power, w-as broken u p by theme
It is not likely that this was the work of a single year,
nor that the Pharaoh intervened at the first appearance
1 Other names commonly regarded as Philistine are PHICHOL northern
(h3, Gen. 21 22 26 26), MAOCH(qiyp, I S. 27 2)) ITTAI (*I?!,
z S. 15 19 1s 2 , etc.), G OLIA TH (n:h, I S. 17). See the special
articles.
2 WMM As. u. Eur. 389 n.: M V G 8l: T h e connection
of Achish &th Anchises suggested itself to the adherents of the
Pelasgic hypothesis (Hitzig, Kneucker).
3 Klostermann on I S . 5 8 ; WMM, MVG 12. Others, re-
garding Siren as a Semitic word, conyider it a dialect equivalent
of Hebr. ser; or connect it with siren, I K. 7 30, 'axles.'
4 If in Herod. 2 104 the people of the coast are meant-not
merely the Jew., as is possible-it would only prove that they
had fallen into the custom of their neighhours in later times.
5 See CrncunrcisioN. 5 7. I t is remarkable that Gen.34
assumes that the inhabit& of Shechem were uncircumcised ;
cp, however, Josh. 5 z f l :
6 See (against Brugsch) WMM, P.SBA 10147&(Jan. 1888);
As. u. Ewr. 357 f.
7 T h e surmise bas been haiarded-somewhat prematurely-
that the Philistines brought with them the Cretan linear script,
from which the ' Phenician' alphabet was developed.
8 See E. Meyer, GA 1319 ; Maspero, Struggle, 466 ; WMM,
MVG 35.
3717
PHILISTINES
of the invaders (see W M M , X V G 32f.). What were
the immediate results of the successes of which Rameses
boasts we cannot s a y ; ' in his twelfth year h e was
again engaged in a campaign against Amara ; the later
years of his reign passed in peace. Under his feeble
successors the Egyptian possessions in Syria were lost ;
a century after Rameses III., the king of Byblos boasts
that neither his father nor his grandfather had been
subject to the Pharaoh, In this period the Philistines
and their allies must have established themselves in
Palestine; for the last years of the 20th dynasty a n
Egyptian official, Wen-Amon, who touched at Dor on
his way to Phatnicia, calls it a city of the Takkara (see
above, $ 3 ) . and his report makes the impression that
they had been for some time settled there.'
This date (12th cent. B.c.) agrees well with the
indications of the O T history, where the Philistines
appear in the half century preceding the establishment
of Saul's kingdom as invaders of districts long occupied
by Israel (Movers, Phbn. ii. 1 3 1 5 5 ; c p Ewald GI/(
1 3 4 8 8 ) ; the necessity of a united defence against them
was, indeed, the cause of the kingdom ( I S. 4 9 16 ; see
further below, 5 9). The story of Samson represents
them a generation earlier as in full possession of the
maritime plain and the valleys of the ShEphElah, and
ruling over Judah (Judg. 1 3 - 1 6 , c p 10 7).3 It has
often been surmised that the migration of the Danites
(Judg.18) was occasioned by the conquests of the
Philistines who, if they did not themselves dispossess the
tribe of its settlements in the lowlands, pressed the
Canaanites back upon them (Judg. 1341: Josh. 1 9 4 7 ) .
T h e references to Philistines a t a much earlier time must be
regarded as anachronisms. T h e ruler of G E R A R [ ~ . i r . ] in the
time of Isaac is called in Gen. 26 (J) ' king of the Philistines ;' 4
in Gen. 21 (E) also where the same story is told of Abraham,
the king is suppose6 tu he a Philistine (seem. 31 34). T h e name
of the king, Abimelech, however, is Canaanite (cp Abimilki, of
Tyre, in the Amarna despatches). T h e Amarna despatches
(about r 4 m B.c.) and the monuments of Rameses 11. (about
'340-1273) recording his Syrian campaigns prove conclusively
that the Philistines had not yet appeared in Palestine. All
that Gen. 21 26 shows is that Gerar lay in territory which, a t the
time the legends arose, was subject tu the Philistines.6 I n Ex.
13 17 (E) 'the Philistine route' is a natural way fur the author
tu describe the direct road from Egypt to Canaan, hut cannot
be taken as evidence that a t the date of the Exodus the Philis-
tines were already in their later seats. A like observation may
be made about Josh. 133. T h e ode of triumph, Ex. 15 14, is
from too late a time to he taken as evidence to the contrary (see
EXODUS, g 6).
What set the Purusati and their confederates in
motion we can only uncertainly conjecture. From the
*.The fact
eonquest.
that they appear on the monuments
of Rameses 111. accompanied on land by
their wives and children, who, together with
their effects, are transported in carts drawn by oxen
(see Maspero. Slnrggle, 462 ; W M M , As. u. Eur. 366).
their movement has generally been regarded as a true
migration, whole tribes leaving their homes in a venture
of new fortunes ( s o , e.&, E. Meyer. GA 1317). and it
has been conjectured that the pressure of the great
' Volkerwanderung ' which brought the
Phrygians into the central table-land of Asia Minor
thrust out before it the peoples nearest the sea or the
confines of Syria (Maspero, Struggle, 4 6 1 J ) . Others
have thought that the invaders were not migrating tribes
but soldiers by trade-mercenaries to-day. robbers to-
morrow-who after the manner of their kind in Inter
times carried their homes with them ( W M M . As. u.
