Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:15 pm

This is just a note for me as I try to untangle the two Philips. Schmidt writes:
The apostle Philip figures in several passages in the Gospel of John, but elsewhere only in lists of the twelve; there is no reference to his activities in Acts. There is a second Philip, referred to as a deacon and evangelist (Acts 6:5; 8:4-40; 21:8-9), who is not to be identified with the apostle. The name was common, and the apostle Philip would not also have been a deacon. Moreover, Luke is careful to distinguish the second Philip as "the evangelist, one of the seven" (Acts 21:8-9). That passage also adds the unusual detail that the deacon "had four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy"; several later sources that associate prophetess daughters with the apostle are almost certainly a result of confusing the two Philips. ... ts&f=false
Now I want to look at what Eusebius says about whichever Philip again in EH 3.

EH 3.30.1:
1. Clement [of Alexandria], indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. “Or will they,” says he, “reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage.
EH 3.31.2-5:
2. The time of John's death has also been given in a general way, but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates (who was bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor, bishop of Rome. In this epistle he mentions him together with the apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words:

3. “For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and moreover John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. He also sleeps at Ephesus.”

4. So much concerning their death. And in the Dialogue of Caius which we mentioned a little above, Proclus, against whom he directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted, speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters: “After him there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father.” Such is his statement.

5. But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions the daughters of Philip who were at that time at Cæsarea in Judea with their father, and were honored with the gift of prophecy. His words are as follows: “We came unto Cæsarea; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”

Hm. I suppose Polycrates and Eusebius are two of the "later sources that associate prophetess daughters with the apostle" that Schmidt mentions above. And Hippolytus' two Philips in my citation above sound like the same person, even though one is in his list of the Twelve and the other is in his list of the Seventy:
5. [of "the Twelve"] Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there ...

7. [of "the Seventy"] Philip, who baptized the eunuch.

Calgon, take me away.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Show me something built to last.

Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:38 pm

Ben's Daughters of Philip thread kicks ass and I want to cite something from it that he wrote:
Everybody seems to agree that Philip's daughters were prophetesses. But the number is in dispute. Polycrates mentions only three daughters: two virgins and one who lies in repose in Ephesus. Acts mentions four virgin daughters. And Clement avers that Philip married off his daughters. I am not going to insist that these notices ought to be harmonized, but they can be harmonized pretty easily, really: Philip had four daughters; while they all lived in Palestine, they were all still virgins for a while (explaining the statement in Acts). But three of them emigrated with Philip to Asia (explaining Polycrates' mention of only three), and of those three only two remained virgins for life. Both the third emigrating daughter and the one daughter who stayed behind in Palestine married (explaining Clement's statement that Philip married off his daughters).

The polemics at play in some of the passages suggests that Philip and his daughters were employed in the battle between the Encratics and the Catholics. But they must have been hard to employ in those battles: the Catholics could insist that Philip married off (at least two of) his daughters, but the virginity of the other two would stand out, and all four daughters' prophetic prowess would leave them open to Montanist arguments; on the other hand, the Encratics could harp on the daughters' virginity, but they would have to pretty much ignore Philip himself, who cannot very well have been a good Encratic if he had children!


Hm. That's all I can say right now. I can't compare the NT Philip with Josephus' Philip until I figure out who the NT Philip is. It's at least curious that Josephus' Philip is mentioned along with letters, messengers (apostles), the numbers "twelve" and "seventy," and daughters and someone named Saul, but which NT Philip do these details apply to?
Show me something built to last.

Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:41 pm

If there is only one NT Philip (as Ben suspects), then that would simplify things, but I can't find anything by Matthews about it that is viewable online yet. ... QQ6AEIJzAA
Show me something built to last.

Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:52 am

I now have access to Matthews' Philip: Apostle and Evangelist, and right off the bat he gets to the heart of the "two Philips" problem (page 15):
In the second century of the Christian era, whenever Christian sources mention Philip, it is the apostle of the same name who is in view. There is no evidence to suggest the existence of competing or parallel traditions of two early, influential Christian figures who happened to share the name Philip. Both the later ecclesiastical view that carefully distinguishes the "deacon" Philip from the apostle of the same name and the pervasive modern assumption that there were two high profile Philips in the earliest days of the church are based solely on Luke's presentation in Acts. Were it not for Acts, there would be no clue that a problem existed with respect to Philip's identity. The privileged place of this canonical source has led to a confident revisionism with regard to the plain testimony of the second-century witnesses. Scholars have simply presumed that these later authorities have confused Philip the apostle with Philip the evangelist. Yet, since Philip, along with his daughters, is often invoked in various polemical contexts to legitimate this or that group's theological positions and social/ecclesiastical practices, it can hardly be imagined that the appeal is to anyone other than a clearly recognized authority, that is, an "elder," the most potent form of which is an apostle.
So maybe Luke/Acts is incorporating the "historical Philip" (who, let's say for the sake of discussion, was Josephus' Philip son of Jacimus) with a little funny treatment, in the same way I think it could be doing with Josephus' Saul (who is a violent hothead like the Saul in Acts 9) and Josephus' Simon (a leader of an "ecclesia" in Jerusalem who had a run in with Agrippa II in Caesarea, like Peter in Acts 12).

