International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Peter, Simon — Pilgrim; Pilgrimage

Peter, Simon

Peter, Simon - pe'-ter, si'-mon):

1. Name and Early Career

2. First Appearance in Gospel History

3. Life-Story

(1) First Period

(2) Second Period

4. Character

5. Writings

(1) First Epistle

(2) Second Epistle

6. Theology

(1) Messianic Teaching

(2) Justification

(3) Redemption

(4) Future Life

(5) Holy Scripture

(6) Apostasy and Judgment

(7) Second Coming of Christ

LITERATURE

The data for this article are found chiefly in the four Gospels; in Acts 1:1-26 through Acts 15:1-41; in Galatians 1:1-24 and Galatians 2:1-21; and in the two Epistles of Peter.

1. Name and Early Career: Simon (or Simeon) was the original name of Peter, the son of Jonas (or John), and brother of Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist, as Peter also may have been. A fisherman by occupation, he was an inhabitant of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, though subsequently he dwelt with his family at Capernaum (Matthew 4:18; 8:14; 10:2; Matthew 16:16-17; 17:25; Mark 1:16, 29-30, 36; Luke 5:3-4, 5, 8, 10; 22:31; 24:34; John 1:40-44).

2. First Appearance in Gospel History: His first appearance in Gospel history is in John 1:35-42, when Andrew, having discovered Jesus to be the Messiah, "first findeth his own brother Simon," and "brought him unto Jesus"; on which occasion it was that the latter, beholding him, said, "Thou shalt be called Cephas," an Aramaic surname whose Greek synonym is Petros, or Peter, meaning "a rock" or "stone" At this time also he received his first call to the discipleship of Jesus, although, in common with that of others of the Twelve, this call was twice repeated. See Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17; Luke 5:3 for the second call, and Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:14, 16; Luke 6:13-14 for the third. Some interpret the second as that when he was chosen to be a constant companion of Jesus, and the third when he was at length selected as an apostle.

3. Life-Story: The life-story of Peter falls into two parts: first, from his call to the ascension of Christ; secondly, from that event to the close of his earthly career.

(1) First Period: The first period again may be conveniently divided into the events prior to the Passion of Christ and those following. There are about ten of the former: the healing of his wife's mother at Capernaum (Matthew 8:14 ff); the great draught of fishes, and its effect in his self-abasement and surrender of his all to Jesus (Luke 5:1-11); his call to the apostolic office and his spiritual equipment therefor (Matthew 10:2); his attachment to his Master, as shown in his attempt to walk upon the waves (Matthew 14:28); the same attachment as shown at a certain crisis, in his inquiry "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (John 6:68); his noble confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, and, alas, the rebuke that followed it (Matthew 16:13-23); the exalted privileges he enjoyed with James and John as witness of the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:37) and the transfiguration of his Lord (Matthew 17:1-5); and finally, the incident of the tribute money, found only in Matthew 17:24.

The events beginning at the Passion are more easily recalled, because to so large an extent are they found in all the Gospels and about in the same order. They commence with the washing of his feet by the Master at the time of the last Passover, and the two mistakes he made as to the spiritual import of that act (John 13:1-10); the first of his presumptuous boastings as to the strength of his devotion to his Master, and the warning of the latter as to Satan's prospective assault upon him (Luke 22:31-34), twice repeated before the betrayal in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:31-35); the admission to the garden to behold the Saviour's deepest distress, the charge to watch and pray, and the failure to do so through sleepiness (Matthew 26:36-46); the mistaken courage in severing the ear of Malchus (John 18:10-12); the forsaking of his Lord while the latter was being led away as a prisoner, his following Him afar off, his admission into the high priest's palace, his denial "before them all," his confirmation of it by an oath, his remembrance of the warning when "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter," and his tears of bitterness as he went out (Matthew 26:56-58; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-27).

It will be seen that the story of Peter's fall is thus related by all the evangelists, but, to quote another, "None have described it in a more heinous light, than Mark; and if, as is generally supposed, that Gospel was reviewed by Peter himself and even written under his direction this circumstance may be considered as an evidence of his integrity and sincere contrition."

Nothing more is heard of Peter until the morning of the resurrection, when, on the first tidings of the event, he runs with John to see the tomb (John 20:1-10); his name is especially mentioned to the women by the angel (Mark 16:7); and on the same day he sees Jesus alive before any of the rest of the Twelve (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5). Subsequently, at the Sea of Tiberias, Peter is given an opportunity for a threefold confession of Jesus whom he had thrice denied, and is once more assigned to the apostolic office; a prediction follows as to the kind of death he should die, and also a command to follow his Lord (John 21:1-25).

(2) Second Period: The second period, from the ascension of Christ to the conversion of Paul, is more briefly sketched. After the ascension, of which Peter was doubtless a witness, he "stood up in the midst of the brethren" in the upper room in Jerusalem to counsel the choice of a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15-26). On the day of Pentecost he preaches the first gospel sermon (Acts 2:1-47), and later, in company with John, instrumentally heals the lame man, addresses the people in the Temple, is arrested, defends himself before the Sanhedrin and returns to his "own company" (Acts 3:1-26; Acts 4:1-37). He is again arrested and beaten (Acts 5:1-42); after a time he is sent by the church at Jerusalem to communicate the Holy Spirit to the disciples at Samaria (Acts 8:1-40). Returning to Jerusalem (where presumably Paul visits him, Galatians 1:18), he afterward journeys "throughout all parts," heals Aeneas at Lydda, raises Dorcas from the dead at Joppa, sees a vision upon the housetop which influences him to preach the gospel to the Gentile centurion at Caesarea, and explains this action before "the apostles and the brethren that were in Judea" (Acts 9:32-41; chapter Acts 11:1-30).

After a while another persecution arose against the church, and Herod Agrippa, having put James to death, imprisons Peter with the thought of executing him also. Prayer is made by the church on his behalf, however, and miraculous deliverance is given him (Acts 12:1-25). Retiring for a while from public attention, he once more comes before us in the church council at Jerusalem, when the question is to be settled as to whether works are needful to salvation, adding his testimony to that of Paul and Barnabas in favor of justification by faith only (Acts 15:1-41).

Subsequently, he is found at Antioch, and having fellowship with GentileChristians until "that certain came from James," when "he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision," for which dissembling Paul "resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned" (Galatians 2:11-14).

Little more is authentically known of Peter, except that he traveled more or less extensively, being accompanied by his wife (1 Corinthians 9:5), and that he wrote two epistles, the second of which was penned as he approached the end of his life (2 Peter 1:12-15).

The tradition is that he died a martyr at Rome about 67 AD, when about 75 years old. His Lord and Master had predicted a violent death for him (John 21:18-19), which it is thought came to pass by crucifixion under Nero. It is said that at his own desire he was crucified head downward, feeling himself unworthy to resemble his Master in his death.

It should be observed, however, that the tradition that he visited Rome is only tradition and nothing more, resting as it does partly upon a miscalculation of some of the early Fathers, "who assume that he went to Rome in 42 AD, immediately after his deliverance from prison" (compare Acts 11:17). Schaff says this "is irreconcilable with the silence of Scripture, and even with the mere fact of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, written in 58, since the latter says not a word of Peter's previous labors in that city, and he himself never built on other men's foundations" (Romans 15:20; 2 Corinthians 10:15-16).

4. Character: The character of Peter is transparent and easily analyzed, and it is doubtless true that no other "in Scriptural history is drawn for us more clearly or strongly." He has been styled the prince of the apostles, and, indeed, seems to have been their leader on every occasion. He is always named first in every list of them, and was their common spokesman. He was hopeful, bold, confident, courageous, frank, impulsive, energetic, vigorous, strong, and loving, and faithful to his Master notwithstanding his defection prior to the crucifixion. It is true that he was liable to change and inconsistency, and because of his peculiar temperament he sometimes appeared forward and rash. Yet, as another says, "His virtues and faults had their common root in his enthusiastic disposition," and the latter were at length overruled by divine grace into the most beautiful humility and meekness, as evinced in his two Epistles.

The leadership above referred to, however, should not lead to the supposition that he possessed any supremacy over the other apostles, of which there is no proof. Such supremacy was never conferred upon him by his Master, it was never claimed by himself, and was never conceded by his associates. See in this Connection Matthew 23:8-12; Acts 15:13-14; 2 Corinthians 12:11; Galatians 2:11.

It is true that when Christ referred to the meaning of his name (Matthew 16:18), He said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," but He did not intend to teach that His church would be built upon Peter, but upon Himself as confessed by Peter in Matthew 16:16. Peter is careful to affirm this in the first of his two Epistles (1 Peter 2:4-9). Moreover, when Christ said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. (Matthew 16:19), He invested him with no power not possessed in common with his brethren, since they also afterward received the same commission (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). A key is a badge of power or authority, and, as many Protestant commentators have pointed out, to quote the language of one of them, "the apostolic history explains and limits this trust, for it was Peter who opened the door of the gospel to Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42) and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-46)." Some, however, regard this authority as identical with the great commission (Matthew 28:19).

See KEYS,POWER OF THE .

5. Writings: The two Epistles of Peter were written presumably late in life, as appears especially of the Second (2 Peter 1:12-15). Both were addressed to the same class of persons, chiefly Jewish Christians scattered abroad in the different provinces of Asia Minor, among whom Paul and his associates had planted the gospel (1 Peter 1:1-2; 2 Peter 3:1). The First was written at Babylon (1 Peter 5:13), doubtless the famous Babylon on the Euphrates, which, though destroyed as a great capital, was still inhabited by a small colony of people, principally Jews (see Weiss, Introduction,II , 150).

Peter, the First Epistle of

Peter, the First Epistle of - I. CANONICITY OF 1 PETER

1. External Evidence

2. Internal Evidence

II. THE ADDRESS

Silvanus

III. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION

1. Babylon: Which?

2. Babylon Not Rome

IV. DESIGN

1. Persecution

2. Example of Christ

3. Relation to State

V. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE EPISTLE

1. Freedom in Structure

2. Hope

3. Inheritance

4. Testimony of Prophets

(1) Salvation

(2) Spirit of Christ

(3) Prophetic Study

5. The Christian Brotherhood

6. Spirits in Prison

VI. ANALYSIS

LITERATURE

Simon Peter was a native of Galilee. He was brought to the Saviour early in His ministry by his brother Andrew (John 1:40-41). His call to the office of apostle is recorded in Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-16.

He occupied a distinguished place among the Lord's disciples. In the four lists of the apostles found in the New Testament his name stands first (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). He is the chief figure in the first twelve chapters of the Acts. It is Peter that preaches the first Christian sermon (Acts 2:1-47), he that opens the door of the gospel to the Gentileworld in the house of the Roman soldier, Cornelius, and has the exquisite delight of witnessing scenes closely akin to those of Pentecost at Jerusalem (Acts 10:44-47). It was given him to pronounce the solemn sentence on the guilty pair, Ananias and Sapphira, and to rebuke in the power of the Spirit the profane Simon Magus (Acts 5:1-11; Acts 8:18-23). In these and the like instances Peter exhibited the authority with which Christ had invested him (Matthew 16:19)--an authority bestowed upon all the disciples (John 20:22-23)--the power to bind and to loose.

Two Epistles are ascribed to Peter. Of the Second doubt and uncertainty have existed from the early ages to the present. The genuineness and authenticity of the First are above suspicion.

I. Canonicity of 1 Peter. 1. External Evidence: The proof of its integrity and trustworthiness is ample and altogether satisfactory. It falls into parts: external and internal. The historical attestation to its authority as an apostolic document is abundant. Polycarp, disciple of the apostle John, martyed in 156 AD at 86 or more years of age, refers to the Epistle in unmistakable terms. Irenaeus, a man who may well be said to represent both the East and the West, who was a disciple of Polycarp, quotes it copiously, we are assured. Clement of Alexandria, born circa 150 AD, died circa 216 AD, cites it many times in his Stromata, one passage (1 Peter 4:8) being quoted five times by actual count. "The testimony of the early-church is summed up by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxiii, 3). He places it among those writings about which no question was ever raised, no doubt ever entertained by any portion of the catholic church" (Professor Lumby in Bible Comm.).

2. Internal Evidence: The internal evidence in favor of the Epistle is as conclusive as the external. The writer is well acquainted with our Lord's teaching, and he makes use of it to illustrate and enforce his own. The references he makes to that teaching are many, and they include the four Gospels. He is familiar likewise with the Epistles, particularly James, Romans, and Ephesians. But what is especially noteworthy is the fact that 1 Peter in thought and language stands in close relation with the apostle's discourses as recorded in Acts. By comparing 1 Peter 1:17 with Acts 10:34; 1 Peter 1:21 with Acts 2:32-36 and Acts 10:40-41; 1 Peter 2:7-8 with Acts 4:10-11; 1 Peter 2:17 with Acts 10:28, and 1 Peter 3:18 with Acts 3:14, one will perceive how close the parallel between the two is. The inference from these facts appears legitimate, namely, 1 Peter in diction and thought belongs to the same period of time and moves in the same circle of truth as do the other writings of the New Testament. The writer was an apostle, and he was Simon Peter.

II. The Address. Peter writes to the "elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion." James employs the term "Dispersion" to designate believing Hebrews of the Twelve Tribes who lived outside the land (James 1:1). The Jews included in it the whole body of Israelites scattered among the Gentilenations (John 7:35). But we must not conclude from this that the Epistle is directed to Christian Jews alone. Gentile believers are by no means excluded, as 1 Peter 1:14, 18, 20; 2:10; 3:6; 1 Peter 4:3-4 abundantly attest. Indeed, the Gentile element in the churches of Asia Minor largely predominated at the time. The term "sojourners" represents a people away from home, strangers in a strange land; the word is translated "pilgrims" in 1 Peter 2:11 and Hebrews 11:13--an appropriate name for those who confess that they have here no continuing city, but who seek one to come. While no doubt Peter had believing Israelites in mind when he wrote, for he never forgot that his ministry belonged primarily to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7-8), he did not neglect the more numerous Gentileconverts, and to these he speaks as earnestly as to the others; and these also were "sojourners."

Three of the four provinces Peter mentions, namely, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Asia, had representatives at the memorable Pentecost in Jerua (Acts 2:9; 1 Peter 1:1). Many of these "sojourners of the Dispersion" may have believed the message of the apostle and accepted salvation through Jesus Christ, and returned home to tell the good news to their neighbors and friends. This would form a strong bond of union between them and Peter, and would open the way for him to address them in the familiar and tender manner of the Epistle.

Silvanus:

Silvanus appears to have been the bearer of the letter to the Christians of Asia Minor: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him, I have written unto you briefly" (1 Peter 5:12). It is an assumption to assert from these words that Silvanus was employed in the composition of the letter. The statement denotes rather the bearer than the writer or secretary. Silvanus was Paul's companion in the ministry to the Asiatic churches, and since we do not read of him as going with Paul to Jerusalem or to Rome, it is probable he returned from Corinth (Acts 18:5) to Asia Minor and labored there. He and Peter met, where no one knows, though not a few think in Rome; as likely a guess perhaps is in Palestine. At any rate, Silvanus gave Peter an account of the conditions in the provinces, the afflictions and persecutions of believers, and the deep need they had for sympathy and counsel. He would, accordingly, be of the greatest assistance to the apostle. This seems to account for the peculiarity of language which Peter uses: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, I have written unto you," as if he had some share in furnishing the contents of the Epistle.

III. Place and Time of Composition. 1. Babylon: Which?: According to 1 Peter 5:13 the Epistle was written in Babylon. But what place is meant? Two cities having this name were known in apostolic times. One was in Egypt, probably on or near the present site of Cairo, and we are told that it was a "city of no small importance." Epiphanius calls it "great Babylon" (Zahn). The absence, however, of all tradition that would tend to identify this place with the Babylon of the Epistle seems to shut it out of the problem. Babylon on the Euphrates is regarded by many as the place here designated. Jews in considerable numbers still dwelt in Babylon, notwithstanding the massacre of thousands in the reign of Claudius and the flight of multitudes into other countries. There is much to be said in favor of this city as the place meant, and yet the absence of tradition in its support is a very serious difficulty. A third view regards it as symbolical of Rome. Roman Catholics thus interpret it, and not a few Protestants so understand it. Tradition which runs back into the first half of the 2nd century appears to favor it, though much uncertainty and obscurity still surround the earliest ages of our era, in spite of the unwearied researches of modern scholars. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in the first half of the 2nd century, appears to have had no doubt that Peter was martyred in Rome, and that the Babylon of the Epistle designates the Imperial City. There are very serious objections to this interpretation. One is, that it is totally out of keeping with Peter's manner of writing. Preeminently he is direct and matter-of-fact in his style. The metaphorical language he employs is mostly drawn from the Old Testament, or, if from himself, it is so common of use as to be well understood by all readers. It is altogether improbable that this man, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject in the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet with no hint of what he means by it, or why he employs such a mode of speech.

2. Babylon Not Rome: Besides, there is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, i.e. circa 90-96 AD. But if 1 Peter is dependent on the Apocalypse for this name of Babylon as Rome, Peter could not have been its author, for he died years before that date. The Epistle was written about 64 AD, at the time when persecutions under the infamous Nero were raging, at which time also the apostle himself bore his witness and went to his heavenly home, even as his Master had forewarned him (John 21:18-19). While not unmindful of the great difficulties that beset the view, nevertheless we are reclined to the opinion that the Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13 is the ancient city on the Euphrates.

See PETER, ( SIMON).

IV. Design. The apostle had more than one object in view when he addressed the "elect" in Asia Minor. The Lord Jesus had charged him, "Feed my lambs" "Tend my sheep"--"Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). His two Epistles certify how faithfully he obeyed the charge. With loving and tender hand he feeds the lambs and tends the whole flock, warns against foes, guards from danger, and leads them into green pastures and beside still waters. He reminds them of the glorious inheritance they are to possess (1 Peter 1:3-9); he exhorts them to walk in the footsteps of the uncomplaining Christ (1 Peter 2:20-25); to be compassionate, loving, tender-hearted, humble-minded, and circumspect in their passage through this unfriendly world (1 Peter 3:8-12). He sums up the main duties of Christian life in the short but pregnant sentences, "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king" (1 Peter 2:17). But his supreme object is to comfort and encourage them amid the persecutions and the sufferings to which they were unjustly subjected, and to fortify them against the heavier trials that were impending.

1. Persecution: From the beginning the Christian church was the object of suspicion and of hatred, and many of its adherents had suffered even unto death at the hands of both hostile Jews and fanatical Gentiles. But these afflictions were generally local and sporadic. There were churches of large membership and wide influence which were unmolested (1 Corinthians 4:8-10), and which seem to have been able to get fair treatment in heathen courts (1 Corinthians 6:1-6). But the condition brought to view in 1 Peter is altogether different. Trials and afflictions of the severest sort assail them, and an enmity and hostility, bent on their destruction, pursue them with tireless energy. The whole Christian body shared in the persecutions (1 Corinthians 5:9). The trial was a surprise (1 Corinthians 4:12), both in its intensity, for Peter calls it "fiery," and for its unexpectedness. The apostle represents it as a savage beast of prey, a roaring lion, prowling about them to seize and devour (1 Corinthians 5:8-9).

A variety of charges were brought against the Christians, but they were calumnies and slanders, without any foundation in fact. They were spoken against as evil-doers (1 Peter 2:12--kakopoion; malefici, Tacitus calls them). Their adversaries railed against them (1 Peter 3:9); reviled them (1 Peter 3:16); spake evil of them (1 Peter 4:4); reproached them for the name of Christ (1 Peter 4:14). These are ugly epithets. They show how bitter was the hatred and how intense the hostility felt by the heathen toward the Christians who dwelt among them. If there had been any justification for such antagonism in the character and the conduct of Christ's people, if they were evil-doers, "haters of the human race," to be classed with thieves and murderers and meddlers in other men's matters (1 Peter 4:14-16), as they were accused of being and doing, we could understand the fierce opposition which assailed them and the savage purpose to suppress them altogether, but the only ground for the enmity felt against them was the refusal of the Christians to join their heathen neighbors in their idolatries, their feasts, winebibbings, revelings, carousings, lasciviousness and lusts in which once they freely shared (1 Peter 4:2-4). The Asian saints had renounced all such wicked practices, had separated themselves from their old companions in riotous living and revolting debaucheries; they were witnesses against their immoralities, and hence, became the objects of intense dislike and persecuting animosity. Peter bears testimony to the high character, the purity of life and the self-sacrificing devotion of these believers. In all Asia Minor no better company of men and women could be found than these disciples of Jesus Christ; none more submissive to constituted authority, none more ready to help their fellow-men in their distress and trouble. The head and front of their offending was their separation from the ungodly world about them, and their solemn witness against the awful sins done daily before their eyes.

2. Example of Christ: How mightily does the apostle minister to his suffering friends! He bids them remember the uncomplaining Christ when He was unjustly afflicted by cruel men (1 Peter 2:19-25). He tells them how they may effectively put to silence their accusers, and refute the calumnies and the slanders that are so cruelly circulated against them, namely, by living such pure and godly lives, by being so meek, docile, patient, stedfast, true and faithful to God, that none can credit the false accusations (1 Peter 2:1-5, 13-17; 1 Peter 3:8-9, 13-17; 1 Peter 5:6-11).

3. Relation to State: There is little or no evidence in the Epistle that the persecutions were inflicted by imperial authority or that the state was dealing with the Christians as enemies who were dangerous to the peace of society. In the provinces to which the letter was sent there seems to have been complete absence of formal trial and punishment through the courts. Peter does not speak of Iegal proceedings against the Christians by the magistrates. On the contrary, he urges them to be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well (1 Peter 2:13). They are to honor all men, to honor the king (1 Peter 2:17). This submission would scarcely be pressed if the state had already proscribed Christianity and decreed its total suppression. This the imperial government did later on, but there is no evidence furnished by the apostle that in 64 AD--the date of the Epistle--the government formally denounced Christians and determined to annihilate them.

Peter exhorts his fellow-believers to silence their persecutors by their upright conduct (1 Peter 2:15); they are thus to put them to shame who falsely accuse them (1 Peter 3:16); and they are not to combat evil with evil nor answer reviling with reviling, but contrariwise with blessing (1 Peter 3:9). The antagonism here indicated obviously springs from the heathen populace; there is no hint of arraignment before magistrates or subjection to legal proceedings. It is unbelievers who revile and slander and denounce the people of God in the provinces.

Everything in the Epistle points to the time of Nero, 64 AD, and not to the time of Domitian or Trajan, or even Titus. In Rome vast multitudes of Christians were put to death in the most brutal fashion, so Tacitus relates, but the historian asserts that there was a sinister report to the effect that Nero himself instigated the burning of the city (July 19, 64), and "he (Nero) falsely diverted the charge on to a set of people to whom the vulgar gave the name of Christians (or Chrestians), and who were detested for the abominations which they perpetrated." See NERO. Certain facts are clear from Tacitus' statements, namely, that at the time the Christians were well known as a distinct sect; and that they were subjected to the dreadful sufferings inflicted upon them because they were Christians; and the persecutions at the time were instigated by the fear and the brutality of the tyrant. Peter likewise recognizes the fact that believers were disliked and calumniated by their heathen neighbors for the same reason--they were Christians: "If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye" (1 Peter 4:14); "But if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name" (1 Peter 4:16). But the imperial government at the time does not appear to have taken formal action for the overthrow of Christianity as a system inimical to the empire. Of course, where direct charges of a criminal nature were made against Christians, judicial inquiry into them would be instituted. But in the Epistle what believers had to endure and suffer were the detraction, the vituperation, the opprobrium and the vile and malignant slanders with which the heathen assailed them.

V. Characteristic Features of the Epistle. It has certain very distinct marks, some of which may be noticed.

1. Freedom in Structure: It does not observe a close logical sequence in its structure, as those of Paul so prominently display. There is truth in Dean Alford's statement, although perhaps he pushes it rather far: "The link between one idea and another is found, not in any progress of unfolding thought or argument, but in the last word of the foregoing sentence which is taken up and followed out in the new one" (see 1 Peter 1:5-6, 7, 9-10, etc.). This peculiarity, however, does not interfere with the unity of the epistle, it rather adds to it, and it gives to it a vividness which it otherwise might not possess.

2. Hope: It is the epistle of hope. How much it makes of this prime grace! Peter seems never to grow weary of describing it and exalting its radiant beauty and desirableness. He calls it a living hope (1 Peter 1:3). It is born by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and it calmly awaits the glorious inheritance that soon will be enjoyed. It is a hope that will be perfected at the advent of Christ (1 Peter 1:13), and it is set on God, hence, cannot fail (1 Peter 1:21). With sickly, dying hope we are quite familiar. The device which a certain state (South Carolina) has inscribed on its Great Seal is, dum spiro spero ("while I live I hope"). Such a hope may serve for a commonwealth whose existence is limited to this world, but a man needs something more enduring, something imperishable. "It is a fearful thing when a man and his hopes die together" (Leighton). A Christian can confidently write, "when I am dying I hope," for his is a living hope that fills and thrills the future with a blessed reality.

3. Inheritance: The Christian's glorious inheritance (1 Peter 1:3-5) is depicted in one of the most comprehensive and suggestive descriptions of the believer's heritage found in the Bible. It is declared to be "incorruptible." The word points to its substance. It is imperishable. In it there is no element of decay. It holds in its heart no germ of death. Like its author, the living God, it is unchangeable and eternal. It is "undefiled." It is not stained by sin nor polluted by crime, either in its acquisition or its possession. Human heritages generally are marred by human wrongs. There is hardly an acre of soil that is not tainted by fraud or violence. The coin that passes from hand to hand is in many instances soiled by guilt. But this of Peter is absolutely pure and holy. It "fadeth not away." It never withers. Ages do not impair its beauty or dim its luster. Its bloom will remain fresh, its fragrance undiminished, forever. Thus our inheritance "is glorious in these respects: it is in its substance, incorruptible: in its purity, undefiled: in beauty, unfading" (Alford).

Now why does the apostle in the very opening of his Epistle give so lofty a place to the saints' inheritance? He does so in order to comfort and encourage his fellow-believers with the consolations of the Lord Himself, that they may bear stedfastly their manifold sufferings and triumph over their weighty afflictions. Hence, he writes: "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, ye have been put to grief in manifold trials, that the proof of your faith .... may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:6-9). He lifts their thoughts and their gaze up far above the troubles and distresses around them to Him whose they are, whom they serve, who will by and by crown them with immortal bliss.

4. Testimony of Prophets: The prophets and their study are described in 1 Peter 1:10-11: "Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you," etc. With Peter and his fellow-apostles the testimony of the prophets was authoritative and final. Where they had a clear word from the Old Testament Scriptures, they felt that every question was settled and controversy was at an end.

(1) Salvation. The burden of the prophetic communications was salvation. The prophets spoke on many subjects; they had to exhort, rebuke and entreat their wayward contemporaries; to denounce sin, to announce judgment on the guilty and to recall them to repentance and reformation. But ever and anon their vision was filled with the future and its blessedness, their voices would swell with rapture as they saw and foretold the great salvation to be brought to the world and the grace that would then so copiously go out unto men; for the Messiah was to appear and to suffer, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.

(2) Spirit of Christ. The prophet's messages were the messages of the Spirit of Christ. It was He who testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow. The prophets always disclaim any part in the origination of their messages. They affirm in the most positive and solemn manner that their predictions are not their own, but God's. Hence, they are called the Lord's "spokesmen," the Lord's "mouth" (Exodus 4:15-16; Exodus 7:1-2; 2 Peter 1:21).

(3) Prophetic Study. They "sought and searched diligently." These terms are strong and emphatic. They pored over the predictions which the Spirit had revealed through themselves; they scrutinized them with eager and prolonged inquiry. Two points engaged their attention: "What time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto." The first "what" relates to the time of the Messiah's advent; the second "what" to the events and circumstances which would attend His appearing--a fruitful theme, one that engages the inquiry of nobler students--"which things angels desire to look into."

5. The Christian Brotherhood: The Christian brotherhood is described in 1 Peter 2:9-10: "But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." The brotherhood is the new Israel. The apostle describes it in terms which were applied to the old Israel, but which include more than the ancient Israel ever realized. The exalted conception is by one who was a strict Jew, the apostle of the circumcision, and who held somewhat closely to the Mosaic institutions to the end of his life. All the more significant on this account is his testimony. The descriptive titles which he here gathers together and places on the brow of the Christian brotherhood are of the most illustrious sort. A distinguished man, a noble, a general, a statesman, will sometimes appear in public with his breast covered with resplendent decorations which mark his rank or his achievements. But such distinctions sink into insignificance alongside of this dazzling cluster. This is the heavenly nobility, the royal family of the Lord of glory, decorated with badges brighter far than ever glittered on the breast of king or emperor. But even in this instance Peter reminds Christians of the glorious destiny awaiting them that they may be strengthened and stimulated to stedfastness and loyalty in the midst of the trials and afflictions to which they are subjected (1 Peter 2:11-12)

6. Spirits in Prison: A study of 1 Peter 3:18-20--"preached unto the spirits in prison"--should here follow in the present cursory review of the characteristic features of the Epistle, but anything like an adequate examination of this difficult passage would require more space than could be given it. Suffice it to quote a sentence from Professor Zahn (New Testament, II, 289) with which the writer agrees: "That interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 is in all probability correct, according to which a preaching of Christ at the time of the Flood is referred to, i.e. a preaching through Noah, so that Noah is here represented as a preacher of righteousness, as in 2 Peter 2:5."

See PRISON, SPIRITS IN.

VI. Analysis. A very general analysis of the Epistle is the following:

(1) Christian privileges, 1 Peter 1:1-25 through 1 Peter 2:10.

(2) Christian duties, 1 Peter 2:11 through 1 Peter 4:11.

(3) Persecutions and trials, 1 Peter 4:12 through 1 Peter 5:11.

(4) Personal matters and salutations, 1 Peter 5:12-14.

The chief doctrines of Christianity are found in 1 Peter. The vicarious suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ (2:24; 3:18); the new birth (1:3,13); redemption by the blood of Christ (1:18,19), faith, hope, patient endurance under unjust suffering, and holiness of life, are all pressed upon Christians with great earnestness and force.

LITERATURE.

Bible Dicts., DB, HDB, Davis, DB, EB, Sch-Herz, volume VIII; Intros: Westcott, Salmon, Zahn; Vincent, Word Studies; Commentaries: Bible Commentary, Cambridge Bible for Schools; Lillie, Jameson, Fausett and Brown, Alford, Bigg, Mayor (on 2 Peter), Johnstone (homiletical), New York, 1888; Hort, 1 Peter 1:1 through 1 Peter 2:17, New York, 1898.

William G. Moorehead

Peter, the Second Epistle of

Peter, the Second Epistle of - I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF ITS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

1. Ancient Opinion

2. Modern Opinion

3. Dr. Chase's View

II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

1. Style and Diction

2. Reason of Dissimilarities

3. Claim to Petrine Authorship

4. Christian Earnestness

5. Relation to Apostles

6. Autobiographical Allusions

7. Quoted by Jude

III. DOCTRINAL TEACHINGS OF THE EPISTLE

1. Saving Knowledge

(1) Basis

(2) Growth

(3) Inerrancy of Sources

2. The Three Worlds

(1) The Old World

(2) The Present World

(3) The New World

The Second Epistle of Peter comes to us with less historical support of its genuineness than any other book of the New Testament. In consequence, its right to a place in the Canon is seriously doubted by some and denied by others. There are those who confidently assign it to the Apostolic age and to the apostle whose name it bears in the New Testament, while there are those who as confidently assign it to post-apostolic times, and repudiate its Petrine authorship. It is not the aim of this article to trace the history of the two opinions indicated above, nor to cite largely the arguments employed in the defense of the Epistle, or those in opposition to it; nor to attempt to settle a question which for more than a thousand years the wisest and best men of the Christian church have been unable to settle. Such a procedure would in this case be the height of presumption. What is here attempted is to point out as briefly as may be some of the reasons for doubting its canonicity, on the one hand, and those in its support, on the other.

I. External Evidence in Favor of Its Apostolic Authority.

1. Ancient Opinion: It must be admitted at the very outset that the evidence is meager. The first writer who mentions it by name is Origen (circa 240 AD). In his homily on Josh, he speaks of the two Epistles of Peter. In another place he quotes 2 Peter 1:4: "partakers of the divine nature," and gives it the name of Scripture. But Origen is careful to say that its authority was questioned: "Peter has left one acknowledged Epistle, and perhaps a second, for this is contested." Eusebins, bishop of Caesarea, regarded it with even more suspicion than did Origen, and accordingly he placed it among the disputed books (Antilegomena). Jerome knew the scruples which many entertained touching the Epistle, but notwithstanding, he included it in his Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Version. The main reason for Jerome's uncertainty about it he states to be "difference of style from 1 Peter." He accounts for the difference by supposing that the apostle "made use of two different interpreters." As great teachers and scholars as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine. At the Reformation Erasmus rejected 2 Peter; Luther seems to have had no doubt of its genuineness; while Calvin felt some hesitancy because of the "discrepancies between it and the First." In the 4th century, two church councils (Laodicea, circa 372, and Carthage, 397) formally recognized it and placed it in the Canon as equal in authority with the other books of the New Testament.

2. Modern Opinion: The opinion of modern scholars as to references in post-apostolic literature to 2 Peter is not only divided, but in many instances antagonistic. Salmon, Warfield, Zahn and others strongly hold that such references are to be found in the writings of the 2nd century, perhaps in one or two documents of the 1st. They insist with abundant proof in support of their contention that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache, and Clement of Rome, were all acquainted with the Epistle and made allusions to it in their writings. Weighing as honestly and as thoroughly as one can the citations made from that literature, one is strongly disposed to accept the evidence as legitimate and conclusive.

3. Dr. Chase's View: On the other side, Professor Chase (HDB) has subjected all such references and allusions in the primitive writings to a very keen and searching criticism, and it must be frankly confessed that he has reduced the strength of the evidence and argument very greatly. But Professor Chase himself, from the remains of the ancient literature, and from the internal evidence of the Epistle itself, arrives at the conclusion that 2 Peter is not at all an apostolic document, that it certainly was not written by Peter, nor in the 1st century of our era, but about the middle of the 2nd century, say 150 AD. If this view is accepted, we must pronounce the Epistle a forgery, pseudonymous and pseudepigraphic, with no more right to be in the New Testament than has the Apocalypse of Peter or the romance of the Shepherd of Hermas.

II. Internal Evidence in Support of Its Apostolic Authority.

1. Style and Diction: At first sight, this seems to be not altogether reassuring, but looking deeper into the letter itself we arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Difference of style between the two Epistles attributed to Peter is given as one prominent reason for questioning the validity of the Second. It is mainly if not entirely on this ground that Jerome, Calvin and others hesitated to receive it. It is noteworthy that in the earlier times objections were not urged because of its relation to Jude--its borrowing from Jude, as is often charged in our days. Its alleged dissimilarity to 1 Peter in diction, structure, and measurably in its contents, explains why it was discredited. Admitting that there is substantial ground for this criticism, nevertheless there are not a few instances in which words rarely found in the other Biblical books are common to the two Epistles. Some examples are given in proof: "precious" (1 Peter 1:7, 19; 2 Peter 1:1) (a compound), occurring often in Rev, not often in other books; "virtue" (1 Peter 2:9, the King James Version margin; 2 Peter 1:3), found elsewhere only in Philippians 4:8; "supply" (1 Peter 4:11; 2 Peter 1:5), rare in other books; "love of brethren" (1 Peter 1:22; 2 Peter 1:7 margin), only in three places besides; "behold" (1 Peter 2:12; 3:2 (verbal form); 2 Peter 1:16) (eyewitnesses), not found elsewhere in the New Testament; "without blemish," "without spot" (1 Peter 1:19; 2 Peter 3:14) (order of words reversed); also positive side (2 Peter 2:13), "spots and blemishes"; the words do not occur elsewhere; "ungodly" (1 Peter 4:18; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:7) occurs in but three other places, except Jude, which has it three times.

2. Reason of Dissimilarities: Besides, there are many striking similarities in thought and diction in the two Epistles. Two instances are given. In the First the saved are described as the "elect" (1 Peter 1:1), and as "called" (1 Peter 2:21). In the Second, the two great truths are brought together (2 Peter 1:10). Likewise, in both stress is laid upon prophecy (1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:19-21). Now, all this tends to prove that the writer of the Second Epistle was well acquainted with the peculiarity of diction employed in the First, and that he made use purposely of its uncommon terms, or, if the Second was written by another than the apostle, he succeeded surprisingly well in imitating his style. The latter alternative does not merit discussion. The differences arise mainly out of the subjects treated in the two, and the design which the writer seems to have kept constantly in view. In the First, he sought to comfort, strengthen and sustain his persecuted brethren; this is his supreme aim. In the Second he is anxious to warn and to shield those whom he addresses as to impending dangers more disastrous and more to be feared than the sufferings inflicted by a hostile world. In the First, judgment had begun at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17-18), and believers were to arm, not to resist their persecutors, but for martyrdom (1 Peter 4:1). But in the Second, a very different condition of things is brought to view. Ungodly men holding degrading principles and practicing shocking immoralities were threatening to invade the Christian brotherhood. Evil of a most vicious sort was detected by the watchful eye of the writer, and he knew full well that if suffered to continue and grow, as assuredly it would, utter ruin for the cause he loved would ensue. Therefore he forewarns and denounces the tendency with the spirit and energy of a prophet of God.