Eur. 360 j:). Some of them, or of their kinsmen, had
served in the armies of the Hittites in their wars with
1 Maspero's opinion ( S f v t q ~ l e470:
, cp 466, n. 3) that the
prisoners taken by the Pharaoh in the war against the Purusati
and their allies were planted by him in the ShEphGlSh and a t
Dor is highly improbable.
2 Papyrus Gol+2nischeff; see Gol4nischeff, Eccveildt! Trazfaux,
21 7 4 f i ; Erman, Z R 3 S I#. . WMM, v. 1 1 9 8
3 T h e exploit of Shamgar )Judg.331) properly stands after
the story of Samson, as in many MSS of 6.
4 T h e title is a parallel to ' Jabin king of Canaan,' Judg. 42.
5 According to Gen. 21 34 this was the case with Beersheba
also; but this redactional ver5e conflicts with v. 32.
3718
 ' PHILISTINES
Rameses 11. (WMM, IC., 3 5 4 8 ) ; and they had now
perhaps discovered the weakness of the decadent empire.
Their successes opened to them new fields of conquest
and plunder, and brought them at last to the very doors
of Egypt.
It is certain, at least, that they did not long occupy
the old Hittite territory, and left no permanent traces
there. In the early years of Rameses 111. they were in
force in the southern Lebanon or perhaps even in
Galilee. A hundred years later we find the Takkara
established at Dor, on the coast south of Carmel (see
above, $3 3, 7). Their allies, the Purusati, had kept the
advance ; the maritime plain farther south was in their
hands ; the Cherethites occupied a region farther inland,
in the Negeb. The first movement probably followed
the coast, where their sea force could co-operate with
them. Soon, however, they extended their conquests to
the interior, and we may be sure that it was not the hills
of Jud;ea that first attracted them, but the Great Plain and
the rich and flourishing Canaanite cities which stood at
so many avenues of entrance into it, from Jokueam and
Megiddo to Beth-shean, for an attack upon which Dor
on the coast might well serve as a base. When, at the
end of Saul's reign, we find Beth-shean-commanding
the descent to the Jordan valley and the great East road
-in the hands of the Philistines (I S. 31 IO), we may
safely assume that the cities between it and the coast
plain had not been left in peace to their native rulers.'
The brunt of the invasion thus fell at the outset on the
Canaanites ; and that the blow was severe may be inferred
from the fact that when the Philistines were forced to
relinquish them, these cities passed seemingly without
a struggle into the power of Israel (see below, $ 11).
This conception of the course of Philistine conquest
finds support
.. in the fact that the earliest invasion of the
9. subjection territories of the Israelite tribes of which
of Israel. we have historical testimony (I S.4)
was by way of Aphek in the plain 0:
Sharon (,seeAPHEK); not by the sbnthern valle6. The
Ephraimite peasants made a poor stand at Eben-ezer
against these formidable warriors ; the Ark of Yahwi:
was captured ; and, seemingly by one victory, the whole
of the central highlands came under Philistine supre-
macy.2 Judah was probably subdued about the same
time. The conquerors established posts throughout the
land, where a Philistine officer (nJ:ib), probably with a
few soldiers. collected imposts and kept watch upon the
doings of the inhabitants, very much, we may suppose,
as did the Egyptian officials in Palestine in the days
of Amenophis 111. and IV., whose reports were found
in the archives of Tell el-Amarna (so at Gibeah in
Benjamin, I S. 105 133f: ; at Bethlehem, z S. 2314).
At any symptom of revolt a larger force was sent to
punish the attempt by plundering the land and laying
it waste (I S. 1 3 r ~ f :1415). So firmly established w a s
their power that Hebrews served in their armies even in
such razzias ag,?inst their own countrymen (I S.1421).
as David came near doing at a later time (I S.29).
Saul and Jonathan, at the head of a small body of
tribesmen, took up arms against their masters : the
Time of daring exploit of Jonathan and his
armour-bearer led to a general rout of the
Saul. Philistine punitive expedition which was
operating from Michmash ( I S.14) ; but the victory was
not followed up (1436-46). A battle in the Valley of
Elah (probably the modern WBdy es-Sanf ; see ELAH),
near Socoh, is famous in story as the scene of the single
combat of David with Goliath, the giant of Gath, I S.
17 (see G OLIATH ). W e are told that ' there was sore
war against the Philistines all the days of Saul ' ( I S.
1452) : but few particulars are given us (see I SRAEL ,
1 I S. 31 7, where Klostermann, Rudde, and Smith emevd the
text ('in the cifies of the plain'; I Ch. 107 ' i n the plait> ), can
hardly refer to the strongly fortified cities.
2 The story of Samuel's crushing defeat of the invaders and
its results ( I S. 7 5 . ~ 4 )is a pragmatic fiction which is contra-
dicted by the whole history of the period.