Since I'm already persuaded that Luke/Acts used Josephus, the inclusion of these people into Acts would simply be more examples of it.

In other words, let's say there was originally one Philip, like early commentators say, and let's say that it was Josephus' Philip (who is associated with a Saul and "apostles" and the numbers "twelve" and "seventy" and daughters). In this scenario, the only problem for me would be the number of Philip's daughters, since Josephus (writing in the late first century CE) says he had two, and Christians (writing in the early second century CE) say he had three or four.

It occurred to me though that a) Josephus' Philip could have had more daughters after the time Josephus is writing about (the late 60's); or b) Philip could have had more daughters at that time but Josephus only mentions the two who were remarkable for surviving the siege of Gamala.

Is there anything about what Josephus says that indicates that Philip had only two daughters at the time? Could this Philip have had other (less remarkable) daughters? I wouldn't necessarily think he didn't to judge from this translation, at least.

War 4.1.10:
... nor did any one escape except two women, who were the daughters of Philip, and Philip himself was the son of a certain eminent man called Jacimus, who had been general of king Agrippa's army; and these did therefore escape, because they lay concealed from the rage of the Romans when the city was taken; for otherwise they spared not so much as the infants, of which many were flung down by them from the citadel. And thus was Gamala taken on the three and twentieth day of the month Hyperberetens, whereas the city had first revolted on the four and twentieth day of the month Gorpieus.

Hm. Philip.
Show me something built to last.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6502
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Philip

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:28 am

John2 wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:52 am
Hm. Philip.
I know the feeling. :D

User avatar
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Philip

Post by DCHindley » Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:01 pm

The wording of the English translation seemed odd to my modern ear (Whiston published his translation in 1737 CE or so), so I looked closer.

JOE Wars of the Jews 4:81
nor did anyone escape [Gamala] except two women (διεσώθη δὲ πλὴν δύο γυναικῶν οὐδείς),
who were the daughters of Philip (τῆς Φιλίππου δὲ ἦσαν ἀδελφῆς θυγατέρες αὗται)
and Philip himself was the son of a certain eminent man called Jacimus, (αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος Ἰακίμου τινὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐπισήμου)
who had been general of King Agrippa's army; (τετραρχήσαντος Ἀγρίππᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ)

When Josephus says "τῆς Φιλίππου δὲ ἦσαν ἀδελφῆς θυγατέρες αὗται" the name "Philip" is used as if we should know who Philip was.

Ahh, there he is, in War 2:

Wars of the Jews 2:556 After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews fled from the city [Jerusalem], as from a ship when it was going to sink; Costobarus, therefore, and Saul, who were brothers, together with Philip, the son of Jacimus, who was the commander [στρατηγῷ] of King Agrippa's forces, [he (Jacimus?) was part of an expeditionary force sent by Philip the Tetrarch,* ran away from the city, and went to Cestius.

*Wars of the Jews 2:421 But Agrippa was equally solicitous for those who were revolting, and for those against whom the war was to be made, and was desirous to preserve the Jews for the Romans, and the temple and metropolis for the Jews; he was also sensible that it was not for his own advantage that the disturbances should proceed; so he sent [as an expeditionary force] three thousand horsemen to the assistance of the people [of Jerusalem who were not part of the revolt], out of Auranitis, and Batanea, and Trachonitis, and these under Darius, the master of his cavalry, and Philip, the son of Jacimus, the general of his army [στρατηγῷ δὲ τῷ Ἰακίμου Φιλίππῳ].