3. Claim to Petrine Authorship: 2 Peter opens with the positive statement of Peter's authorship: "Simon ["Symeon," Nestle, Weymouth] Peter, a servant .... of Jesus Christ." The insertion of "Symeon," the old Hebrew name, in the forefront of the document is significant. If a forger had been writing in Peter's name he would have begun his letter almost certainly by copying the First Epistle and simply written, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." Note also that "servant" is introduced into the Second Epistle, but absent from the First. He designates himself as a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. "Although several pseudonymous writings appear in early Christian literature, there is no Christian document of value written by a forger who uses the name of an apostle" (Dods, SBD). If this important statement is accepted at its full worth, it goes far to settle the question of authorship. Both "servant" and "apostle" appear in the opening sentence, and the writer claims both for himself.

4. Christian Earnestness: Furthermore, the writer is distinctively a Christian; he addresses those who "have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). His is the same precious faith which all the saints enjoy; his also the exceeding great and precious promises of God, and he expects with all other believers to be made a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-4). Is it at all probable that one with such a faith and such expectations would deliberately forge the name of Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ? The writer is unsparing in his denunciations of false teachers, corrupters of others, and perverters of the truth. He instances the fall of the angels, the destruction of Sodom, the rebuke of Balaam, as examples of the doom of those who know the truth and yet live in shameful sin and crime. Would a Christian and servant of Jesus Christ be at all likely to commit in the most flagrant manner the things he so vehemently condemns? If the writer was not the apostle Peter, he was a false teacher, a corrupter of others, and a hypocrite, which seems incredible to us.

5. Relation of Apostles: Moreover, he associates himself with the other apostles (2 Peter 3:2), is in full sympathy with Paul and is acquainted with Paul's Epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16), and he holds and teaches the same fundamental truth. An apostolic spirit breathes through this document such as is generally absent from spurious writings and such as a forger does not exhibit. He is anxiously concerned for the purity of the faith and for the holiness and fidelity of believers. He exhorts them to give "diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight," and that they "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:14, 18). All this and much more of like devout teaching is apostolic in tone and betokens genuineness and reality.

6. Autobiographical Allusions: Still further, the writer appeals to certain facts in the life of Peter that are almost autobiographical. For example, he speaks of "putting off of my tabernacle .... even as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me" (2 Peter 1:13-14). The reference undoubtedly is to John 13:36; John 21:18-19. He claims to have been a witness of the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18). He indirectly claims the inspiration without which true prophecy is impossible (2 Peter 1:19-21). He asserts that this is his "second epistle" (2 Peter 3:1). This testimony on the part of the writer is personal, emphatic and direct. It reads much like Peter's plain way of speaking of himself at the Council of Jerusalem, "Ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe" (Acts 15:7).

7. Quoted by Jude: Once more, Jude appears to quote from 2 Peter (see JUDE). The question of the priority of the two Epistles is by no means settled. Many recent writers give the precedence to Jude, others to Peter. One of the highest authority, by Zahn (New Testament, II, 238 ff), argues with great force in support of the view that Peter's is the older and that Jude cites from it. The arguments in favor of this latter belief are here only summarized: (1) Jude cites from writings other than Scripture, as the apocryphal Book of Enoch and perhaps also from the Assumption of Moses. Peter scarcely quotes from any source. The former would be more likely to cite 2 Peter 2:1-22 through 2 Peter 3:3 than the latter from Jude 1:4-16. The resemblance between these two sections of the Epistles is so close that one must have drawn both thoughts and language from the other, or both availed themselves of the same documentary source. Of this latter supposition antiquity furnishes no hint. The differences are as marked as the resemblances, and hence, the one who cites from the other is no servile copyist. The real difference between the two is that between prediction and fulfillment. (2) Peter predicts the advent of the "false teachers" (2 Peter 2:1). His principal verbs are in the future tense (2 Peter 2:1-2, 3, 12-13). He employs the present tense indeed in describing the character and the conduct of the libertines (2 Peter 2:17-18), but their presence and their disastrous teaching he puts in the future (2 Peter 2:13-14). The deadly germs were there when he wrote, the rank growth would speedily follow. Jude, on the contrary, throughout his short letter, speaks of the same corrupters as already come; his objects are present, they are in the midst of the people of God and actively doing their deadly work. (3) Jude twice refers to certain sources of information touching these enemies, with which his readers were acquainted and which were designed to warn them of the danger and keep them from betrayal. The two sources were (a) a writing that spoke of "ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," 1:4; (b) the prediction of Peter that "in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts" (2 Peter 3:3). Jude urges his readers to remember the words which the apostles of Christ had before spoken, and then he cites this prediction of Peter in almost the exact terms: "In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their ungodly lusts." He applies the prediction to the libertines then and there practicing their unholy deeds: "These are they, who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit." The conclusion is inevitable. Jude quotes from Peter. (4) Chronology gives the priority to Peter. The apostle died between 63-67 AD, probably in 64 AD. The vast majority of recent interpreters date the Epistle of Jude at 75-80 AD. There is no doubt but that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD. Accordingly, it is later than Peter's death by from 5 to 10 years. Jude quoted from 2 Peter. This being so, it follows that his Epistle endorses that of Peter as being apostolic and likewise canonical, for he recognizes Peter as an apostle and gifted with the prophetic spirit.

See JUDE;PETER ( SIMON).

III. Doctrinal Teachings of the Epistle. Only some of the more important features of the Epistle are here noticed. If all were treated as they deserve to be, this article would expand into the proportions of a commentary.

1. Saving Knowledge: The key-word of 1 Peter is Hope; of 2 Peter Knowledge. The apostle gives to this gift of grace a prominent place (1:2,3,5,6,8; 2:20,21; 3:18). The term he uses is largely in the intensified form, namely, "full knowledge"; that is, knowledge that rests on fact, knowledge that comes to the believer as something supernatural, as being communicated by the Spirit of God, and therefore is true and complete. The grace and peace Peter asks for the saints should issue in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, who has granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of Him (1:2,3).

(1) Basis: The basis of saving knowledge rests on the "exceeding great and precious promises" which He has made us, and which become ours by faith in Him. It leads us into acquaintance with the righteousness of God, into the realization of our calling as saints, and of the glorious destiny that awaits them who know and trust God (2 Peter 1:2-4 the King James Version).

(2) Growth: The growth in true knowledge (2 Peter 1:5-11): "In your faith supply virtue," etc. He does not ask that faith be supplied, that these believers already had. But starting with faith as the foundation of all, let the other excellencies and virtues be richly and abundantly furnished. The original word for "supply" is derived from the Greek "chorus," in behalf of the members of which the manager supplied all the equipments needed. And Peter appropriating that fact urges Christians to give all diligence to furnish themselves with the gifts and grace he mentions, which are far more needful to the Christian than were the equipments for the ancient chorus.

See SUPPLY.

What a magnificent cluster Peter here gives! Each springs out of the other; each is strengthened by the other. "In your faith supply virtue," or fortitude, manliness; and let virtue supply "knowledge." Knowledge by itself tends to puff up. But tempered by the others, by self-control, by patience, by godliness, by love, it becomes one of the most essential and powerful forces in the Christian character. Paul begins his list of the "fruits of the Spirit" with love (Galatians 5:22); Peter ends his with love. It is like a chain, each link holds fast to its fellow and is a part of the whole. It matters little at which end of the chain we begin to count, for the links form a unity, and to touch one is to touch all. God freely gives what we need and all we need; we are to "add all diligence" to supply the need richly.

(3) Inerrancy of Sources: Inerrancy of the sources of saving knowledge (2 Peter 1:16-21). The apostle rests his teaching on two trustworthy facts: (a) the fact and meaning of the Saviour's Transfiguration; (b) the fact of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Taken together these two facts invest his teaching with infallible certainty. "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." Pagan mythology, so widely prevailing at the time in Asia Minor, indeed over the whole heathen world, was composed of "myths" (Peter's word) skillfully framed and poetically embellished. Jewish cabalism, and the wild vagaries springing up in the Christian brotherhood itself had no place in the gospel message nor in apostolic teaching. What Peter and his fellow-disciples taught was the very truth of God, for at the Transfiguration they saw the outshining glory of the Son of God, they heard the Divine Voice, they beheld the two visitants from the unseen world, Moses and Elijah. Of the majestic scene they were eyewitnesses. Peter adds, "And we have the word of prophecy made more sure." The Transfiguration has confirmed what the prophets say touching the future and God's purpose to fill the earth with His glory; every word He has spoken is to be made good.

Moreover, the apostle appeals to the inspiration of the prophets in confirmation of his teaching: "No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." He recognizes this as primary truth, that prophecy is not of one's own origination, nor is it to be tied up to the times of the prophet. The prophecy was brought to him, as it is brought to us. Peter and his fellow-believers did not follow "cunningly devised fables"; they were borne along in their prophetic utterances by the Spirit.

2. The Three Worlds: Of course in 2 Peter 3:5-13, where the three worlds are spoken of, three globes are not meant, but three vast epochs, three enormous periods in earth's history. The apostle divides its history into three clearly defined sections, and mentions some of the characteristic features of each.

(1) The Old World. "The world that then was" (2 Peter 3:6): this is his first world. It is the antediluvian world that is meant, the world which the Flood overwhelmed. Scoffers in Peter's time asked, no doubt with a sneer, "Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (2 Peter 3:4). This is a surprisingly modern inquiry. Mockers then as now appealed to the continuity of natural processes, and to the inviolability of Nature's laws. Nature keeps her track with unwavering precision. There is no sign of any change; no catastrophe is likely, is possible. The promise of His coming fails. Peter reminds the skeptics that a mighty cataclysm did once overwhelm the world. The Flood drowned every living thing, save those sheltered within the ark. As this is a historical fact, the query of the mockers is foolish.

(2) The Present World. Peter's second world is "the heavens that now are, and the earth" (2 Peter 3:7). It is the present order of things in sky and earth that is meant. He asserts that this world is "stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." The margin reads, "stored with fire," i.e., it contains within itself the agency by which it may be consumed. The world that now is, is held in strict custody, reserved, not for a second deluge, but for fire. The advent of Christ and the judgment are associated in Scripture with fire: "Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him" (Psalms 50:3 the King James Version; compare Isaiah 66:15-16; Daniel 7:10-11). Nor is the New Testament silent on this point: "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire" (2 Thessalonians 1:7).

Ample materials are stored up in the earth for its consumption by fire. The oils and the gases so inflammable and destructive in their energy can, when it may please God to release these forces, speedily reduce the present order of things to ashes. Peter's language does not signify earth's annihilation, nor its dissolution as an organic body, nor the end of time. He speaks of cosmical convulsions and physical revolutions of both sky and earth, such as shall transform the planet into something glorious and beautiful.

(3) The New World. The third world is this: "But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13). This is Paradise restored. We have sure ground for the expectancy; the last two chapters of Rev contain the prophetic fulfillment: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more." The accomplishment of these sublime predictions will involve a fundamental change in the constitution of the globe. Life would be impossible if the sea was no more. But He who made the world can surely recreate it, clearing it of every vestige of sin and misery and imperfection, fitting it for the dwelling of perfect beings and of His supreme glory. Immanuel will dwell with the holy inhabitants of the new earth and in the new Jerusalem which is to descend into the glorified planet. John is bidden, "Write, for the predictions are faithful and true; they shall not fail to come to pass."

"Earth, thou grain of sand on the shore of the Universe of God,

On thee has the Lord a great work to complete."

LITERATURE.

See at end of PETER,THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ;PETER ( SIMON).

William G. Moorehead

Pethahiah

Pethahiah - peth-a-hi'-a (Pethachyah, "Yah opens up"):

(1) Chief of the 19th course of priests (1 Chronicles 24:16).

(2) One of the Levites having "foreign wives" (Ezra 10:23; Nehemiah 9:5; "Patheus" in 1 Esdras 9:23).

(3) Son of Meshezabeel, descendant of Judah, who was "at the king's hand in all matters concerning the people" (Nehemiah 11:24).

Pethor

Pethor - pe'-thor (pethor; Phathoura, Bathoura): The dwelling-place of Balaam, situated on "the river" (the Euphrates) (Numbers 22:5).13). This is Paradise restored. We have sure ground for the expectancy; the last two chapters of Rev contain the prophetic fulfillment: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more." The accomplishment of these sublime predictions will involve a fundamental change in the constitution of the globe. Life would be impossible if the sea was no more. But He who made the world can surely recreate it, clearing it of every vestige of sin and misery and imperfection, fitting it for the dwelling of perfect beings and of His supreme glory. Immanuel will dwell with the holy inhabitants of the new earth and in the new Jerusalem which is to descend into the glorified planet. John is bidden, "Write, for the predictions are faithful and true; they shall not fail to come to pass."

1. Possibly the Asyrian Pitru: In Deuteronomy 23:4, it is further described as being in Mesopotamia (Aram-naharaim). Pethor is identified with the Pedru(i) of the geographical lists of Thothmes III (circa 1500 BC) and the Pitru (Pithru) of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser II, who states that in his 3rd year (857 BC) he took the city Ana-Assur-utir-acbat (meaning: "I founded (it) anew for Assur"), which the Hattaa (Hittites) called Pitru. He says that it lay on the farther (western) bank of the Euphrates, by the Sagurru or Sagura River, the modern Sajur. The importance of Pitru is indicated by the fact that he received there the tribute of the kings of Carchemish, Comagene, Melitene and other districts.

2. Difficulties of Identification: As Pitru is about 400 miles from Moab, this meant for Balaam a three or four weeks' journey, but the messengers sent to fetch him, though they had to travel that distance twice, could naturally, by pressing their mounts, have performed it much less time. Doubt may likewise be entertained as to the identity of Pethor with Pitru by the absence in the latter of the o, which would lead one to expect rather the Assyrian form Pit(h)uru. Shalmaneser, however, says that Pitru was the Hittite name, and that may account for it. With regard to the derivation, nothing can at present be said, except that, as a Hittite name, Tomkins (Records of the Past, V (London, 1891), 38) has compared the name Pitru with the Pteria of Herodotus i.76 (identified with Bog-haz-keui, the great Hittite capital in Cappadocia, in ancient times called Hattu).

T. G. Pinches

Pethuel

Pethuel - pe-thu'-el (pethu'el, "God's opening"): Father of Joel the prophet (Joel 1:1).

Petition

Petition - pe-tish'-un: Used in English Versions of the Bible only as a noun, usually as representing the Hebrew she'elah (Psalms 20:5, mish'alah), from the common verb [~sha'al, "to ask." The noun, consequently, has no technical meaning, and may be used indifferently in the active (Esther 7:2) or passive (1 Samuel 1:27) sense, or for a petition addressed to either God (1 Samuel 1:17) or man (1 Kings 2:16), while in Judges 8:24; Job 6:8; Psalms 106:15, it is rendered simply "request." Otherwise "petition" represents the Aramaic ba`u (Daniel 6:7, 13), the Greek aitema (1 John 5:15), and deesis (1 Maccabees 7:37, the Revised Version (British and American) "supplication"), and the Latin oratio (2 Esdras 8:24).ru with the Pteria of Herodotus i.76 (identified with Bog-haz-keui, the great Hittite capital in Cappadocia, in ancient times called Hattu).

Burton Scott Easton

Petra

Petra - pe'-tra.

See SELA.

Peulthai; Peullethai

Peulthai; Peullethai - pe-ul'-thi, pe-ul'-e-thi (pe`ullethay, "Yah's seed"): One of the "porters," 8th son of Obed-edom (1 Chronicles 26:5).

Phaath Moab

Phaath Moab - fa'-ath, mo'-ab (Codex Alexandrinus Phaath Moab; Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete, Phthaleimoab (1 Esdras 5:11); 1 Esdras 8:31 (the King James Version "Pahath Moab"), Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete reads Maathmoab; Fritzsche in both places reads Phaath Moab): One of the families, part of which, consisting "of the sons of Jesus and Joab 2,812," went up out of captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua (1 Esdras 5:11), and part of which, namely, "Eliaonias the son of Zaraias and with him 200 men," went up with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:31 = "Pahath-moab" of Ezra 2:6; 8:4; (Ezra 10:30); and Nehemiah 7:11 (Nehemiah 3:11; 10:14)). As the name of a Jewish clan or family the name Phaath or Pahath Moab presents difficulties of which explanations are offered, though none is convincing. It is generally taken as "ruler of Moab," which may refer to the Israelite conquest of Moab in which this family may have distinguished itself, or it may have arisen from the settlement and incorporation of a Moabite family in Hebrew territory, or from the settlement of an Israelite family in Moabite territory (compare 1 Chronicles 4:22); or it may be the corruption of some unknown word or name. Instances of such corruption are quite common in these apocryphal Hebrew proper names.

See PAHATH-MOAB.

S. Angus

Phacareth

Phacareth - fak'-a-reth (Phakareth, but Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete, correctly reads Sabeie, together, Codex Alexandrinus followed by the King James Version reading "sons of Sabie," as a distinct family, 1 Esdras 5:34): The same as "Pochereth-hazzebaim" of Ezra 2:57.

Phaisur

Phaisur - fa'-sur, fa-i'-sur (Codex Vaticanus Phaisour; Codex Alexandrinus Phaisou): Head of one of the families of priests some of whom had taken "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:22) = "Pashhur" of Ezra 10:22; styled "Phassurus" in 1 Esdras 5:25.

Phaldeus

Phaldeus - fal-de'-us (Codex Alexandrinus (Fritzsche) Phaldaios; Codex Vaticanus (Swete) Phaladaios; the King James Version Phaldaius): One of those who stood on Ezra's left hand when he expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:44) = "Pedaiah" of Nehemiah 8:4.

Phaleas

Phaleas - fa-le'-as (Phalaias): A family of "temple-servants" who went up with Zerubbabel from Babylon (1 Esdras 5:29) = "Padon" of Ezra 2:44.CS>; the King James Version Phaldaius): One of those who stood on Ezra's left hand when he expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:44) = "Pedaiah" of Nehemiah 8:4.

Phalec

Phalec - fa'-lek (Phalek, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Phalek): the King James Version; Greek form of "Peleg" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)) (Luke 3:35).

Phalias

Phalias - fa-li'-as (Phalias Codex Alexandrinus Phiathas; the King James Version, Biatas, following Aldine Biatas): One of the Levites who read and explained the Law to the multitude (1 Esdras 9:48) = "Pelaiah" of Nehemiah 8:7.Ezra's left hand when he expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:44) = "Pedaiah" of Nehemiah 8:4.

Phallu

Phallu - fal'-oo (pallu').

See PALLU.

Phalti

Phalti - fal'-ti (palTi).>.

See PALTI.

Phaltiel

Phaltiel - fal'-ti-el (palTi'el; Syriac "Psaltiel"; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and the King James Version Salathiel): "The captain of the people" who came to Esdras between his first and second vision (2 Esdras 5:16). Fritzsche (Libri Apocrypha vet. test.) reads "Phalthiel."

See PALTIEL.

Phanuel

Phanuel - fan-u'-el, fan'-u-el (penu'el, "vision of God"; Phanouel): Parent of Anna (Luke 2:36).

See PENIEL.

Pharakim

Pharakim - far'-a-kim (Pharakeim Codex Vaticanus Pharakem; the King James Version Pharacim): One of the families of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:31; not found in Ezra or Nehemiah).

Pharaoh

Pharaoh - fa'-ro, fa'-ra-o (par`oh; Pharao); Egyptian per aa, "great house"):em; the King James Version Pharacim): One of the families of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:31; not found in Ezra or Nehemiah).

1. The Use of Name in Egypt: Many and strange differences of opinion have been expressed concerning the use of this name in Egypt and elsewhere, because of its importance in critical discussions (see below). Encyclopaedia Biblica says "a name given to all Egyptian kings in the Bible"; it also claims that the name could not have been received by the Hebrews before 1000 BC. HDB (III, 819) says that a letter was addressed to Amenhotep as "Pharaoh, lord of," etc. According to Winckler's theory of a North Arabian Musri, it was the Hebrews alone in ancient times who adopted the term Pharaoh from the Egyptians, the name not being found even in the Tell el-Amarna Letters or anywhere else in cuneiform literature for the king of Egypt. Such a result is obtained according to Winckler's theory by referring every reference in cuneiform to "Pir`u, king of Musri" to the North Arabian country.

In Egyptian inscriptions the term "Pharaoh" occurs from the Pyramid inscriptions onward. At first it is used with distinct reference to its etymology and not clearly as an independent title. Pharaoh, "great house," like Sublime Porte, was applied first as a metaphor to mean the government. But as in such an absolute monarchy as Egypt the king was the government, Pharaoh was, by a figure of speech, put for the king. Its use in Egypt clearly as a title denoting the ruler, whoever he might be, as Caesar among the Romans, Shah among Persians, and Czar among Russians, belongs to a few dynasties probably beginning with the XVIIIth, and certainly ending not later than the XXIst, when we read of Pharaoh Sheshonk, but the Bible does not speak so, but calls him "Shishak king of Egypt" (1 Kings 14:25). This new custom in the use of the title Pharaoh does not appear in the Bible until we have "Pharaoh-necoh." Pharaoh is certainly used in the time of Rameses II, in the "Tale of Two Brothers" (Records of the Past, 1st series, II, 137; Recueil de Travaux, XXI, 13, l. 1).

2. Significance of Use in the Bible: It appears from the preceding that Biblical writers use this word with historical accuracy for the various periods to which it refers, not only for the time of Necoh and Hophra, but for the time of Rameses II, and use the style of the time of Rameses II for the time of Abraham and Joseph, concerning which we have not certain knowledge of its use in Egypt. It is strongly urged that writers of the 7th or 5th century BC would not have been able to make such historical use of this name, while, to a writer at the time of the exodus, it would have been perfectly natural to use Pharaoh for the king without any further name; and historical writers in the time of the prophets in Palestine would likewise have used Pharaoh-necoh and Pharaoh Hophra. This evidence is not absolutely conclusive for an early authorship of the Pentateuch and historical books, but is very difficult to set aside for a late authorship (compare Genesis 12:14-20; 41:14; Exodus 1:11; 3:11; 1 Kings 3:1; 14:25; 2 Kings 23:29; Jeremiah 44:30; also 1 Kings 11:19; 2 Kings 18:21; 1 Chronicles 4:18).

M. G. Kyle

Pharaoh Hophra

Pharaoh Hophra - hof'-ra (par`oh chophra`; Houaphre):

1. Sole King, 589-570 BC: He is so called in Scripture (Jeremiah 44:30); Herodotus calls him Apries (ii.169). He is known on the monuments as Uah `ab `ra]. He was the son of Psammetichus II, whose Greek mercenaries have left in scriptions upon the rocks of Abu-Sim-bel, and the grandson of Pharaoh-necoh. He reigned alone from 589 BC to 570 BC, and jointly, by compulsion of his people, with his son-in-law Aahmes (Greek Amasis) for some years longer.

2. Alliance with Zedekiah: No sooner had he mounted the throne than he yielded to the overtures of Zedekiah of Judah, who thought Hophra's accession a good opportunity for throwing off the yoke of Babylon. So, as Ezekiel says (17:15), "he rebelled against him (Nebuchadrezzar) in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people." Zedekiah had entered into the intrigue against the advice of Jeremiah, and it proved fatal to Zedekiah and the kingdom. Nebuchadrezzar was not slow to punish the disloyalty of his vassal, and in a brief space his armies were beleaguering Jerusalem. The Egyptians did indeed march to the relief of their allies, and the Chaldeans drew off their forces from Jerusalem to meet them. But the Egyptians returned without attempting to meet the Chaldeans in a pitched battle, and Jerusalem was taken, the walls broken down and the temple burnt up with fire.

3. Reception of Jeremiah and Jewish Captives: When Jerusalem had fallen and Nebuchadrezzar's governor, Gedaliah, had been assassinated, the dispirited remnant of Judah, against the advice of Jeremiah, fled into Egypt, carrying the prophet with them. They settled at Tahpanhes, then Daphnae (modern Tell Defenneh), now identified with a mound bearing the significant name of Qatsr Bint el Yahudi, "the palace of the Jew's daughter." Here Pharaoh had a palace, for Jeremiah took great stones and hid them in mortar in the brickwork "which is at the entry of Pharaoh's house at Tahpanhes," and prophesied that Nebuchadrezzar would spread his royal pavilion over them (Jeremiah 43:8-13). The Pharaoh of that day was Hophra, and when the fortress of Tahpanhes was discovered and cleared in 1886, the open-air platform before the entrance was found. "Here the ceremony described by Jeremiah took place before the chiefs of the fugitives assembled on the platform, and here Nebuchadrezzar spread his royal pavilion. The very nature of the site is precisely applicable to all the events" (Flinders Petrie, Nebesheh and Defenneh, 51). It was in 568 BC that the prophecy was fulfilled when Nebuchadrezzar marched into the Delta.

4. Palace of Memphis: More recently, in 1909, in the course of excavations carried on by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt, the palace of King Apries, Pharaoh Hophra, has been discovered on the site of Memphis, the ancient capital of Egypt. Under the gray mud hill, close to the squalid Arab village of Mitrahenny, which every tourist passes on the way to Sakkhara, had lain for centuries Hophra's magnificent palace, 400 ft. long by 200 ft., with a splendid pylon, an immense court, and stonelined halls, of which seven have been found intact. With many other objects of value there was found a fitting of a palanquin of solid silver, decorated with a bust of Hathor with a gold face. It is said to be of the finest workmanship of the time of Apries, a relic of the fire, which, Jeremiah predicted at Tahpanhes, the Lord of Hosts was to kindle "in the houses of the gods of Egypt" (Jeremiah 43:12).

Pharaoh Hophra, as Jeremiah prophesied (44:29 f), became the victim of a revolt and was finally strangled.

LITERATURE.

Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 344 f; Wiedemann, Geschichte von Alt-Aegypten, 190 ff; Flinders Petrie and J. H. Walker, Memphis, I, II ("The Palace of Apries"); Herodotus ii.161-69.

T. Nicol.

Pharaoh-necoh

Pharaoh-necoh - ne'-ko (par`oh nekhoh, also nekho; Nechao (2 Kings 23:29, 33-34; 2 Chronicles 35:22; 36:4, the King James Version, Necho, the Revised Version (British and American) NECO; Jeremiah 46:2; 2 Chronicles 35:20, the King James Version Necho, the Revised Version (British and American) NECO)):

1. Pharaoh-Necoh, 610-594 BC: Nekau II of the monuments--Greek Nekos--was the 2nd king of the XXVIth Dynasty, being the son of Psammetichus I, famous in Greek contemporary history, whose long reign has left so many memorials both in Upper and Lower Egypt (Herodotus ii.153, 158, 169). The great event of his reign (610-594 BC) was his expedition across Syria to secure for himself a share in the decaying empire of Assyria. In the days of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, Egypt had been tributary to Assyria, and, when it began to break up, Egypt and other subject kingdoms saw their opportunity to throw off its yoke. Psammetichus had turned back the Scythian hordes which had reached his border on their western march, and now his son Necoh was to make a bold stroke for empire.

2. Battle of Megiddo, 608 BC: On his expedition toward the East, he had to pass through the territory of Judah, and he desired to have Josiah its king as an ally. Whatever may have been his reasons, Josiah remained loyal to his Assyrian suzerain, declined the Egyptian alliance, and threw himself across the path of the invader. The opposing armies met on the battlefield of Megiddo, 608 BC, where Josiah was mortally wounded and soon after died amid the lamentations of his people. Necoh marched northward, captured Kadesh, and pressed on to the Euphrates. Not having met an enemy there, he seems to have turned back and established himself for a time at Riblah in Syria. To Riblah he summoned Jehoahaz whom the people had anointed king in room of his father Josiah, deposed him after a brief reign of 3 months, and set his brother Jehoiakim on the throne as the vassal of Egypt. Jehoiakim paid up the tribute of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold which Necoh had imposed upon the land, but he recovered it by exactions which he made from the people (2 Kings 23:35).

3. Battle of Carchemish, 604 BC: The Egyptian monarch still kept some hold upon Syria, and his presence there had attracted the attention of the newly established power at Babylon. The Chaldeans under Nebuchadrezzar set out for the Euphrates, and, meeting the army of Pharaoh-necoh at Carchemish, inflicted upon him a signal defeat. The Chaldeans were now undisputed masters of Western Asia, and the sacred historian relates that "the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land; for the king of Babylon had taken, from the brook of Egypt unto the river Euphrates, all that pertained to the king of Egypt" (2 Kings 24:7).

4. Commercial Development of Egypt: While Pharaoh-necoh II was ambitious to extend his empire, he was bent also upon the commercial development of Egypt. For this he set himself to collect a navy. He had two fleets built, composed of triremes, one of them to navigate the Mediterranean, the other to navigate the Red Sea. In order to secure a combination of his fleets, he conceived the idea of reopening the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea which had been originally constructed by Seti I and Rameses II, two Pharaohs of the days of the Israelite oppression, but had become silted up by desert sands. He excavated this old canal, following the line of the former cutting, and widening it so that two triremes might meet and pass each other in it. According to Herodotus he was obliged to desist from the undertaking in consequence of the mortality among the laborers, and it was left to Darius to complete. He also resolved to try whether it was possible to circumnavigate Africa, and, manning his ships with Phoenician sailors, he sent them forth with instructions to keep the coast of Africa on their right and to return to Egypt by way of the Mediterranean. They succeeded, and, rounding the Cape of Good Hope from the East, anticipated by two millenniums the feat which Vasco da Gama accomplished from the West. The enterprise took more than two years, and the result of it was of no practical value. Herodotus, when he visited Egypt in 450 BC, saw still remaining the docks which Necoh had built for the accommodation of his fleet.

LITERATURE.

Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 335 ff; Wiedemann, Geschichte von Alt-Aegypten, 179-90; Rawlinson, Egypt ("Story of the Nations"), 354 ff; Herodotus ii.158, 159.

T. Nicol.

Pharaoh's Daughter

Pharaoh's Daughter - (bath-par`oh): The princess who rescued Moses (Exodus 2:5-10; Hebrews 11:24). This is probably a title as well as an appellation, indicating not only one of the daughters of a Pharaoh, but also some very distinguished rank, thought to be most probably that of the heir to the throne by birth; though she was debarred from reigning by reason of sex, she still possessed the right to entail the scepter and crown to her oldest son. Positive identification of the "Pharaoh's daughter" mentioned in the Bible is not possible yet. All attempts toward identification are, of course, guided by the particular theory of the oppressor accepted. If the Pharaoh of the Oppression was Rameses II, as is most likely, then Pharaoh's daughter was probably the daughter of Seti I, an older sister of Rameses II. If, as many think, the Pharaoh of the Oppression was Thothmes III, then Pharaoh's daughter was some unknown princess. Some have thought she was Hatshepsut, the "Queen Elizabeth of Egypt."

M. G. Kyle

Pharathon

Pharathon - far'-a-thon (Pharathon): One of the strong cities of Judea fortified by Bacchides during the Maccabean war (1 Maccabees 9:50). Septuagint reads "Thamnatha-pharathon" as the name of one city. Josephus, however (Ant., XIII, i, 3), and Syriac supply the "and" between them. The name represents a Hebrew pir`athon. If it is to be taken strictly as in Judean territory, it cannot be identified with PIRATHON (which see) of Judges 12:15. In that case we should probably seek for it with Dr. G.A. Smith in some fortress covering the top of Wady Far`ah.

W. Ewing

Phares

Phares - fa'-rez (Phares): the King James Version; Greek form of "Perez" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)) (Matthew 1:3; Luke 3:33).

Pharez

Pharez - fa'-rez (King James Version 1 Esdras 5:9; 8:30): The same as Revised Version PHOROS (which see).

Pharida

Pharida - fa-ri'-da (Phareida, A, Pharida; King James Version Pharira): The clan name of one of the families of "the servants of Solomon" who came up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:33) = "Peruda" of Ezra 2:55 = "Perida" of Nehemiah 7:57.

Pharira

Pharira - fa-ri'-ra: King James Version = Revised Version PHARIDA (which see).

Pharisees

Pharisees - far'-i-sez (perushim; Pharisaioi):

1. Name and General Character

2. Authorities--Josephus--New Testament--Talmud

I. HISTORY OF THE SECT

1. Associated at First with Hasmoneans, but Later Abandon Them

2. Change of Name

3. Later Fortunes of the Sect

4. In New Testament Times

5. In Post-apostolic Times

II. DOCTRINES OF THE PHARISEES

1. Josephus's Statements Colored by Greek Ideas

2. Conditional Reincarnation

3. New Testament Presentation of Pharisaic Doctrines--Angels and Spirits--Resurrection

4. Traditions Added to the Law

5. Traditional Interpretations of the Law by Pharisees (Sabbath, etc.)

6. Close Students of the Text of Scripture

(1) Messianic Hopes

(2) Almsgiving

III. ORGANIZATION OF THE PHARISAIC PARTY

The Chabherim--Pharisaic Brotherhoods

IV. CHARACTER OF THE PHARISEES

1. Pharisees and People of the Land

2. Arrogance toward Other Jews

3. Regulations for the Chabher

4. The New Testament Account

(1) Their Scrupulosity

(2) Their Hypocrisy

5. Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees

V. OUR LORD'S RELATION TO THE PHARISEES

1. Pharisaic Attempts to Gain Christ Over

2. Reasons for Pharisaic Hatred of Christ

3. our Lord's Denunciation of the Pharisees

LITERATURE

1. Name and General Character: A prominent sect of the Jews. The earliest notice of them in Josephus occurs in connection with Jonathan, the high priest. Immediately after the account of the embassy to the Lacedaemonians, there is subjoined (Josephus, Ant, XIII, v, 9) an account of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, therefore implying that then and in this connection they had been prominent, although no notice of any of these parties is to be found that confirms that view. Later (XIII, x, 5), the Pharisees are represented as envious of the success of John Hyrcanus; Eleazar, one of them, insults him at his own table. From the fact that earlier in the history the Assideans occupy a similar place to that occupied later by the Pharisees, it may be deduced that the two parties are in a measure one. See HASIDAEANS; ASMONEANS. It would seem that not only the Pharisees, but also the Essenes, were derived from the Assideans or chacidhim.

2. Authorities--Josephus--New Testament--Talmud: In considering the characteristics and doctrines of the Pharisees we are in some difficulty from the nature of our authorities. The writers of the New Testament assume generally that the character and tenets of the Pharisees are well known to their readers, and only lay stress on the points in which they were in antagonism to our Lord and His followers. The evidence of Josephus, a contemporary and himself a Pharisee, is lessened in value by the fact that he modified his accounts of his people to suit the taste of his Roman masters. The Pharisees, with him, are a philosophic sect, and not an active political party. Their Messianic hopes are not so much as mentioned. Although the Talmud was written, both Mishna and Gemara, by the descendants of the Pharisees, the fact that the Gemara, from which most of our information is derived, is so late renders the evidence deduced from Talmudic statements of little value. Even the Mishna, which came into being only a century after the fall of the Jewish state, shows traces of exaggeration and modification of facts. Still, taking these deficiencies into consideration, we may make a fairly consistent picture of the sect. The name means "separatists," from parash, "to separate"--those who carefully kept themselves from any legal contamination, distinguishing themselves by their care in such matters from the common people, the `am ha'arets, who had fewer scruples. Like the Puritans in England during the 17th century, and the Presbyterians in Scotland during the same period, the Pharisees, although primarily a religious party, became ere long energetically political. They were a closely organized society, all the members of which called each other chabherim, "neighbors"; this added to the power they had through their influence with the people.

I. History of the Sect. The Assideans (chacidhim) were at first the most active supporters of Judas Maccabeus in his struggle for religious freedom. A portion of them rather than fight retired to the desert to escape the tyranny of Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 2:27 f). The followers of these in later days became the Essenes. When Judas Maccabeus cleansed the temple and rededicated it with many sacrifices, it is not expressly said, either in the Books of Maccabees or by Josephus, that he acted as high priest, but the probability is that he did so. This would be a shock to the Assidean purists, as Judas, though a priest, was not a Zadokite; but his actions would be tolerated at that time on account of the imminent necessity for the work of reconsecration and the eminent services of Judas himself and his family.

1. Associated at First with Hasmoneans, but Later Abandon Them:

When Bacchides appeared against Jerusalem with Alcimus in his camp, this feeling against Judas took shape in receiving the treacherous Alcimus into Jerusalem and acknowledging him as high priest, a line of action which soon showed that it was fraught with disaster, as Alcimus murdered many of the people. They had to betake themselves anew to Judas, but this desertion was the beginning of a separating gulf which deepened when he made a treaty with the idolatrous Romans. As is not infrequently the case with religious zealots, their valor was associated with a mystic fanaticism. The very idea of alliance with heathen powers was hateful to them, so when Judas began to treat with Rome they deserted him, and he sustained the crushing defeat of Eleasa. Believing themselves the saints of God and therefore His peculiar treasure, they regarded any association with the heathen as faithlessness to Yahweh. Their attitude was much that of the Fifth Monarchy men in the time of Cromwell, still more that of the Cameronians in Scotland at the Revolution of 1688 who, because William of Orange was not a "covenanted" king, would have none of him. As the later Hasmoneans became more involved in worldly politics, they became more and more alienated from the strict Assideans, yet the successors of Judas Maccabeus retained their connection with the party in a lukewarm fashion, while the Sadducean sect was gaining in influence.