3719
PHILISTINES
$5 13#, S AUL ). David, who distinguished himself
as the leader of a partizan corps in this struggle
(I S. 18 198), and still found opportunities, in the free-
booter's life which he led in the south after his breach
with Saul, to deal a blow to his people's foes ( I S. 23).
was in the end constrained by the persistent enmity of
Saul to go over to Achish, tBe Philistine king of Gath,
in whose contingent he, with his six hundred followers,
appeared at the rendezvous of the Philistine armies at
Aphek at the opening of the campaign in which Saul
lost his life, but was turned back by the suspicions of
the council of chiefs ( I S. 28 ~ f 29). . The Philistines
entered the Great Plain probably by the way of Dothan
and struck the arniy of Saul near Jezreel : the Israelites,
dismayed perhaps by the chariots, fell back to Mt.
Gilboa, and, in the battle which followed, the Philistine
archery decided the day ; Saul and three of his'sons
were slain (I S. 31). T h e decisive victory made the
Philistines again absolute masters of all central Palestine ;
the Israelites in the plain and the Jordan valley fled
from their towns ( I S. 317) ; Abner, Saul's cousin and
marshal, established ISHBAAL (q.v. ), the only remaining
son of Saul, at Mahanaim in Gilead ( z S. as), whete
he reigned for a few years, perhaps as a vassal of the
Philistines.' .4 new kingdom was erected in Juddh
over which David became king ( 2 S. 2 1-4). Since this
was accomplished without interference from the Philis-
tines, it is safe to assume that it was with their consent,
and-as a consequence-that David ruled in Hebron as
a Philistine vassal, as he had previously held Ziklag as
a feof from Achish (see D AVID , $ 6). The elevation of
David was resented by Saul's house; the Philistines
doubtless saw no reason to intervene in the quarrel.
The opinion, based on z 5.29, that Abner reconquered
for his master from the Philistines the highlands of
Ephraim2 is not reconcilable with the well-attested facts3
When David, after the assassination of Ishbaal, raised
his ambition to a national kingdom of all Israel ( z S. 5).
ll. Of David. thephilistines immediatelyinvaded Judah
to chastise their rebellious subject, mov-
i n g up the valley of Rephaim. There David, who a t
the news of their approach had taken refuge in his
mountain fortress ( ' the H OLD ,' I S. 224f:, etc.), at-
tacked them at Baal-perazim and routed them so com-
pletely that they left their gods in the field ( z S. 517-21).
A second engagement in the same valley had a similar
issue, David pursuing the retreating foe as f a r as Gezer
( z S. 5 2 2 - 2 5 ) . Incidents of other conflicts are related in
z S. 21 15-17 18 19-22 (cp I Ch. 2 0 4 8 ) ; and the roll of
David's brave comrades in z S. 2 3 8 8 preserves the
memory of many daring deeds in battle with the
Philistines (see D AVID , $ 7 ) ; but, taking it all together,
we find far less about this war of independence than, in
view of the comparative fulness of our information con-
cerning David and his reign, we should expect. In
z S. 8 I a deuteronomistic editor tells us that David
defeated the Philistines and subdued them (cp Judg.
423) ; unfortunately the more specific statement in his
source has been transmitted to us in a corrupt text:
' the bridle of the metropolis '-if it be legitimate to
render thus [cp METHEG-AMMAHI-Which David is said
to have taken from the Philistines, is a most improbable
expression for ' the hegemony,' even if the latter were
itself intelligible in this connection. The parallel pas-
sage in I Ch. (18 I ) has ' Gath and its dependencies,'
which may be substantially right (see D AVID , Z.C.).
There is much probability in the surniise that the
liberation of Israel from the Philistine yoke was not
achieved by its own unaided efforts. Egypt about this
time began io reassert its dominion over Palestine,
and first of all, necessarily, over the Philistine plain.
We have, indeed, only indirect evidence of this; but
1 Kamphausen, ZA TW644 (1886).
2 Ewald, GVl(3l 3 154 ; Ed. Meyer, GA 1361 ; Kiihler, BiU.
l h c / i . 2246 : Wellhausen, I J m 158.
3 See Kanphausen, ZATW644fi (1886); Stade, G V l l z 6 0 ;
Kittel, Hisf. i. $43.
3720
 PHILISTINES
it is convincing. The list of Shoshenk's conquests
in Palestine in the reign of Jeroboam does not
include any of the Philistine cities ; it seems impossible
to understand this in any other way than that this
part of the country had been previously subjugated.
T h e capture of Gezer, I K. 916, also implies that
the cities farther south bad been already subdued by
the Egyptians (see WMM, As. u. Bur. 389 J , MVG
3 8 3 ) . T h e Philistines, thus forced to defend their
own territory, must have given u p the attempt to
resubject the Israelites. The relations of David to
the Philistines after his independence was achieved
seem to have been uniformly friendly ; his bodyguard
was recruited from among them (see CHERETHITES in the public interest (Judg. 16) ; the citizens of Ashdod
A N D P ELETHITES ) ; and in Absalom's revolt not only
was this corps faithful to the king but besides them
six hundred men of Gath were in David's service,
their colonel, Ittai, commanding one of the three
divisions in the battle in which Absalom fell. The
Egyptian conquest seems to have ended the Philistine
peril to Israel ; the Phcenicians probably a t this time
recovered Dor, the Israelites fell heir to the cities along
the Great Plain ( I K. 412); l henceforth we find the
Philistines only in the southern half of the maritime
plain, between Gaza and Joppa. I t is not true, however,
that this region was included in the empire of Solomon
as has sometimes been erroneously concluded from I K.