JOE Life of Flavius Josephus 1:46 But Gamala persevered in its allegiance to the Romans, for the reason following: Philip, the son of Jacimus, who was their governor under king Agrippa, had been unexpectedly preserved when the royal palace at Jerusalem had been besieged [in the initial stages of the revolt]; but, as he fled away, had fallen into another danger; and that was, of being killed by Manahem, and the robbers that were with him;
47 but certain Babylonians, who were of his kindred, and were then in Jerusalem, hindered the robbers from executing their design. So Philip stayed there four days, and fled away on the fifth, having disguised himself with fictitious hair, that he might not be discovered; and when he was come to one of the villages to him belonging, but one that was located at the borders of the citadel of Gamala, he sent to some of those who were under him, and commanded them to come to him;
48 but God himself hindered that his intention, and this for his own advantage also; for had it not so happened, he had certainly perished; for a fever having seized upon him immediately, he wrote to Agrippa and Bernice, and gave them to one of his freedmen to carry them to Varus
49 who at this time was procurator of the kingdom, which the king and his sister had intrusted him withal, while they were gone to Berytus with an intention of meeting Gessius.
50 When Varus had received these letters of Philip, and had learned that he was preserved, he was very uneasy at it, as supposing that he should appear useless to the king and his sister, now Philip was come. He therefore produced the carrier of the letters before the multitude, and accused him of forging the same; and said that he spoke falsely when he related that Philip was at Jerusalem, fighting among the Jews against the Romans. So he slew him.
51 And when this freedman of Philip did not return again, Philip was doubtful what should be the occasion of his stay, and sent a second messenger with letters, that he might, upon his return, inform him what had befallen the other that had been sent before, and why he tarried so long.
52 Varus accused this messenger also, when he came, of telling a falsehood, and slew him; for he was puffed up by the Syrians that were at Caesarea [Philippi], and had great expectations; for they said that Agrippa would be slain by the Romans for the crimes which the Jews had committed, and that he should himself take the government, as derived from their kings; for Varus was, by the confession of all, of the royal family, as being a descendant of Sohemus, who had enjoyed a tetrarchy about Libanus;
53 for which reason it was that he was puffed up, and kept the letters to himself. He contrived, also, that the king should not meet with those writings, by guarding all the passes, lest anyone should escape, and inform the king what had been done. He moreover slew many of the Jews, in order to gratify the Syrians of Caesarea [Philippi].
54 He had a mind also to join with the Trachonites in Batanea, and to take up arms and make an assault upon the Babylonian Jews that were at Ecbatana; for that was the name they went by.

Life 1:179 But before this, it happened that Philip, the son of Jacimus, went out of the citadel of Gamala [where he had holed up in the town's citadel in hopes of preserving the city and inhabitants for the Romans] upon the following occasion:
180 when Philip had been informed that Varus [king Philip's former head of state] was put out of his government by King Agrippa, and that Equiculus Modius, a man that was of old his friend and companion, was come to succeed him, he wrote to him and related what turns of fortune he had had, and desired him to forward the letters he sent to the king and queen.
181 Now, when Modius had received these letters, he was exceedingly glad, and sent the letters to the king and queen, who were then about Berytus.
182 But when King Agrippa knew that the story about Philip was false, (for it had been given out, that the Jews had begun a war with the Romans, and that this Philip had been their commander in that war,) he sent some horsemen to conduct Philip to him;
183 and when he was come, he greeted him very obligingly, and showed him to the Roman commanders, and told them that this was the man of whom the report had gone about as if he had revolted from the Romans.
184 He also bade him to take some horsemen with him, and to go quickly to the citadel of Gamala, and to bring out there all his domestics, and to restore the Babylonians to Batanea again. He also gave it him in charge to take all possible care that none of his subjects should be guilty of making any sedition. Accordingly, upon these directions from the king, he made haste to do what he was commanded.

The whole story of this Philip son of Jacimus seems to be this: I think that Philip, son of Jacimus (who had been the chief army commander under Philip), sent to help quell the uprising in the very beginning, was forced to flee tetrarch Philip's palace in Jerusalem. Philip son of Jacimus' escaped to Gamala and is let into the citadel by friends. But Varus, the procurator under Philip the tetrarch, was acting against Philip's orders, killing the ambassadors sent by Philip the son of Jacimus. Varus was ousting Judeans and Mesopotamians (probably also Judeans) from cities in Philip's kingdom, effectively attempting to set himself up as a king, as he was of royal blood, a descendant of Sohemus, who had enjoyed a tetrarchy about Libanus. Philip the tetrarch, when he found out, had Varus is removed from his post. Philip son of Jacimus is reinforced with troops from the new procurator. However, Philip eventually goes on to loose control of the townGamala. Not sure if Philip the son of Jacimus managed to live through the events that led to the Romans overrunning Gamala, although his two daughters were still there. Many of these towns alternated between the control of several factions in the rebellion. Just the same, even Josephus' wife and family were still in Jerusalem when the Romans overran the city, and they too escaped death by the enraged soldiers, and likely also in deep hiding places.

I don't think this has anything to do with the Philip in early Christian lore.


Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:11 am

But Matthews (on pages 17-18 of Philip: Apostle and Evangelist) notes that the name Philip has "limited attestation" and "was connected with aristocratic, Hellenized and diplomatic families" (like the Herodians) and thus argues that "it is quite unlikely that two of the earliest prominent Christian figures from Palestine would have shared the name Philip."
Josephus' information shows that the name Philip was connected with aristocratic, hellenized, and diplomatic families. Sosipater, son of
Philip (Ant. 14.249), appears in lists of diplomats sent by the Maccabees to Rome. Later the name Philip is taken by one of Herod's sons (see Luke 3:1) and by Philip, son of Jacimus, a Jew from Babylon with close connections to the Herodian family, who was active in the territory of Philip. The name Philip was popular because of its use by the Hellenistic kings, and consequently it infiltrated into aristocratic Palestinian Jewish circles. The Fourth Gospel's identification of Bethsaida as the home town of the disciple Philip (John 1:44) would make him a namesake of Philip the
Tetrarch (Luke 3:1) who ruled this territory. The limited attestation of the name Philip and its upper class associations offer external support for the thesis argued here that the Philip behind the stories recorded by Luke in Acts and the Philip mentioned in the Gospels are one and the same. Martin Hengel, who broaches the possibility that the two Philips were one and the same, doubts that the question can be settled "given the relative
frequency of the name." But Hengel's statement is highly misleading, since he identifies Philip as a "frequent" name in Palestine solely on the basis of the four occurrences injosephus listed above. The onomastic data rather suggest that it is quite unlikely that two of the earliest prominent Christian figures from Palestine would have shared the name Philip.
And this Herodian angle is how I'm approaching it, since Josephus' Saul (who I think could be Paul) was related to them. I'm just seeing if we can fuse Matthews' fused two NT Philips with Josephus' Philip (for more or less the same reason). And there was a relative or close associate of the Herodians who was a prophet or teacher in the Antioch church mentioned in Acts 13:1 (and in the same verse as Saul):
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.
So it wouldn't be unprecedented if the NT Philp also had "close connections to the Herodian family" like Manaen and Josephus' Philip.

There is an association between the name Philip, Saul and Herodians in the NT and in Josephus, and Paul is said to have once been called Saul and had connections with people in high social circles (e.g., Php. 4:22: "All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household") and was arguably related to Herodians (e.g., Rom. 16:10-11). So it would at least not be implausible in this respect if the NT Philip was Josephus' Philip.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Show me something built to last.

Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:20 pm

Let's also bear in mind that Agrippa II himself is presented as being a near-convert in Acts 26:28. And the Herodian angle ties in with Josephus' Saul and Philip (and Paul) in that they were thus anti-rebellion, with Saul and Philip being in cahoots with Agrippa.

War 2.17.4:
So the men of power perceiving that the sedition was too hard for them to subdue, and that the danger which would arise from the Romans would come upon them first of all, endeavored to save themselves, and sent ambassadors, some to Florus, the chief of which was Simon the son of Ananias; and others to Agrippa, among whom the most eminent were Saul, and Antipas, and Costobarus, who were of the king's kindred; and they desired of them both that they would come with an army to the city, and cut off the seditious before it should be too hard to be subdued. Now this terrible message was good news to Florus; and because his design was to have a war kindled, he gave the ambassadors no answer at all. But Agrippa was equally solicitous for those that were revolting, and for those against whom the war was to be made, and was desirous to preserve the Jews for the Romans, and the temple and metropolis for the Jews; he was also sensible that it was not for his own advantage that the disturbances should proceed; so he sent three thousand horsemen to the assistance of the people out of Auranitis, and Batanea, and Trachonitis, and these under Darius, the master of his horse, and Philip the son of Jacimus, the general of his army.
So Josephus' Saul and Philip were pro-Herodian and anti-rebellion, like Paul in Rom. 13:1-5:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Note how Paul refers to rulers bearing "the sword" in order to "bring punishment on the wrongdoer," like Saul, Philip, and Florus' and Agrippa's armies do in Josephus above.
Show me something built to last.

Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:07 pm

Philip has the same position as Paul in Rom. 13 (and in the context of being among groups of "twelve" and "seventy" messengers).

Life 60:
But Philip restrained their zeal, and put them in mind of the benefits the king had bestowed upon them; and told them how powerful the Romans were, and said it was not for their advantage to make war with them; and at length he prevailed with them.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Show me something built to last.

Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Philip

Post by John2 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:20 pm

And this is one of those cases where I think Paul and Jewish Christians are in line, since Peter has the same position in 1 Peter 2:13-17:
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
And Jesus is presented as being anti-rebellion in the NT, e.g., Mk. 12:17 and 14:48:
Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
"Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?"
Show me something built to last.

Post Reply