About this time the change of name seems to have been effected. They began to be called Pharisees, perushim, instead of chacidhim--"separatists" instead of saints. A parallel instance is to be found in the religious history of England.

2. Change of Name: The Puritans of the 17th century became in the 19th "Non-conformists." The earliest instance of the Pharisees' intervening in history is that referred to in Josephus (Ant., XIII, x, 5), where Eleazar, a Pharisee, demanded that John Hyrcanus should lay down the high-priesthood because his mother had been a captive, thus insinuating that he--Hyrcanus--was no true son of Aaron, but the bastard of some nameless heathen to whom his mother had surrendered herself. This unforgivable insult to himself and to the memory of his mother led Hyrcanus to break with the Pharisaic party definitely. He seems to have left them severely alone.

3. Later Fortunes of the Sect: The sons of Hyrcanus, especially Alexander Janneus, expressed their hostility in a more active way. Alexander crucified as many as 800 of the Pharisaic party, a proceeding that seems to intimate overt acts of hostility on their part which prompted this action. His whole policy was the aggrandizement of the Jewish state, but his ambition was greater than his military abilities. His repeated failures and defeats confirmed the Pharisees in their opposition to him on religious grounds. He scandalized them by calling himself king, although not of the Davidic line, and further still by adopting the heathen name "Alexander," and having it stamped in Greek characters on his coins. Although a high priest was forbidden to marry a widow, he married the widow of his brother. Still further, he incurred their opposition by abandoning the Pharisaic tradition as to the way in which the libation water was poured out. They retaliated by rousing his people against him and conspiring with the Syrian king. On his deathbed he advised his wife, Alexandra Salome, who succeeded him on the throne, to make peace with the Pharisees. This she did by throwing herself entirely into their hands. On her death a struggle for the possession of the throne and the high-priesthood began between her two sons, John Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. The latter, the more able and energetic, had the support of the Sadducees; the former, the elder of the two brothers, had that of the Pharisees. In the first phase of the conflict, Hyrcanus was defeated and compelled to make a disadvantageous peace with his brother, but, urged by Antipater, the Idumean, he called in Aretas, who inclined the balance at once to the side of Hyrcanus. The Romans were appealed to and they also, moved partly by the astuteness of Antipater, favored Hyrcanus. All this resulted ultimately in the supremacy of the Herodians, who through their subservience to Rome became inimical to the Pharisees and rivals of the Sadducees.

4. In New Testament Times: When the New Testament records open, the Pharisees, who have supreme influence among the people, are also strong, though not predominant, in the Sanhedrin. The Herodians and Sadducees, the one by their alliance with the Rom authorities, and the other by their inherited skill in political intrigue, held the reins of government. If we might believe the Talmudic representation, the Pharisees were in the immense majority in the Sanhedrin; the nasi', or president, and the 'abh-beth-din, or vice-president, both were Pharisees. This, however, is to be put to the credit of Talmudic imagination, the relation of which to facts is of the most distant kind.

Recently Buchler (Das grosse Synedrion in Jerusalem) has attempted to harmonize these Talmudic fables with the aspect of things appearing in the New Testament and Josephus. He assumes that there were two Sanhedrins, one civil, having to do with matters of government, in which the Sadducees were overwhelmingly predominant, and the other scholastic, in which the Pharisees were equally predominant--the one the Senate of the nation, like the Senate of the United States, the other the Senate of a university, let us say, of Jerusalem. Although followed by Rabbi Lauterbach in the Jewish Encyclopedia, this attempt cannot be regarded as successful. There is no evidence for this dual Sanhedrin either in the New Testament or Josephus, on the one hand, or in the Talmud on the other.

Outside the Sanhedrin the Pharisees are ubiquitous, in Jerusalem, in Galilee, in Peraea and in the Decapolis, always coming in contact with Jesus. The attempts made by certain recent Jewish writers to exonerate them from the guilt of the condemnation of our Lord has no foundation; it is contradicted by the New Testament records, and the attitude of the Talmud to Jesus.

The Pharisees appear in the Book of Acts to be in a latent way favorers of the apostles as against the high-priestly party. The personal influence of Gamaliel, which seems commanding, was exercised in their favor. The anti-Christian zeal of Saul the Tarsian, though a Pharisee, may have been to some extent the result of the personal feelings which led him to perpetuate the relations of the earlier period when the two sects were united in common antagonism to the teaching of Christ. He, a Pharisee, offered himself to be employed by the Sadducean high priest (Acts 9:1-2) to carry on the work of persecution in Damascus. In this action Saul appears to have been in opposition to a large section of the Pharisaic party. The bitter disputes which he and the other younger Pharisees had carried on with Stephen had possibly influenced him.

5. In Post-apostolic Times: When Paul, the Christian apostle, was brought before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, the Pharisaic party were numerous in the Council, if they did not even form the majority, and they readily became his defenders against the Sadducees.

From Josephus we learn that with the outbreak of the war with the Romans the Pharisees were thrust into the background by the more fanatical Zealots, Simon ben Gioras and John of Gischala (BJ, V, i). The truth behind the Talmudic statements that Gamaliel removed the Sanhedrin to Jabneh and that Johanan ben Zakkai successfully entreated Vespasian to spare the scholars of that city is that the Pharisees in considerable numbers made peace with the Romans. In the Mishna we have the evidence of their later labors when the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh, ultimately to Tiberias in Galilee. There under the guidance of Jehuda ha-Qadhosh ("the Holy") the Mishna was reduced to writing. It may thus be said that Judaism became Pharisaism, and the history of the Jews became that of the Pharisees. In this later period the opposition to Christianity sprang up anew and became embittered, as may be seen in the Talmudic fables concerning Jesus.

II. Doctrines of the Pharisees. 1. Josephus' Statements Colored by Greek Ideas: The account given of the doctrines of the Pharisees by Josephus is clearly influenced by his desire to parallel the Jewish sects with the Greek philosophical schools. He directs especial attention to the Pharisaic opinion as to fate and free will, since on this point the Stoic and Epicurean sects differed very emphatically. He regards the Pharisaic position as mid-way between that of the Sadducees, who denied fate altogether and made human freedom absolute, and that of the Essenes that "all things are left in the hand of God." He says "The Pharisees ascribe all things to fate and God, yet allow that to do what is right or the contrary is principally in man's own power, although fate cooperates in every action." It is to be noted that Josephus, in giving this statement of views, identifies "fate" with "God," a process that is more plausible in connection with the Latin fatum, "something decreed," than in relation to the impersonal moira, or heimarmene, of the Greeks. As Josephus wrote in Greek and used only the second of these terms, he had no philological inducement to make the identification; the reason must have been the matter of fact. In other words, he shows that the Pharisees believed in a personal God whose will was providence.

2. Conditional Reincarnation: In connection with this was their doctrine of a future life of rewards and punishments. The phrase which Josephus uses is a peculiar one: "They think that every soul is immortal; only the souls of good men will pass into another body, but the souls of the evil shall suffer everlasting punishment" (aidia timoria kolazesthai). From this it has been deduced that the Pharisees held the transmigration of souls. In our opinion this is a mistake. We believe that really it is an attempt of Josephus to state the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in a way that would not shock Hellenic ideas. The Greek contempt for the body made the idea of the resurrection abhorrent, and in this, as in most philosophical matters, the Romans followed the Greeks. It would seem that Josephus regarded the Pharisees as maintaining that this resurrection applied only to the righteous. Still even this restriction, though certainly the natural interpretation, is not absolutely necessary. This is confirmed by the corresponding section in the Antiquities (XVIII, i, 3): "They also believe .... that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life, and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again." Josephus also declares the Pharisees to be very attentive students of the law of God: "they interpret the law with careful exactitude."

3. New Testament Presentation of Pharisaic Doctrines--Angels and Spirits--Resurrection:

Nothing in the Gospels or the Acts at all militates against any part of this representation, but there is much to fill it out. They believed in angels and spirits (Acts 23:8). From the connection it is probable that the present activity of such beings was the question in the mind of the writer. In that same sentence belief in the resurrection is ascribed to the Pharisees.

4. Traditions Added to the Law: Another point is that to the bare letter of the Law they added traditions. While the existence of these traditions is referred to in Gospels, too little is said to enable us to grasp their nature and extent (Matthew 15:2 ff; Matthew 16:5 ff; Mark 7:1-23). The evangelists only recorded these traditional glosses when they conflicted with the teaching of Christ and were therefore denounced by Him. We find them exemplified in the Mishna. The Pharisaic theory of tradition was that these additions to the written law and interpretations of it had been given by Moses to the elders and by them had been transmitted orally down through the ages. The classical passage in the Mishna is to be found in Pirqe' Abhoth: "Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue." Additions to these traditions were made by prophets by direct inspiration, or by interpretation of the words of the written Law. All this mass, as related above, was reduced to writing by Jehuda ha-Qadhosh in Tiberias, probably about the end of the 2nd century AD. Jehuda was born, it is said, 135 AD, and died somewhere about 220 AD.

The related doctrines of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment with its consequent eternal rewards and punishments formed a portion and a valuable portion of this tradition.

5. Traditional Interpretations of the Law by Pharisees (Sabbath, etc.):

Less valuable, at times burdensome and hurtful, were the minute refinements they introduced into the Law. Sometimes the ingenuity of the Pharisaic doctors was directed to lighten the burden of the precept as in regard to the Sabbath. Thus a person was permitted to go much farther than a Sabbath day's journey if at some time previous he had deposited, within the legal Sabbath day's journey of the place he wished to reach, bread and water; this point was now to be regarded as the limit of his house, and consequently from this all distances were to be ceremonially reckoned (Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word "Erub"): The great defect of Pharisaism was that it made sin so purely external. An act was right or wrong according as some external condition was present or absent; thus there was a difference in bestowing alms on the Sabbath whether the beggar put his hand within the door of the donor or the donor stretched his hand beyond his own threshold, as may be seen in the first Mishna in the Tractate Shabbath. A man did not break the Sabbath rest of his ass, though he rode on it, and hence did not break the Sabbath law, but if he carried a switch with which to expedite the pace of the beast he was guilty, because he had laid a burden upon it.

6. Close Students of the Text of Scripture: Along with these traditions and traditional interpretations, the Pharisees were close students of the sacred text. On the turn of a sentence they suspended many decisions. So much so, that it is said of them later the Text of that they suspended mountains from hairs. This is especially the case with regard to the Sabbath law with its burdensome minutiae. At the same time there was care as to the actual wording of the text of the Law; this has a bearing on textual criticism, even to the present day. A specimen of Pharisaic exegesis which Paul turns against their followers as an argumentum ad hominem may be seen in Galatians 3:16: "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

(1) Messianic Hopes. It is also to be said for them, that they maintained the Messianic hopes of the nation when their rivals were ready to sacrifice everything to the Romans, in order to gain greater political influence for themselves. Their imagination ran riot in the pictures they drew of these future times, but still they aided the faith of the people who were thus in a position to listen to the claims of Christ. They were led by Rabbi Aqiba in the reign of Hadrian to accept Bar-Cochba about a century after they had rejected Jesus. They were fanatical in their obedience to the Law as they understood it, and died under untold tortures rather than transgress.

(2) Almsgiving. They elevated almsgiving into an equivalent for righteousness. This gave poverty a very different place from what it had in Greece or among the Romans. Learning was honored, although its possessors might be very poor. The story of the early life of Hillel brings this out. He is represented as being so poor as to be unable sometimes to pay the small daily fee which admitted pupils to the rabbinic school, and when this happened, in his eagerness for the Law, he is reported to have listened on the roof to the words of the teachers. This is probably not historically true, but it exhibits the Pharisaic ideal.

III. Organization of the Pharisaic Party. We have no distinct account of this organization, either in the Gospels, in Josephus, or in the Talmud. But the close relationship which the members of the sect sustained to each other, their habit of united action as exhibited in the narratives of the New Testament and of Josephus are thus most naturally explained. The Talmudic account of the chabherim affords confirmation of this. These were persons who primarily associated for the study of the Law and for the better observance of its precepts. No one was admitted to these chabhuroth without taking an oath of fidelity to the society and a promise of strict observance of Levitical precepts.

The Chabherim--Pharisaic Brotherhoods:

One of the elements of their promise has to be noted. The chabher promised not to pay ma`asroth, "tithe," or terumah, "heave offering," to a priest who was not a chabher. They were only permitted to take this oath when their associates in the brotherhood certified to their character. Even then the candidate had to pass through a period of probation of 30 days, according to the "house of Hillel," of a year, according to the "house of Shammai." This latter element, being quite more Talmudico, may be regarded as doubtful. Association with any not belonging to the Pharisaic society was put under numerous restrictions. It is at least not improbable that when the lawyer in Luke 10:29 demanded "Who is my neighbor?" he was minded to restrict the instances of the command in Leviticus 19:18 to those who were, like himself, Pharisees. A society which thus had brotherhoods all over Palestine and was separated from the rest of the community would naturally wield formidable power when their claims were supported by the esteem of the people at large. It is to be observed that to be a chabher was a purely personal thing, not heritable like priesthood, and women as well as men might be members. In this the Pharisees were like the Christians. In another matter also there was a resemblance between them and the followers of Jesus; they, unlike the Sadducees, were eager to make proselytes. "Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte" (Matthew 23:15). Many members of Roman society, especially women, were proselytes, as, for instance, Poppea Sabina.

IV. Character of the Pharisees. 1. Pharisees and People of the Land: Because the ideal of the Pharisees was high, and because they reverenced learning and character above wealth and civil rank they had a tendency to despise those who did not agree with them. We see traces of this in the Gospels; thus John 7:49: "This multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed." The distinction between the Pharisees, the Puritans and the `am ha-'arets, "the people of the land," began with the distinction that had to be kept between the Jews and the Gentiles who had entered the land as colonists or intruders. These would, during the Babylonian captivity, almost certainly speak Western Aramaic, and would certainly be heathen and indulge in heathen practices. They were "the people of the land" whom the returning exiles found in possession of Judea.

2. Arrogance toward Other Jews: Mingled with them were the few Jews that had neither been killed nor deported by the Babylonians, nor carried down into Egypt by Johanan, the son of Kareah. As they had conformed in a large measure to the habits of their heathen neighbors and intermarried with them, the stricter Jews, as Ezra and Nehemiah, regarded them as under the same condemnation as the heathen, and shrank from association with them. During the time of our Lord's life on earth the name was practically restricted to the ignorant Jews whose conformity to the law was on a broader scale than that of the Pharisees. Some have, however, dated the invention of the name later in the days of the Maccabean struggle, when the ceremonial precepts of the Law could with difficulty be observed. Those who were less careful of these were regarded as `am ha-'arets.

3. Regulations for the Chabher: The distinction as exhibited in the Talmud shows an arrogance on the part of the Pharisaic chabher that must have been galling to those who, though Jews as much as the Pharisees, were not Puritans like them. A chabher, that is a Pharisee, might not eat at the table of a man whose wife was of the `am ha-'arets, even though her husband might be a Pharisee. If he would be a full chabher, a Pharisee must not sell to any of the `am ha-'arets anything that might readily be made unclean. If a woman of the `am ha-'arets was left alone in a room, all that she could touch without moving from her place was unclean. We must, however, bear in mind that the evidence for this is Talmudic, and therefore of but limited historical value.

4. The New Testament Account; (1) Their Scrupulosity. We find traces of this scrupulosity in the Gospels. The special way in which the ceremonial sanctity of the Pharisees exhibited itself was in tithing, hence the reference to their tithing "mint and anise and cummin" (Matthew 23:23). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, one of the things that the Pharisee plumes himself on is that he gives tithes of all he possesses (Luke 18:12). He is an example of the Pharisaic arrogance of those "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and set all others at nought." Their claiming the first seats in feasts and synagogues (Matthew 23:6) was an evidence of the same spirit.

(2) Their Hypocrisy. Closely akin to this is the hypocrisy of which the Pharisees were accused by our Lord. When we call them "hypocrites," we must go back to the primary meaning of the word. They were essentially "actors," poseurs. Good men, whose character and spiritual force have impressed themselves on their generation, have often peculiarities of manner and tone which are easily imitated. The very respect in which they are held by their disciples leads those who respect them to adopt unconsciously their mannerisms of voice and deportment. A later generation unconsciously imitates, "acts the part." In a time when religion is persecuted, as in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, or despised as it was in the Hellenizing times which preceded and succeeded, it would be the duty of religious men not to hide their convictions. The tendency to carry on this public manifestation of religious acts after it had ceased to be protest would be necessarily great. The fact that they gained credit by praying at street corners when the hour of prayer came, and would have lost credit with the people had they not done so, was not recognized by them as lessening the moral worth of the action. Those who, having lived in the period of persecution and contempt, survived in that when religion was held in respect would maintain their earlier practice without any arriere-pensee. The succeeding generation, in continuing the practice, consciously "acted." They were poseurs. Their hypocrisy was none the less real that it was reached by unconscious stages. Hypocrisy was a new sin, a sin only possible in a spiritual religion, a religion in which morality and worship were closely related. Heathenism, which lay in sacrifices and ceremonies by which the gods could be bribed, or cajoled into favors, had a purely casual connection with morality; its worship was entirely a thing of externals, of acting, "posing." Consequently, a man did not by the most careful attention to the ceremonies of religion produce any presumption in favor of his trustworthiness. There was thus no sinister motive to prompt to religion. The prophets had denounced the insincerity of worship, but even they did not denounce hypocrisy, i.e. religion used as a cloak to hide treachery or dishonesty. Religion had become more spiritual, the connection between morality and worship more intimate by reason of the persecution of the Seleucids.

5. Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees: The Talmud to some extent confirms the representation of the Gospels. There were said to be seven classes of Pharisees: (1) the "shoulder" Pharisee, who wears his good deeds on his shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not from principle, but from expediency; (2) the "wait-a-little" Pharisee, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action; (3) the "bleeding" Pharisee, who in his eagerness to avoid looking on a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself to bleeding by stumbling against a wall; (4) the "painted" Pharisee, who advertises his holiness lest any one should touch him so that he should be defiled; (5) the "reckoning" Pharisee, who is always saying "What duty must I do to balance any unpalatable duty which I have neglected?"; (6) the "fearing" Pharisee, whose relation to God is one merely of trembling awe; (7) the Pharisee from "love." In all but the last there was an element of "acting," of hypocrisy. It is to be noted that the Talmud denounces ostentation; but unconsciously that root of the error lies in the externality of their righteousness; it commands an avoidance of ostentation which involves equal "posing."

V. Our Lord's Relationship to the Pharisees. 1. Pharisaic Attempts to Gain Christ Over: The attitude of the Pharisees to Jesus, to begin with, was, as had been their attitude to John, critical. They sent representatives to watch His doings and His sayings and report. They seem to have regarded it as possible that He might unite Himself with them, although, as we think, His affinities rather lay with the Essenes. Gradually their criticism became opposition. This opposition grew in intensity as He disregarded their interpretations of the Sabbatic law, ridiculed their refinements of the law of tithes and the distinctions they introduced into the validity of oaths, and denounced their insincere posing. At first there seems to have been an effort to cajole Him into compliance with their plans. If some of the Pharisees tempted Him to use language which would compromise Him with the people or with the Rom authorities, others invited Him to their tables, which was going far upon the part of a Pharisee toward one not a chabher. Even when He hung on the cross, the taunt with which they greeted Him may have had something of longing, lingering hope in it: "If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him" (Matthew 27:42 King James Version). If He would only give them that sign, then they would acknowledge Him to be the Messiah.

2. Reasons for Pharisaic Hatred of Christ: The opposition of the Pharisees to Jesus was intensified by another reason. They were the democratic party; their whole power lay in the reputation they had with the people for piety. our Lord denounced them as hypocrites; moreover He had secured a deeper popularity than theirs. At length when cajolery failed to win Him and astute questioning failed to destroy His popularity, they combined with their opponents, the Sadducees, against Him as against a common enemy.

3. Our Lord's Denunciation of the Pharisees: On the other hand, Jesus denounced the Pharisees more than He denounced any other class of the people. This seems strange when we remember that the main body of the religious people, those who looked for the Messiah, belonged to the Pharisees, and His teaching and theirs had a strong external resemblance. It was this external resemblance, united as it was with a profound spiritual difference, which made it incumbent on Jesus to mark Himself off from them. All righteousness with them was external, it lay in meats and drinks and divers washings, in tithing of mint, anise and cummin. He placed religion on a different footing, removed it into another region. With Him it was the heart that must be right with God, not merely the external actions; not only the outside of the cup and platter was to be cleansed, but the inside first of all. It is to be noted that, as observed above, the Pharisees were less antagonistic to the apostles when their Lord had left them. The after-history of Pharisaism has justified Our Lord's condemnation.

LITERATURE.

Histories of Israel:

Ewald, V, 365 ff, English translation; Herzfeld, III, 354 ff; Jost, I, 197 ff; Gratz, V, 91 ff; Derenbourg, 75-78, 117-44, 452-54; Holtzmann, II, 124 ff; Renan, V, 42 ff; Stanley, III, 376 ff; Cornill, 145 ff, English translation; Schurer, II, ii, 4 ff, English translation (GJV4, II. 447 ff); Kuenen, III, 233 ff. ET.

Life and Times of Christ:

Hausrath, I, 135 ff, English translation; Edersheim, I, 310 ff; Lange, I, 302 ff, English translation; Farrar, II. 494 ff; Geikie, II, 223. ff; Keim, I, 250 ff; Thomson. Books Which Influenced our Lord, 50 ff; Weiss. I, 285 ff. English translation; de Pressense, 116 ff.

Articles in Encyclopedias, Bible Dictionaries, Lexicons, etc.:

Ersch and Gruber, Allg. Eric (Daniel); Winer, Realworterbuch; Herzog, RE, edition 1 (Reuss), editions 2, 3 (Sieffert); Hamburger, Realenic.; Smith's DB (Twisleton); Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Lit. (Ginsburg); HDB (Eaton); Encyclopedia Biblica (Cowley. Prince); Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon (Hausrath); Jew Encyclopedia (Kohler); Temple Dict. of the Bible (Christie); Hastings, DCG (Hugh Scott, Mitchell).

Monographs:

Wellhausen, Montet, Geiger, Baneth, Muller, Hanne, Davaine, Herford; Weber, System der altsynagogen Palestinischen Theologie, 10 ff, 44 ff; Keil, Biblical Archaeology, II, 1680; Ryle and James, Psalms of Solomon. xliv ff; Nicolas. Doctrines religieuses des juifs, 48 ff.

J. E. H. Thomson

Pharosh

Pharosh - fa'-rosh (par`osh).

See PAROSH.

Pharpar

Pharpar - far'-par (parpar; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Apharpha; Codex Alexandrinus Pharphara): A river of Damascus, mentioned in 2 Kings 5:12, along with the Abana or Amana.e and James, Psalms of Solomon. xliv ff; Nicolas. Doctrines religieuses des juifs, 48 ff.

See ABANAH.

Pharzites

Pharzites - far'-zits (ha-partsi).parpar; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Apharpha; Codex Alexandrinus Pharphara): A river of Damascus, mentioned in 2 Kings 5:12, along with the Abana or Amana.e and James, Psalms of Solomon. xliv ff; Nicolas. Doctrines religieuses des juifs, 48 ff.

See PEREZ.

Phaseah, Paseah

Phaseah, Paseah - fa-se'-a, pa-se'-a (paceach, "lame"):

(1) A descendant of Judah, son of Eshton (1 Chronicles 4:12).

(2) Name of a family of Nethinim (Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51 (King James Version "Phaseah"); "Phinoe" of 1 Esdras 5:31 Revised Version).

(3) Father of Joiada (King James Version "Jehoiada"), the repairer of the "old gate" in Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3:6).

Phaselis

Phaselis - fa-se'-lis (Phaselis): A city of Lycia in Southern Asia Minor, on the seacoast, near the boundary of Pamphylia, to which country some ancient writers have assigned it. Situated on the extreme end of a promontory which projected into the sea, and with high mountains in the rear, it was separated both politically and geographically from the rest of Lycia. Hence it may be understood how it early became the favorite haunt of pirates. Already in the 6th century BC, when trade was carried on with Egypt, the city struck coins of its own; upon them the prow and the stern of a war galley were commonly represented. The coinage ceased in 466 BC, but it was resumed about 400 BC, when the city again became practically independent. For a time Phaselis was under the control of the Seleucid kings of Syria, but in 190 BC it again regained its independence or continued as a member of the league of Lycian cities (1 Maccabees 15:23). Before the beginning of the Christian era it had lost considerable of its earlier importance, yet it was still famed for its temple of Athene in which it was said that the sword of Achilles was preserved, and also for the attar of roses which was produced there. It figures little in early Christian history, yet in Byzantine times it was the residence of a bishop. Its site, now marked by the ruins of the stadium, temples and theater, bears the Turkish name of Tekir Ova.

Phasiron

Phasiron - fas'-i-ron (Codex Alexandrinus Phasiron; Codex Vaticanus Phaseiron, V, [@Pharison): The name of an unknown Arab tribe whom Jonathan overcame in the wilderness near Bethbasi; or possibly the name of an Arab chief (1 Maccabees 9:66).

Phassaron

Phassaron - fas'-a-ron: King James Version = Revised Version PHASSURUS (which see).

Phassurus

Phassurus - fas-su'-rus, fas'-u-rus (Phassouros; Codex Vaticanus Phassoros King James Version Phassaron, after Aldine): The name of one of the families which went up from exile with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:25)="Pashhur" of Ezra 2:38; Nehemiah 7:41; according to Ezra and Nehemiah and Revised Version numbering, 1,247; according to King James Version following A, 1,047.

Phebe

Phebe - febe (Phoibe).

See PHOEBE.

Phenice

Phenice - fe-ni'-se.

See PHOENICIA; PHOENIX.

Phenicia

Phenicia - fe-nish'-i-a (Phoinike).

See PHOENICIA.

Pheresites

Pheresites - fer'-e-sits: King James Version=Revised Version "Pherezites" (1 Esdras 8:69; 2 Esdras 1:21) = "Perizzite."

Pherezite

Pherezite - fer'-e-zit: King James Version form in Judith 5:16 for Revised Version "Perizzite" and both King James Version and Revised Version in 2 Esdras 1:21 for "Perizzite"; one of the Canaanitish tribes.

Phi-beseth

Phi-beseth - fi'-be-seth, fib'-e-seth (pi-bheceth).

See PI-BESETH.

Phicol

Phicol - fi'-kol (pikhol, Phikol; King James Version Phichol): The captain of the host of the Philistine king Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 21:22; 26:26).

Philadelphia

Philadelphia - fil-a-del-'fi-a (Philadelphia: A city of ancient Lydia in Asia Minor on the Cogamus River, 105 miles from Smyrna. It stood upon a terrace 650 ft. above the sea. Behind it are the volcanic cliffs to which the Turks have given the name of Devitt, or "inkwells"; on the other side of the city the land is exceedingly fertile, and there was produced a wine of whose excellence the celebrated Roman poet Virgil wrote. Philadelphia is not so ancient as many of the other cities of Asia Minor, for it was founded after 189 BC on one of the highways which led to the interior. Its name was given to it in honor of Attalus II, because of his loyalty to his elder brother, Eumenes II, king of Lydia. Still another name of the city was Decapolis, because it was considered as one of the ten cities of the plain. A third name which it bore during the 1st century. AD was Neo-kaisaria; it appears upon the coins struck during that period. During the reign of Vespasian, it was called Flavia. Its modern name, Ala-shehir, is considered by some to be a corruption of the Turkish words Allah-shehir, "the city of God," but more likely it is a name given it from the reddish color of the soil. In addition to all of these names it sometimes bore the title of "Little Athens" because of the magnificence of the temples and other public buildings which adorned it. Philadelphia quickly became an important and wealthy trade center, for as the coast cities declined, it grew in power, and retained its importance even until late Byzantine times. One of the Seven Churches of the Book of Revelation (Revelation 3:7 ff) was there, and it was the seat of a bishop. As in most Asia Minor cities, many Jews lived there, and they possessed a synagogue. During the reign of Tiberius the city was destroyed by an earthquake, yet it was quickly rebuilt. Frederick Barbarossa entered it while on his crusade in 1190. Twice, in 1306 and 1324, it was besieged by the Seljuk Turks, but it retained its independence until after 1390, when it was captured by the combined forces of the Turks and Byzantines. In 1403 Tamerlane captured it, and, it is said, built about it a wall of the corpses of his victims.

Ala-shehir is still a Christian town; one-fourth of its modern population is Greek, and a Greek bishop still makes his home there. One of the chief modern industries is a liquorice factory; in the fields about the city the natives dig for the roots. On the terrace upon which the ancient city stood, the ruins of the castle and the walls may still be seen, and among them is pointed out the foundation of the early church. The place may now best be reached by rail from Smyrna.

E. J. Banks

Philarches

Philarches - fi-lar'-kez.

See PHYLARCHES.

Philemon

Philemon - fi-le'-mon, fi-le'-mun (Philemon): Among the converts of Paul, perhaps while at Ephesus, was one whom he calls a "fellow-worker," Philemon (Philemon 1:1). He was probably a man of some means, was celebrated for his hospitality (Philemon 1:5-7) and of considerable importance in the ecclesia at Colosse. It was at his house (Philemon 1:2) that the Colossian Christians met as a center. It is more than probable that this was a group of the Colossian church rather than the entire ekklesia. His wife was named Apphia (Philemon 1:2); and Archippus (Philemon 1:2) was no doubt his son. From Colossians 4:17 we learn that Archippus held an office of some importance in Colosse, whether he was a presbyter (Abbott, ICC), or an evangelist, or perhaps the reader (Zahn), we cannot tell. He is called here (Philemon 1:2) Paul's "fellow-soldier."

The relation between the apostle and Philemon was so close and intimate that Paul does not hesitate to press him, on the basis of it, to forgive his slave, Onesimus, for stealing and for running away.

See PHILEMON,EPISTLE TO .

Tradition makes Philemon the bishop of Colosse (Apostolical Constitutions, vii, 46), and the Greek Martyrology (Menae) for November 22 tells us that he together with his wife and son and Onesimus were martyred by stoning before Androcles, the governor, in the days of Nero. With this the Latin Martyrology agrees (compare Lightfoot, Ignatius,II , 535). This evidence, however, is unsatisfactory and cannot be trusted as giving unquestionable facts as to Philemon. The only sure information is that in the epistle bearing his name.

Charles Smith Lewis

Philemon, Epistle to

Philemon, Epistle to - This most beautiful of all Paul's Epistles, and the most intensely human, is one of the so-called Captivity Epistles of which Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians are the others. Of these four PHILIPPIANS (which see) stands apart, and was written more probably after the other three. These are mutually interdependent, sent by the same bearer to churches of the same district, and under similar conditions.

1. Place of Writing: There is some diversity of opinion as to the place from which the apostle wrote these letters. Certain scholars (Reuss, Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath and Meyer) have urged Caesarea in opposition to the traditional place, Rome. The arguments advanced are first that Onesimus would have been more likely to have escaped to Caesarea than to Rome, as it is nearer Colosse than Rome is, to which we may reply that, though Caesarea is nearer, his chance of escape would have been far greater in the capital than in the provincial city. Again it is said that as Onesimus is not commended in Ephesians, he had already been left behind at Colosse; against which there are advanced the precarious value of an argument from silence, and the fact that this argument assumes a particular course which the bearers of the letters would follow, namely, through Colosse to Ephesus. A more forcible argument is that which is based on the apostle's expected visit. In Philippians 2:24 we read that he expected to go to Macedonia on his release; in Philemon 1:22 we find that he expected to go to Colosse. On the basis of this latter reference it is assumed that he was to the south of Colosse when writing and so at Caesarea. But it is quite as probable that he would go to Colosse through Philippi as the reverse; and it is quite possible that even if he had intended to go direct to Colosse when he wrote to Philemon, events may have come about to cause him to change his plans. The last argument, based on the omission of any reference to the earthquake of which Tacitus (Ann. xiv.27) and Eusebius (Chron., O1, 207) write, is of force as opposed to the Rom origin of the letters only on the assumption that these writers both refer to the same event (by no means sure) and that the epistles. were written after that event, and that it was necessary that Paul should have mentioned it. If the early chronology be accepted it falls entirely, as Tacitus' earlier date would be after the epistles. were written. In addition we have the further facts, favorable to Rome, that Paul had no such freedom in Cuesarea as he is represented in these epistles as enjoying; that no mention is made of Philip who was in Caesarea and a most important member of that community (Acts 21:8), and finally that there is no probability that so large a body of disciples and companions could have gathered about the apostle in his earlier and more strict imprisonment, at Caesarea. We may therefore conclude that the Captivity Epistles were written from Rome, and not from Caesarea.

2. Authenticity: The external evidence for the epistle is less extensive than that of some of the other epp., but it is abundantly strong. The play on the word Onesimus which Paul himself uses (Philemon 1:11) is found in Ignatius, Ephesians, ii. This may not mean necessarily a literary connection, but it suggests this. The epistle is known to Tertullian, and through him we know that Marcion accepted it (Adv. Marc., v.21). It is in the list in the Muratorian Fragment (p. 106, l. 27), and is quoted by Origen as Pauline (Hom. in Jer., 19) and placed by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxv) among the acknowledged books.

It has twice been the object of attack. In the 4th and 5th centuries it was opposed as unworthy of Paul's mind and as of no value for edification. This attack was met successfully by Jerome (Commentary on Philemon, praef.), Chrysostom (Argum. in Philem) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. in Solesm, I, 149), and the epistle. was finally established in its earlier firm position. The later attack by Baur was inspired by his desire to break down the corroborative value of Philem to the other Captivity Epistles, and has been characterized by Weiss as one of Baur's worst blunders. The suggestions that it is interpolated (Holtzmann), or allegorical (Weizsacker and Pfleiderer), or based on the letter of Pliny (Ep. IX, 21) to Sabinianus (Steck), are interesting examples of the vagaries of their authors, but "deserve only to be mentioned" (Zahn). In its language, style and argument the letter is clearly Pauline.

3. Date: The date will, as is the case with the other Captivity Epistles, depend on the chronology. If the earlier scheme be followed it may be dated about 58, if the later about 63, or 64.

4. Argument: The apostle writes in his own and Timothy's name to his friend PHILEMON (which see) in behalf of Onesimus, a runaway slave of the latter. Beginning with his usual thanksgiving, here awakened by the report of Philemon's hospitality, he intercedes for his `son begotten in his bonds' (Philemon 1:10), Onesimus, who though he is Philemon's runaway slave is now "a brother." It is on this ground that the apostle pleads, urging his own age, and friendship for Philemon, and his present bonds. He pleads, however, without belittling Onesimus' wrongdoing, but assuming himself the financial responsibility for the amount of his theft. At the same time the apostle quietly refers to what Philemon really owes him as his father in Christ, and begs that he will not disappoint him in his expectation. He closes with the suggestion that he hopes soon to visit him, and with greetings from his companions in Rome.

5. Value: The charm and beauty of this epistle have been universally recognized. Its value to us as giving a glimpse of Paul's attitude toward slavery and his intimacy with a man like Philemon cannot be over-estimated. One of the chief elements of value in it is the picture it gives us of a Christian home in the apostolic days; the father and mother well known for their hospitality, the son a man of position and importance in the church, the coming and going of the Christian brethren, and the life of the brotherhood centering about this household.

LITERATURE.

Lightfoot, Col and Philem; Vincent, "Phil" and "Philem" (ICC); yon Soden, Hand Commentar; Alexander, in Speaker's Commentary.

Charles Smith Lewis

Philetus

Philetus - fi-le'-tus (Philetos (2 Timothy 2:17)):

1. The Nature of His Error: This person is mentioned by Paul, who warns Timothy against him as well as against his associate in error, Hymeneus. The apostle speaks of Hymeneus and Philetus as instances of men who were doing most serious injury to the church by their teaching, and by what that teaching resulted in, both in faith and morals. The specific error of these men was that they denied that there would be any bodily resurrection. They treated all Scriptural references to such a state, as figurative or metaphorical. They spiritualized it absolutely, and held that the resurrection was a thing of the past. No resurrection was possible, so they taught, except from ignorance to knowledge, from sin to righteousness. There would be no day when the dead would hear the voice of Christ and come forth out of the grave. The Christian, knowing that Christ was raised from the dead, looked forward to the day when his body should be raised in the likeness of Christ's resurrection. But this faith was utterly denied by the teaching of Hymeneus and Philetus.

2. How It Overthrew Faith: This teaching of theirs, Paul tells us, had overthrown the faith of some. It would also overthrow Christian faith altogether, for if the dead are not raised, neither is Christ risen from the dead, and "ye are yet in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17).

The denial of the resurrection of the body, whether of mankind generally or of Christ, is the overthrow of the faith. It leaves nothing to cling to, no living Christ, who saves and leads and comforts His people. The apostle proceeds to say that teaching of this kind "eats as doth a gangrene," and that it increases unto more ungodliness. As a canker or gangrene eats away the flesh, so does such teaching eat away Christian faith. Paul is careful to say, more than once, that the teaching which denies that there will be a resurrection of the dead leads inevitably to "ungodliness" and to "iniquity."