421 [51] (R.IT, cp 6 2466, also z Ch. 9 z 6 ) , and from
I K.49.'
The Philistine invaders were conquerors of an alien
race, who w'ere doubtless numerically a small minority
12.Civilisation. among the peoples they had snbjected ; s k i n i m ( I S. 29:). They had chariots ( I S. 135 [read
and, as so often in similar cases, the
vanquished gave laws to the victors. Of whatever stock
and speech the invaders may have been, in Palestine they
very soon adopted the language of the country; the
Philistine names in the O T and the Assyrian inscriptions
are, as has been observed above, almost without excep-
tion Semitic-specifically, Canaanite. The Philistines
worshipped the gods of the country, also. D AGON ( I S. 5
Judg. 1 6 2 3 8 ) was not the national god of the invaders
but a Semitic deity who had long been worshipped in
Palestine ; Astarte ( I S. 31 I O ; see A SHTORETH) and
B AAL - ZEBUB ( 2 K. lzf.) are Canaanite divinities. Of
the religion we know little beyond this. They had
temples (1S. 5 31 IO Judg. 16) ; Herodotus (1105) heard
that the temple at Ashkelon was the oldest seat of the
worship of Aphrodite Urania. There were images in
the temples ( I S. 5 I 8 ), and they carried idols with them
into battle ( z S. 521), as the Israelites carried the ark ;
the oracle of Baal-zebub at Ekron was highly reputed
in the ninth century ( z K. 1 z ) ; their soothsayers were
famous (Is.26). Priests and worshippers on entering
the temple of Dagon at Ashdod were careful not to
set foot on the threshhold ( I S. 5 5 ; cp Zeph. 19).
Politically, the five chief Philistine cities, ASHDOD,
G AZA , A SHKELON, G ATH , EKRON( I S. 6 17 ; see also
Josh. 1 3 3 Judg. 3 3 ) , which had not improbably been
settled by different tribes, formed a confederation.
Ashdod seems to have been at first the foremost city of
the league ; it is named first in the oldest list of Philistine ( 2 Ch. 17 1 1 ) ; in the reign of Jehoram of Judah they are
cities ( I S. 6 17) ; in the temple of Dagon in Ashdod the
ark of Yahw& captured at Ehenezer was deposited
(I S.5). This pre-eminence was probably due to
political causes, such as the settlement of the leading
Philistine tribe, or perhaps the choice of Ashdod as the
meeting-place of the council of chiefs. The situation of
Gaza, the key of Syria both commercially and strategi-
cally, could not fail in time to give it the advantage (cp
Josh. 133). It does not appear that any one of the cities
had an actual hegemony in the confederation. In the
vicissitudes of later centuries the relative power and im-
portance of the cities frequently changed (see Stark,
G a m , 142). Gath and Ekron never attained the same
1 Compare Shoshenk's list Miiller As. r. Eur. 1 6 6 8
2 So Thenius; see against hini 'stark, Guzu, 173.
3721
PHILISTINES
rank as the cities nearer the coast ; but their position
brought them into closer connection with Israelite
history. Gath disappears after the eighth century ; it
had probably sunk into insignificance.
Each of the five cities was mistress of the adjacent
territory, other cities and villages being subject to it
( I S. 6 1 7 3 ) . l T h e rulers of the five cities are called
shininz (PTD, b uarpdaar [b"in Judg. ~ ~ X O Y T E but S,
uarpaaiar in 331, Vg. reguli, satrapre, prinripes, Tg.,
Pesh. ' tyrants'). In war each doubtless commanded
the contingent of his own city ; matters of common con-
cern were decided by them in the council of the chiefs
( I S. 2 9 3 8 ) ; in time of peace also they acted together
and of Ekron call them together to determine what shall
be done to relieve those cities of the plague which the
presence of the ark had brought upon them ; they consult
the soothsayers and carry out the directions of the re-
sponse ( I S. 5f. ). That their office was hereditary is
nowhere said, but may probably be assumed. Achish
of Gath is called 'king' (mllek. I S . 2 1 1 0 [11] 2 7 z ) ,
though as ruler of Gath he was one of the sPriinim;2
the title ' king' would naturally be given by the Hebrew
historian to the ruler of any city, whether one of the
five or not.
W e see from the Egyptian monuments as well as
from the OT that the Philistines had a n effective
military organisation, and a tactical skill which Asiatics
have seldom displayed (see WMM, As. u. Eur. 365).