See HYMENAEUS.

John Rutherfurd

Philip (1)

Philip (1) - fil'-ip (Philippos, "lover of horses"):

(1) The father of Alexander the Great (1 Maccabees 1:1; 6:2), king of Macedonia in 359-336 BC. His influence for Greece and for mankind in general lay in hastening the decadence of the Greek city-state and in the preparations he left to Alexander for the diffusion throughout the world of the varied phases of Greek intellectual life.

(2) A Phrygian left by Antiochus Epiphanes as governor at Jerusalem (circa 170 BC) and described in 2 Maccabees 5:22 as "more barbarous" than Antiochus himself, burning fugitive Jews who had assembled in caves near by "to keep the sabbath day secretly" (2 Maccabees 6:11) and taking special measures to check the opposition of Judas Maccabeus (2 Maccabees 8:8). There is some ground for identifying him with--

(3) A friend or foster-brother of Antiochus (2 Maccabees 9:29), appointed by Antiochus on his deathbed as regent. Lysias already held the office of regent, having brought up the son of Antiochus from his youth, and on the death of his father set him up as king under the name of Eupator. The accounts of the rivalries of the regents and of the fate of Philip as recorded in 1 Maccabees 6:56; 2 Maccabees 9:29; Josephus, Ant, XII, ix, 7, are not easily reconciled.

(4) Philip V, king of Macedonia in 220-179 BC. He is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 8:5 as an example of the great power of the Romans with whom Judas Maccabeus made a league on conditions described (op. cit.). The conflict of Philip with the Romans coincided in time with that of Hannibal, after whose defeat at Zama the Romans were able to give undivided attention to the affairs of Macedonia. Philip was defeated by the Romans under Flaminius, at Cynoscephalae (197 BC), and compelled to accept the terms of the conquerors. He died in 179, and was succeeded by his son Perseus, last king of Macedonia, who lost his crown in his contest with the Romans.

See PERSEUS.

J. Hutchison

Philip (2)

Philip (2) - (Philippos):

1. New Testament References: One of the Twelve Apostles. Philip belonged to Bethsaida of Galilee (John 1:44; 12:21). Along with Andrew and other fellow-townsmen, he had journeyed to Bethany to hear the teaching of John the Baptist, and there he received his first call from Christ, "Follow me" (John 1:43). Like Andrew, Philip immediately won a fresh follower, Nathanael, for Jesus (John 1:45). It is probable that he was present at most of the events recorded of Jesus' return journey from Bethany to Galilee, and that the information relating to these was supplied to John by him and Andrew (compare ANDREW). His final ordination to the Twelve is recorded in Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13. At the feeding of the 5,000, Philip was asked the question by Jesus, "Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat?" (John 6:5-7). He was appealed to by the Greeks when they desired to interview Jesus at the Passover (John 12:20-33). During the address of Jesus to His disciples after the Last Supper, Philip made the request, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (John 14:8).

2. Apocryphal References: According to the "Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles," Philip was of the house of Zebulun (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles,II , 50). Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iii.4, 25, and iv.9, 73) gives the tradition identifying him with the unknown disciple who asked permission to go and bury his father ere he followed Jesus (compare Matthew 8:21; Luke 9:59), and says that he died a natural death. Owing to confusion with Philip the evangelist, there is much obscurity in the accounts of Apocrypha literature concerning the earlier missionary activities of Philip the apostle. The "Acts of Philip" tell of a religious controversy between the apostle and a Judean high priest before the philosophers of Athens. Later Latin documents mention Gaul (Galatia) as his field. As to his sending Joseph of Arimathea thence to Britain, see JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA. The evidence seems conclusive that the latter part of his life was spent in Phrygia. This is supported by Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus in the 2nd century), who states that he died at Hierapolis, by Theodoret, and by the parts of the Contendings of the Apostles dealing with Philip. Thus, according to "The Preaching of Philip and Peter" (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles,II , 146), Phrygia was assigned to Philip as a mission field by the risen Christ when He appeared to the disciples on the Mount of Olives, and "The Martyrdom of Philip in Phrygia" (Budge,II , 156) tells of his preaching, miracles and crucifixion there.

Philip was regarded in early times as the author of "The Gospel of Philip," a Gnostic work of the 2nd century, part of which was preserved by Epiphanius (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 40, 41).

See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

3. Character: As with Andrew, Philip's Greek name implies he had Greek connections, and this is strengthened by the fact that he acted as the spokesman of the Greeks at the Passover. Of a weaker mold than Andrew, he was yet the one to whom the Greeks would first appeal; he himself possessed an inquirer's spirit and could therefore sympathize with their doubts and difficulties. The practical, strong-minded Andrew was naturally the man to win the impetuous, swift-thinking Peter; but the slower Philip, versed in the Scriptures (compare John 1:45), appealed more to the critical Nathanael and the cultured Greeks. Cautious and deliberate himself, and desirous of submitting all truth to the test of sensuous experience (compare John 14:8), he concluded the same criterion would be acceptable to Nathanael also (compare John 1:46). It was the presence of this materialistic trend of mind in Philip that induced Jesus, in order to awaken in His disciple a larger and more spiritual faith, to put the question in John 6:6, seeking "to prove him." This innate diffidence which affected Philip's religious beliefs found expression in his outer life and conduct also. It was not merely modesty, but also a certain lack of self-reliance, that made him turn to Andrew for advice when the Greeks wished to see Jesus. The story of his later life is, however, sufficient to show that he overcame those initial defects in his character, and fulfilled nobly the charge that his risen Lord laid upon him (compare Matthew 28:16-20).

C. M. Kerr

Philip (3)

Philip (3) - ("tetrarch," Luke 3:1).

See HEROD.

Philip, the Evangelist

Philip, the Evangelist - One of "the seven" chosen to have the oversight of "the daily ministration" of the poor of the Christian community in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5). Whether Philip, bearing a Greek name, was a Hellenist, is not known, but his missionary work reveals to us one free from the religious prejudices of the strict Hebrew.

The martyrdom of Stephen was the beginning of a systematic persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered over Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1), and even as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch (Acts 11:19). Thus, the influence of the new teaching was extended, and a beginning made to the missionary movement. The story of Philip's missionary labors is told in Acts 8:5 ff. He went to the chief city of Samaria, called Sebaste in honor of Augustus (Greek Sebastos). The Samaritans, of mixed Israelite and Gentile blood, had, in consequence of their being rigidly excluded from the Jewish church since the return from exile, built on Mt. Gerizim a rival sanctuary to the temple. To them Philip proclaimed the Christ and wrought signs, with the result that multitudes gave heed, and "were baptized, both men and women." They had been under the influence of a certain sorcerer, Simon, who himself also believed and was baptized, moved, as the sequel proved, by the desire to learn the secret of Philip's ability to perform miracles (see SIMON MAGUS). The apostles (Acts 8:14) at Jerusalem sanctioned the admission of Samaritans into the church by sending Peter and John, who not only confirmed the work of Philip, but also themselves preached in many Samaritan villages.

The next incident recorded is the conversion of a Gentile, who was, however, a worshipper of the God of Israel, a eunuch under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. As he was returning from worshipping in the temple at Jerusalem, he was met by Philip on the road to Gaza. Philip expounded to him that portion of Isaiah 53:1-12 which he had been reading aloud as he sat in his chariot, and preached unto him Jesus. It is another sign of Philip's insight into the universality of Christianity that he baptized this eunuch who could not have been admitted into full membership in the Jewish church (Deuteronomy 23:1).

See ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.

After this incident, Philip went to Azotus (Ashdod), and then traveled north to Caesarea, preaching in the cities on his way. There he settled, for Luke records that Paul and his company abode in the house of Philip, "the evangelist," "one of the seven," for some days (Acts 21:8 ff). This occurred more than 20 years after the incidents recorded in Acts 8:1-40. Both at this time and during Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea, Luke had the opportunity of hearing about Philip's work from his own lips. Luke records that Philip had 4 daughters who were preachers (Acts 21:9).

The Jewish rebellion, which finally resulted in the fall of Jerusalem, drove many Christians out of Palestine, and among them Philip and his daughters. One tradition connects Philip and his daughters with Hierapolis in Asia, but in all probability the evangelist is confounded with the apostle. Another tradition represents them as dwelling at Tralles, Philip being the first bishop of the Christian community.

S. F. Hunter

Philip, the Gospel of

Philip, the Gospel of - See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS; PHILIP.

Philippi

Philippi - fi-lip'-i (Philippoi, ethnic Philippesios, Philippians 4:15):

1. Position and Name: A city of Macedonia, situated in 41ø 5' North latitude and 24ø 16' East longitude. It lay on the Egnatian Road, 33 Roman miles from Amphipolis and 21 from Acontisma, in a plain bounded on the East and North by the mountains which lie between the rivers Zygactes and Nestus, on the West by Mt. Pangaeus, on the South by the ridge called in antiquity Symbolum, over which ran the road connecting the city with its seaport, NEAPOLIS (which see), 9 miles distant. This plain, a considerable part of which is marshy in modern, as in ancient, times, is connected with the basin of the Strymon by the valley of the Angites (Herodotus vii.113), which also bore the names Gangas or Gangites (Appian, Bell. Civ. iv.106), the modern Anghista. The ancient name. of Philippi was Crenides (Strabo vii.331; Diodorus xvi.3, 8; Appian, Bell. Civ. iv.105; Stephanus Byz. under the word), so called after the springs which feed the river and the marsh; but it was refounded by Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, and received his name.

2. History: Appian (Bell. Civ. iv.105) and Harpocration say that Crenides was afterward called Daton, and that this name was changed to Philippi, but this statement is open to question, since Daton, which became proverbial among the Greeks for good fortune, possessed, as Strabo tells us (vii.331 fr. 36), "admirably fertile territory, a lake, rivers, dockyards and productive gold mines," whereas Philippi lies, as we have seen, some 9 miles inland. Many modern authorities, therefore, have placed Daton on the coast at or near the site of Neapolis. On the whole, it seems best to adopt the view of Heuzey (Mission archeologique, 35, 62 ff) that Daton was not originally a city, but the whole district which lay immediately to the East of Mt. Pangaeus, including the Philippian plain and the seacoast about Neapolis. On the site of the old foundation of Crenides, from which the Greek settlers had perhaps been driven out by the Thracians about a century previously, the Thasians in 360 BC founded their colony of Daton with the aid of the exiled Athenian statesman Callistratus, in order to exploit the wealth, both agricultural and mineral, of the neighborhood. To Philip, who ascended the Macedonian throne in 359 BC, the possession of this spot seemed of the utmost importance. Not only is the plain itself well watered and of extraordinary fertility, but a strongly-fortified post planted here would secure the natural land-route from Europe to Asia and protect the eastern frontier of Macedonia against Thracian inroads. Above all, the mines of the district might meet his most pressing need, that of an abundant supply of gold. The site was therefore seized in 358 BC, the city was enlarged, strongly fortitled, and renamed, the Thasian settlers either driven out or reinforced, and the mines, worked with characteristic energy, produced over 1,000 talents a year (Diodorus xvi.8) and enabled Philip to issue a gold currency which in the West soon superseded the Persian darics (G.F. Hill, Historical Greek Coins, 80 ff). The revenue thus obtained was of inestimable value to Philip, who not only used it for the development of the Macedonian army, but also proved himself a master of the art of bribery. His remark is well known that no fortress was impregnable to whose walls an ass laden with gold could be driven. Of the history of Philippi during the next 3 centuries we know practically nothing. Together with the rest of Macedonia, it passed into the Roman hands after the battle of Pydna (168 BC), and fell in the first of the four regions into which the country was then divided (Livy xlv.29). In 146 the whole of Macedonia was formed into a single Roman province. But the mines seem to have been almost, if not quite, exhausted by this time, and Strabo (vii. 331 fr. 41) speaks of Philippi as having sunk by the time of Caesar to a "small settlement" (katoikia mikra). In the autumn of 42 BC it witnessed the death-struggle of the Roman republic. Brutus and Cassius, the leaders of the band of conspirators who had assassinated Julius Caesar, were faced by Octavian, who 15 years later became the Emperor Augustus, and Antony. In the first engagement the army of Brutus defeated that of Octavian, while Antony's forces were victorious over those of Cassius, who in despair put an end to his life. Three weeks later the second and decisive conflict took place. Brutus was compelled by his impatient soldiery to give battle, his troops were routed and he himself fell on his own sword. Soon afterward Philippi was made a Roman colony with the title Colonia Iulia Philippensis. After the battle of Actium (31 BC) the colony was reinforced, largely by Italian partisans of Antony who were dispossessed in order to afford allotments for Octavian's veterans (Dio Cassius li.4), and its name was changed to Colonia Augusta Iulia (Victrix) Philippensium: It received the much-coveted iusItalicum (Digest L. 15, 8, 8), which involved numerous privileges, the chief of which was the immunity of its territory from taxation.

3. Paul's First Visit: In the course of his second missionary journey Paul set sail from Troas, accompanied by Silas (who bears his full name Silvanus in 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1), Timothy and Luke, and on the following day reached Neapolis (Acts 16:11). Thence he journeyed by road to Philippi, first crossing the pass some 1,600 ft. high which leads over the mountain ridge called Symbolum and afterward traversing the Philipplan plain. Of his experiences there we have in Acts 16:12-40 a singularly full and graphic account. On the Sabbath, presumably the first Sabbath after their arrival, the apostle and his companions went out to the bank of the Angites, and there spoke to the women, some of them Jews, others proselytes, who had come together for purposes of worship.

One of these was named Lydia, a Greek proselyte from Thyatira, a city of Lydia in Asia Minor, to the church of which was addressed the message recorded in Revelation 2:18-29. She is described as a "seller of purple" (Acts 16:14), that is, of woolen fabrics dyed purple, for the manufacture of which her native town was famous. Whether she was the agent in Philippi of some firm in Thyatira or whether she was carrying on her trade independently, we cannot say; her name suggests the possibility that she was a freedwoman, while from the fact that we hear of her household and her house (Acts 16:15; compare Acts 16:40), though no mention is made of her husband, it has been conjectured that she was a widow of some property. She accepted the apostolic message and was baptized with her household (Acts 16:15), and insisted that Paul and his companions should accept her hospitality during the rest of their stay in the city.

See further LYDIA.

All seemed to be going well when opposition arose from an unexpected quarter. There was in the town a girl, in all probability a slave, who was reputed to have the power of oracular utterance. Herodotus tells us (vii. III) of an oracle of Dionysus situated among the Thracian tribe of the Satrae, probably not far from Philippi; but there is no reason to connect the soothsaying of this girl with that worship. In any case, her masters reaped a rich harvest from the fee charged for consulting her. Paul, troubled by her repeatedly following him and those with him crying, "These men are bondservants of the Most High God, who proclaim unto you a way of salvation" (Acts 16:17 margin), turned and commanded the spirit in Christ's name to come out of her. The immediate restoration of the girl to a sane and normal condition convinced her masters that all prospect of further gain was gone, and they therefore seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the forum before the magistrates, probably the duumviri who stood at the head of the colony. They accused the apostles of creating disturbance in the city and of advocating customs, the reception and practice of which were illegal for Rom citizens. The rabble of the market-place joined in the attack (Acts 16:22), whereupon the magistrates, accepting without question the accusers' statement that Paul and Silas were Jews (Acts 16:20) and forgetting or ignoring the possibility of their possessing Rom citizenship, ordered them to be scourged by the attendant lictors and afterward to be imprisoned. In the prison they were treated with the utmost rigor; they were confined in the innermost ward, and their feet put in the stocks. About midnight, as they were engaged in praying and singing hymns, while the other prisoners were listening to them, the building was shaken by a severe earthquake which threw open the prison doors. The jailer, who was on the point of taking his own life, reassured by Paul regarding the safety of the prisoners, brought Paul and Silas into his house where he tended their wounds, set food before them, and, after hearing the gospel, was baptized together with his whole household (Acts 16:23-34).

On the morrow the magistrates, thinking that by dismissing from the town those who had been the cause of the previous day's disturbance they could best secure themselves against any repetition of the disorder, sent the lictors to the jailer with orders to release them. Paul refused to accept a dismissal of this kind. As Rom citizens he and Silas were legally exempt from scourging, which was regarded as a degradation (1 Thessalonians 2:2), and the wrong was aggravated by the publicity of the punishment, the absence of a proper trial and the imprisonment which followed (Acts 16:37). Doubtless Paul had declared his citizenship when the scourging was inflicted, but in the confusion and excitement of the moment his protest had been unheard or unheeded. Now, however, it produced a deep impression on the magistrates, who came in person to ask Paul and Silas to leave the city. They, after visiting their hostess and encouraging the converts to remain firm in their new faith, set out by the Egnatian Road for Thessalonica (Acts 16:38-40). How long they had stayed in Philippi we are not told, but the fact that the foundations of a strong and flourishing church had been laid and the phrase "for many days" (Acts 16:18) lead us to believe that the time must have been a longer one than appears at first sight. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 226) thinks that Paul left Troas in October, 50 AD, and stayed at Philippi until nearly the end of the year; but this chronology cannot be regarded as certain.

Several points in the narrative of these incidents call for fuller consideration. (1) We may notice, first, the very small part played by Jews and Judaism at Philippi.

There was no synagogue here, as at Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:5), Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14, 43), Iconium (Acts 14:1), Ephesus (Acts 18:19, 26; 19:8), Thessalonica (Acts 17:1), Berea (Acts 17:10), Athens (Acts 17:17) and Corinth (Acts 18:4). The number of resident Jews was small, their meetings for prayer took place on the river's bank, the worshippers were mostly or wholly women (Acts 16:13), and among them some, perhaps a majority, were proselytes. Of Jewish converts we hear nothing, nor is there any word of Jews as either inciting or joining the mob which dragged Paul and Silas before the magistrates. Further, the whole tone of the epistle. to this church seems to prove that here at least the apostolic teaching was not in danger of being undermined by Judaizers. True, there is one passage (Philippians 3:2-7) in which Paul denounces "the concision," those who had "confidence in the flesh"; but it seems "that in this warning he was thinking of Rome more than of Philippi; and that his indignation was aroused rather by the vexatious antagonism which there thwarted him in his daily work, than by any actual errors already undermining the faith of his distant converts" (Lightfoot).

(2) Even more striking is the prominence of the Rom element in the narrative. We are here not in a Greek or Jewish city, but in one of those Rom colonies which Aulus Gellius describes as "miniatures and pictures of the Rom people" (Noctes Atticae, xvi.13).

In the center of the city is the forum (agora, Acts 16:19), and the general term "magistrates" (archontes, English Versions of the Bible, "rulers," Acts 16:19) is exchanged for the specific title of praetors (stratagoi, English Versions of the Bible "magistrates," Acts 16:20, 22, 35-36, 38); these officers are attended by lictors (rhabdouchoi, English Versions "sergeants," Acts 16:35, 38) who bear the fasces with which they scourged Paul and Silas (rhabdizo, Acts 16:22). The charge is that of disturbing public order and introducing customs opposed to Roman law (Acts 16:20-21), and Paul's appeal to his Roman civitas (Acts 16:37) at once inspired the magistrates with fear for the consequences of their action and made them conciliatory and apologetic (Acts 16:38-39). The title of praetor borne by these officials has caused some difficulty. The supreme magistrates of Roman colonies, two in number, were called duoviri or duumviri (iuri dicundo), and that this title was in use at Philippi is proved by three inscriptions (Orelli, Number 3746; Heuzey, Mission archeologique, 15, 127). The most probable explanation of the discrepancy is that these magistrates assumed the title Of praetor, or that it was commonly applied to them, as was certainly the case in some parts of the Roman world (Cicero De lege agraria ii.34; Horace Sat. i.5, 34; Orelli, Number 3785).

(3) Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 200 ff) has brought forward the attractive suggestion that Luke was himself a Philippian, and that he was the "man of Macedonia" who appeared to Paul at Troas with the invitation to enter Macedonia (Acts 16:9).

In any case, the change from the 3rd to the 1st person in Acts 16:10 marks the point at which Luke joined the apostle, and the same criterion leads to the conclusion that Luke remained at Philippi between Paul's first and his third visit to the city (see below). Ramsay's hypothesis would explain (a) the fullness and vividness of the narrative of Acts 16:11-40; (b) the emphasis laid on the importance of Philippi (Acts 16:12); and (c) the fact that Paul recognized as a Macedonian the man whom he saw in his vision, although there was nothing either in the language, features or dress of Macedonians to mark them out from other Greeks. Yet Luke was clearly not a householder at Philippi (Acts 16:15), and early tradition refers to him as an Antiochene (see, however, Ramsay, in the work quoted 389 f).

(4) Much discussion has centered round the description of Philippi given in Acts 16:12. The reading of Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, etc., followed by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, the Revised Version (British and American), etc., is:

hetis estin prote tes meridos Makedonias polis kolonia. But it is doubtful whether Makedonias is to be taken with the word which precedes or with that which follows, and further the sense derived from the phrase is unsatisfactory. For prote must mean either (1) first in political importance and rank, or (2) the first which the apostle reached. But the capital of the province was Thessalonica, and if tes meridos be taken to refer to the easternmost of the 4 districts into which Macedonia had been divided in 168 BC (though there is no evidence that that division survived at this time), Amphipolis was its capital and was apparently still its most important city, though destined to be outstripped by Philippi somewhat later. Nor is the other rendering of prote (adopted, e.g. by Lightfoot) more natural. It supposes that Luke reckoned Neapolis as belonging to Thrace, and the boundary of Macedonia as lying between Philippi and its seaport; moreover, the remark is singularly pointless; the use of estin rather than en is against this view, nor is prote found in this sense without any qualifying phrase. Lastly, the tes in its present position is unnatural; in Codex Vaticanus it is placed after, instead of before, meridos, while D (the Bezan reviser) reads kephale tes Makedonias. Of the emendations which have been suggested, we may notice three: (a) for meridos Hort has suggested Pieridos, "a chief city of Pierian Macedonia"; (b) for prote tes we may read protes, "which belongs to the first region of Macedonia"; (c) meridos may be regarded as a later insertion and struck out of the text, in which case the whole phrase will mean, "which is a city of Macedonia of first rank" (though not necessarily the first city).

4. Paul's Later Visits: Paul and Silas, then, probably accompanied by Timothy (who, however, is not expressly mentioned in Acts between 16:1 and 17:14), left Philippi for Thessalonica, but Luke apparently remained behind, for the "we" of Acts 16:10-17 does not appear again until Acts 20:5, when Paul is once more leaving Philippi on his last journey to Jerusalem. The presence of the evangelist during the intervening 5 years may have had much to do with the strength of the Philippian church and its stealfastness in persecution (2 Corinthians 8:2; Philippians 1:29-30). Patti himself did not revisit the city until, in the course of his third missionary journey, he returned to Macedonia, preceded by Timothy and Erastus, after a stay of over 2 years at Ephesus (Acts 19:22; 20:1). We are not definitely told that he visited Philippi on this occasion, but of the fact there can be little doubt, and it was probably there that he awaited the coming of Titus (2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:5-6) and wrote his 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 8:1 ff; 2 Corinthians 9:2-4). After spending 3 months in Greece, whence he intended to return by sea to Syria, he was led by a plot against his life to change his plans and return through Macedonia (Acts 20:3). The last place at which he stopped before crossing to Asia was Philippi, where he spent the days of unleavened bread, and from (the seaport of) which he sailed in company with Luke to Troas where seven of his companions were awaiting him (Acts 20:4-6). It seems likely that Paul paid at least one further visit to Philippi in the interval between his first and second imprisonments. That he hoped to do so, he himself tells us (Philippians 2:24), and the journey to Macedonia mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:3 would probably include a visit to Philippi, while if, as many authorities hold, 2 Timothy 4:13 refers to a later stay at Troas, it may well be connected with a further and final tour in Macedonia. But the intercourse between the apostle and this church of his founding was not limited to these rare visits. During Paul's first stay at Thessalonica he had received gifts of money on two occasions from the Philippian Christians (Philippians 4:16), and their kindness had been repeated after he left Macedonia for Greece (2 Corinthians 11:9; Philippians 4:15). Again, during his first imprisonment at Rome the Philippians sent a gift by the hand of one of their number, Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25; Philippians 4:10, 14-19), who remained for some time with the apostle, and finally, after a serious illness which nearly proved fatal (Philippians 2:27), returned home bearing the letter of thanks which has survived, addressed to the Philippian converts by Paul and Timothy (Philippians 1:1). The latter intended to visit the church shortly afterward in order to bring back to the imprisoned apostle an account of its welfare (Philippians 2:19, 23), but we do not know whether this plan was actually carried out or not. We cannot, however, doubt that other letters passed between Paul and this church besides the one which is extant, though the only reference to them is a disputed passage of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (iii.2), where he speaks of "letters" (epistolai) as written to them by Paul (but see Lightfoot's note on Philippians 3:1).

5. Later History of the Church: After the death of Paul we hear but little of the church or of the town of Philippi. Early in the 2nd century Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was condemned as a Christian and was taken to Rome to be thrown to the wild beasts. After passing through Philadelphia, Smyrna and Troas, he reached Philippi. The Christians there showed him every mark of affection and respect, and after his departure wrote a letter of sympathy to the Antiochene church and another to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, requesting him to send them copies of any letters of Ignatius which he possessed. This request Polycarp fulfilled, and at the same time sent a letter to the Philippians full of encouragement, advice and warning. From it we judge that the condition of the church as a whole was satisfactory, though a certain presbyter, Valens, and his wife are severely censured for their avarice which belied their Christian profession. We have a few records of bishops of Philippi, whose names are appended to the decisions of the councils held at Sardica (344 AD), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), and the see appears to have outlived the city itself and to have lasted down to modern times (Le Quien, Oriens Christ., II, 70; Neale, Holy Eastern Church, I, 92). Of the destruction of Philippi no account has come down to us. The name was perpetuated in that of the Turkish hamlet Felibedjik, but the site is now uninhabited, the nearest village being that of Raktcha among the hills immediately to the North of the ancient acropolis. This latter and the plain around are covered with ruins, but no systematic excavation has yet been undertaken. Of the extant remains the most striking are portions of the Hellenic and Hellenistic fortification, the scanty vestiges of theater, the ruin known among the Turks as Derekler, "the columns," which perhaps represents the ancient thermae, traces of a temple of Silvanus with numerous rock-cut reliefs and inscriptions, and the remains of a triumphal arch (Kiemer).

LITERATURE.

The fullest account of the site and antiquities is that of Heuzey and Daumet, Mission archeologique de Macedoine, chapters i through v and Plan A; Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, III, 214-25; Cousinery, Voyage dana la Macedoine, II, 1 ff; Perrot, "Daton. Neapolis. Les ruines de Philippos," in Revue archeologique, 1860; and Hackett, in Bible Union Quarterly, 1860, may also be consulted. For the Latin inscriptions see Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,III , 1, numbers 633-707;III , Suppl., numbers 7337-7358; for coins, B.V. Head, Historia Numorum, 192; Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum: Macedonia, etc., 96. For the history of the Philippian church and the narrative of Acts 16:12-40 see Lightfoot, Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, 47-65; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 202-Acts 26:1-32; Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul, chapter ix; Farrar, Life and Work of Paul, chapter xxv; and the standard commentaries on the Acts--especially Blass, Acta Apostolorum--and on Philippians.

M. N. Tod

Philippians, the Epistle to The

Philippians, the Epistle to The - fi-lip'-i-anz

I. PAUL AND THE CHURCH AT PHILIPPI

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHURCH AT PHILIPPI

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EPISTLE

1. A Letter

2. A Letter of Love

3. A Letter of Joy

4. Importance Theologically

IV. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE

V. PLACE, DATE AND OCCASION OF WRITING

VI. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE

LITERATURE

I. Paul and the Church at Philippi. Paul was on his second missionary journey in the year 52 AD. He felt that he was strangely thwarted in many of his plans. He had had a most distressing illness in Galatia. The Spirit would not permit him to preach in Asia, and when he essayed to enter Bithynia the Spirit again would not suffer it. Baffled and perplexed, the apostle with his two companions, Silas and Timothy, went on to the seacoast and stopped in Troas. Here at last his leading became clear. A vision of a man from Macedonia convinced him that it was the will of God that he should preach in the western continent of Europe. The way was opened at once. The winds were favorable. In two days he came to Neapolis. At once he took the broad paved way of the Via Egnatia up to the mountain pass and down on the other side to Philippi, a journey of some 8 miles. There was no synagogue at Philippi, but a little company of Jews gathered for Sabbath worship at "a place of prayer" (proseuche, Acts 16:13), about a mile to the West of the city gate on the shore of the river Gangites (see PROSEUCHA ). Paul and his companions talked to the women gathered there, and Lydia was converted. Later, a maid with the spirit of divination was exorcised. Paul and Silas were scourged and thrown into prison, an earthquake set them free, the jailer became a believer, the magistrates repented their treatment of men who were Roman citizens and besought them to leave the city (Acts 16:6-40). Paul had had his first experience of a Roman scourging and of lying in the stocks of a Roman prison here at Philippi, yet he went on his way rejoicing, for a company of disciples had been formed, and he had won the devotion of loyal and loving hearts for himself and his Master (see PHILIPPI). That was worth all the persecution and the pain. The Christians at Philippi seem to have been Paul's favorites among all his converts. He never lost any opportunity of visiting them and refreshing his spirit with their presence in the after-years. Six years later he was resident in Ephesus, and having sent Titus to Corinth with a letter to the Corinthians and being in doubt as to the spirit in which it would be received, he appointed a meeting with Titus in Macedonia, and probably spent the anxious days of his waiting at Philippi. If he met Titus there, he may have written 2 Corinthians in that city (2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:6). Paul returned to Ephesus, and after the riot in that city he went over again into Macedonia and made his third visit to Philippi. He probably promised the Philippians at this time that he would return to Philippi to celebrate the Easter week with his beloved converts there. He went on into Greece, but in 3 months he was back again, at the festival of the resurrection in the year 58 AD (Acts 20:2, 6). We read in 1 Timothy 1:3 that Paul visited Macedonia after the Roman imprisonment. He enjoyed himself among the Philippians. They were Christians after his own heart. He thanks God for their fellowship from the first day until now (Philippians 1:5). He declares that they are his beloved who have always obeyed, not in his presence only, but much more in his absence (Philippians 2:12). With fond repetition he addresses them as his brethren, beloved and longed for, his joy and crown, his beloved (Philippians 4:1). This was Paul's favorite church, and we can gather from the epistle good reason for this fact.

II. Characteristics of the Church at Philippi. (1) It seems to be the least Jewish of all the Pauline churches. There were few Jews in Philippi. No Hebrew names are found in the list of converts in this church mentioned in the New Testament. The Jewish opponents of Paul seem never to have established themselves in this community. (2) Women seem to be unusually prominent in the history of this church, and this is consistent with what we know concerning the position accorded to woman in Macedonian society. Lydia brings her whole family with her into the church. She must have been a very influential woman, and her own fervor and devotion and generosity and hospitality seem to have been contagious and to have become characteristic of the whole Christian community. Euodia and Syntyche are mentioned in the epistle, two women who were fellow-laborers with Paul in the gospel, for both of whom he has great respect, of both of whom he is sure that their names are written in the book of life, but who seem to have differed with each other in some matter of opinion. Paul exhorts them to be of the same mind in the Lord (Philippians 4:2). The prominence of women in the congregation at Philippi or the dominance of Lydia's influence among them may account for the fact that they seem to have been more mindful of Paul's comfort than any of his other converts were. They raised money for Paul's support and forwarded it to him again and again. They were anxious that he should have all that was needful. They were willing to give of their time and their means to that end. There seem to have been no theological differences in their company. That may testify to the fact that the most of them were women. (3) There were splendid men in the church membership too. Some of them were Macedonians and some of them were Roman veterans.

Hausrath declares that the Macedonians represented the "noblest and soundest part of the ancient world. .... Here was none of the shuffling and the indecision of the Asiatics, none of the irritable vanity and the uncertain levity of the Greek communities. .... They were men of sterner mold than could be fouund in Asia Minor or languorous Syria. The material was harder to work in, and offered more stubborn resistance; but the work, once done, endured. A new Macedonian phalanx was formed here, a phalanx of Pauline Christians. .... Manliness, loyalty, firmness, their characteristics in general history, are equally their characteristics in the history of the Christian church. .... They were always true to Paul, always obedient, always helpful" (Time of the Apostles, III, 203-4).

Paul rejoiced in them. They were spirits congenial with his own. The Roman veterans had been trained in the Roman wars to hardness and discipline and loyalty. They were Roman citizens and proud of the fact. In the epistle Paul exhorts them to behave as citizens worthy of the gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27), and he reminds them that though they were proud of their Roman citizenship, as was he, they all had become members of a heavenly commonwealth, citizenship in which was a much greater boon than even the jus Italicum had been. In Philippians 3:20 Paul states the fact again, "Our citizenship is in heaven"; and he goes on to remind them that their King is seated there upon the throne and that He is coming again to establish a glorious empire, for He has power to subject all things unto Himself.

It is to these old soldiers and athletes that Paul addresses his military and gymnastic figures of speech. He informs them that the whole praetorian guard had heard of the gospel through his imprisonment at Rome (Philippians 1:13). He sends them greeting from the saints that are in Caesar's household (Philippians 4:22). He prays that he may hear of them that they stand fast like an immovable phalanx, with one soul striving athletically for the faith of the gospel (Philippians 1:27). He knows that they will be fearless and brave, in nothing affrighted by the adversaries (Philippians 1:28). He speaks of his own experience as a wrestling-match, a conflict or contest (Philippians 1:30). He joys in the sacrifice and service of their faith (Philippians 2:17). He calls Epaphroditus not only his fellow-worker but his fellow-soldier (Philippians 2:25). He likens the Christian life to a race in which he presses on toward the goal unto the prize (Philippians 3:14). He asks the Philippians to keep even, soldierly step with him in the Christian walk (Philippians 3:16). These metaphors have their appeal to an athletic and military race, and they bear their testimony to the high regard which Paul had for this type of Christianity and for those in whose lives it was displayed. We do not know the names of many of these men, for only Clement and Epaphroditus are mentioned here; but we gather much concerning their spirit from this epistle, and we are as sure as Paul himself that their names are all written in the book of life (Philippians 4:3).

(4) If the constituent elements of the church at Philippi fairly represented the various elements of the population of the city, they must have been cosmopolitan in character. Philippi was an old Macedonian city which had been turned into a Roman colony. It was both Greek and Roman in its characteristics. Christianity had been introduced here by two Jews, who were Roman citizens, and a Jewish son of a Gentile father. In the account given of the rounding of the church in Acts 16:1-40 three converts are mentioned, and one is a Jewish proselyte from Asia, one a native Greek, and one a Roman official. The later converts doubtless represented the same diversity of nationality and the same differences in social position. Yet, apart from those two good women, Euodia and Syntyche, they were all of one mind in the Lord. It is a remarkable proof of the fact that in Christ all racial and social conditions may be brought into harmony and made to live together in peace. (5) They were a very liberal people. They gave themselves to the Lord and to Paul (2 Corinthians 8:5), and whenever they could help Paul or further the work of the gospel they gave gladly and willingly and up to the limit of their resources; and then they hypothecated their credit and gave beyond their power (2 Corinthians 8:3). Even Paul was astonished at their giving. He declares that they gave out of much affliction and deep poverty, that they abounded in their bounty, and that they were rich only in their liberality (2 Corinthians 8:2).

Surely these are unusual encomiums. The Philippians must have been a very unusual people. If the depth of one's consecration and the reality of one's religion are to be measured by the extent to which they affect the disposition of one's material possessions, if one measure of Christian love is to be found in Christian giving, then the Philippians may well stand supreme among the saints in the Pauline churches. Paul seems to have loved them most. He loved them enough to allow them to contribute toward his support. Elsewhere he refused any help of this sort, and stedfastly adhered to his plan of self-support while he was preaching the gospel. He made the single exception in the case of the Philippians. He must have been sure of their affection and of their confidence. Four times they gave Paul pecuniary aid. Twice they sent him their contributions just after he had left them and gone on to Thessalonica (Philippians 4:15-16). When Paul had proceeded to Corinth and was in want during his ministry there his heart was gladdened by the visitation of brethren from Philippi, who supplied the measure of his want (2 Corinthians 11:8-9). It was not a first enthusiasm, forgotten as soon as the engaging personality of the apostle was removed from their sight. It was not merely a personal attachment that prompted their gifts. They gave to their own dear apostle, but only that he might minister to others as he had ministered to them. He was their living link with the work in the mission field.

Eleven years passed by, and the Philippians heard that Paul was in prison at Rome and again in need of their help. Eleven years are enough to make quite radical changes in a church membership, but there seems to have been no change in the loyalty or the liberality of the Philippian church in that time. The Philippians hastened to send Epaphroditus to Rome with their contributions and their greetings. It was like a bouquet of fresh flowers in the prison cell. Paul writes this epistle to thank them that their thought for him had blossomed afresh at the first opportunity they had had (Philippians 4:10). No wonder that Paul loved them and was proud of them and made their earnestness and sincerity and affection the standard of comparison with the love of others (2 Corinthians 8:8).

III. Characteristics of the Epistle. 1. A Letter: It is a letter. It is not a treatise, as Romana, Hebrews, and 1 John are. It is not an encyclical full of general observations and exhortations capable of application at any time and anywhere, as the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Epistle of James and the Epistles of Peter are. It is a simple letter to personal friends. It has no theological discussions and no rigid outline and no formal development. It rambles along just as any real letter would with personal news and personal feelings and outbursts of personal affection between tried friends. It is the most spontaneous and unaffected of the Pauline Epistles. It is more epistolary than any of the others addressed to the churches.

2. A Letter of Love: It is a letter of love. All of the other epistles have mixed feelings manifest in them. Sometimes a feeling of grief and of indignation is dominant, as in 2 Corinthians. Sometimes the uppermost desire of Paul in his writing seems to be the establishment of the truth against the assault of its foes, as in Galatians and Romans. Always more or less fault is suggested in the recipients of the warnings and the exhortations Paul feels compelled to write to them. In Philippi alone there is no fault to be found. The only suggestion of such a thing is in the reference to the difference of opinion between Euodia and Syntyche, and while Paul thinks this ought to be harmonized, he does not seem to consider it any very serious menace to the peace of the church. Aside from this Paul has nothing but praise for his beloved brethren and prayer that their love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment (Philippians 1:9). He is full of thankfulness upon all his remembrance of them (Philippians 1:3). He rejoices in the privilege of being offered upon the sacrifice and service of their faith (Philippians 2:17). The church at Philippi may not have been conspicuous in charisms as the church at Corinth was, but it had the fruits of the Spirit in rich measure. Paul seems to think that it needed only to rejoice in its spiritual possessions and to grow in grace and in the mind of Christ. His heart is full of gratitude and love as he writes. He rejoices as he thinks of them. His peace and his hope are triumphant over present affliction and the prospect of persecution and death. If this is his last will and testament to his beloved church, as Holtzmann calls it, he has nothing to bequeath them but his unqualified benediction. Having loved them from the first, he loves them to the end.

3. A Letter of Joy: It is a letter of joy. It was Bengel who said, Summa epistolae: gaudeo, gaudete, "The sum of the epistle is, I rejoice; rejoice ye." Paul was a man whose spirits were undaunted in any circumstances. He might be scourged in one city and stoned in another and imprisoned in a third and left for dead in a fourth, but as long as he retained consciousness and as soon as he regained conscioushess he rejoiced. Nothing could dampen his ardor. Nothing could disturb his peace. In Philippi he had been scourged and cast into the inner prison and his feet had been made fast in the stocks, but at midnight he and Silas were singing hymns of praise to God. He is in prison now in Rome, but he is still rejoicing. Some men would have been discouraged in such circumstances. Wherever Paul had gone his preaching had been despised, and he had been persecuted. The Jews had slandered him and harassed him, and so many of his converts had proved to be fickle and false. The years had gone by and the breach between him and his brethren had widened rather than lessened, and at last they had succeeded in getting him into prison and keeping him there for years. Prison life is never pleasant, and it was far less so in that ancient day than it is now.

Paul was such an ardent spirit. It was more difficult for him to be confined than it would be for a more indolent man; He was a world-missionary, a restless cosmopolite ranging up and down through the continents with the message of the Christ. It was like putting an eagle into a cage to put him into prison. Many eagles mope and die in imprisonment. Paul was not moping. He was writing this Epistle to the Philippians and saying to them, "The things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the progress of the gospel .... therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Philippians 1:12, 18). His enemies were free to do and to say hat they pleased, and they were making the most of the opportunity. He could no longer thwart or hinder them. Some men would have broken out into loud lamentations and complaints. Some men would have worried about the conditions and would have become nervous about the outcome of the cause. The faith of even John the Baptist failed in prison. He could not believe that things were going right if he were not there to attend to them. Paul's faith never wavered. His hope never waned. His joy was inexhaustible and perennial. He was never anxious. Did he hear the sentry's step pacing up and down the corridor before his prison door? It reminded him of the peace of God which passeth all understanding, guarding his heart and his thoughts in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:7), standing sentry there night and day. The keynote of this epistle is "Rejoice in the Lord always: again I will say, Rejoice" (Philippians 4:4).

Paul is old and worn and in prison, but some 20 times in the course of this short letter to the Philippians he uses the words, joy, rejoice, peace, content, and thanksgiving. It is a letter full of love and full of joy.

4. Importance Theologically: It is of great importance theologically. It is one of the paradoxes to which we become almost accustomed in Paul's writings that this simplest of his letters, most epistolary and most personal throughout should yet contain the fullest and most important putting of theology of the incarnation and exaltation that came from his pen. He has only a practical end in view. He is exhorting the Philippians to humility, and he says to them, Have the mind which was in Christ who emptied himself and then was exalted (Philippians 2:5-11). It is the most theological passage in the epistle. It is one of the most doctrinally important in the New Testament. It is Paul's final contribution to the solution of the great mystery of the coming of the Saviour and the economy of salvation. It is his last word, at any length, on this subject. He states plainly the fact of the kenosis, the morale of the redemption, the certainty of the exaltation, and the sure hope of the universal adoration in the end. The most vital truths of Christology are here clearly stated and definitely formulated for all time. Jesus was a real man, not grasping at any of the attributes of Deity which would be inconsistent with real and true humanity, but in whole-hearted surrender of sacrifice submitting to all the disabilities and limitations necessary to the incarnate conditions. He was equal with God, but He emptied Himself of the omnipotence and the omniscience and the omnipresence of His pre-incarnate state, and was found in form as a man, a genuine man obedient to God in all His life. He always maintained that attitude toward God which we ought to maintain and which we can maintain in our humanity, in which He was on an equality with us. We ought to have the mind which was in Christ. He humbled Himself and became obedient. He was obedient through life and obedient unto death, yea, even unto the death of the cross. It is a great passage, setting forth profoundest truths in the tersest manner. It is the crowning revelation concerning Jesus in the Pauline Epistles. It represents Paul's most mature thought upon this theme.

See KENOSIS.

IV. Genuineness of the Epistle. The genuineness of the epistle is very generally admitted today. It was in the Canon of Marcion. Its name occurs in the list on the Muratorian Fragment. It is found in both the Peshitta and the Old Latin versions. It is mentioned by Polycarp and quoted in the letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, in the Epistle of Diognetus, and in the writings of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Baur made a determined attack upon its authenticity. He declared that it was not doctrinal and polemical like the other Pauline Epistles, but that it was full of shallow imitations of these. He said it had no apparent motive and no connected argument and no depth of thought. He questioned some of the historical data and suspected Gnostic influence in certain passages. Bleek said of Baur's arguments that they were partly derived from a perverted interpretation of certain passages in the epistle; they partly rested upon arbitrary istorical presuppositions; and some of them were really so weak that it was hard to believe that he could have attached any importance to them himself. It is not surprising that few critics have been found willing to follow Baur's leadership at this point. Biederman, Kneucker, Hinsch, Hitzig, Hoekstra, and Holsten may be mentioned among them. The genuineness of the epistle has been defended by Weizsacker, Weiss, Pfleiderer, Julicher, Klopper, Schenkel, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, Harnack, Holtzmann, Mangold, Lipsius, Renan, Godet, Zahn, Davidson, Lightfoot, Farrar, McGiffert, and practically all of the English writers on the subject. Weizsacker says that the reasons for attributing the epistle to the apostle Paul are "overwhelming." McGiffert declares: "It is simply inconceivable that anyone else would or could have produced in his name a letter in which no doctrinal or ecclesiastical motive can be discovered, and in which the personal element so largely predominates and the character of the man and the apostle is revealed with so great vividness and fidelity. The epistle deserves to rank alongside of Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans as an undoubted product of Paul's pen, and as a coordinate standard by which to test the genuineness of other and less certain writings" (The Apostolic Age, 393). This is the practically unanimous conclusion of modern scholarship.

V. Place, Date, and Occasion of Writing. This is one of the prison epistles (see PHILEMON). Paul makes frequent reference to his bonds (Philippians 1:7, 13-14, 17). He was for 2 years a prisoner in Caesarea (Acts 24:27). Paulus and others have thought that the epistle was written during this imprisonment; but the references to the praetorian guard and the members of Caesar's household have led most critics to conclude that the Roman imprisonment was the one to which the epistle refers. Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were also written during the Roman imprisonment, and these three form a group by themselves. Philippians is evidently separated from them by some interval. Was it written earlier or later than they? Bleek, Lightfoot, Sanday, Herr, Beet and others think that the Epistle to the Philippians was written first. We prefer, however, to agree with Zahn, Ramsay, Findlay, Shaw, Vincent, Julicher, Holtzmann, Weiss, Godet, and others, who argue for the writing of Phil toward the close of the Roman imprisonment.

Their reasons are as follows: (1) We know that some considerable time must have elapsed after Paul's arrival at Rome before he could have written this epistle; for the news of his arrival had been carried to Philippi and a contribution to his needs had been raised among his friends there, and Epaphroditus had carried it to Rome. In Rome, Epaphroditus had become seriously sick and the news of this sickness had been carried back to Philippi and the Philippians had sent back a message of sympathy to him. At least four trios between Rome and philippi are thus indicated, and there are intervals of greater or less length between them. The distance between the two cities was some 700 miles. Communication was easy by the Appian Way and Trajan's Way to Brundusium and across the narrow straits there to the Egnatian Way, which led directly to Philippi. There were many making the trip at all times, but the journey would occupy a month at least, and the four journeys suggested in the epistle were not in direct succession. (2) Paul says that through him Christ had become known throughout the whole praetorian guard (Philippians 1:13). It must have taken some time for this to become possible. (3) The conditions outside the prison, where Christ was being preached, by some in a spirit of love, and by others in a spirit of faction, cannot be located in the earliest months of Paul's sojourn in Rome (Philippians 1:15-17). They must belong to a time when Christianity had developed in the city and parties had been formed in the church. (4) Luke was well known at Philippi. Yet he sends no salutation to the Philippians in this epistle. He would surely have done so if he had been with Paul at the time of its writing. He was with the apostle when he wrote to the Colossians, and so was Demas (Colossians 4:14). In this epistle Paul promises to send Timothy to Philippi, and says, "I have no man likeminded, who will care truly for your state" (Philippians 2:20). This must mean that Aristarchus, Demas and Luke were all gone. They had all been with him when he wrote the other epistles (5) His condition as a prisoner seems to have changed for the worse. He had enjoyed comparative liberty for the first 2 years of his imprisonment at Rome, living in his own hired house and accessible to all his friends. He had now been removed, possibly to the guardroom of the praetorian cohort. Here he was in more rigorous confinement, in want and alone. (6) Paul writes as if he thought that his case would be decided soon (Philippians 2:23, 14). He seems to be facing his final trial. He is not sure of its outcome. He may die a martyr's death, but he expects to be acquitted and then to be at liberty to do further missionary work. This was not his immediate expectation when he wrote the other epistles., and therefore they would seem to be earlier than this. (7) The epistle is addressed to all the saints in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (Philippians 1:1). These official titles do not occur in any earlier epistles, but they are found in the Pastoral Epistles, which were written still later. Therefore they link the Epistle to the Philippians with the later rather than the earlier epistles

From these indications we conclude that this is the last of Paul's Epistles to the churches. Hilgenfeld calls this the swan song of the great apostle. In it Paul has written his last exhortations and warnings, his last hopes and prayers for his converts to the Christian faith. Its date must be somewhere toward the close of the Roman imprisonment, in the year 63 or 64 AD. Epaphroditus had brought the contribution of the Philippians to Paul in Rome. He had plunged into the work there in rather reckless fashion, risking his life and contracting a malarial fever or some other serious sickness; but his life had been spared in answer to the prayers of Paul and his friends. Now Paul sends him back to Philippi, though he knows that he will be very lonely without him; and he sends with him this letter of acknowledgment of their gift, filled with commendation and encouragement, gratitude and love.

VI. Contents of the Epistle. The epistle is not capable of any logical analysis. Its succession of thought may be represented as follows: (1) Address (Philippians 1:1-2). (2) Thanksgiving and prayer (Philippians 1:3-11): Paul is thankful for their fellowship and confident of their perfection. He longs for them and prays that their love may be wise to discriminate among the most excellent things and that they may be able to choose the very best, until they are filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are through Jesus Christ, unto the glory and the praise of God. (3) Information concerning his own experience (Philippians 1:12-30): (a) His evangelism (Philippians 1:12-14): Everything had turned out well. Paul is in prison, but he has been indefatigable in his evangelism. He has been chained to a soldier, but that has given him many an opportunity for personal and private and prolonged conversation. When the people have gathered to hear, the guard has listened perforce; and when the crowd was gone, more than once the soldier has seemed curious and interested and they have talked on about the Christ. Paul has told his experience over and over to these men, and his story has been carried through the whole camp. (b) His tolerance (Philippians 1:15-18): Not only has the gospel found unexpected furtherance inside the prison walls, but through the whole city the brethren have been emboldened by Paul's success to preach Christ, some through faction and envy and strife, and some through love. Paul rejoices that Christ is preached, whether by his enemies or by his friends. He would much prefer to have the gospel presented as he himself preached it, but he was great-souled and broadminded enough to tolerate differences of opinion and method among brethren in Christ. "In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Philippians 1:18). This is one of the noblest utterances of one of the greatest of men. Paul is sorry that everybody does not see things just exactly as he does, but he rejoices if they glorify Christ and would not put the least hindrance in their way. (c) His readiness for life or death (Philippians 1:19-26): Paul says, Give me liberty or give me death; it will be Christ either way. To live is to work for Christ; to die is to be with Christ. "To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Here is Paul's soliloquy in the face of possible martyrdom or further missionary labors.

We are reminded of Hamlet's soliloquy in Shakespeare. "To be or not to be"--that is the question with both Hamlet and Paul. Hamlet weighs evils against evils and chooses the lesser evils in sheer cowardice in the end. Paul weighs blessings against blessings, the blessings of life for Christ and the blessings of death with Christ, and chooses the lesser blessings in pure unselfishness in the end. They both choose life, but the motives of their choice are radically different; and Paul lives with rejoicing while Hamlet lives in despair and in shame. The aged apostle would rather die than live, but he would rather live than die before his work was done.

(d) His example (Philippians 1:27-30): Paul was a Roman citizen and so were they. He tried to live worthy of his citizenship and so must they. He had a still higher ambition, that he and they might live as citizens worthy of the gospel of Christ. He fought as a good soldier. He stood fast in the faith. He was in nothing affrighted by the adversaries. Let them follow his example. They were engaged in the same conflict. To them it had been granted to believe and to suffer in the behalf of Christ. Their faith was not of themselves; it was the gift of God. Their suffering was not self-chosen; it too was a gift of God. (4) Exhortation to follow the example of Christ (Philippians 2:1-18): Let the Philippians have the mind and spirit of Jesus, and Paul will rejoice to pour out his life as a libation upon the sacrifice and service of their faith. (5) Reasons for sending Timothy, and Epaphroditus to them (Philippians 2:19-30). (6) Paul's example (Philippians 3:1-21):

(a) In the repudiation of all confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:1-7): There are certain dogs and evil workers who belong to the old Jewish persuasion who glory in the flesh. Paul does not. He glories in Christ Jesus and has no confidence in the flesh. He has much reason to be proud of his past, for he would rank high on his record among them. He was of the stock of Israel, the prince with God. He belonged to the race of those who wrestled with God and got the victory. He was of the tribe of Benjamin, the only one of the patriarchs born in the Chosen Land. The first king of Israel had been chosen from this tribe. It alone had been faithful to the house of David at the time of the Great Schism. It held the place of honor in the militant host of the Israelites (Judges 5:14; Hosea 5:8). It was a matter of pride to belong to this singly faithful and signally honored tribe. He was a Hebrew of Hebrews, and he belonged to that sect among the Hebrews that was notorious for its scrupulous observance of all the religious ritual, for its patriotism and zeal, for its piety. and devotion. Among these Pharisees he was conspicuous for his enthusiasm. He was the chosen instrument of the Sanhedrin to persecute and annihilate the Christian church. No one could find fault with his legal righteousness. He claimed to be blameless as judged by their standard. That was his record. Who has any better one, in pedigree or in piety? All of these things Paul counts but loss for Christ. (b) In the maintenance and pursuit of spiritual perfection (Philippians 3:8-16): The word "perfect" is used twice in this paragraph. We read: "Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but I press on." Many of the authorities quote these words as indicative of Paul's humility in disclaiming any present perfection of character while he avows his purpose to strive on toward perfection as long as he lives. Such an interpretation is wholly aside from Paul's thought. He is not talking about perfection in patience and peace and devotion and character. That perfection he claims for himself and for the Philippians in this paragraph toward the close: "Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded." The perfection of which he speaks earlier is the perfection possible in the resurrection life of the saints in bliss. He has not attained unto the resurrection from the dead and is not perfect with the perfection of heaven. That is the goal of his endeavor. He presses on to that mark. In the meantime he maintains that perfection of consecration and of faith that results in present Christian perfection of character and which is the only guaranty of that perfection to be revealed to those who attain unto the resurrection from the dead. (c) In heavenly citizenship (Philippians 3:17-21): Paul walks with his mind on heavenly things. There are those who mind earthly things. They are enemies of the cross, but he has sworn eternal allegiance to the cross. Their end is perdition, while his end is sure salvation. Their god is the belly, while his goal is the perfection of the spirit. Their glory is in their shame, while his glory is in Christ alone. "Brethren, be ye imitators together of me, and mark them that so walk even as ye have us for an ensample." Then "The Lord .... shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation," the body of our earthly pilgrimage, the body that so often fails the racer to the goal and cannot keep up with the desire of his spirit, and will conform it "to the body of his glory," the perfect body of those who have attained to the resurrection of the dead. It is not "our vile body" that is to be changed. That gives a false sense in modern English. The body is not vile, and the Bible nowhere says that it is. It was Manichean or neo-Platonic heresy that matter was evil and the body vile. Plotinus blushed that he had a body; Jesus never did. The Christian will honor the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. It was the vehicle of the incarnation, and he honors it for that. Yet the body prepared for Jesus was the body of His humiliation. It bound Him to the earth. It wearied when He was most anxious to work. It failed Him when He most needed strength. Paul says that our bodies are like the body of Jesus of Nazareth now, and they shall be like the body of our risen Lord in due time.

(7) A series of short exhortations (Philippians 4:1-9): This series ends with the command, "The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you." All these exhortations, then, are based upon his own conduct and experience and example. They had seen the embodiment of these things in him. They were to be imitators of him in their obedience to them. Therefore as we read them we have side-lights thrown upon the character of the apostle who had taught and preached and practiced these things.

What do they tell us concerning the apostle Paul? (a) His stedfastness and his love for his friends (Philippians 4:1): He had a genius for friendship. He bound his friends to him with cords of steel. They were ready to sacrifice anything for him. The reason for that was that he sacrificed everything for them, and that he had such an overflowing love for them that his love begot love in them. They could depend upon him. (b) His sympathy with all good men and all good women and his desire that they live in peace (Philippians 4:2-3): The true yokefellow mentioned here cannot be identified now. He has been variously named by the critics, as Epaphroditus, Barnabas, Luke, Silas, Timothy, Peter, and Christ. There may be a proper name in the phrase, either Genisius or Syzygus. We are wholly ignorant as to whom Paul meant. (c) His constant rejoicing in the Lord (Philippians 4:4). (d) His sweet reasonableness ("moderation," the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "forbearance," Philippians 4:5).: So Matthew Arnold translates the Greek noun here. Tyndale called it courtesy. It is a combination of forbearance and graciousness, of modesty and courtesy, of consideration and esteem such as was characteristic of Christ. Paul had it. There was a sweet reasonableness about him that made his personality a most winning and attractive one. (e) His freedom from anxiety (Philippians 4:6-7): Paul's fearless confidence was born on the one hand from his assurance that the Lord was near, and on the other from his faith in prayer. It passed all understanding how Paul was kept from all anxiety. It was the power of prayer that did it. It was the peace of God that did it. It was the Lord at hand who did it. (f) His habitual high thinking (Philippians 4:8): All that was worthy in the ideals of the Greek philosophers Paul made the staple of his thought. He delighted in things true and honorable and just and pure and lovely and of good report. He knew that virtue was in these things and that all praise belonged to them. He had learned that while his mind was filled with these things he lived in serenity and peace.

(8) Thanks for their gift (Philippians 4:10-20). (9) Salutations (Philippians 4:21-22). (10) Benediction (Philippians 4:23). This is not a theological epistle and therefore it is not an especially Christological one. Yet we count the name of Christ 42 times in this short letter, and the pronouns referring to Him are many more. Paul cannot write anything without writing about Christ. He ends: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." The spirit of Christ and the grace of Christ are in the entire epistle.

LITERATURE:

Works on Introduction: Zahn, Weiss, Julicher, Salmon, Dods, Bacon, Bennett and Adeney; McClymont, The New Testament and Its Writers; Farrar, The Messages of the Books; Fraser, Synoptical Lectures on Books of the Holy Scripture; Godet, Studies on the Epistles Works on the Pauline Epistles: Findlay, Shaw. Commentaries: Lightfoot, Vincent, Weiss, Beet, Ellicott, Haupt, Moule. Devotional studies: Moule, Meyer, Jowett, Noble.

Doremus Almy Hayes

Philistia

Philistia - fi-lis'-ti-a: The country is referred to under various designations in the Old Testament: namely, pelesheth (Philistia) (Psalms 60:8 (Hebrews 10:1-39); 87:4), 'erets pelishtim, "land of the Philistines" (Genesis 21:32, 34), geloth hapelishtim; Septuagint ge ton Phulistieim, "the regions of the Philistines" (Joshua 13:2). The Egyptian monuments have Puirsatha, Pulsath (Budge), Peleset (Breasted) and Purasati (HGHL), according to the different voweling of the radicals; the Assyrian form is Palastu or Pilistu, which corresponds very closely to the Egyptian and the Hebrew. The extent of the land is indicated in Joshua 13:2 as being from the Shihor, or Brook of Egypt (Revised Version), to the border of Ekron, northward. The eastern border was along the Judean foothills on the line of Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:9) with the sea on the West. It was a very small country, from 25 to 30 miles in length and with an average width of about half the length, but it was fertile, being an extension of the plain of Sharon, except that along the coast high sand dunes encroached upon the cultivated tract. It contained many towns and villages, the most important being the five so often mentioned in Scripture: Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron. The population must have been large for the territory, which enabled them to contend successfully with the Israelites, notwithstanding the superiority of position in the hills to the advantage of the latter.

H. Porter

Philistim

Philistim - fi-lis'-tim, fil'-is-tim (pelishtim (Genesis 10:14, the King James Version)).

See PHILISTINES.

Philistines

Philistines - fi-lis'-tinz, fil'-is-tinz, fil'-is-tinz (pelishtim; Phulistieim, allophuloi):

I. OLD TESTAMENT NOTICES

1. Race and Origin

2. Religion

3. Individual Philistines Mentioned

4. Title of Ruler and Circumcision

5. History in the Old Testament to Death of Saul

6. History Continued to Time of Ahaz

7. Later Notices

II. MONUMENTAL NOTICES

1. Palestinian Excavations

2. Egyptian Monuments

3. Assyrian Texts

III. THE CRETAN THEORY

1. Cherethim and Kretes

2. Caphtor and Keft

IV. DAVID'S GUARDS

1. The "Cherethi" and the "Pelethi" Not Mercenaries

2. Meaning of These Terms

3. Native Hebrews

4. Review

LITERATURE

I. Old Testament Notices. 1. Race and Origin: The Philistines were an uncircumcised people inhabiting the shore plain between Gezer and Gaza in Southwestern Palestine (see PHILISTIA). The name Palestine itself (Hebrew pelesheth) refers to their country. The word means "migrants," and they came from another country. They are noticed 286 times in the Old Testament, and their country 8 times. The question of their race and origin is of great importance as affecting the genuine character and reliability of the Bible notices. In Genesis 10:14 (1 Chronicles 1:12) they are reckoned with other tribes in Mizraim (Egypt) as descendants of Ham, and as cousins of the old inhabitants of Babylonia (Genesis 10:6). They are said to be a branch of the Casluhim--an unknown people--or, according to Septuagint, of the Casmanim, which would mean "shavers of the head"--a custom of the Phoenicians (forbidden to Hebrews as a rule), as known from a picture of the time of Thothmes III in the 16th century BC. They are also connected with the Caphtorim or people of Caphtor, whence indeed they are said to have come (Jeremiah 47:4; Amos 9:7). Caphtor was a "shoreland," but its position is doubtful (see Deuteronomy 2:23); the Caphtorim found an earlier race of Avim living in "enclosures" near Gaza, and destroyed them. In the Septuagint of this passage (and in Amos 9:7) Cappadocia stands for Caphtor (Kaphtor), and other versions have the same reading. Cappadocia was known to the Assyrians as kat-pat-uka (probably an Akkadian term--"land of the Kati"), and the Kati were a people living in Cilicia and Cappadocia, which region had a Semitic population side by side with Mengels (see HITTITES) at least as early as the time of Moses. It is very likely therefore that this reading is correct.

2. Religion: According to the Old Testament and monuments alike, the Philistines were a Semitic people, and they worshipped two Babylonian gods, Dagon (1 Samuel 5:2) and Ashtaroth (1 Samuel 31:10), both of whom were adored very early in Babylonia, both, however, having names of Akkadian and not of Semitic origin. In Semitic speech Dagon meant "grain," and was so understood in the time of Philo of Gebal, a Greek-Phoenician writer who attributes the art of grain-growing to this deity. But the original name was Da-gan, and in Akkadian da is "the upper part of a man," and gan (Turkish qaan) probably means "a large fish." The new man deity was well known to the Assyrians, and is represented in connection with Sennacherib's worship of Ea, the sea-god, when he embarked on the Persian Gulf. Thus Dagon was probably a title of Ea ("the water spirit"), called by Berosus Oannes (u-ha-na, "lord of the fish"), and said to have issued from this same gulf. We consequently read that when the statue of Dagon at Ashdod fell (1 Samuel 5:4), its head and hands were broken off, and only "the great fish" was left. In 1874 the present writer found a seal near Ashdod representing a bearded god (as in Babylonia) with a fish tail (see DAGON). As to Ashtoreth, who was adored in Philistia itself, her name is derived from the Akkadian Ishtar ("light maker"), a name for the moon-goddess and--later--for the planet Venus.

See ASHTORETH.

3. Individual Philistines Mentioned: The Philistines had reached Gerar by the time of Abraham, and it was only in the age of the Hyksos rulers of the Delta that Canaanite tribes could be described as akin, not only to Babylonians, but also to certain tribes in Egypt, a circumstance which favors the antiquity of the ethnic chapter, Genesis 10:1-32. We have 9 Philistine names in the Old Testament, all of which seem to be Semitic, including Abimelech--"Moloch is my father"--(Genesis 20:2-18; Genesis 21:22-32; Genesis 26:8-11) at Gerar, Southeasat of Gaza, Ahuzzath ("possession," Genesis 26:26), and Phicol (of doubtful meaning), with Delilah ("delicate," Judges 16:4), Goliath (probably the Babylonian galu, "great"), and Saph (2 Samuel 21:18), perhaps meaning "increase." These two brothers were sons of Raphah ("the tall"); but Ishbi-benob (2 Samuel 21:16), another of the family, perhaps only means "the dweller in Nob" (Beit Nuba, North of Gezer). The king of Gath in David's time was Achish ("the gift" in Bah), who (1 Samuel 27:2) was the son of Maoch, "the oppressor." According to Septuagint, Jonathan killed a Philistine named Nasib (1 Samuel 13:3-4, where the King James Version reads "a garrison"). If this is correct the name (meaning "a pillar") would also be Semitic.

4. Title of Ruler and Circumcision: Besides these personal names, and those of the cities of Philistia which are all Semitic, we have the title given to Philistine lords, ceren, which Septuagint renders "satrap" and "ruler," and which probably comes from a Semitic root meaning "to command." It constantly applies to the rulers of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron, the 5 chief cities of Philistia. The fact that the Philistines were uncircumcised does not prove that they were not a Semitic people. Herodotus (ii.104) says that the Phoenicians acknowledged that they took this custom from the Egyptians, and the Arabs according to this passage were still uncircumcised, nor is it known that this was a custom of the Babylonians and Assyrians. The Septuagint translators of the Pentateuch always render the name Phulistieim, and this also is found in 8 passages of Joshua and Judges, but in the later books the name is translated as meaning "strangers" throughout, because they were not the first inhabitants of Philistia.

5. History in the Old Testament until Death of Saul:

The Philistines conquered the "downs" (geliloth, Joel 3:4) near the seacoast, and were so powerful at the time of the Hebrew conquest that none of their great towns were taken (Joshua 13:3; Judges 3:3). By the time of Samson (about 1158 BC) they appear as oppressors of Israel for 40 years (Judges 13:1; 15:20), having encroached from their plains into the Shephelah (or low hills) of Judah, at the foot of the mountains. Delilah was a Philistine woman, living in the valley of Sorek, close to Samson's home. In the last year of Eli (1 Samuel 4:1) we find the Philistines attacking the mountains near Mizpeh, where they captured the ark. Samuel drove them back and placed his monument of victory between Mizpeh and Jeshanah (Shen; see the Septuagint; 1 Samuel 7:12) on the mountain ridge of Benjamin. He even regained towns in the Shephelah as far as Ekron and Gath (1 Samuel 7:14); but at the opening of Saul's reign (1 Samuel 10:5) the Philistines had a "garrison" at Gibeah--or a chief named Hasib according to Septuagint. They raided from this center (1 Samuel 13:17-23) in all directions, and prevented the Hebrews from arming themselves, till Jonathan drove them from Michmash (1 Samuel 14:1-47). David's victory (1 Samuel 17:2) was won in the Valley of Elah East of Gath, and the pursuit (1 Samuel 17:52) was as far as Ekron. We here read that the Philistine champion wore armor of bronze (1 Samuel 17:4-7), his spear head being of iron. They still invaded the Shephelah after this defeat, robbing the threshing-floors of Keilah (1 Samuel 23:1) near Adullam at the foot of the Hebron Mountains (see 1 Samuel 23:27; 24:1). David's band of outlaws gradually increasing from 400 to 600 men (1 Samuel 22:2; 27:2), being driven from the Hebrew lands, accompanied him to Gath, which is usually placed at Tell es-Safi, at the point where the Valley of Elah enters the Philistine plain. It appears that Achish, king of Gath, then ruled as far South as Ziklag (Joshua 15:31; 1 Samuel 27:6) in the Beersheba plains; but he was not aware of the direction of David's raids at this distance. Achish supposed David to be committed to his cause (1 Samuel 27:12), but the Philistine lords suspected him and his Hebrew followers (1 Samuel 29:3) when going up to Jezreel.

6. History Continued to Time of Ahaz: After they had killed Saul, we hear no more of them till the 8th year of David, when, after taking Jerusalem, he apparently went down to Adullam (2 Samuel 5:17) and fell upon them in their rear as they advanced on his capital. He then destroyed their supremacy (2 Samuel 8:1) as far as Gezer (1 Chronicles 20:4), and the whole of Philistia was subject to Solomon (1 Kings 4:21), though not long after his death they seem to have held the town of Gibbethon (1 Kings 15:27; 16:15) in the hills of Dan. Hezekiah smote the Philistines as far as Gaza (2 Kings 18:8) before 702 BC, in which year (according to the Taylor cylinder) Sennacherib made Hezekiah deliver up Padii, king of Ekron, who had been carried prisoner to Jerusalem. The accounts in Chronicles refer to David's taking Gath (1 Chronicles 18:1), which was recovered later, and again taken by Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:6). The Philistines sent gifts to Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17:11), but invaded the Shephelah (2 Chronicles 28:18) in the time of Ahaz.

7. Later Notices: In this age the "lords" of the 5 cities of Philistia are called "kings," both in the Bible and on Assyrian monuments. Isaiah (2:6) speaks of Philistine superstitions, Ezekiel (25:15,16) connects them with the Cherethim on the seacoast. They still held Gath in the time of Amos (6:2), and Gaza, Ashdod and Ekron in that of Zephaniah (2:5), who again mentions the Cherethim with Philistines, as inhabitants of Canaan or the "lowlands." The last notice (Zechariah 9:6) still speaks of kings in Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron and Ashdod at a time when the Ionians had become known in Judah (Zechariah 9:13); but the Philistines are unnoticed by Ezra or Nehemiah, unless we suppose that the "speech of Ashdod" (Nehemiah 13:24) was their old dialect, which appears--like the language of the Canaanites in general in earlier times--to have resembled that of the Babylonians and Assyrians, and to have thus differed--though Semitic--from the Hebrews.

Their further history is embraced in that of the various cities to which reference can be made under the articles pertaining to them.

II. Monumental Notices. 1. Palestinian Excavations: These are of great importance, because they confirm the Old Testament statements from a time at least as early as that of Moses, and down to 670 BC. Recent excavations at Gezer show the early presence of two races at this Philistine city, one being Semitic, the other probably Egyptian Scarabs as old as the XIIth Dynasty were found, and in the 15th century BC Gezer was held by Amenophis III. At Lachish also seals of this king and his queen have been found, with a cuneiform letter to Zimridi, who was ruler of the city under the same Pharaoh. At Gaza a temple was built by Amenophis II. The names of places in Philistia noticed yet earlier by Thothmes III are all Semitic, including Joppa, Saphir, Gerar, Gezer, etc. In the Tell el-Amarna Letters we have also (about 1480 BC) letters from chiefs subject to Amenophis III at Joppa, Ashkelon, Gezer, Lachish and Keilah which show us a Semitic population, not only by the language of these letters, but also by the names of the writers. In the case of Ashkelon especially the Semitic rulers are found to have worshipped Dagon; and, though the name "Philistine" does not occur, the race was clearly the same found by the Assyrians in 800 BC in the land of Palastan beside the Great Sea. These names include Yamir-Dagdn ("Dagon sees"), Dagantakala ("Dagon is a protection") and Yadaya (the "grateful") at Ashkelon; Bua ("asked for"), son of the woman Gulata, at Joppa; Yabnilu ("God made"), at Lachish, with Zimridi--a name found also in Sabean Arabic; while, at Gezer, Yapa'a represents the Biblical Japhia (Joshua 10:3), and Milkilu ("Moloch is king") the Hebrew Malchiel. Others might be added of the same character, but these examples are enough to show that, in the time of Moses and Joshua, the population of Philistia was the same that is noticed in the Old Testament as early as Abraham's age.

2. Egyptian Monuments: When therefore scholars speak of the Philistines as being non-Semitic--and probably Aryan--invaders of the country, arriving about 1200 BC, they appear not only to contradict the Bible, but also to contradict the monumental evidence of the earlier existence of Semitic Dagon- worshippers at Ashkelon. In this later age Rameses III was attacked, in Egypt, by certain northern tribes who came by sea, and also by land, wasting first the country of the Hittites and Amorites. Among them were the Danau, who were probably Greek Danai. They were exterminated in the Delta, and in the subsequent advance of Rameses III to the Euphrates. On a colored picture they are represented as fair people; and two of the tribes were called Purstau and Takarri, whom Chabas supposed to be Pelasgi (since "l" and "r" are not distinguished in Egyptian) and Teucrians. These two tribes wear the same peculiar headdress. Brugsch supposed the former to be Philistines (Geog., I, 10), but afterward called them Purosata (Hist Egypt, II, 148). The inscriptions accompanying the picture on the temple walls say that they came from the north, and "their home was in the land of the Purstau, the Takarri," etc. There is thus no reason at all to suppose that they were Philistines, nor did they ever settle in Philistia.

3. Assyrian Texts: The Assyrian texts agree with those already mentioned in making the inhabitants of Philistia Semitic. Rimmon-nirari, about 800 BC, was the first Assyrian conqueror in Palastau ("by the great sea"). In 734 and 727 BC, Tiglath-pileser attacked the Pilisti, and mentions a king of Ashkelon named Mitinti ("my gift"), and his son Rukufti whose name resembles that of the Kenite called Rechab in the Old Testament. The name of the king of Gaza was Chanun, or "merciful." In 711 BC Sargon took Ashdod, and speaks of its king Azuri, whose name recalls the Amorite Aziru, and of Achimiti ("a brother is sent"), and the usurper Yamanu ("stedfast"), who fled before him. Sennacherib, in 702 BC, gives the names of cities in Philistia (including Eltekeh and Beneberak near Joppa) which are Semitic. He notices Sidqa (Zadok) of Ashkelon, and also Sarludari ("the Lord be praised"), son of Rukubti in the same city, with Mitinti of Ashdod, and Padii ("redeeming") of Ekron, while Cil-b'el ("Baal is a protection") was king of Gaza. In 679 BC Esarhaddon speaks of Silli-b'el ("Baal is my protection") of Gaza, with Mitinti of Ashkelon, Ika-samsu ("the sun-god is manifest") of Ekron, and Abi-milki of Ashdod, who bore the ancient Philistine name Abimelech. In 670 BC, when Assur-bani-pal set up many tributary kings in Egypt, we find again the name Sarludari applied to a ruler of Pelusium, who may have been a Philistine. It is thus abundantly clear that the monumental notices all agree with the Old Testament as to the names and nationality of the Philistines, and as to their worship of Baal and Dagon; the conjecture that they were Aryan foreigners, arriving in 1200 BC, is not based on any statement of the monuments, but merely rests on a guess which Brugsch subsequently abandoned. It resembles many other supposed discrepancies between Biblical and contemporary records due to the mistakes of modern commentators.