The army in column, by regiments and companies,
under their officers (iirint). passes in review before the
~OOO], z S. 1 6 ) , in which, as in the Hittite chariotry, a
shield-bearer stands beside the spearman (see C HARIOT ,
col. 729). Their strength, however, was in their well-
armed footmen ;3 their archers were of formidable skill
( I S.313), reminding us of the fame of the Cretan
howmen. T h e Takkara a t Dor maintained a fleet,
which followed Wen-Amon to Byblos and blockaded
the port to prevent his returning to Egypt (Papyrus
Golhischeff).
T h e Egyptian conquest probably broke up the
Philistine confederacy ; the descendants of the invaders
13. Later OT mingled with the native population of the
region and disappeared in it, while leaving
references' it their name, and, doubtless, infusing into
it something of their character. Henceforth the history
is that not of a people but of a country, or rather of the
individual cities in it. (See ASHDOD, A SHKELON,
E KRON, G ATH , G AZA .) It must suffice here to refer
very briefly to some notices in the O T of the relations of
Israel to its neighbours on the SW. side. Gezer, as we
have seen already (I 1 1 ) , was added by the Pharaoh to
the territory of Solomon ( I K. 9 16) ; according to z Ch.
1 1 8 Rehoboam fortified Gath as well as the cities in the
Judzan ShephelZh ; Gibbethon was besieged by Nadab
ben Jeroboam ( I K. 1 5 2 7 ) , and again a quarter of a
century later in the reign of Elah ben Baasha ( I K.
l 6 1 5 j . ) ; the Chronicler records that some of the
Philistines brought voluntary presents to Jehoshaphat
said to have invaded Judah, and carried away the royal
treasure with the king's wives and children ( 2 Ch.
2 1 1 6 3 ) ; ~in the time of Jehoash Hazael king of
Damascus took Gath, and invaded Judah on that line
( z K. 1217) ; Uzziah broke down the walls of Gath.
Jabneh, and Ashdod, and built cities in the territory of
Ashdod ( z Ch. 2 6 6 , from an old source) ; in the days
1 Cp Jos. 13 2 (gZiZJflr) 15 45-47 Judg. 1 18.
2 The difference of opinion between Achish and ' the s?nininr'
in I S. 29 does not imply the contrary.
3 See the figures in A s . u. Err. 364f:; and cp the descrip-
tions in I S. 17 4-8 45 z S.21 16.
4 It is noteworthy for the conditions of the Chronicler's age
that the Arabians are so frequently associated with t h e Philis-
tines in his account of these conflicts ; cp Neh. 4 7 [ I ], and see
A RABIA, $ 3.
3722
 PHILISTINES
of Ahaz the tables were turned, and the Philistines
conquered and occupied many cities in the Judzean
ShCphElHh and Negeb (2 Ch. 2818); Hezekiah waged
successful war on the Philistine cities, even as far as
Gaza, if we may trust the brief notice in 2 K. 188 ; I
but the Assyrians soon deprived him of his annexed
territory. Amos (16-8) denounces the judgment of
Yahwi: on the Philistine cities, because in some recent
war they had carried away the population of whole
districts and sold them to the Edomites ;2 such a thing
might have happened under Amaziah, when Judah was
greatly weakened by the disastrous conflict with Israel
which the king had provoked (2 K. 14118). Am.
62 (later than Amos) perhaps refers to the catastrophe
which befell Gath at the hands of Sargon in 711 (see
G ATH , § I). Isaiah, in an early prophecy (912[I.]),
sees the Philistines on one side, and the Syrians on the
other, devouring Israel ; whether the Philistines actually
assailed the northern kingdom at this time is not known.
Is. 20 is dated in the year in which Sargon's Tartan
besieged Ashdod (711 B.c.), and predicts the failure of
its vain reliance on Egyptian aid. In later prophecies
the judgment that is to come upon the Philistines as
well as on other foreign nations and lands, is foretold,
and sometimes depicted in lurid colours;3 hut, apart
from the fact that the genuineness and age of many of
these passages are controverted questions, the language
and imagery are of too general-we might say, typical
- a character to enable us to recognise a specific
historical situation.
Philistia, together with Israel and Edom, was con-
quered and made tributary to the Assyrian empire by
Ramman [Adad] -nirZh III., in ihe last
with AsSyria. years of the ninth century ( K B 1190 ;
ASSYRIA, 32). Tiglath-pileser 111.
(745-727)enumerates among his vassals about the year
734, Mitinti of Ashkelon and Haniin of Gaza (KB
220). Both took part, with Rezin of Damascus and
Pekah of Israel, in the revolt which the king put down
in 734-732. Ashkelon, where Mitinti was succeeded
by his son Rukipti, probably made its submission (see
Tiele, BAG 235) ; Haniin fled to Egypt at the approach
of the Assyrians, and Gaza was captured and plundered :
from the language of Tiglath-pileser in his account of
these events it has been inferred that he set an Assyrian
governor over it (Winckler, GI 1219). Hantin must,
however, soon have recovered his throne, for in 720,in
alliance with the Egyptian Sih'u-the same 'Sd' (*ID,
perhaps to be pronounced Sewe; see So) in whom
Hoshea the last king of Israel had vainly trusted
(2K. 17 4)-was defeated and made prisoner by Sargon in
the battle at Raphia ( K B 2 5 4 ) . It was, perhaps, about
the same time that Sargon deposed Azuri king of Ashdod,
and set his brother Ahimiti on the throne: the anti-
Assyrian party shortly expelled him and made a certain
Yamani (or Yavani) king. The war thus provoked
ended in 711 with the capture of Ashdod. Gath, and
other cities, and the deportation of their inhabitants,
their places being filled by colonists from the E. of the
Empire, and the district placed under an Assyrian
governor ( K B 2 6 4 8 ; see also ASHDOD). This imme-
diate administration did not continue long ; for Mitinti
of Ashdod appears among the vassals of Sennacherib.
In the great revolt against Sennacherib, in which
Hezekiah of Judah played a prominent part, Sidka of
Ashkelon was involved, with disastrous consequences to
himself; he was carried prisoner to Assyria. and sar-
ruludari, the son of a former ruler, made king in his
room ; Sennacherih. in his inscription, names as cities
of the kingdom of Sidka which he had taken, Beth-
dagon, Joppa, Benebarak, Azuru ( K B292). I n Ekron
1 See HEZERIAH, S 2 : Winckler, GI 220 226.
2 Winckler (Alttrst. Unfers. 183$, G I 1199) emends and
interprets, because they totally depopulated Edom ; see also
Lahr Unfers.Z. Amos, 4.
3 gee Jer. 25 1 5 f i 47 Zeph. 2 4 8 Ezek. 25 1 5 8 , also Zech.
9 5-7 Obad. 19.
3723
PHILISTINES
the anti-Assyrian party had seized their loyal king
Padi and sent him a prisoner to Hezekiah. Sen-
nacherib severely punished the insurgents of Ekron.
compelled Hezekiah to deliver Padi up, and restored
him to his throne, 701 ( K B Z 9 2 8 ) . When Hezekiah's
turn came, Sennacherib annexed the Judzean cities he
had taken and plundered to the territories of the loyal
kings, Mitinti of Ashdod, Padi of Ekron, and Silbel of
Gaza ( K B 2 g 4 ; see I SRAEL , 34 ; H EZEKIAH , 2.
and references there). After the time of Sennacherib
the cities of Philistia seem not again to have revolted
against the Assyrians.
Esarhaddon names among his western vassals Silbel
king of Gaza, Mitinti of Ashkelon, Ikausu of Ekron,
Aljrnilki of Ashdod, together with Manasseh of Judah.
the kings of Edom and Moab, and others ( K B 2 1 4 8 ) .
The same names appear under ASur-bh-pal (i6. 240).
It was the time of the long peace in Manasseh's reign.
In the attempt of Egypt under Tirhakah to throw off the
yoke ofASur-bani-pal (see E GYPT, 66b),the cities on the
coast remained loyal to Assyria, a s also in the revolt of
Phcenicia, and the Arabian war ( K B 2 1 6 0 1 6 8 8 2163).
The account of the long siege of Ashdod by Psam-
meticus (29years ; Herod. 2 1 5 7 ) attests renewed attempts
of Egypt to snbject this coast (see E GYPT, 67).
During the Scythian irruption Ashkelonwas taken, and its
great templeof 'Aphrodite Urania' spoiled (Herod. 1105).
The collapse of the Assyrian empire in the last
quarter of the seventh century, enabled Necho 11. to
carry the Egyptian arms to the Euphrates (608); in the
course of this campaign he took Gaza (Kd&mts, Herod.
2159). Necho's defeat at Carchemish (605)was speediIy
followed by the reconquest of all Western Syria from
the Amanus to the borders of Egypt (cp 2 K. 2 4 7 ) by
Nebuchadrezzar. So far as our sources go, the southern
coast cities offered no such resistance as the Babylonians
encountered at Tyre and Jerusalem.' T h e demonstra-
tion of the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) had at least no
lasting results, Nabonadius called upon his tributaries
as far as Gaza to contribute to the building of the great
temple of Sin at Harran ( K Biii. 2 98).
After the fall of the Babylonian empire, Gaza alone
opposed the advance of Cambyses on his way to Egypt
(Polyb. 1640). In the provincial organisa-
'"ze:
Under tion of Darius, Palestine (with Phcenicia and
Cyprus) was included in the fifth satrapy
(Herod. 3 9 1 ) ; it furnished its quota of ships
to the fleet of Xerxes (Herod. 789). Ashkelon was, for
a time at least, subject to Tyre (Scylax. in Geogr. min.
ed. C. Muller, 1 7 9 ) ; Eshmnnazar records the cession of
Dorand JoppatoSidon (CZSno31. 193). Gaza(9.n.)
was autonomous, and so prosperous that Herodotus
found it not inferior to Sardes (Herod. 35 : see E. Meyer.