III. The Cretan Theory. 1. Cherethim and Kretes: This strange theory, which is apparently of Byzantine origin, would make the Philistines come from Crete. It still finds supporters, though it does not rest on any Biblical or monumental evidence. The Cherethim (Ezekiel 25:16; Zephaniah 2:5) were a Semitic people named with the Philistines in Canaan. The Septuagint renders the word with Kretes or Kretoi; and, about 1770 AD, Michaelis (Spicil., I, 292-308) argued that this meant "Cretans," and that the Philistines therefore came from Caphtor, which must be Crete. The passages, however, refer to Philistia and not to any island, and the Septuagint translators, as we have seen, placed Caphtor in Cappadocia. The Cherethi--in the singular--is mentioned (1 Samuel 30:14) as a people of Philistia (1 Samuel 30:16), near Ziklag, and their name probably survives at the present town called Keratiyeh in the Philistine plain.

Yet, many theories are founded on this old idea about the Cherethites. Some suppose that Tacitus confused the Jews with the Philistines as having come from Crete; but what he actually says (History v.11) is that "the Jews ran away from Crete," and "the inhabitants are named Idaci (from Mount Ida), which, with a barbarous augment, becomes the name of the Judaei." This absurd derivation shows at least that Tacitus did not mean the Philistines. Stephen of Byzantium said that the god Marna at Gaza was like the Cretan Jove. Probably he had seen the huge statue of a seated Jove found near Gaza, and now at Constantinople, but this is late Greek work, and the name Marna ("our lord") is Semitic. Stephen also thought that Minois--the port of Gaza--was named from the Cretan Minos, but it is an Arabic word Mineh, for "harbor," still applying to the same place.

2. Caphtor and Keft: No critical student is likely to prefer these later speculations to our present monumental information, even without reference to the contradiction of the Bible. Yet these blunders have given rise to the supposition that Caphtor is to be identified with a region known to the Egyptians as Keft, with inhabitants called Kefau. The latter are represented in a tomb of the XVIIIth Dynasty near Thebes. They are youths of brown color, with long black hair, and the same type is found in a Cypriote figure. They are connected with islanders of the "green sea," who may have lived in Arvad or in Cyprus; but there is no evidence in any written statement that they were Cretans, though a figure at Knossos in Crete somewhat resembles them. There are many indications that this figure--painted on the wall of the later palace--is not older than about 500 BC, and the Sidonians had colonies in Crete, where also pottery is found just like that marked by a Phoenician inscription in Cyprus. The Kefau youths bring vases as presents, and these--in all their details--are exactly the same as those represented in another picture of the time of Thothrues III, the bearers in this case being Harri from North Syria, represented with black beards and Semitic features. Moreover, on the bilingual inscription called the Decree of Canopus (238 BC), the Keft region is said to be "Phoenicia," and the Greek translator naturally knew what was meant by his Egyptian colleague. Keft in fact is a Semitic word for "palm," occurring in Hebrew (Isaiah 9:14; 19:15), and thus applicable to the "palm"-land, Phoenicia. Thus, even if Keft were related to Caphtor, the evidence would place the Philistine home on the Phoenician shores, and not in Crete. There is indeed no evidence that any European race settled near the coasts of Palestine before about 680 BC, when Esarhaddon speaks of Greek kings in Cyprus. The Cretan theory of Michaelis was a literary conjecture, which has been disproved by the results of exploration in Asia.

IV. David's Guards. 1. The "Cherethi" and the "Pelethi" Not Mercenaries:

Another strange theory, equally old, represents David as being surrounded with foreign mercenaries--Philistines and Carians--as Rameses II employed mercenaries called Shairtanau from Asia Minor. The suggestion that the Cherethites were of this race is scarcely worth notice, since the Hebrew letter kaph (k) is never represented by "sh" in Egyptian David's band of Hebrew exiles, 400 in number, followed him to Gath where 200 Gittites joined him (2 Samuel 15:18). In later times his army consisted of "the Cherethi" (kerethi, in the singular) and "the Pelethi" (pelethi), commanded by the Hebrew leader Benaiah, son of Jehoiada (2 Samuel 8:18; 15:18; 20:7; 1 Kings 1:38, 44), together with the Gittites under Ittai of Gath. These guards are never said to have been Philistines, but "the Cherethi" is supposed to mean one of the Cherethim tribe, and "the Pelethi" to be another name for the Philistine. As regards the Gittites, the fact that they came from Gath does not prove that they were Philistines, any more than was David himself because he came back from this city. David calls Ittai an "enemy" and an "exile," but it is probable that he was the same hero, so named (2 Samuel 23:29), who was the son of Ribai from Gibeah of Benjamin. He had himself not long joined David, being no doubt in exile at Gath, and his tribe at first opposed David, taking the side of their tribesman Saul. Even when Ittai's men joined the Cherethi and Pelethi against Absalom, they were naturally suspected; for David still had enemies (2 Samuel 15:5-13) among Benjamites of Saul's house. It is also surely impossible to suppose that David would have left the ark in charge of a Phili; and Obed-edom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:10) was a Levite, according to a later account (1 Chronicles 15:18), bearing a Hebrew name, meaning perhaps "servant of men," or "humble worshipper." It seems equally unlikely that, in later times, a pious priest like Jehoiada (2 Kings 11:4) would have admitted foreign mercenaries into the temple. In this passage they are called kari, as also in 2 Samuel 20:23, where the Septuagint has Cherethi. The suggestion of Wellhausen that they were Carians does not seem probable, as Carians had not even reached Egypt before about 600 BC.

2. Meaning of These Terms: The real explanation of these various words for soldiers seems simple; and David--being a very popular king--is not likely to have needed foreign mercenaries; while the Philistines, whom he had so repeatedly smitten, were very unlikely to have formed trusty guards. The word "Cherethi" (kerethi) means a "smiter" or a "destroyer," and "Pelethi" (pelethi) means "a swift one" or "pursuer." In the time of Joash the temple-guards are called kari (2 Kings 11:4, 19, Carites), which the Septuagint treats as either singular or plural, and ratsim or "runners" (see 1 Samuel 22:17; 1 Kings 14:27-28; 2 Kings 10:25), these two bodies perhaps answering to the Cherethi and Pelethi of David's time; for kari means "stabber." The term ratsim, or "runners," is however of general application, since Jehu also had troops so called (2 Kings 10:25). Evidently we have here two classes of troops--as among the Romans--the heavier regiment of "destroyers," or "stabbers," being armed with swords, daggers or spears; while the "swift ones" or "runners" pursued the defeated foe. Thus, in Egypt we find, yet earlier, the ax-man supported by the bow-man in regular regiments; and in Assyria the spear-man with heavy shields defending the bow-man. We have also a picture of the time of Tiglath-pileser II representing an Assyrian soldier on a camel. The Pelethi or "pursuers" may have been "runners" on foot, but perhaps more probably mounted on camels, or on horses like the later Assyrians; for in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 4:28) horses and riding camels were in use--the former for chariots. It is clear that David's band, leaving the vicinity of Jezreel (1 Samuel 29:1; 30:1), could not have reached Ziklag "on the third day" (a distance of 120 miles) on foot; so that the camel corps must have existed even before the death of Saul.

3. Native Hebrews: These considerations seem to make it evident that David's guards were native Hebrews, who had been with him as exiles and outlaws at Adullam and Gath, and that the Cherethi or "destroyer" only accidentally had a title like that of the Philistine tribe of "destroyers" or Cherethim, who were not Cretans, it would seem, any more than the "stabbers" were Carians.

4. Review: The general result of our inquiry is, that all monumental notices of the Philistines agree with the Old Testament statements, which make them to be a Semitic people who had already migrated to Philistia by the time of Abraham, while the supposed discrepancies are caused by the mistakes made by a commentator of the 18th century, and by archaeologists of later times.

LITERATURE

Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine; Smith, HGHL; Budge, History of Egypt; Breasted, History of Egypt; Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies; Herodotus with most histories of Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria for the period from the 13th century BC to the time of Alexander.

C. R. Conder

Philistines, Lords of The

Philistines, Lords of The - See PHILISTIA.

Philistines, Sea of The

Philistines, Sea of The - (Exodus 23:31).

See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

Philo, Judaeus

Philo, Judaeus - fi-'lo, joo-de'-us:

1. His Life

2. Importance of the Period

3. The Task of Philo

4. Changes and New Problems

5. Three Subjects of Inquiry

(1) The Conception of God

(2) God's Relation to the World

(3) Doctrine of Man

6. Philo's Works

LITERATURE

1. His Life: Born probably in the first decade of Augustus Caesar, who became emperor in 27 BC. He died possibly in the last years of Claudius (41-54 AD), more likely in the early years of Nero (54-65 AD). We have no exact information about either date. He was a native of Alexandria, Egypt. His relatives were wealthy and prominent, probably sacerdotal, Jews. He received the best Jewish education, and was trained also in Gentilelearning--grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, geometry, poetry, music. Enjoying ample means, he was enabled to devote his career to scholarship. The Alexandrian Jews wielded great influence in the contemporary Roman empire, and the prominence of Philo's family is attested by the fact that his brother, Alexander Lysimachus, was Alabarch of Alexandria. The single date in Philo's life which we know accurately is connected with their leadership. In the winter of 39-40 AD, he was spokesman of the deputation sent to Rome to protest against imposition of emperor-worship upon fellow-citizens of his faith. The mission failed, Philo, with his two colleagues, meeting rebuff, even insult. It was little likely that Caligula would heed grievances which included specifically dissent from worship of himself. Philo records his distaste for political activity, and, so far as we know, the Roman incident excepted, he devoted himself principally to letters. As a young man probably, he had undertaken a journey to Jerusalem, almost in the nature of a pilgrimage to the ancient shrine of his religion. He paid a second visit to Rome possibly after 50 AD, at all events, in the reign of Claudius. For the rest, our knowledge of his life is scanty and, sometimes, legendary.

2. Importance of the Period: The period covered by his career coincides with one of the most momentous epochs in history. For it witnesses, not only the foundation of the Roman imperial system, but also the beginning of the end of ancient classical civilization in its dominant ideas, and the plantation of Christianity. Preeminently an era of transition, it was marked by significant displacements in culture, the effects of which continue to sway mankind even yet. Minor phenomena aside, three principal movements characterized the time: the Pagan reaction, or reversion to forms of religion that had sufficed the peoples of the Rom empire hitherto--this manifested itself strongly with Augustus, and entered its decline perhaps with the death of Plutarch (circa 120 AD); the appearance of Christianity; and what is known as Syncretism, or interfusion between the conceptions of different races, especially in religion, philosophy and morals--a circumstance which affected the fortunes of Christianity deeply, found its chief exponent in Philo, and maintained itself for several centuries in theosophical systems of the Gnostics and neo-Platonists. Thus, to understand Philo, and to realize his importance, it is essential to remember the internal spirit of his age. The "universalism" of the Roman empire has been so named because, within the political framework, various peoples and divergent civilizations commingled and came eventually to share something of a common spirit, even of a common language. Philo's prominence as a figure in the world of thought, and as an authority for the general culture of New Testament times, is out of all proportion to the fragmentary information available about his external career. Contemporary currents, subtle as they were, perplexing as they still remain, met and fused in his person. Hence, his value as an index to the temperament of the period cannot well be overrated.

3. The Task of Philo: A Jew by nature and nurture, an oriental mystic by accident of residence, a Greek humanist by higher education and professional study, an ally of the Rom governing classes, familiar with their intellectual perspective, Philo is at once rich in suggestion and blurred in outline. Moreover, he addressed himself to two tasks, difficult to weld into a flawless unity. On the one hand, he wrote for educated men in Greek-Roman society, attempting to explain, often to justify, his racial religion before them. The ancient state religion having fallen upon inanition, he enjoyed unusual opportunity to point the merits of the Jewish faith as the "desire of all nations," the panacea of which the need was everywhere felt. On the other hand, he had to confront his orthodox coreligionists, with their separatist traditions and their contempt for paganism in all its works. He tried to persuade them that, after all, Greek thought was not inimical to their cherished doctrines, but, on the contrary, involved similar, almost identical, principles. He thus represented an eclectic standpoint, one in which Greek philosophy blended with historical and dogmatic deductions from the Jewish Scriptures. The result was Philo's peculiar type of theosophy--we cannot call it a system. Taking the Old Testament for text, he applied the "allegorical" method, with curious consequences. He taught that the Scriptures contain two meanings: a "lower" meaning, obvious in the literal statements of the text; and a "higher," or hidden meaning, perceptible to the "initiate" alone. In this way he found it possible to reconcile Greek intellectualism with Jewish belief. Greek thought exhibits the "hidden" meaning; it turns out to be the elucidation of the "allegory" which runs through the Old Testament like a vein of gold. Moses, and the rest, are not merely historical figures, the subjects of such and such vicissitudes, but representative types of reason, righteousness, the virtues, and so forth. The tendency to fusion of this kind was no new thing. It is traceable for some three centuries before Philo, who may be said to complete the process. It had been familiar to the rabbis, and to the Hellenistic philosophers, particularly the Stoics, who applied this method to the Greek poetical myths. Philo reduces it to an expert art, and uses it as an instrument to dissipate all difficulties. He believed himself to be thoroughly true to the Old Testament. But, thanks to his method, he rendered it malleable, and could thus adjust its interpretation to what he considered to be the intellectual necessities of his generation. Nay more, he felt that, when at his best in this process, he became a vehicle of Divine possession. He says, "Through the influence of divine inspiration I have become excited profoundly .... then I have been conscious of a richness of interpretation, an enjoyment of light, a most penetrating sight, a most manifest energy in all that was to be done." Again "I am irradiated with the light of wisdom," and, "all intellect is a divine inspiration." Little wonder, then, that we have a strange mixture of philosophy and religion, of rationalism and piety, of clear Greek intellectualism with hazy oriental mysticism. Hence, too, the philosophy of Philo is subordinate to his explanation of the Scriptures, and compromise, rather than logical thinking, marks his leading positions.

4. Changes and New Problems: After the death of Cicero (43 BC) a change, long preparing, asserted itself in ancient thought. Mixture of national, or racial, characteristics was consummated, and thoughtful men, irrespective of race-origin, became persons to each other. A reorganization of standards of ethical judgment was thus rendered inevitable, and Judaism came to interfuse more freely with Greek philosophy as one consequence. While it is true that "reason" preserved its traditional supremacy as the means to solve all problems, the nature of the chief quest underwent transformation. The old association of man with Nature gave way to a dualism or opposition between the world-order and another existence lying behind it as its originator or sustainer. The system of Nature having disappointed expectation, thinkers asked how they could escape it, and assure themselves of definite relations with the Divine Being. They sought the desiderated connection within their own souls, but as a distant ideal. This was the problem that confronted Philo, who attacked it from the Jewish side. Now Judaism, like Greek thought, had also experienced a change of heart. Yahweh had been the subject of an idealizing process, and tended, like the Stoic deity, to lose specific relation with the world and man. Accordingly, a new religious question was bringing the philosophy and the faith into closer contact. Could they join forces? Philo's consequent embarrassment rooted, not simply in this fresh problem, but in the difficulties inseparable from the adjustment of his available methods and materials. For, while the Jewish Messiah had passed over into the Greek Logos, the two systems preserved their separation in no small measure, Philo being the most conspicuous mediator. He was familiar with the mystic, transcendent concept of Deity extracted, thanks to long misinterpretation, from Plato's cosmogonic dialogue, Timaeus. Here God was elevated above the world. His conception of the presence, or immanence, of the Deity in the world came from the Stoics. The Jewish religion gave him the doctrine of a righteous (pure) Deity, whose moral inwardness made relations with men possible. Moreover, contemporary angelology and demonology enabled him to devise a scheme whereby the pure Deity could be linked with the gross world, notwithstanding its ineradicable evil. Little wonder, then, that he compassed an amalgamation only, and this in consonance with theosophical drift of the age. Nevertheless, he counteracted the deistic tendencies of rabbinical speculation by reference to Hellenistic pantheism, and, at the same time, counteracted this pantheism by the inward moralism of his national faith. The logical symmetry of the Greek mind was reinforced by Hebraic religious intuition. The consequence was a ferment rather than a system, but a ferment that cast up the clamant problem in unmistakable fashion. The crux was this: Man must surmount his own fragmentary experience and rise to an absolute Being; but, its absoluteness notwithstanding, this Being must be brought into direct contact with the finite. Philo was unable to reconcile the two demands, because he could not rise above them; but the effort after reconciliation controls all his thought. As a result, he concentrated upon three main subjects of inquiry: (1) the conception of God; (2) the manner of God's relation to the world; (3) human nature.

5. Three Subjects of Inquiry: (1) The Conception of God: Philo's doctrine of God, like that of the neo-Platonic school, which he heralded, is thoroughly dualistic. No doubt, it is determined largely by certain human analogies. For example, God's existence is necessary for the control of the world, just in the same way as man's mind must exist to furnish the principle of all human action; and, as matter is not self-determined, a principle, analogous to mind, is demanded, to be its first cause. Further, as the permanent soul remains unchanged throughout the vicissitudes of a human life, so, behind the ceaseless play of phenomena, there must reside a self-existent Being. Nevertheless, the human analogy never extends to God in His actual Being. No human traits can attach to the Deity. Language may indicate such parallelism, nay the Scriptures are full of instances, but we must view them as concessions to mortal weakness. These accommodations eliminated, it becomes evident that man can never know God positively. Any adjective used to describe Him can do no more than point the contrast between His relationless Being and the dependence of finite things. That God is, Philo is fully persuaded; what He is, no man can ever tell. He is one and immutable, simple and immeasurable and eternal, just as man is not. "For he is unchangeable, requiring nothing else at all, so that all things belong to Him, but He, speaking strictly, belongs to nothing." This doctrine of the transcendence of Deity was an essential postulate of Philonic thought. For, seeing that He expels all the imperfections of the world, God is precisely in that condition of Being for which the whole creation then yearned. In a word, the dualism, so far from being a bar to salvation, was rather a condition without which the problem of salvation could neither be stated nor solved. Men stood in necessary relation to this Being, but, as yet, He stood in no relation whatever to them. Yet, men must return to God, but He abides so remote, in the realm of pure contemplation and completion, that He cannot approach them. Philo's familiarity with logical Greek thought debarred him from surmounting the difficulty after the manner of Jewish religion. An otiose reference to "God's choice," as distinct from His nature, could not suffice a mind trained in Hellenic methods. The question therefore was, How could mediation be effected?

(2) God's Relation to the World. At this point Philo's thought assumes a phase of great interest to readers of the New Testament. God, being above created things, is incomprehensible and immaterial. Accordingly, He cannot be connected with the world directly. Therefore He created it and sustains it by intermediate powers. These agencies were suggested to Philo by the Platonic Ideas. But he personalized them more or less and, as a characteristic addition, included them in the Logos. He substituted the term "Logos" for the Platonic term "Idea" on the basis of the Scripture phrase, "Word of God." The conception was influenced further by his Hellenistic psychological notion, that a word is a "shadow" of a deed. Accordingly, the Logos is the "shadow of God"--God being the "deed" whereby the "shadow" is cast. As a direct issue, the Logos presents two aspects. On the one side it is internal and indwelling; on the other, it is external and mediating. The scope of this distinction is indicated very well by the epithets which Philo applies to each aspect respectively. The internal Logos is the "Firstborn," the "Second God," the "Mediator" the "Ransom," the "Image of God" "Member of the Trinity," "High Priest." The external Logos "abides in man," is the "Prophet," "Shepherd," "Ambassador," "Artist," "EIder," "Interpreter," "Shadow of God." The former represents Philo's conception of the unity of the Logos with God, the latter his provision for the manifestation of the Logos in created things. He thus tries to preserve the transcendence of God equally with His immanence. No doubt, in previous times, the mysteriousness of the Divine nature had impressed itself upon men with at least as much force as now. But with one of two consequences. Either the particular finites and the Deity were mixed in inextricable confusion, as by oriental pantheism, or God was banished from the world, as by the extreme developments within Greek dualism. Philo attempted to combine the two tendencies, and was able consequently to face the obvious contradiction between the idea of an absolute Being and the cloudy conception of a multiplicity of phenomena in which this Being ought to be present somehow, despite transcendence. He demands a God who, in His exaltation, shall be a worthy Deity; this is the Jew in him. But he also demands a definite relation between this God and His creation; this is the Greek and, in part, the Oriental, in him. Thanks to the former, he could not be satisfied with mere naturalism; thanks to the latter, no fable or picture could suffice. A real mediator was required, who would link the world and its heart's desire. But Philo could not surmount one difficulty peculiar to contemporary thought. He was unable to connect God directly with creation and preserve His purity unsullied. Hence, the obscurity which surrounds his conception of the Logos, likewise his vacillation with respect to its personality. So we find the different intellectual forces which he inherited playing upon him--now one, now another. Sometimes the Platonic theory of Ideas dominates him; sometimes he leans to Stoicism, with its immanent world-reason; and here he even seems to foreshadow the doctrine of the Trinity; again, the ramifications of rabbinical lore cause him to bestow upon the Logos a priestly function or an atoning office. No single aspect achieves supremacy, although on the whole mystical Platonism may be said to predominate. Thus, "The world of Ideas has its place in the Divine Logos, just as the plan of a city is in, the soul of the master-builder." Accordingly, God's thought may take its place in the world by being impressed upon things; yet, on account of its subjective nature, it must be apprehended subjectively, that is, by one who is capable of entering this sphere. The Logos thus seems to exist entirely in the same realm as Deity; thus, it can mediate between Him and creation only if an element proper to Deity be discernible in mundane things. In other words, the Logos mediates between God and the world, but partakes of the Divine nature only. This, in any case, is the inner logic of Philo's view. It accounts for creation, but has no power to persuade man to overpass the limitations placed upon him by his bodily prison. Thus the question of the personality of the Logos is never cleared. In so far as Philo needs Logos to connect God with the world, he inclines to a doctrine of personality. In so far as he makes it the principle of all activities within the world, he inclines away from personality. In short, we have a "world-soul." And, as a consequence, there is an inherent tendency to reduce all finite being to illusion. Indeed, one might term the Logos a reply in some sort to Aristotle's question--which of the Platonic Ideas could connect the other Ideas with sensible things? Salvation is conceived as wrought out, not by a person, but by an abstract essence flowing from Deity, an essence that found due expression rather in the cosmic order than in a person. While, therefore, Philo thinks in a cultural perspective akin to that characteristic of the author of the Fourth Gospel, two vast differences sway his doctrine. On the one hand, it is speculative, not ethically personal. On the other hand, it fails completely to determine the nature of his mediator in itself, vacillating in a manner which shows how vague and fluid the conception really was.

(3) Doctrine of Man. This appears further in the doctrine of man. Following current interpretations of Plato, Philo makes man partake in the rational nature of God, but denies that he embodies the highest species of reason. That is, the ideal man and the man known to us in common experience are distinguished. The former is rational as God is. The latter is partly rational, partly irrational. The body vitiates the original angelic purity of the soul and, similarly, reason is alloyed. And yet, although the higher nature becomes more and more debased as the years lapse, a seed of Divinity is present, ready to burst forth. Thus man must crush the flesh and its desires. At this point we note the effect of the Stoic ideal of imperturbability. When he has attained this apathy, man can enjoy the life of contemplation. This, in its turn, culminates in ecstasy, when the human soul attains sudden and momentary union with the Divine. For a "fair moment" man escapes the thralldom of sense. Yet the doctrine remains intellectual even here. He "who escapes from his own mind flies to the mind of the universe, confessing that all the things of the human mind are vain and unreal, and attributing everything to God." Philo's anthropology therefore ends in contempt for this life, which is in no wise worth while, and in a counsel of perfection available only for a select elite. Accordingly, the conclusion of the whole matter is, that he never saw how the divine and the human can be united, although he stated the factors of the problem with great clearness, and felt profoundly the urgency of a solution. His gospel was for the children of culture. He saw the eternal in the temporal, and hoped that good might lurk in evil. But he never understood that "love for a Divine Person" might be so diffused throughout a human soul as to render evil and unreality the means to the attainment of good and to the revelation of truth. The salvation he contemplated was from self, not in self. Hence, as he asserts himself, harmony with God "is an incomprehensible mystery to the multitude, and is to be imparted to the instructed only." Nor is this wonderful. For a God who is the reasonable "form" of the world; a "matter" which begins as an indistinguishable mass and ends as a "second principle"; and objects of sense rendered apparent by the operation of many curious intermediate forces, ranging from "angel-words" to the human soul, constitute a combination beyond the reach of any save the "initiate." More practicable is Philo's conception of the moral life--as a warfare of the soul against passion, pleasure and sensuality. Yet, even this contest is hopeless unless it be waged with the equipment of the "philosopher athlete." Escape from the "prison-house" of flesh would seem to be consequent only upon profound knowledge.

6. Philo's Works: The probability is that Philo's works were written previous to his Roman embassy. They show how he tried to apply Greek philosophical conceptions to Jewish beliefs, history, and usages exclusively. The voluminous remains which have come down to us appear to belong to three commentaries on the Pentateuch and the Mosaic Law. In all likelihood, they are portions of Philo's popular presentation, written for the instruction and information of educated Hellenistic circles rather than for the trained "initiate." The treatises most important for Philo's religio-philosophical views are as follows: On the Creation of the World; On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws; On the Unchangeableness of God; On the Confusion of Languages; On the Migration of Abraham; On the Meeting for the Sake of Receiving Instruction; On the Life of the Wise Man Made Perfect by Instruction; The Unwritten Law; Abraham; On Special Laws; On Rewards and Punishments; That Every Man Who Is Virtuous Is Also Free; Concerning the World; and the Fragments. Some 8 works attributed to Philo are in dispute. Most conspicuous of these is Concerning the Contemplative Life, with its ascetic view of morality, and its description of the ideal community of the Therapeutae.

LITERATURE.

E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Division II, Volume III, pp. 321 f (Edinburgh, 1886); E. Schurer, "Philo" in EB; James Drummond, Philo Judaeus, or, The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in Its Development and Completion (2 volumes, London, 1888); R. M. Wenley, Socrates and Christ: a Study in the Philosophy of Religion, chapters vii, viii (Edinburgh, 1889); H. Ewald, The History of Israel, VII, 194 f (London, 1885); A. Haursrath, A History of New Testament Times, division II, volume I, chapters iv through vi (London, 1885); H. Graetz, History of the Jews from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, II, 183 f, 206 f (London, 1891); E. Caird, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, II, lectures xx-xxi, xxvii (Glasgow, 1904); article "Philo" in Jewish Encyclopedia; Ernest F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, Its Purpose and Theology, 54 f, 145 f (2nd edition, Edinburgh, 1908); F.C. Conybeare, Philo: About the Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895). An English translation has been made by C.D. Yonge in the Bohn Library (London, G. Bell and Sons). The text cited usually is that of T. Mangey. The best modern text is that of Cohn and Wendland.

R. M. Wenley

Philologus

Philologus - fi-lol'-o-gus (Philologos, "fond of learning," "learned"): The name of a Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Romans 16:15). His name is coupled with that of Julia, who was probably his wife or sister. Philologus and those united with him in this salutation formed by themselves one of the "house churches" or groups in the Christian community. The name is found in inscriptions connected with the imperial household, with reference to one of which Bishop Lightfoot has the following note: "It has been supposed that the name Philologus was given by the master to the freedman mentioned in this inscription, as being appropriate to his office (Friedlander I, 89, 160). .... If so, some light is thrown on the probable occupation of the Philologus of Paul" (Phil, 177, note 1).

S. F. Hunter

Philometor

Philometor - fil-o-me'-tor.

See PTOLEMY,VI .

Philosophy

Philosophy - fi-los'-o-fi (philosophia):

1. Definition and Scope

(1) Intuitive Philosophy Is Universal

(2) Speculative Philosophy Belongs Mainly to Western Thought

2. Greek Philosophy

3. Philosophy in Old Testament and Judaism

(1) Of Nature

(2) Of History

(3) Post-exilic

(4) Alexandrian

4. Philosophy in the New Testament

(1) The Teaching of Jesus Christ

(2) Apostolic Teaching

(3) Attitude of New Testament Writers toward Philosophy

LITERATURE

1. Definition and Scope: Only found in Colossians 2:8; literally, the love and pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. In its technical sense, the term is now used for the conscious endeavor of thought, by speculative process, to interpret the whole of human experience, as a consistent and systematic unity, which would be the ultimate truth of all that may be known. The term is also used, in a wider sense, of all interpretations of experience, or parts of experience, however obtained, whether by revelation, intuition or unconscious speculation. No hard-and-fast line can be drawn between the two kinds of philosophy. Some of the ruling conceptions of speculation, such as God, spirit, order, causation, true and false, good and evil, were not discovered by reason, but given in experience.

(1) Intuitive Philosophy Is Universal. The human mind has always and everywhere furnished itself with some kind of explanation of the universe. From the lowest animism and fetishism up to the higher religions, ideas are found which served men as explanations of those features of experience which attracted their attention. They were often regarded as given by vision, intuition or some other method of revelation. In the higher religions, the mind reflected upon these ideas, and elaborated them into systems of thought that bear some resemblance to the speculative theories of western thought. In China, both Confucianism and Taoism developed theories of human life and destiny that bear some resemblance to Stoicism. The religions of Assyria and Babylonia enshrined in their legends theories of the world and of man and his institutions. In India, men's belief in the Nature-gods gradually developed into pantheistic Brahmanism, which reduced the multiplicity of experience into one ultimate being, Brahma. But the desire for moral salvation and the sense of pain and evil produced a reaction, and led to the pessimistic and nihilistic philosophy of Buddhism. In Persia, the moral consciousness awoke earlier, and the attempt to systematize the multiplicity of polytheism issued in the dualistic philosophy of later Zoroastrianism. The whole realm of being was divided into two kingdoms, created and ruled by two lords: Ahura Mazda, the creator of light and life, law, order and goodness, and Anro Mainyus, the author of darkness, evil and death. Each was surrounded by a court of spiritual beings kindred to himself, his messengers and agents in the world (see PERSIAN RELIGION( ANCIENT)). Of all these religious philosophies, only those of Assyria and Babylonia, and of Persia, are likely to have come into any contact with Biblical thought. The former have some affinity with the accounts of creation and the flood in Genesis; and the influence of the latter may be traced in the dualism and angelology and demonology of later Judaism, and again in the Gnostic systems that grew up in the Christian church, and through both channels it was perpetuated, as a dualistic influence, in the lower strata of Christian thought down through the Middle Ages.

(2) Speculative Philosophy Belongs Mainly to Western Thought.

It arose in Greece about the beginning of the 6th century BC. It began with the problem of the general nature of being, or ontology. But it was soon forced to consider the conditions of knowing anything at all, or to epistemology. These two studies constitute metaphysics, a term often used as synonymous with philosophy in the stricter sense. Speculation about ideal truth again led to inquiries as to the ultimate nature of the kindred ideas of the good (ethics) and the beautiful (aesthetics). And as these ideas were related to society as well as to the individual, the Greeks developed theories of the ideal organization of society on the basis of the true, the good and the beautiful, or politics and pedagogics. The only branch of speculation to which the Greeks made no appreciable contribution was the philosophy of religion, which is a modern development.

The progress of philosophy in history divides itself naturally into three main periods: (a) ancient, from the 6th century BC to the 3rd century AD, when it is almost exclusively Greek, with some practical adaptations of Greek thought by Roman writers; (b) medieval, from the 3rd to the 16th century, where some of the ruling conceptions of Greek thought were utilized for the systematization of Christian dogma, but speculation was mainly confined within the limits of ecclesiastical orthodoxy; there were, however, some independent Arabian and Jewish speculations; (c) modern, from the 16th century to the present time, in which thought becomes free again to speculate upon all the problems presented by experience, though it only realized its liberty fully in the hands of Locke, Hume and Kant.

2. Greek Philosophy: Greek philosophy was the only speculative system that could have had any influence upon Biblical thought. Its main development was contemporaneous with the later Old Testament writers, but the two peoples were in every way so remote one another that no interchange of ideas was probable.

During the last two centuries BC, Greek thought spread so widely that it came to dominate the cultured thought of the world into which Christianity entered, and it would have been strange if no trace of its influence were found in the New Testament. In the first stage of its development, from Thales to Socrates, it was concerned almost entirely with attempts to explain the nature of reality by reducing the phenomenal world into some one of its elements. Socrates changed its center of gravity, and definitely raised the problems of morality and knowledge to the position of first importance. His principles were developed by Plato into a complex and many-sided system which, more than any other, has influenced all subsequent thought. He united ultimate reality and the highest good into one supreme principle or idea which he called the Good, and also God. It was the essence, archetype and origin of all wisdom, goodness and beauty. It communicated itself as intermediary archerypal ideas to produce all individual things. So that the formative principles of all existence were moral and spiritual. But it had to make all things out of preexisting matter, which is essentially evil, and which therefore was refractory and hostile to the Good. That is why it did not make a perfect world. Plato's system was therefore rent by an irreconcilable dualism of mind and body, spirit and matter, good and evil. And his mediating ideas could not bridge the gulf, because they belonged only to the side of the ideal. Aristotle was Plato's disciple, and he started from Plato's idealistic presuppositions, but endeavored to transcend his dualism. He thus applied himself to a closer and more accurate study of actual experience, and added much to the knowledge of the physical world. He organized and classified the methods and contents of knowledge and created the science of logic, which in the Christian Middle Ages became the chief instrument of the great systematic theologians of the church. He tried to bring Plato's ideas "down from heaven," and to represent them as the creative and formative principles within the world, which he conceived as a system of development, rising by spiritual gradations from the lower to the higher forms, and culminating in God, who is the uncaused cause of all things. But underneath all the forms still remained matter as an antithetical element, and Aristotle rather concealed than solved the dualism of Plato.

Meanwhile, the moral principles of Socrates were being developed with a more directly ethical interest, by the Cyrenaics and Epicureans, into a system of Hedonism, and, by the Cynics and Stoics, into a doctrine of intuitive right and duty, resting inconsistently upon a pantheistic and materialistic view of the universe. But the spiritual and ethical elements in Stoicism became only second to Platonism in the preparation of the Greek world for Christianity. During the last two and a half centuries BC, Greek philosophy showed signs of rapid decline. On the one hand, Pyrrho and his school propounded a thoroughgoing skepticism which denied the possibility of all knowledge whatsoever. On the other hand, the older schools, no longer served by creative minds, tended to merge their ideas into a common eclecticism which its teachers reduced into an empty and formal dogmatism. The most fruitful and fateful product of Greek thought in this period was its amalgamation with Jewish and oriental ideas in the great cosmopolitan centers of the Greek world. There are evidences that this process was going on in the cities of Asia, Syria and Egypt, but the only extensive account of it remaining is found in the works of Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (see PHILO,JUDAEUS ). He tried to graft Plato's idealism upon Hebrew monotheism.

He starts with Plato's two principles, pure being or God, and preexisting matter. In his endeavor to bridge the gulf between them, he interposed between God and the world the powers of God, goodness and justice; and to gather these into a final unity, he created his conception of the Loges of God. In the formation of this conception, he merged together the Platonic idea of the good, the Stoic world-reason, and a number of Jewish ideas, the glory, the word, the name, of God, the heavenly man and the great high priest, and personified the whole as the one mediator between God and the world. Christian thought laid hold of this idea, and employed it as its master-category for the interpretation of the person of Christ.

See LOGOS.

3. Philosophy in Old Testament and Judaism: There is no speculative philosophy in the Old Testament nor any certain trace of its influence. Its writers and actors never set themselves to pursue knowledge in the abstract and for its own sake. They always wrought for moral purposes. But moral activity proceeds on the intellectual presuppositions and interpretations of the experiences within which it acts. Hence, we find in the Old Testament accounts of the origin and course of nature, a philosophy of history and its institutions, and interpretations of men's moral and religious experiences. They all center in God, issue from His sovereign will, and express the realization of His purpose of righteousness in the world.

See GOD.

(1) Of Nature: All nature originated in God's creative act (Genesis 2:1-25) or word (Genesis 1:1-31). In later literature the whole course and order of Nature, its beauty and bounty, as well as its wonders and terrors, are represented as the acts of God's will (Isaiah 40:1-31 through Isaiah 45:1-25; Psalms 8:9; Psalms 29:1-11; Psalms 50:1-23; Psalms 65:1-13; Psalms 68:1-35; Psalms 104:1-35, etc.). But His action in Nature is always subordinated to His moral ends.

(2) Of History: Similarly, the course and events of the history of Israel and her neighbors are the acts of Yahweh's will (Amos 1:1-15; Amos 2:1-16; Isaiah 41:2; 43:3; Isaiah 45:9-10, 14) In the historical books of Samuel and Kings, and still more of Chronicles, all the events of history are represented as the acts of God's moral government. In a more general way, the whole of history is set forth as a series of covenants that God, of His free grace, made with man (see COVENANT). The Noachic covenant fixed the order of Nature. The covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob accounted for the origin and choice of Israel. The covenants with Moses and Aaron established the Law and the priesthood, and that with David, the kingship. And the hope of the future lies in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-35). God's covenants were all acts of His sovereign and gracious will.

(3) Post-exilic: In post-exilic times, new experiences, and perhaps new intellectual influences, drove the Jews to probe deeper into the problem of existence. They adhered to the cardinal principle of He thought, that God's sovereign will, working out His purpose of righteousness, was the first cause of all things (see RIGHTEOUSNESS). But they found it difficult to coordinate this belief with their other ideas, in two ways. Ethical monotheism tended to become an abstract deism which removed God altogether out of the world. And the catastrophes that befell the nation, in the exile and after, raised the problem of suffering and evil over against God's goodness and righteousness. Therefore in the Wisdom literature we find some conscious speculation on these subjects.

See WISDOM.

(a) The Book of Job discusses the problem of evil, and repudiates the idea that life and history are the process of God's rewards and punishments. (b) Ecclesiastes comes to the conclusion that all phenomenal experience is vanity. Yet its ultimate philosophy is not pessimistic, for it finds an abiding reality and hope in the fear of God and in the moral life (12:13,14). The same type of thought appears in Ecclesiasticus. Both books have been attributed to the circle of the Sadducees. Some would find in them traces of the influence of Epicureanism. (c) In Proverbs a more optimistic side prevails. Wisdom is gathered up into a conception or personification which is at once God's friend, His agent in creation, His vicegerent in the world, and man's instructress and guide (chapter 8). (d) The teaching of the Pharisees especially reveals the tendency to dualism or deism in later Judaism; they interposed between God and the world various agents of mediation, the law, the word, the name, the glory of God and a host of angels, good and bad. They also fostered a new hope of the future, under the double form of the Messianic kingdom, and of resurrection and immortality. How far these tendencies were due to the influence of Persian dualism cannot here be considered. (e) Essenism represents another effort to get from the world to God by a crude kind of mysticism and asceticism, combined with an extensive angelology.

(4) Alexandrian: Among the Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria, Aristobulus, the authors of The Wisdom of Solomon and 4 Maccabees, and preeminently Philo, all deal with the two chief problems of Judaism, dualism and evil. But they approach them under the direct influence of Greek thought. The Hebrew idea of wisdom was merged into the Greek conception of the Logos, and so it becomes the mediator of God's thought and activity in the world.

4. Philosophy in the New Testament: Philosophy appears in the New Testament as intuitive, speculative and eclectic.

(1) The Teaching of Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and, out of His filial consciousness of God, He propounded answers to the practical demands of His time. His doctrine of God the Father was a philosophy of Nature and life which transcended all dualism. In the kingdom of heaven, the good would ultimately prevail over the evil. The law of love expressed the ideal of conduct for man as individual, and in his relation to society and to God, the supreme and ultimate reality. This teaching was given in the form of revelation, without any trace of speculation.

(2) Apostolic Teaching: The apostolic writings built upon the teaching and person of Jesus Christ. Their ruling ideas are the doctrines which He taught and embodied. In Paul and John, they are realized as mystical experiences which are expressed in doctrines of universal love. But we may also discover in the apostolic writings at least three strands of speculative philosophy. (a) Paul employed arguments from natural theology, similar to those of the Stoics (Acts 14:15-17; Acts 17:22-31; Romans 1:19 ff), which involved the principles of the cosmological and teleological arguments. (b) John employs the Philonic term "Logos" to interpret the person of Christ in His universal relation to God, man and the world; and the main elements of Philo's scheme are clearly present in his doctrine, though here it is no abstract conception standing between God and man, but a living person uniting both (John 1:1-18). Although the term "Logos" is not mentioned, in this sense, in Paul or Hebrews, the Philonic conception has been employed by both writers (Romans 5:8; 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:24-25; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Colossians 2:9-10; Hebrews 1:1-3, 5-6). Paul also expresses his conception of Christ as the manifestation of God under the category of wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:7; Ephesians 1:8; Colossians 2:3). (c) Both in Paul and He appear original speculations designed to interpret individual experience and human history as they culminate in Christ. Paul's interpretation consists of a series of parallel antitheses, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, law and grace, works and faith, Adam and Christ. But the author of He adopts the Platonic view that the world of history and phenomena is but the shadow or suggestion of the spiritual and eternal reality which lies behind it, and which partially expresses itself through it.

(3) Attitude of New Testament Writers toward Philosophy:

In the one place in which the term philosophy appears in the New Testament (Colossians 2:8), it seems to mean "subtle dialectics and profitless speculation .... combined with a mystic cosmogony and angelology" (Lightfoot, at the place), the first beginnings of Gnosticism in the Christian church. Paul warns his readers against it, as he also does the Corinthians against the "wisdom" of the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:19 ff; 1 Corinthians 2:5-6). A similar tendency may be in view in the warning to Timothy against false doctrines (1 Timothy 1:4; 4:3; 2 Timothy 1:14, 16 ff). But with the true spirit of philosophy, as the pursuit of truth, and the endeavor to express more fully and clearly the nature of reality, the spirit and work of the New Testament writers were in complete accord.

LITERATURE.

Introductions to philosophy by Kulpe, Paulsen, Hoffding, Watson and Mackenzie. Histories of Greek philosophy by Ritter and Preller, Burnet, and Zeller, and of general philosophy by Erdmann, Ueberweg, Windelband and Rogers; E. Caird, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophies; Hists of the Jews by Schurer, Graetz and Kent; Old Testament Theologies by Schultz and Davidson; New Testament Theologies by Beyschlag and Weinel; Philo's works and treatises thereon by Dahne, Gfrorer and Drummond; Harnack, What Is Christianity? Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria; Lightfoot, Colossians.

T. Rees

Phinees

Phinees - fin'-e-es (Phinees; Codex Vaticanus (Swete), Pheinees (1 Esdras 8:2)):

(1) Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron (1 Esdras 5:5; 2, 29; 2 Esdras 1:2; 1 Maccabees 2:26; Sirach 45:23).

(2) The father of Achias and son of Hell (Eli), a descendant of (1), and one of Ezra's progenitors (2 Esdras 1:2); but this link is not found in Ezra's genealogy (1 Esdras 8:1 f), nor in Ezra 7:1 ff; 1 Chronicles 6:1-81, and its insertion in 2 Esdras 1:2 is a mistake, since Ezra's descent was from Eleazar, while this Phinees (Phinehas) was a descendant of Ithamar, the youngest son of Aaron.

(3) A Levite, the father of Eleazar (1 Esdras 8:63) = "Phinehas" of Ezra 8:33. But it is just possible that the well-known Eleazar (1) is referred to here, and so not another and different Phinees.

(4) The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Phinoe" (1 Esdras 5:31).

S. Angus

Phinehas

Phinehas - fin'-e-as, -az, fin'-e-has, -haz (pinechac, "mouth of brass"):

(1) Son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron (Exodus 6:25; compare 1 Chronicles 6:4; Ezra 7:5, where he is seen to be an ancestor of Ezra). He took a leading part in cleansing Israel from whoredom at Shittim. He there punished the brazen licentiousness of Zimri, prince of Sirecon, by slaying both him and the Midianite woman he had brought into camp (Numbers 25:6-18). This incident is referred to in Psalms 106:30-31 (compare 1 Maccabees 2:26, 54; Sirach 45:23, 24). As priest he accompanied the expedition sent by Moses against Midjan (Numbers 31:6). He was chief of the Korahite Levites (1 Chronicles 9:20), and succeeded his father as high priest. While he was in that office the civil war with Benjamin occurred, and it was he who delivered the oracle's decision to fight Benjamin (Judges 20:28 ff). His faithful services secured to his house the succession of the priesthood (Numbers 25:11-13). He was sent as ambassador to inquire into the reported idolatry of Reuben, Gad and part of Manasseh (Joshua 22:13 ff,30-32). According to Septuagint he was buried with his father in Ephraim on the hill Gibeah Phinehas (see Joshua 24:33). His character was marked with strong moral indignation and fine integrity.

(2) The younger son of Eli (1 Samuel 1:3; 2 Esdras 1:2, "Phinees").

See HOPHNI AND PHINEHAS.

(3) Father of a priest named Eleazar (Ezra 8:33; compare 8:2; 1 Esdras 8:63, "Phinees").

Henry Wallace

Phinoe

Phinoe - fin'-o-e (Phinoe; the King James Version Phinees): Name of one of the families of temple-servants who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:31) = "Paseah" of Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51.

Phlegon

Phlegon - fle'-gon, fleg'-on (Phlegan): The name of a Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Romans 16:14). Of him nothing is known.

Phoebe

Phoebe - fe'-be (Phoibe; the King James Version Phebe): Described by Paul as (1) "our sister," (2) "who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchrea," (3) "a helper of many, and of mine own self" (Romans 16:1-2). (1) "Our (Christian) sister": Paul calls the believing husband and wife "the brother or the sister" (1 Corinthians 7:15), and also asks, "Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a sister?" (1 Corinthians 9:5 margin). The church was a family. (2) The Greek word translated "servant" is diakonos. "Servant" is vague, and "deaconess" is too technical. In the later church there was an order of deaconesses for special work among women, owing to the peculiar circumstances of oriental life, but we have no reason to believe there was such an order at this early period. If Phoebe had voluntarily devoted herself "to minister unto the saints" by means of charity and hospitality, she would be called diakonos. (3) The Greek word prostatis translated "helper" is better "patroness." The masculine is "the title of a citizen in Athens who took charge of the interests of clients and persons without civic rights" (Denney). Many of the early Christian communities had the appearance of clients under a patron, and probably the community of Cenchrea met in the house of Phoebe. She also devoted her influence and means to the assistance of "brethren" landing at that port. Paul was among those whom she benefited. Gifford thinks some special occasion is meant, and that Paul refers to this in Acts 18:18. The vow "seems to point to a deliverance from danger or sickness" in which Phoebe may have attended on him.

It is generally assumed that this letter was taken to Rome by Phoebe, these verses introducing her to the Christian community. In commending her, Paul asks that the Roman Christians "receive her in the Lord," i.e. give her a Christian welcome, and that they "assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need" of them (Romans 16:1-2).

S. F. Hunter

Phoenice

Phoenice - fe-ni'-se (Phoinix).

See PHOENIX.

Phoenicia; Phoenicians

Phoenicia; Phoenicians - fe-nish'-i-a, fe-nish'-anz:

1. The Land

2. The Colonies

3. The People

4. Arts and Manufactures

5. Commerce and Trade

6. Language and Culture

7. Religion

8. History

LITERATURE

1. The Land: The term "Phoenicia" is Greek (Phoinike, "land of dates, or palm trees," from phoinix, "the date-palm"). It occurs in the Bible only in Acts (11:19; 15:3; 21:2), the land being generally designated as the "coast" or "borders of Tyre and Sidon" (Matthew 15:21; Mark 7:24, 31; Luke 6:17). In the Old Testament we find it included in the land belonging to the Canaanites or to Sidon (Genesis 10:19; 49:13; Joshua 11:8; 1 Kings 17:9). The limits of Phoenicia were indefinite also. It is sometimes used by classic writers as including the coast line from Mt. Cassius on the North to Gaza or beyond on the South, a distance of some 380 miles, or about 400 miles if we include the sweep of indentations and bays and the outstretching of the promontories. But in the stricter sense, it did not extend beyond Gabala (modern Jebleh) on the North, and Mt. Carmel on the South, or some 150 miles. The name was probably first applied to the region opposite Cyprus, from Gabala to Aradus and Marathus, where the date-palm was observed, and then, as it was found in still greater abundance farther South, it was applied to that region also. The palm tree is common on the coins of both Aradus and Tyre, and it still grows on the coast, though not in great abundance. The width of the land also was indefinite, not extending inland beyond the crest of the two ranges of mountains, the Bargylus (Nusairi Mountains) and the Lebanon, which run parallel to the coast and leave but little space between them and the sea for the greater portion of their length. It is doubtful whether the Phoenicians occupied the mountain tracts, but they must have dominated them on the western slopes, since they derived from them timber for their ships and temples. The width of the country probably did not exceed 25 or 30 miles at the most, and in many places it was much less, a very small territory, in fact, but one that played a distinguished role in ancient times.

There are few harbors on the whole coast, none in the modern sense, since what few bays and inlets there are afford but slight shelter to modern ships, but those of the ancients found sufficient protection in a number of places, especially by means of artificial harbors, and the facility with which they could be drawn out upon the sandy beach in winter when navigation was suspended. The promontories are few and do not project far into the sea, such as Theu-prosopon South of Tripolis, Ras Beirut and the broad projection South of Tyre including Ras el-`Abyadh and Ras en-Naqura and Ras el-Musheirifeh (see LADDER OF TYRE). The promontory of Carmel is rather more marked than the others, and forms quite an extensive bay, which extends to Acre. The promontory rises to a height of 500 ft. or more near the sea and to more than double that elevation in its course to the Southeast.

Mt. Lebanon, which forms the background of Phoenicia for about 100 miles, is a most striking feature of the landscape. It rises to a height of 10,200 ft. in the highest point, East of Tripolis, and to 8,500 in Jebel Sunnin, East of Beirut, and the average elevation is from 5,000 to 6,000 ft. It is rent by deep gorges where the numerous streams have cut their way to the sea, furnishing most varied and picturesque scenery. It was originally heavily wooded with cedar, oak, and pine trees, which are still found in considerable numbers, but by far the larger part of the mountain has been denuded of forests, and the slopes have been extensively terraced for the cultivation of vines and fruit trees and the mulberry for silk culture. The plains along the coast are not extensive, but generally very fertile and bear abundant crops of wheat, barley and other cereals, where not given to the culture of the mulberry, orange, lemon, fig, apricot and other small fruits. In its greatest extent Phoenicia included the broad plain of Sharon and that of Acre, between Carmel and that city, and a portion of the region watered by the Kishon, but the plains of Phoenicia, strictly speaking, are much more restricted. They are: the plain of Tyre, long but narrow, extending from Ras el-`Abyadh to Sarepta; the plain of Sidon extending from Sarepta to the Bostrenus (Nahr el-'Auly); the plain of Beirut (Berytus) between the extensive sand dunes along the shore and the rocky cape on the West and the foot of Lebanon, 10 or 12 miles long but only one or two wide, containing one of the largest olive groves in Syria; the very small plain of Tripolis, including that city and its port; and, the most extensive of all, the plain of Marathus, extending from Arka to Aradus or even beyond, including the river Eleutherus (Nahr el-Kebir). These plains furnished only a portion of the food needed by the inhabitants who were more or less dependent on their neighbors for it (1 Kings 5:11; Acts 12:20).

The rivers of Phoenicia are comparatively short and small; the Litany rises in the Buka', between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, and finds its way in a deep and narrow gorge between Lebanon and Mt. Hermon to the South, and finally turns westward and reaches the sea a few miles North of Tyre, where it is called the Kasimiyeh. About 12 miles North of Beirut is the Dog River (Lycus), a very short stream but noted for the famous pass at its mouth, where Egyptian Assyrian and Babylonian kings engraved their monuments; and a few miles South of Jebail (Gebal) is the Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim), which comes down from 'Afqa (Apheca = Aphek, Joshua 13:4), noted for the rites of Venus and Adonis (see TAMMUZ); and the Eleutherus, already mentioned, which runs through the valley between Bargylus and Lebanon and provides the pass between these two mountains into the interior. The other rivers are very short, but furnish a perennial water-supply to the coast dwellers.

The products of the land, as well as the climate, are very varied on account of the difference in elevation of the tracts suitable to culture, ranging in temperature from the semi-tropical to Alpine. How far the ancients cultivated the mountain sides we do not know, but they certainly profited largely by the forests of cedar and pine, especially the former, which was the most valuable for shipbuilding and architectural purposes, and was highly prized, not only by the Phoenicians, but by Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians, who transported it to their own countries for buildings. The mineral products are few, and the Phoenicians depended on their colonies and other lands for what they needed of these.

2. The Colonies: The narrowness of the land and the difficulty of expansion on account of the lofty mountain ranges and the hostility of the tribes of the interior led the Phoenicians to turn seaward for an outlet to their increasing population. We have only one instance of their attempt to colonize the Hinterland, and that ended in disaster (Judges 18:1-31). Hiram, king of Tyre, was not pleased with Solomon's gift of 20 cities in Galilee, probably not desiring to assume responsibility for their defense. The people early became mariners, and the dominion of the sea was more inviting to them, and they found room for expansion in the islands and on the coast of the Mediterranean, where they established colonies far and wide. Their first over-sea possessions were in Cyprus, the coasts of which they occupied in the 2nd millennium BC, probably about 1500. On the southern coast they planted various colonies, such as Citium (Larnaca), Amathus, Curium and Paphos, and on the eastern, Salamis, Ammachosta and Soli, and, in the interior, Idalium and Golgi, besides other less important settlements. The evidences of the Phoenician occupation of Cyprus are numerous. The southern portion of Asia Minor also attracted them at an early date, especially the rich plains of Cilicia, and Tarsus became the most important of their colonies there. Its coins bear Phoenician types and legends, among which Baal is conspicuous. Other points along the coast were occupied, and the island of Rhodes as well as certain ports on the south coast of Crete, and most of the islands of the Aegean. Their presence in Attica is vouched for by inscriptions, and legend connects Thebes with them in the person of Cadmus, the reputed son of Agenor, king of Phoenicia. But it is doubtful whether they really colonized the mainland of Greece. They were more attracted by the lands farther to the West.

The greatest of their colonies was in Africa. They occupied Utica first, probably in the 12th century BC, and others in the same region until in the 9th century. Great Carthage was founded, which was destined to become the richest and most powerful of all and the dreaded rival of Rome. All are familiar with the story of Elisa, or Dido, the reputed Tyrian queen who led her followers to the place and founded the city. The story is perhaps legendary, but that Carthage was a colony of Tyre there is no reason to doubt. Other colonists occupied portions of Sicily, such as Motya, Erix, Soli and Panormus (Palermo). They also crossed over to Sardinia and the Balearic Isles, and planted colonies on the south coast of Spain and the northwestern coast of Africa, within and beyond the straits of Gibraltar. Of their settlements in Spain Gades (Cades) and Tartessus were the most noted, the latter being probably the Tarshish of Scripture (1 Kings 10:22). Malaca (Malaga) and Abdera, within the straits, were likewise important settlements, and there were others of less note.

The colonial enterprise of the Phoenicians was remarkable for the age, and was only surpassed in ancient times by the Greeks who came later, the former being the pioneers. The energy and daring of the Phoenicians in pushing out into unknown seas, with the imperfect means at their disposal, is evidence of the enterprise of this people. Their chief object, however, was trade. Their colonies were mostly factories for the exchange of their manufactured articles for the products of the lands they visited. They cared little about building up new states or for extending their civilization and molding barbarous tribes and imparting to them their culture. In this they were far surpassed by the Greeks whose colonies profoundly modified the peoples and lands with which they came in contact.

3. The People: The Phoenicians were the same as the Canaanites, under which name they are known in the Old Testament, as well as Sidonians (Genesis 10:19; Numbers 13:29). They were of Semitic stock, if we may judge by their language and characteristics. It is true that in Genesis 10:6 Canaan is called a son of Ham, but it is also true that the language of Canaan is identified with Hebrew (Isaiah 19:18). If the early Phoenicians spoke a different tongue, they entirely lost it before their contact with the Hebrews. Their writings and all the references to them in ancient authorities show that their language was purely Semitic. As to their origin and the time of their migration to the Syrian coast, it is more difficult to determine. Herodotus (i.2; vii.89) says that they lived at first on the Erythraean Sea, which is identified with the Persian Gulf, and modern authorities have not found evidence to refute the statement. It is quite certain that they were not the aborigines of the country, and must have come in with some of the various migrations from the East, which we know, from Egyptian and Babylonian monuments, occurred in the 3rd, perhaps in the 4th, millennium BC. Semites are found in Syria as early as the IVth Egyptian Dynasty, about 3000 BC, and we may fairly conjecture that the Canaanites were in possession of the seacoast as early as 2500 BC. It is possible that they were among the Hyksos invaders of Egypt (Paton, Syria and Palestine, 67).

That the Phoenicians took to the sea at a very early date and became the most skillful mariners of the ancient world is certain. Their enterprise in this direction is attested by classic writers, and the references to it in the Old Testament are numerous. This was coupled with great industry and skill in the manufacture of the various articles which furnished the materials of their extended commerce. They exhibited a boldness and audacity in braving the perils of the sea in their little ships, which, for the age, demands our admiration. They were the first who dared to push out of sight of land in their voyages and sail beyond the Pillars of Hercules into the ocean. But in their commercial dealings they were often unscrupulous, and their greed of gain often led them to take unfair advantage of the barbarous races with whom they came in contact. The purchase of the land on which the citadel of Carthage was built may illustrate the opinion of the ancients regarding them, but we ought to remember that trickery and deceit are charged against them by their enemies, who alone have handed down accounts of them. The Hebrew prophets speak of their pride and vanity (Ezekiel 28:17), and violence (Ezekiel 28:16), and Amos hints at a traffic in captives taken in war, but whether of Hebrews or not is not clear (Amos 1:9). Slaves were among the articles of merchandise in which they traded (Ezekiel 27:13; Joel 3:6), but this could hardly be charged against them as a great sin when slavery was universal. The chief reason for their being denounced by the prophets was their corrupt practices in worship and the baleful influence of the Baal and Astarte cult introduced by them into Israel through Ahab's marriage with Jezebel (1 Kings 16:31-33). This evil influence was felt even after the captivity when the rites of the Phoenician Tammuz were practiced in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 8:14). But the earlier relations of the Phoenicians with Israel in the days of David and Solomon were friendly and mutually beneficial. On the whole the judgment of history assigns to this people a high position for their enterprise and skill in carrying on their trade, and in being the pioneers of civilization in many of the Mediterranean lands, especially by their introduction of alphabetical writing, which was by far the most valuable of all their contributions to the culture of the ancient world.

4. Arts and Manufactures: (1) Textile Fabrics: The Phoenicians were celebrated for their textile fabrics of silk, wool, linen and cotton. The materials of the last three were obtained from Syria and Egypt, but the silk came from the Far East through Persia. The dyeing of these fabrics was by a process invented by the Phoenicians, and the luster and permanence of color were unequaled by the ancients and made the Tyrian purple famous throughout the world. The finer qualities of it were so precious that only the very wealthy, or kings and princes, could obtain it, and it became at last a synonym of royalty. This dye was obtained from the shell-fish which was abundant in the Mediterranean, especially along the Phoenician coast, species of the Murex and the Buccinum. The mode of manufacture is not definitely known and was probably kept a secret by the Phoenicians. At least they had a monopoly of the business.

(2) Glass: Glass was another well-known product of the country, and although not invented by the Phoeniclans as formerly supposed, it was made in large quantities and exported to all countries about the sea.

See GLASS.

(3) Pottery: Pottery was also an article of manufacture and export, and some of the examples of their work found in Cyprus show considerable skill in the art of decoration as well as making. In this, however, they were far surpassed by the Greeks.

(4) Bronze: Bronze was a specialty of the Phoenicians, and they were for centuries the leading producers, since they controlled the sources of supply of the copper and tin used in its manufacture. The remains of their bronze manufactures are numerous, such as arms for offense and defense, knives, toilet articles, axes, sickles, cups, paterae, and various other household utensils. Articles for artistic purposes are not of high value, although the pillars named Jachin and Boaz, the molten sea, the bases, layers and other articles cast by Hiram of Tyre for the temple of Solomon must have exhibited considerable artistic merit. Their bronze was of good quality and was tempered so as to serve well for edged tools. The composition was about 9 parts copper to 1 part of tin. They seem also to have made iron (2 Chronicles 2:14), and some specimens have come down to us, but we cannot judge from their scarcity as to the extent of their manufactures in this metal, since most of the articles have perished by corrosion.

Aesthetic art among the Phoenicians was of low grade, as it was among the Semites generally, and where we find some works of moderate merit they undoubtedly manifest the influence of Greek art, such as those found in Cyprus by General Di Cesnola and others. In Phoenicia proper very little of artistic value has come to light that can be ascribed to native artists. In sculpture the style is stiff and conventional, much of it exceedingly rude, and lacks expression. The animal forms are generally grotesque, often absurd, reminding one of children's attempts at plastic article The anthropoid sarcophagi discovered at Sidon were modeled after the Egyptian and the magnificent ones, of different design, from the same place, now in the Museum of Constantinople, were certainly the work of Greek artists of the age of Alexander the Great.

The architecture of the Phoenicians was characterized by massiveness, rather than elegance. The substructures of some of their temples and castles are cyclopean, like those of the temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 7:10), and other examples are found at Sidon, Gebal, Marathus and other places in Phoenicia itself. Their work seems lacking in symmetry and grace, showing a want of aesthetic taste.

5. Commerce and Trade: Trade was the very life of Phoenicia. The contracted limits of the land forbade any extensive agriculture, and the people were forced to get their living by other means. They applied themselves to industrial arts, and this led them to seek the means for distributing their wares. Trade was essential to them, and they sought outlets for it by sea and land. Their position was especially favorable for commerce. In the very center of the ancient world, with the great rich and populous nations of antiquity at their back and on either side, they faced the young, vigorous and growing nations of the West, and they served them all as carriers and producers. Their caravans threaded all the well-beaten routes of the East, the deserts of Arabia and the mountain defiles of Armenia and Asia Minor, and their ships pushed boldly out to sea and explored the Mediterranean and the Euxine and did not hesitate to brave the unknown dangers of the Atlantic and perhaps even penetrated to the Baltic, emulating the mariners of a later day in their zeal for discovery and search for new avenues of trade. Could we find a detailed account of their voyages and discoveries, it would be a most interesting document, but we have little except what others have written about them, which, however, gives us a pretty fair idea of the extent of their commercial enterprise. The prophet Ezekiel has given us a remarkable catalogue of the wares of Tyre and of the countries with which she traded (Ezekiel 27:1-36). There we have mention of nearly all the regions of Western Asia, Egypt, Greece and the islands, and Spain, indicated by the names of races, tribes and countries. The materials of their traffic include the most important known to the ancient world, the products of agriculture, such as wool, linen, oil, balm, spices, frankincense, wine, corn, etc.; of metals, such as gold, silver, copper (brass), tin, iron, lead, etc.; precious stones and the articles of manufacture, the "multitude of handiworks," which they were so skillful in producing. They traded in animals also, horses, mules, lambs, rams and goats, and, what is less to their credit, in the persons of men (Ezekiel 27:13). The range of their trade was much wider than is indicated by Ezekiel. We know they reached the Scilly Isles in Britain, and probably the Baltic, whither they went for amber, though this might have been brought overland to the Adriatic and received into their ships there. They passed along the western coast of Africa as far as Cape Non, and perhaps farther, for Herodotus tells us that Pharaohnecoh dispatched a crew of Phoenician sailors to circumnavigate Africa, which they accomplished in 3 years.

We know that they had a fleet in the Red Sea sailing from Elath or Ezion-geber (1 Kings 9:26-27), and it is quite possible that they were allowed by some of the kings of Egypt to avail themselves of ports on the other branch of the Red Sea. They must have visited the eastern shore of Africa and perhaps struck across the Indian Ocean, after skirting the coast of Arabia, and thus carried on trade with India. The Ophir mentioned in connection with these voyages has not been definitely located, but was perhaps in Southern Arabia, though possibly in Southeast Africa.

See GOLD.

The ships in which the Phoenicians made these voyages were small as compared with the great vessels of the present day, but the largest known in their age, as we may infer from the long voyages they made. Their superiority is testified to by classical writers. In the famous expedition of Xerxes to Greece the Phoenician ships excelled all others in speed, and the king chose one of them when he embarked upon the sea (Herodotus vii.100). These ships were impelled both by sails and oars, as we know from illustrations upon the coins.

See COINS.

6. Language and Culture: The ancients attributed the invention of the alphabet to the Phoenicians. This is now regarded as doubtful, and there are no reliable data for determining what people first analyzed speech to its ultimate elements, but to the Phoenicians belongs the merit of bringing the invention to the knowledge of the western world. It is quite certain that the alphabets of Western Asia and those of Europe were derived from the Phoenician characters. This is what we should have expected from their wide commercial relations. The alphabetic writing was in fact one of their exports and was by far, the most important of them all. The world owes a great debt to this people for this invaluable aid to literature, science and culture.

See ALPHABET.

The Phoenician alphabet comprises 22 letters and is deficient in signs to indicate vowels, which were left to be supplied by the reader. This defect is common to the Semitic alphabets, but was soon remedied when the Greeks adopted the Phoenician. Some of the letters have to serve for two sounds, such as the signs for "s" and "sh", for "p" and "ph", for "t" and "th"; besides, there is a redundant sign for the sound of "s". Also the sounds of "y" and "w" are unrepresented.

The origin of the letters is probably to be found in the hieroglyphic signs for words and syllables used by the Egyptians and others, since the similarity of some of them to these signs is evident, but in some cases it is more likely that the Phoenicians adopted hieroglyphics of their own. Thus the first letter, 'aleph, which means "ox," was evidently derived from the picture of an ox's head and then reduced to a conventional form.

The Phoenician alphabet and language were common to the Canaanitish tribes and the Hebrews, as we know from the many inscriptions found in Western Asia. The Moabite Stone testifies to their use East of the Jordan, and the Siloam Inscription likewise for Israel, and the same characters have been found in North Syria. This would be natural, for people of these regions had become largely Semitic by the 9th century BC, when we suppose that the Phoenician alphabet was in general use.

It is strange that the Phoenicians, who had an alphabet so early, and made it so widely known to the world, made so little use of it for literature. The remains of their language are very scanty, mostly inscriptions, and these generally very brief. The longest ones in Phoenician proper are those from Sidon, the most famous of which is that of Esmunazer, king of Sidon, comprising 298 words. Some few others, pertaining to the same dynasty, have been discovered in tombs and on the walls of the temple of Asmun, and show the Phoenician character and style in its best form. Only two works of any length are known to us by translation or references in Greek authors. The first is the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon, of Beirut, which Philo of Byblus claims to have translated from the Phoenician original. This, however, is doubted, and both the author and the history are suspected to be mythical. The other work is genuine; the short account of the voyage of a Carthaginian king beyond the Pillars of Hercules, called the Periplus of Hanno, is not without merit as a narrative, and indicates that the Carthaginian branch of the Phoenician race, at least, may have had a literature of some value, but it is unfortunately lost. We cannot suppose, however, that it was very extensive or very important, as more of it would then have been preserved. The conclusion is natural that the Phoenicians were so absorbed in commercial enterprise and the pursuit of wealth that they neglected the nobler uses of the invaluable instrument of culture they had found in alphabetic writing.

7. Religion: A very prominent role was assigned to religion in the life of the Phoenicians. As a Semitic people, such a characteristic was but natural and they seem to have possessed it in large measure. Their religious ideas are important on account of the influence they had on the Hebrews, which is so apparent in the Old Testament. The worship of the Canaanitish Baal and Ashtoreth, or Astarte, led the Israelites astray and produced most disastrous results.

There can be little doubt that the chief deities of the Phoenicians, as well as the forms of their cult, were derived from Babylonia, brought with them probably when they migrated to the West, but afterward modified by contact with Egypt and Greece. Some regard the earliest conception of the deity among the Semites to have been monotheism, and we find traces of this in the attributes ascribed by the Phoenicians to their chief god. He is Baal, "lord" or "master"; Baal-samin, "lord of heaven"; Eliun, "supreme," etc. These terms imply either one God or one who is supreme among the gods and their ruler. But this belief was changed before the Phoenicians came into contact with the Hebrews, and polytheism took its place, though their gods were less numerous than among most polytheistic races. One of the most corrupting tendencies we notice was the ascription of sexual characteristics to the chief deities of their pantheon, such as Baal and Ashtoreth, which led to licentious rites of the most abominable character.

Baal ba`al; the Phoenician Baal was the chief deity and was universally worshipped, being usually designated by the locality in each place: Baal of Tyre or Baal-Tsur, Baal-Sidon, Baal-Tars (Tarsus), Baal-bek, etc. He was regarded as the god of the generative principle in Nature, and his statues were sometimes flanked by bulls. He was identified with Zeus, and he appears on the coins under the Greek type of Zeus, seated on a throne, holding an eagle in the outstretched right hand and a scepter in the left. Sometimes his head is encircled with rays showing him to be the sun-god.

Ashtoreth (Phoenician `ashtoreth) was the great Nature-goddess, the Magna Mater, queen of heaven (Jeremiah 7:18), and as Baal was the solar deity, so she was often represented under the lunar aspect, Ashteroth-karnaim, "Ashteroth of the two horns" (Genesis 14:5). Sometimes she is represented holding the dove, the symbol of fecundity, of which she was the goddess. She was commonly identified with Aphrodite or Venus. She, like Baal, had temples everywhere, and kings were sometimes her high priests, and her worship was too often accompanied with orgies of the most corrupt kind, as at Apheca.

See ASHTORETH; TAMMUZ.

Among the other gods we may mention: El, or Il ('el originally the designation of the supreme God, but afterward a subordinate deity who became the special divinity of Byblus (Gebal), and was regarded by the Greeks as the same as Kronos. Melqarth (melqarth, "king of the city") originally was the same as Baal, representing one aspect of that god, but later a separate deity, the patron god of Tyre whose head appears on many of its coins, as well as his symbol, the club, since he was identified with Hercules. Herodotus describes his temple at Tyre to which he attributes great antiquity, 2,300 years before his time. Dagon (daghon) seems to have been the tutelary deity of Aradus, his head appearing on the early autonomous coins of that city. He seems to have been regarded as the god of agriculture by the Phoenicians, rather than of fishing as generally supposed. Adonis ('adhon, "lord") was regarded as the son of Cinyras, a mythic king of Gebal and the husband of Ashtoreth. The myth of his death by the wild boar led to the peculiar rites celebrating it, instituted by the women of Gebal at Apheca and on the river named after him (see TAMMUZ). Esmun ('esmun) one of the sons of Siddik, the father of the Cabiri, was especially honored at Sidon and Beirut. At Sidon a great temple was built in his honor, the ruins of which have been recently explored and various inscriptions found dedicating it to him. His name signifies "the eighth," i.e. the eighth son of Siddik, the others being the Cabiri, or Great Ones, who were regarded as presiding over ships and navigation, and as such were worshipped in many places, although their special seat was Beirut. Although they were called "Great" they are represented as dwarfs, and an image of one of them was placed on the prow, or stern, of each Phoenician war galley. The goddess Tanith (tanith) occupied a lofty place in the pantheon, since in inscriptions she takes the precedence over Baal when the two names occur together. She was especially honored at Carthage and to her most exalted names are given, such as "the parent of all"; "the highest of the gods"; "the mistress of the elements," etc. Besides some other gods of less note originally worshipped by the Phoenicians, they introduced some foreign deities into their pantheon. Thus Poseidon appears frequently on the coins of Beirut and became its patron deity in Roman times; Isis and her temple at Gebal are likewise represented on its coins, the Dioscuri or their symbols on those of Tripolis and Beirut, etc.

The corrupt nature of the Phoenician worship has been referred to. It was also cruel, the custom of human sacrifices being common and carried to an extent unheard of among other peoples, such as the horrible sacrifice of 200 noble youths at Carthage when besieged by Agathocles. The sacrifice was by burning, the victim being placed in the arms of the statue of the god, heated for the purpose. In Phoenicia this god was Melqarth, or Molech, and the custom is denounced in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:2-5), but other gods were also honored in this way. The religious feeling of the Phoenicians was undoubtedly deep, but sadly corrupt and depraved.

8. History: The political history of Phoenicia is that of the towns and cities belonging to it. The country as a whole had no centralized government, but the chief towns exercised a sort of hegemony, at times, over some of the lesser ones. This was especially the case with Sidon and Tyre, but every city had its king and its local government. The land is never referred to in ancient documents, but the people are designated by their cities. Thus, we find in Genesis 10:17 f the mention of Sidon, the Arvadite, the Arkite, etc., and, in Joshua 13:4, the Gebalites and the Sidonians in connection with the land of the Canaanites. In the same way the inscriptions of Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria refer to the people of the different cities, but not to the land as a political unit, which it never was.