G A 3 139). What part these cities took in the repeated
attempts of Egypt to shake off the Persian yoke, and in
the revolts of Megabyzus and Evagoras (see P ERSIA ,
§ 20), our scanty sources do not tell us ; in the great
rebellion of the ' Syrians and Phcenicians, and almost
all the peoples of the sea hoard' in the last years of
Artaxerxes Mnemon (Diod. Sic.1590) they may have
been involved; without at least their benevolent neu-
trality, Tachos could scarcely have engaged in his opera-
tions in Phoenicia in 3 6 1 . ~If they joined with the
Phoenician cities in the rising against Ochus-as is
not improbable, since the Jews also seem to have been
implicated-they at least offered no opposition to the
Persians in their advance against Egypt ; the exemplary
fate of Sidon may have warned them to submit while
there was time (see P ERSIA , 5 20).
When Alexander, after taking Tyre, marched down
the coast on his way to Egypt, it was again Gaza alone
1 See however Stark Gum 224J:; Rerossus names among
Nehucdadrezzar's) captiv)es not ' o d y Jews and Phoenicians, but
also Syrians and the peoples near Egypt (Jos. Ant. X. 11 I ) ; cp
also Philostratus (up.Syncell. 221 D).
2 See Judeich, Kleinasiutisch Studien, 1 6 4 5
3724
 PHILISTINES
that resisted his passage ; it was taken only after a siege
16. a~exander of two months' duration ; the city was
sacked, and the remnant of its in-
and his habitants sold into slavery (332 B . C . ) . l
successors~ The strategic importance of Philistia
made it the scene of frequent conflicts between the suc-
cessors of Alexander.
In the assignment of satrapies after Alexander's death (323),
Syria fell to Laomedon ; in 320 Philistia and Judaea, with the
rest of Cele-Syria and Phenicia, were seized by Ptolemy I.,
who garrisoned Gaza and Joppa. Antigonus, in 315,took these
cities without much difficulty, though Tyre stood a fifteen
months' siege. In 3'2 Ptolemy reconquered the country; a
pitched battle being fought in the spring near Gaza (Diod. Sic.
1 9 8 0 8 ) ; but in the autumn he was driven out again by Deme-
trius and Antigonns, dismantling the fortifications of Acco,
Joppa, and Gaza in his retreat(Diod.1993); the peace of I I
left Antigonus in possession of this coast ; Gaza was refortized
by him, and was the base of his unsuccessful operations by land
and sea against Egypt in 306. In 302 Ptolemy invaded Syria
and laid siege to Sidon, hut retired npon an erroneous re ort of
Antigonus's advance, leaving garrisons to hold the citiese! had
taken.
The disposition of Syria in the partition after the
battle of Ipsus (301) was disputed, both Seleucids and
Ptolemies in later times claiming that they had acquired
the right to it ; the question of actual possession at the
moment lay between Ptolemyand the remaining garrisons
of Demetrius. Ptolemy in no long time acquired southern
Palestine, and perhaps some points in Phoenicia, which
he administered by a strategos. The theatre of the
Syrian wars of 275-274, 261-250,246-240,was farther
north ; and their outcome strengthened and enlarged
the Ptolemaic empire in Syria.3 A determined attempt
to wrest these possessions from Egypt was made by
Aritiochus the Great, beginning in 219. The Egyptians
strengthened the fortifications of Gaza, which was
necessarily the base of their defensive operations ; but
the campaign of 218 must have brought it, along with
most of southern Palestine, into the power of Antiochus ;
since we find him preparing at Gaza for the projected
invasion of Egypt. One of the great battles of antiquity
was fought at Raphia in the spring of 217 ; Antiochus
was completely defeated, and Ptolemy recovered southern
Syria (Polyb. 5 82-86). I n 201 Antiochus resumed the
attempt ; Ccele-Syria fell into his hands almost without
a blow ; Gam, however, held out. and was taken only
after a stubborn resistance. The Egyptians made an
effort to recover the territory; but their defeat at
Paneion in 200 put an end to a rule which had lasted
for a century ; all Syria was henceforth embraced in the
empire of the Seleucidae. T h e revenues of Code-Syria
were assigned by Antiochus as a dowry to his daughter,
Cleopatra. whom he married to the youthful Ptolemy.
T h e ambition of the Egyptian court to reconquer the
country precipitated the fresh attacks on Egypt by
Antiochus Epiphanes in 170-168.
Long before the Macedonian conquest, commerce
had doubtless brought to the coast, as it did to the
cities of the Nile delta, considerable
l,. Greek numbers of Greeks ; the importance of
civilisation.
the trade with Greece, which was prob-
ably chiefly in their hands, may be judged from the
fact that in the Persian period Gaza struck coins of
Athenian types and of Athenian standard weight and
fineness (see SchiirerP), 284). In the following centuries
the influence of Greek civilisation was much more
profound and wide-reaching. The city government
was framed upon Greek models, the types and legends
of their coinage are mainly Greek ; the gods whom they
worshipped are for the most part the great gods of
Greece : Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Athene, Aphrodite,
Helios, and others ; the Greek language was doubtless
extensivelyspoken in the cities ; Ashkelon had, in Roman
1 Diod. Sic. xvii. 48 7 ; Arrian, 2 2 6 3 ; Curtius, iv. 6 7 8
2 See Niese, Grikch. U. Makedon. Staaten, 1352 2 124 377.
8 T h e era of Tyre (275 or 274 B.c.) is probably connected
with the occupation of Phcenicia by Ptolemy Philadelphus ; see
Schiirer G/V(3J 2 74.
4 On ;he date see Niese, 2 578f:
3725
PHILISTINES
times, famous schools, and not a few men of distinction
in Greek literature were educated there (Steph. Byzant.
s.v.)-in short, it might appear on a superficiaI survey
of these facts that the region was completely Hellenised.
Such a conclusion would, however, be a serious ex-
aggeration. Greek was the language of commerce and
of culture ; in the cities, probably, most men were able
to speak as much Greek as they needed ; but as late as
the end of the fourth century A. D., the country people
about Gaza spoke only Aramaic-which in the Persian
period had gradually supplanted the older Canaanite
vernacular (cp A RAMAIC , §§ zJ)-while even in the city
the lower classes spoke Aramaic. and there were those
who understood no other t0ngue.l The same was true
at Ashkelon, and doubtless elsewhere, generally.
I n religion, also, the fact that the gods bear Greek
names does not necessarily indicate that the gods and
their worship were purely Greek. In many cases, un-
questionably, the name has been given to a native deity
and the cult was either native or syncretistic. T h e
chief temple of Ashdod in Maccabaean times was
Dagon's; the great god of Gaza was Marnas-an
Aramaic title ; the identification with Zeds Kpvrayeu?js
is part of the late legendary connection of Gaza (Mlvya)
with Crete ; the Aphrodite Onrania ofAshkelon is in all
probability Atargatis-Derketo, also a Syrian deity,:
just as in the Persian period the Aramaic names Marnas
and ATARCATIS (s.v.) superseded a Canaanite Baal
and Astarte, so they became in turn Zeus and Aphrodite
without changing their nature.
During the Maccahaean struggle the Syrian armies
operated in general from the Philistine plain, ascending
by the pass of Beth-horon or Emmaus,
* m1o8.~ The
a n a . or farther S. by Beth-zur. Levies from
the country fought on the Syrian side;
slave-traders accompanied the army to buy the expected
prisoners ( I Macc.341).
In a raid into the lowland Jndas took Ashdod, plundering the
city and destroying the images of the gods ( I Macc. 568). To
prevent such excursions of the Jews, Bacchides fortified and
garrisoned Emmaus, Beth-horon, Thamnatha, Pharathon, and
Gazer (I Macc. 9 50.52). I n 147 Jonathan, fighting in the cause
of Alexander Balas against Demetrius, made an expedition
against Joppa, hut found the city too strong to he carried by
assault ; turning back he defeated Apollonius near Ashdod
pursued the retreating enemy into the city, and burned it wit;
its great temple of Dagon ( I Macc. 10 75-85, cp 11 4) ; Ashkelon
received him with open arms (1086). Alexander rewarded him
by bestowing upon him the city and district of Ekron (1089).
Later, as a sup orter of Alexander's son Antiochus Jonathan
received the sufmission of Ashkelon, and besieged' Gaza and
compelled it to sue for terms (between 145-143 B.C. ; I Macc.
1160.6~); shortly after, Simon took Joppa and put a Jewish
garrison in it ( I Macc. 12 33J) ; after the treacherous murder of
Jonathan hy Trypho a t Ptolemais, Simon drove out the inhahi-
tants of Joppa settling Jews in their place and annexing it to his
own territory'(1 Macc. 13 I I ; see J OPPA , S z ) ; having taken
Gazer by siege, he pursued the same course with it ( I Macc.
1343-48). Antiochus Sidetes seems to have taken these places
from John Hyrcanus,4 but was constrained by Roman interven-
tion to restore them. Alexander Jannsus a t the beginning of
his reign besieged Ptolemais, hut was compelled by Ptolemy
Lathurus to retire from it. T h e subsequent withdrawal of both
Lathurus and Cleopatra, however, left him a free hand, and he
conquered Raphia, Anthedon, and finally Gaza, which after a
siege of a year he took by treachery and gave over to pillage
and flames, 96 B.C (Jos. Ant. xiii. 13 3, BJ i. 4 2). In Josephus
(Ant. xiii. 15 4) we have a list of the cities which were subject to
Alexander Jannaeus; it includes all the cities from Carmel to
Rhinocorura (with the single exception of Ashke1on)-Strato's
Tower, Apollonia, Joppa, Jamnia, Ashdcd, Gaza, Anthedon,
Raphia, Rhinocorura.
Pompey freed these cities from Jewish rule, restoring
then1 to their own citizens and incorporating them in
19. Under the the province of Syria (63 B.C. ; Jos.
Romans' many I?/ i. 77). Gabinius (57-55B. c. ) rebuilt
of these places which had been
wholly or in part demolished by the Jews (Ant. xiv. 5 3 ;
BJ i. 84). Caesar restored Joppa to the Jews (Ant.
1 Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porpltyrii, cb. 66fi See SchiirerP),
2 64 95.
2 On Marnas, see Drexler in Roscher, Lex. 2 2379.
3 Diod. Sic.24, Pausan. i. 146.
4 See Schiirer, 2 101.
3726