The cities first come into notice in the period of the Egyptian domination, beginning in the 16th century BC under Thothmes III. This king subdued most of the Phoenician cities, or received their submission, in his numerous campaigns to Syria, and the Egyptian rule continued with more or less interruption until the decline of Egypt under the XXth Dynasty, or about 300 years. During this time Arvad seems to have exercised the hegemony in the North, and Sidon in the South, with Gebal controlling the middle region. The Tell el-Amarna Letters reveal many facts concerning the condition of things while the Egyptian power was declining in the latter part of the XVIIIth Dynasty, especially in the reign of Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton). The rise of the Amorite and Hittite power in the North threatened these cities, which were under Egyptian governors, and they called upon their suzerain for aid, which was not given, and they fell, one after another, into the hands of the enemy. Rameses II restored Egyptian rule, but his successors of the XXth Dynasty could not maintain it, and the invasion of tribes from the West and North, called the Peleset, or Philistines, by land and sea, though repelled by Rameses III, continued to increase until the Egyptian domination was broken, and the coast towns resumed their independence about the middle of the 12th century BC. Sidon came to the front as the chief city of Phoenicia, and it is referred to by Joshua as "Great Sidon" (Joshua 11:8). Homer also mentions Sidon frequently, but makes no reference to Tyre. The latter city was certainly in existence in his day, but had not come to the front as the leading city in the mind of the Greeks. Yet it was a fortified city in the time of Joshua (Joshua 19:29), and the king of Tyre is among the correspondents mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters. It seems to have taken precedence of Sidon when the latter was attacked by the Philistines of Askelon, and the inhabitants were compelled to flee for safety to Tyre. At all events Tyre exercised the hegemony in Phoenicia by the time David came to the throne, and had probably obtained it a century or two before, and held it until Phoenicia became subject to Assyria in the 9th century BC. Asshur-nazir-pal first came into contact with Phoenicia, which submitted to tribute, between 877 and 860 BC, and this subjection continued until the downfall of Assyria in the latter part of the 7th century BC. The subjection was nominal only for more than a century, the cities retaining their kings and managing their own affairs with no interference from the Assyrians as long as they paid the tribute. But with the advent of Tiglath-pileser in Syria, about 740 BC, conditions changed, and the Phoenician towns were subjected to severe treatment, and some of the dynasties were driven from their cities and Assyrian governors appointed in their places. Their oppression caused revolts, and Elulaeus of Tyre united Sidon and the cities to the South in a league to resist the encroachments of Tiglath-pileser and his successor Shalmaneser IV, whom he successfully resisted, although the Assyrian gained over to his side Sidon, Acre, and some other towns and had the assistance of their fleets to make an attack upon the island city. The attack failed completely, and Shalmaneser left Elulaeus to his independence, which he maintained for a quarter of a century, regaining control of the towns that had fallen away and also of Cyprus. Sargon (722-705 BC) let Phoenicia alone, but Sennacherib (705-681) determined to punish the king of Tyre and prepared an army of 200,000 men for the war with Phoenicia. Elulaeus was afraid and fled to Cyprus, but his towns dared to resist and Sennacherib had to reduce them one after another, but did not succeed in taking Tyre itself. He set over the conquered territory a certain Tubaal, probably a Phoenician who paid him tribute. He also took tribute from Gebal and Aradus, which indicates that all of Phoenicia was subject to him, as these two cities probably controlled all that was not under Tyre. In the reign of Esarhaddon (681-668) Sidon revolted under Abd-Melkarth, who was caught and beheaded, the city sacked, and the inhabitants either killed or carried into captivity, and it was re-peopled by captives from the East. At a later date (672), when Esarhaddon was preparing to invade Egypt, Baal, the vassal king of Tyre, revolted and refused to aid him, but afterward submitted either to Esarhaddon or to his son Ashurbanipal and assisted the latter in his invasion of Egypt, 668 BC. Four years later, however, we find the Assyrian king besieging Tyre and punishing Baal by making him give his daughter to be a member of the Assyrian's harem. Baal himself was left on his throne. The same fate was the lot of the king of Aradus, and Accho (Acre) was also punished.

The frequent rebellions of the Phoenician towns show their love of independence and a sturdy resistance to oppression. They became freed from the yoke of Assyria probably about 630 BC, when the Medes attacked Nineveh and the Scythic hordes overran all Western Asia. The Phoenician cities were fortitled and did not suffer very much from the barbarian invasion, and, as Assyria was broken, they resumed their independence. In the struggle which followed between Egypt and Babylon for the mastery of Syria, Phoenicia fell, for a time, under the sway of Egypt, but was not oppressed, and her towns prospered, and it was in this period that Tyre attained great wealth and renown as reflected in the Book of Ezk. When Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to it, a resistance of 13 years showed its strength and resources, and

although the town on the mainland was destroyed, it is doubtful whether the king of Babylon took the island city, but it must have submitted to pay tribute (585 BC). Phoenicia remained subject to Babylon until that empire fell into the hands of the Persians (538), and then accepted the yoke of the latter in the days of Cambyses, if not earlier, but the Persian king does not seem to have used force to gain the adherence of the Phoenicians. He needed their fleets to assist in the attack upon Egypt and secured them without difficulty. They aided him in the conquest of Egypt, but when he asked them to proceed against Carthage they refused, and he had to desist. The navy of Phoenicia was too necessary for him to run any risk of alienating it.

This navy was the strongest sea power of the Persians in all their coming wars with Greece. Without its assistance Darius and his successors could with difficulty have invaded that country or held in subjection the western coasts of Asia Minor. Phoenicia remained faithful to her Persian rulers about 150 years, but when the general revolt of the western satraps occurred in 362 BC, Phoenicia seems to have favored them, but no open rebellion broke out until 351, when Sidon, under her king Tabnit II (Tennes), boldly declared her independence and induced most of the Phoenician cities to do the same. The Persian garrisons were massacred or driven out. Ochus, the king of Persia, marched with an army of 300,000 infantry and 30,000 horse to punish the rebels, and Tabnit, in cowardly alarm, betrayed Sidon into his hands, but the citizens set fire to the city and destroyed themselves rather than fall into the hands of Ochus, who, as treacherous as Tabnit, slew the traitor (see SIDON). The other cities then submitted, and Phoenicia remained subject to Persia until the time of Alexander the Great. When this conqueror invaded the dominions of Persia and had defeated Darius at Issus, 333 BC, he demanded the submission of the Phoenician towns, and all yielded save Tyre. Alexander was obliged to lay siege to it, which cost him 7 months of the severest labor, such was the valor and skill of the Tyrians. The capture of Tyre is reckoned as one of the greatest exploits of this mighty conqueror who stained his record by his cruel treatment of the brave defenders. He massacred the male prisoners and sold the remainder of the inhabitants, to the number of 30,000, into slavery (see TYRE). After the death of Alexander the Phoenician cities were subject to the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria, the latter finally obtaining control of all by the victory of Antiochus III over Scopas in 198 BC. From this time on Phoenicia formed a part of the Seleucid kingdom until it passed, together with Syria and Palestine, into the hands of the Romans. Its cities became the home of many Greeks and its language became largely Greek, as inscriptions and coins testify. The Romans had also much to do in modifying the character of the people, and some towns, Berytus, especially, became largely Roman. Phoenicia can hardly be said to have had a separate existence after the Greek invasion.

LITERATURE.

Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia; Kenrick, Phoenicia; Movers, Phonizier; Breasted, History of Egypt, and Ancient Records; Budge, History of Egypt; Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies; Rogers, Babylonia and Assyria; Bevan, House of Seleucus; Tell el-Amarna Letters; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Phoenicia.

H. Porter

Phoenix

Phoenix - fe'-niks (Phoinix; the King James Version Phenice): A harbor in Crete (Acts 27:12). The Alexandrian corn ship carrying Paul and the author of Acts, after it left Myra in Lycia, was prevented by adverse winds from holding a straight course to Italy, and sailed under the lee of Crete, off the promontory of Salmone (kata Salmonen). The ship was then able to make her way along the South shore of Crete to a harbor called Fair Havens (Kaloi Limenes), near a city Lasea (Lasaia). Thence, in spite of Paul's advice to winter in Fair Havens, it was decided to sail to Phoenix (eis Phoinika, limena tes Kretes) bleponta kata liba kai kata choron, a description which has been translated in two ways: (1) "looking toward the Southwest wind and toward the Northwest wind, i.e. looking Southwest and Northwest"; (2) "looking down the Southwest wind and down the Northwest wind, i.e. looking Northeast and Southeast" On the way thither, they were struck by a wind from the Northeast, called Euraquilo, and ran before it under the lee of an island, called Cauda or Clauda (Kauda (Codex Sinaiticus (corrected) and Codex Vaticanus and the Old Latin) or Klauda (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, etc.)) in Acts 27:7-17. It will be convenient to discuss those places together. The following account is based on Smith's elaborate study in his Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul, which has been followed by all later writers.

The ship, when it left Myra was obviously making for Italy (Puteoli or Ostia) by the shortest route, round Cape Malea, but off Cnidus it encountered a Northwest wind and had to sail for shelter under the lee of Crete. Salmone, now called Cape Sidero, was the promontory which forms the Northeast corner of the island. Thence along the South shore of Crete, as far as Cape Matala, a sailing ship is sheltered by the mountains from the violence of the Northwest wind; West of Cape Matala, where the coast turns toward the Northwest, there is no such shelter. Fair Havens must therefore be looked for to the East of Cape Matala, and there is a harbor, lying 6 miles East of Cape Matala, which is called Fair Havens by the modern Greek inhabitants of the island. There is no doubt that this is the harbor in which the Alexandrian ship took shelter. It is sheltered only from the North and Northwest winds.

The ruins of a city which has been identified with Lasea have been found 5 miles East from Fair Havens, and 12 miles South of the important city of Gortyna. It has been suggested that Paul's desire to winter at Fair Havens (Acts 27:10) may have been due to its proximity to Gortyna, and the opportunity which the latter city afforded for missionary work. There were many Jews in Gortyna.

See CRETE.

From Fair Havens, against the advice of Paul, it was decided to sail to Phoenix, there to pass the winter. While the ship was on its way thither, it was struck by a violent Northeast wind from the mountains, called Euraquilo, and carried under the lee of an islet called Cauda or Clauda. When this happened, the ship was evidently crossing the Bay of Messariah, and from this point a Northeast wind must have carried her under the lee of an island now called Gaudho in Greek and Gozzo in Italian, situated about 23 miles Southwest of the center of the Gulf of Messariah. The modern name of the island shows that Cauda (Caudas in the Notitiae Episcopatuum), and not Clauda is the true ancient form.

The writer of Acts never saw Phoenix, which must have been a good harbor, as the nautical experts decided to winter there (Acts 27:11). Now the only safe harbor on the South coast of Crete in which a ship large enough to carry a cargo of corn and 268 souls could moor is the harbor beside Loutro, a village on the South coast of Crete, directly North of Cauda. All the ancient authorities agree in placing Phoenix in this neighborhood. The harbor at Loutro affords shelter from all winds, and its identification with Phoenix seems certain. But a serious difficulty arises on this view. The words describing the harbor of Phoenix ordinarily mean "looking toward the Southwest and the Northwest," but the harbor beside Loutro looks eastward. This led Bishop Wordsworth to identify Phoenix with an open roadstead on the western side of the isthmus on which Loutro stands. But this roadstead is not a suitable place for wintering in, and it is better either to take the words to mean, in sailor's language, "looking down the Southwest and Northwest winds"--a description which exactly fits the harbor at Loutro--or to assume that the reporter of the discussion referred to in Acts 27:10-12 or the writer of Acts made a mistake in describing a place which he had never seen. An inscription belonging to the reign of Trajan found at Loutro shows that Egyptian corn ships were wont to lie up there for the winter.

W. M. Calder

Phoros

Phoros - fo'-ros (Phoros; Codex Vaticanus (Swete) Phares (1 Esdras 8:30, where the King James Version Pharez)): Name of one of the families, part of whom went up from the exile with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:9) and part with Ezra (8:30 the Revised Version (British and American)) = "Parosh" of Ezra 2:3; 8:3, and some members of which had taken "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:26).

Phrurai

Phrurai - fru'-ri, fru'-ra-i (Phrourai; also in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus as Phrouraia and Phrourim; the King James Version Phurim): In Additions to Esther 11:1, "the epistle of Phrurai" means the preceding Book of Esther.

See PURIM.

Phrygia

Phrygia - frij'-i-a (Phrugia): A large ancient country of Central Asia Minor, very mountainous and with table-lands reaching 4,000 ft. in height. Its name is derived from Phryges, a tribe from Thrace, which in early times invaded the country and drove out or absorbed the earlier Asiatic inhabitants, among whom were the Hittites. Thus, the Phrygians borrowed much of oriental civilization, especially of art and mythology which they transferred to Europe. To define the boundaries of Phrygia would be exceedingly difficult, for as in the case of other Asia Minor countries, they were always vague and they shifted with nearly every age. The entire country abounds with ruins of former cities and with almost countless rock-hewn tombs, some of which are of very great antiquity. Among the most interesting of the rock sculptures are the beautiful tombs of the kings bearing the names Midas and Gordius, with which classical tradition has made us familiar. It seems that at one period the country may have extended to the Hellespont, even including Troy, but later the Phrygians were driven toward the interior. In Roman times, however, when Paul journeyed there, the country was divided into two parts, one of which was known as Galatian Phrygia, and the other as Asian Phrygia, because it was a part of the Roman province of Asia, but the line between them was never sharply drawn. The Asian Phrygia was the larger of the two divisions, including the greater part of the older country; Galatian Phrygia was small, extending along the Pisidian Mountains, but among its important cities were Antioch, Iconium and Apollonia. About 295 AD, when the province of Asia was no longer kept together, its different parts were known as Phrygia Prima and Phrygia Secunda. That part of Asia Minor is now ruled by a Turkish wall or governor whose residence is in Konia, the ancient Iconium. The population consists not only of Turks, but of Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Kurds and many small tribes of uncertain ancestry, and of peculiar customs and religious practices. The people live mostly in small villages which are scattered throughout the picturesque country. Sheep and goat raising are the leading industries; brigandage is common. According to Acts 2:10, Jews from Phrygia went to Jerusalem, and in Acts 18:23 we learn that many of them were influential and perhaps fanatical. According to Acts 16:6, Paul traversed the country while on his way from Lystra to Iconium and Antioch in Galatian Phrygia. Twice he entered Phrygia in Asia, but on his 2nd journey he was forbidden to preach there. Christianity was introduced into Phrygia by Paul and Barnabas, as we learn from Acts 13:4; Acts 16:1-6; 18:23, yet it did not spread there rapidly. Churches were later founded, perhaps by Timothy or by John, at Colosse, Laodicea and Hierapolis.

E. J. Banks

Phurah

Phurah - fu'-ra (purah, "branch").

See PURAH.

Phut

Phut - fut (puT).

See PUT.

Phuvah

Phuvah - fu'-va.

See PUAH.

Phygelus; Phygellus

Phygelus; Phygellus - fi-je'-lus, fi-jel'-us (Phugellos; Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, with others, read Phugelos, Phygellus or Phygelus (2 Timothy 1:15); the King James Version): One of the Christians who deserted Paul at the time of his 2nd imprisonment at Rome. Paul mentions him, along with Hermogenes, as being among those "that are in Asia," who turned away from him then. What is meant may be that Phygelus and Hermogenes, along with other native Christians from proconsular Asia, were in Rome when he was brought before the emperor's tribunal the second time, and that they had not merely taken no measures to stand by and support him, but that they had deserted him.

The meaning, however, may be that the turning away of Phygelus and Hermogenes from Paul took place, not in Rome, but in Asia itself.

The times during and immediately following the Neronic persecution were more dreadful than can easily be conceived, and the temptation was strong to forsake the Christian name, and to do so in a wholesale fashion. A great community like the Christian church in Ephesus or in Rome felt the terrible pressure of those times, when for a mere word--a word, however, denying the Lord who bought them--men were at once set free from persecution, from the loss of property or of home, and from death. 1 Peter records how the aftermath of the Neronic persecution had extended far indeed from Rome, where it had originated. Peter asks the Christians not to give way under "the fiery trial" which is trying them (1 Peter 4:12), and those whom he thus addresses were the members of the church throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1). The epistles to the seven churches in Asia in the Apocalypse also show how sorely persecution had raged throughout that province.

See PERSECUTION.

But in addition to the temptation to deny Christ's name and to go back to heathenism or to Judaism, there was also another which pressed upon some of the churches, the temptation to repudiate the authority of Paul. Many passages in the New Testament show how the name of Paul was sometimes very lightly esteemed, and how his authority was repudiated, e.g. by persons in Corinth, and in the churches of Galatia.

What is said here is, that among the Christians of proconsular Asia, i.e. of Ephesus and the churches in the valley of the Cayster, there was a widespread defection from that loyalty to Paul which was to be expected from those who owed to him all that they possessed of the knowledge of Christ's salvation. "All that are in Asia turned away from me; of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes." On the whole, all the necessary conditions of these words are satisfied by a reference to Rome and to Paul's environment there, and perhaps this is the more probable meaning.

See HERMOGENES.

John Rutherfurd

Phylactery

Phylactery - fi-lak'-ter-i (phulakterion, "guard"):

1. Bible References: This word is found only in Matthew 23:5 in our Lord's denunciation of the Pharisees, who, in order that their works might "be seen of men," and in their zeal for the forms of religion, "make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments." The corresponding word in the Old Testament, ToTaphoth (Kennedy in HDB suggests pointing as the segholate feminine singular, ToTepheth), is fonnd in three passages (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; 11:18), where it is translated "frontlets." This rendering, however, is not at all certain, and may have been read into the text from its later interpretation. In Exodus 13:9 the corresponding word to the Totaphoth of Exodus 13:16 is zikkaron, "memorial" or "reminder"; and in the parallel clauses of both verses the corresponding word is 'oth, "a sign" upon the hand, also used for the "sign" which Yahweh appointed for Cain (Genesis 4:15). It may be rendered then as a mark or ornament or jewel, and used figuratively of Yahweh's Law as an ornament or jewel to the forehead of the Israelite, a reference to the charm or amulet worn by the pagan. The word used in the Talmud for the phylactery is tephillah, "prayer," or "prayer-band" (plural tephillin), indicating its use theoretically as a reminder of the Law, although practically it might be esteemed as an automatic and ever-present charm against evil: an aid within toward the keeping of the Law, a guard without against the approach of evil; a degradation of an Old Testament figurative and idealistic phrase to the materialistic and superstitious practices of the pagans.

2. Description: The phylactery was a leather box, cube-shaped, closed with an attached flap and bound to the person by a leather band. There were two kinds: (1) one to be bound to the inner side of the left arm, and near the elbow, so that with the bending of the arm it would rest over the heart, the knot fastening it to the arm being in the form of the Hebrew letter yodh (y), and the end of the string, or band, finally wound around the middle finger of the hand, "a sign upon thy hand" (Deuteronomy 6:8). This box had one compartment containing one or all of the four passages given above. The writer in his youth found one of these in a comparatively remote locality, evidently lost by a Jewish peddler, which contained only the 2nd text (Exodus 13:11-16) in unpointed Hebrew. (2) Another was to be bound in the center of the forehead, "between thine eyes" (Deuteronomy 6:8), the knot of the band being in the form of the Hebrew letter daleth (d), with the Hebrew letter shin (sh) upon each end of the box, which was divided into four compartments with one of the four passages in each. These two Hebrew letters, with the yodh (y) of the arm-phylactery (see (1) above), formed the divine name shadday, "Almighty." Quite elaborate ceremonial accompanied the "laying" on of the phylacteries, that of the arm being bound on first, and that of the head next, quotations from Scripture or Talmud being repeated at each stage of the binding. They were to be worn by every male over 13 years old at the time of morning prayer, except on Sabbaths and festal days, such days being in themselves sufficient reminders of "the commandment, the statutes, and the ordinances" of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 6:1).

3. Interpretation of Old Testament Passages: The passages on which the wearing of the phylacteries is based are as follows: "It (i.e. the feast of unleavened bread) shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of Yahweh may be in thy mouth" (Exodus 13:9); "And it (i.e. sacrifice of the firstborn) shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes" (Exodus 13:16); "thou shalt bind them (i.e. the words of Yahweh) for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes" (Deuteronomy 6:8); "therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul; and ye shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes" (Deuteronomy 11:18). It is evident that the words in Exodus are beyond all question used figuratively; a careful reading of the verses in Deuteronomy in close relation to their contexts, in which are other figures of speech not to be taken literally, is sufficient proof of their purely figurative intention also. Only the formalism of later ages could distort these figures into the gross and materialistic practice of the phylactery. Just when this practice began cannot accurately be determined. While the Talmud attempts to trace it back to the primitive, even Mosaic, times, it probably did not long antedate the birth of Christ. In conservative Jewish circles it has been maintained through the centuries, and at present is faithfully followed by orthodox Judaism. Every male, who at the age of 13 becomes a "son of the Law" (bar mitswah), must wear the phylactery and perform the accompanying ceremonial.

In the New Testament passage (Matthew 23:5) our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, who make more pronounced the un-Scriptural formalism and the crude literalism of the phylacteries by making them obtrusively large, as they also seek notoriety for their religiosity by the enlarged fringes, or "borders."

See FRINGES; FRONTLETS; PHARISEES.

LITERATURE.

The various commentaries. on Ex and Dt: tractate Tephillin; the comprehensive article by A. R. S. Kennedy in HDB; articles in Encyclopedia Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia.

Edward Mack

Phylarch

Phylarch - fi'-lark (phularches): Given in the King James Version of 2 Maccabees 8:32 as a proper name "Philarches," but in the Revised Version (British and American) "the phylarch of Timotheus's forces"; "probably the captain of an irregular auxiliary force" (Revised Version margin), rather than a cavalry officer.

Phylarches

Phylarches - fi-lar'-kez (the King James Version Philarches).

See PHYLARCH.

Physician

Physician - fi-zish'-an (rophi; iatros): To the pious Jew at all times God was the healer (Deuteronomy 32:39): "It was neither herb nor mollifying plaister that cured them, but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things" (Wisdom of Solomon 16:12). The first physicians mentioned in Scripture are those of Egypt. Long before the sojourn of the Hebrews in that land, Egypt had a priestly class of physicians (snu) and a god of healing (Imchtp). From the ancient medical papyri which have been preserved, the largest of which is the Papyrus Ebers, we know that the medical knowledge of these physicians was purely empirical, largely magical and wholly unscientific. In spite of their ample opportunities they knew next to nothing of human anatomy, their descriptions of diseases are hopelessly crude, and three-fourths of the hundreds of prescriptions in the papyri are wholly inert. Even their art of embalming was so imperfect that few of their mummies would have remained in any other climate than that of Egypt. Physicians of this kind who were Joseph's servants embalmed Jacob (Genesis 50:2) and Joseph (Genesis 50:26). It was not until the foundation of the School of Alexandria, which was purely Greek, that Egypt became a place of medical education and research.

There is no evidence that at any time the priests of Israel were reputed to be the possessors of medical knowledge or tradition. In the ceremonial law they had explicit instructions as to the isolation of those suffering from skin eruptions, so that they might recognize certain obstinate and infectious forms which caused ceremonial uncleanness, but with this duty as sanitary police their function ended and they used no means to cure these diseases. There is, as far as I know, no record or tradition of a priest-physician in Bible times. The records of cure by the prophets, especially Elisha, are mostly recorded as miracles, not as cures by treatment. The salt which cured the noxious water at Jericho and the meal by which the poisonous gourds were rendered innoxious, like the manipulation of the Shunammite's son, can scarcely be regarded as adequate remedies. There is an implied reference to a healer of wounds in Exodus 21:19, as also in Isaiah 3:7, and it is recorded in Pesachim, iv.9 that there was in existence in the time of the monarchy a book of cures, cepher rephu'oth, supposed to have been written by Solomon, but withdrawn from public use by Hezekiah. The first specific mention of Hebrew physicians is 2 Chronicles 16:12, but Asa is obviously regarded by the Chronicler as reprehensible in trusting to their skill. In 2 Kings 8:29 Joram, king of Israel, is said to have gone to Jezreel to be healed. Not far from this, across the Jordan, was Gilead, which possibly may also have been a place resorted to by those needing medical treatment, as indicated by Jeremiah's query: "Is there no balm in Gilead? is there no physician there?" (Jeremiah 8:22). Job, irritated by the platitudes of his friends, calls them physicians of no value (Jeremiah 13:4).

In the New Testament our Lord's saying, "They that are whole have no need of a physician," etc., shows that there were physicians in Galilee (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31), and in Nazareth He quotes what seems to have been a proverb: "Physician, heal thyself" (Luke 4:23). There were physicians in Galilee who received fees from the woman of Caesarca Philippi who had the issue of blood (Mark 5:26; Luke 8:43). Of her there is a curious story told in Eusebius (VII, 18).

There are several Talmudic references to physicians; in Sheqalim ii 1, it is said that there was a physician at the temple to attend to the priests. A physician was appointed in every city (Gittin 12b) who was required to have a license from the local authorities (Babha' Bathra' 21a). The familiar passage in Ecclesiasticus 38:1-15 the Revised Version (British and American) in praise of the physician gives him but limited credit for his skill: "There is a time when in their very hands is the issue for good," and later, "He that sinneth before his Maker, Let him fall into the hands of the physician."

Luke, called "the beloved physician" in Colossians 4:14, is said by Eusebius to have been a native of Antioch and a physician by profession. According to Origen he was the unnamed "brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches" (2 Corinthians 8:18). There are evidences of his professional studies in the language of his writings, though of this probably more has been made by Hobart and others than it really merits. Had we not known of his profession it is doubtful whether it could have been conjectured from his choice of words. Sir W. Ramsay calls attention to the two words used of the healings at Melita in Acts 28:8-10: for the cure of Publius' father the word used is iasato, but for the healing of those who came later it is etherapeuonto, which he renders "received medical treatment." From this he infers that Luke helped Paul with these (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 1908).

Alexander Macalister

Pi-beseth

Pi-beseth - pi-be'-seth (pi-be'seth;(pi-bheceth; Septuagint Bubastos; Egyptian Pi-Basht, "the house of Basht," the cat-headed goddess; the Egyptian form is usually Ha-Basht; it is doubtful if the form Pi-Basht has yet been found): A city of ancient Egypt. The only occurrence of the name of this place in the Old Testament is in Ezekiel 30:17; where it is coupled with Aven, i.e. On (Heliopolis).

1. Location: Pi-beseth was on the western bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, about 40 miles North of Memphis, about 15 miles Northeast of On. Herodotus found the city of Bubastis very beautiful in his day. The annual festival of the goddess, Basht, was celebrated here with revolting license, similar to that of the festival of Syyid el-Bedawer now kept in TanTa.

2. Exploration: Pi-beseth was explored by Professor Naville under the Egyptian Exploration Society in 1887-90. There were uncovered ruins of Egypt from the IVth Dynasty of the Old Empire, from the Middle Empire, an important Hyksos settlement, and ruins from the New Empire down to the end, and even from Roman times. The most unique discovery at Pi-beseth, one of the most unique in all Egypt, is the cemetery of cats. These cats, the animal sacred to Basht, were mummified at other places in Egypt, but at Pibeseth they were burned and the ashes and bones gathered and buried in great pits lined with brick or hardened clay. Bones of the ichneumon were also found mixed with those of the cats in these pits (Egypt Exploration Fund Report, 1891).

M. G. Kyle

Picture

Picture - pik'-tur: This word (in the plural) is found 3 times in the King James Version, namely, Numbers 33:52; Isaiah 2:16; Proverbs 25:11. In Numbers and Proverbs "pictures" represents the Hebrew word maskith, "showpiece" "figure." The context in Numbers suggests that the "pictures" or "carved figures" (the Revised Version (British and American) "figured stones") which the Israelites were to destroy were symbols of Canaanite worship and therefore foreign to the religion of Yahweh. In Proverbs for the King James Version "pictures of silver," the English Revised Version has "baskets (the American Standard Revised Version "network") of silver," but a more probable translation is "carvings of silver." "Pictures" stands for a slightly different word (but from the same root) in Isaiah, namely, sekhuyoth; the Revised Version (British and American) renders "imagery" (the Revised Version margin "watchtowers"). The prophet probably alludes to carved figures (of gods in animal or human shapes) on the prows of vessels.

T. Lewis

Piece

Piece - pes: In the King James Version the word (singular and plural) represents a large number of different Hebrew words, many of which have more or less the same significance, e.g. piece of meat or flesh (Genesis 15:10; 2 Samuel 6:19; Ezekiel 24:4); of bread or cake (1 Samuel 2:36; 30:12; Jeremiah 37:21); of ground or land (2 Samuel 23:11); of wall (Nehemiah 3:11, 19 ff); of an ear (Amos 3:12); of cloth or garment (1 Kings 11:30); of millstone (Judges 9:53). It is used frequently in paraphrastic renderings of various Hebrew verbs: "break," "tear," "cut," etc., in pieces (Genesis 44:28, etc.).

In the New Testament "piece" renders epiblema, "piece" or "patch of cloth" (Matthew 9:16; Mark 2:21; Luke 5:36). It is also found in paraphrastic renderings--broken in pieces (Mark 5:4), pulled in pieces (Acts 23:10).

T. Lewis

Piece of Gold

Piece of Gold - The word "pieces" is supplied in 2 Kings 5:5 (story of Naaman), "6,000 pieces of gold," where the Revised Version margin more correctly suggests "shekels" (compare 1 Kings 10:16).

See MONEY.

Piece of Money

Piece of Money - Two words are thus rendered in the King James Version (qesiTah; stater). the Revised Version (British and American) gives only the first this rendering (Job 42:11). It is supposed to be from Arabic qassaT, "to divide equally by weight," and hence, something weighed; a piece of silver weighed for money, and perhaps stamped with its weight. The stater is the well-known Greek weight and coin (Matthew 17:27 the King James Version, margin, "stater," the Revised Version (British and American) "shekel"). In gold it was equal to about a guinea or five dollars, but in silver only to about 66 cents (in 1915).

Piece of Silver

Piece of Silver - Two words are thus rendered in the Old Testament (ratstse-khaceph, and qesiTah) and two in the New Testament argurion, and drachme). The first expression means pieces of silver broken off from bars or larger pieces (Psalms 68:30). The second is used for money in Joshua 24:32, and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American). The pieces were not coins, but perhaps bore a stamp. See MONEY. In other passages of the Old Testament where pieces of silver are mentioned, the Hebrew has simply a numeral joined with keTeph, "silver," as in the account of the selling of Joseph (Genesis 37:28). In Isaiah 7:23 the word silverlings means small pieces of silver, and they were no doubt shekels. In the New Testament the Greek arguria (Matthew 26:15; Matthew 27:3-9), is translated as pieces of silver, but probably means shekels. In Acts 19:19 the same word occurs, but in this case the reference is probably to the denarius or drachma (compare Luke 15:8 f). Thus, the 30 pieces of Matthew would be equal to about 4 British pounds or $20 (in 1915), and the 50,000 of Acts to about 2,000 British pounds or $10,000 (in 1915).

H. Porter

Piety

Piety - pi'-e-ti: Only in 1 Timothy 5:4: "Let them learn first to show piety toward their own family," where "let them show piety" represents a single Greek verb (eusebeo), in its only other occurrence (Acts 17:23) being rendered "worship." In Elizabethan English "piety" (like the Latin pietas) could be used of devotion to one's parents (as still in the phrase "filial piety"), as well as of devotion to God. Hence, there is no explicit statement here that filial devotion is one form of divine worship.

Pigeon

Pigeon - pij'-un (yonah; peristera; Latin pipire): A bird of the family Columbidae. See DOVE. The Hebrew yonah seems to be translated either pigeon or dove, yet almost every reference made to these birds proves that there were distinct branches of the family recognized, and one or the other or both are designated. On the other hand, some of the translations read doves, where the remainder of the text makes it very clear that pigeons were the birds intended, The Latin pipire means "to cheep," and refers to the unusually clamorous young in the nest. The old birds coo, moan and wail as doves. The birds are almost 12 inches long, have full, plump bodies that are delicious food, and beautifully marked and shaded plumage. They feed principally on grain, seeds, small buds and fruit. Beyond question wild pigeons were the first birds domesticated and taught to home with man. They appeared in a state of such complete domestication, that they flew free, yet homed and bred in places provided by man at the time of the very first attempts at keeping records of history. At the time the earliest Biblical accounts were written, pigeons were so domesticated that in all known countries of the East they were reckoned when an estimate was made of a man's wealth.

The rich provided large and expensive cotes of molded pottery for their birds, each section big enough for the home of one pair of birds, the regular rows of openings resembling lattice work, so that Isaiah refers to them as "windows" (Isaiah 60:8). Septuagint reads sun nossois, literally, "with young" or "fledglings" (see below). The middle classes modeled cotes of oven-baked clay, and the very poor cut holes in the walls, over the doors, and allowed the birds to enter and live with the family.

In wild estate, rock and wood pigeons swarmed in countless numbers through rocky caves and caverns and over the plains of Gennesaret, the forests of Gilead and the woody slopes of Carmel. They remained throughout the season, breeding at all times. The doves were migratory, and were kept in confinement only as caged pets or to be held for sale for sacrifice. For these purposes, it appears that the dove was slightly preferred. When only one bird was to be used, a dove is always specified; where two, almost in every case the dove is mentioned first. Where one or the other will suffice, the dove seems to have been given preference. This may have been because it required greater effort to procure a dove, and so it was considered a greater sacrifice. Everyone having a home of any sort had pigeons they could use, or they could be taken wild at any time. The dove is first mentioned in Genesis 15:9: "And he said unto him, Take me a heifer three years old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon."

It will be observed that the dove is mentioned first, and it is specified that the pigeon was to be young. It is probable that the people protected their domesticated pigeons by using the wild for sacrifice, whenever possible. Young birds could be taken from a nest at almost any time. The old birds, among the wild, were shy creatures and far more difficult to capture in nets or snares than doves that came close to cities and villages to live, and exhibited much less fear of man than the wild pigeons. The next reference is in Leviticus 5:7: "And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his trespass-offering for that wherein he hath sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto Yahweh; one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering." Here two birds of each kind were to be offered, if the person making the sacrifice could not afford a lamb. Again in Leviticus 12:6: "And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb a year old for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sinoffering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest." Here is a rare instance where the text or the translators place the pigeon first.

"And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tent of meeting" (Numbers 6:10). In Song of Solomon 2:14:

"O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock,

In the covert of the steep place,

Let me see thy countenance,

Let me hear thy voice;

For sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely."

Here the text reads "dove," but the description of the location and the implication of the text prove the bird to have been a rock pigeon--a tender, loving thing, yet shy and timid, that peeps with eyes of bright concern over the rocks of its chosen home, down at the intruder. Isaiah 60:8: "Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?" Here is another place where the wrong bird is used. Doves were wild and migratory. They had no "windows." But the tile pots massed in one diamond-shaped cote appeared at a little distance, like latticed windows. This should read "pigeons" instead of "doves." For the same reason see Jeremiah 48:28: "O ye inhabitants of Moab, leave the cities and dwell in the rock; and be like the dove that maketh her nest over the mouth of the abyss." Again the bird intended is the rock pigeon. Luke 2:24: "A sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." This describes the sacrifice offered in the temple by Mary following the birth of Jesus.

Gene Stratton-Porter

Pi-hahiroth

Pi-hahiroth - pi-ha-hi'-roth (pi-ha-chiroth (Exodus 14:2-9; Numbers 33:7-8)):

1. Meaning of Name: Nothing is known of the meaning of the name. Pi-Hahiroth Some attempts toward an Egyptian etymology for it have been made, but without much success. Since the meaning of the name is unknown and no description of the place or its use is given, it is impossible to determine anything concerning the character of Pi-Hahiroth, whether a city, a sanctuary, a fortress, or some natural feature of the landscape.

2. Location: Neither Pi-Hahiroth nor any other place mentioned with it can be exactly located. A recent discovery of manuscripts in Egypt furnishes a mention of this place, but affords very little assistance in locating it, nothing comparable to the account in the Bible itself. If any one of the places mentioned in connection with the crossing of the Red Sea could be located approximately, all the others could, also, be similarly located by the description given in the account in Exodus. The route beyond the Sea has been made out with almost positive certainty. A journey along the way is so convincing that hardly anything can shake the conviction which it produces. This identification of the route of the exodus beyond the Sea requires the place of the crossing to be within 3 days' journey of Marah, which puts it somewhere near the modern Suez. It may be anywhere within 10 miles of that point. This approximately locates all the other places mentioned in connection with the crossing: Migdol must be Ras 'Ataqah, or some other high point in the mountains of the western deserts, where might be placed a watchtower. Pi-Hahiroth is between this point and the Sea and Baal-zephon near the opposite eastern shore. This puts Pi-Hahiroth at some point along the old shore line of the Sea within 10 miles of the site of modern Suez.

M. G. Kyle

Pilate, Acts of

Pilate, Acts of - See following article, 4, and APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

Pilate; Pontius

Pilate; Pontius - pi'-lat, pi'-lat, pon'-shi-us (Pontios Peilatos):

1. Name and Office

2. Pilate's Procuratorship

3. Pilate and Jesus Christ

4. Pilate in Tradition and Legend

5. Character of Pilate

LITERATURE

1. Name and Office: The nomen Pontius indicates the stock from which Pilate was descended. It was one of the most famous of Samnite names; it was a Pontius who inflicted on a Roman army the disgrace of the Caudine Forks. The name is often met with in Roman history after the Samnites were conquered and absorbed. Lucius Pontius Aquila was a friend of Cicero and one of the assassins of Julius Caesar. The cognomen Pilatus indicates the familia, or branch of the gens Pontius, to which Pilate belonged. It has been derived from pileus, the cap worn by freedmen; this is improbable, as Pilate was of equestrian rank. It has also been derived from pilum, a spear. Probably the name was one that had descended to Pilate from his ancestors, and had long lost its meaning. The praenomen is nowhere mentioned. Pilate was 5th procurator of Judea. The province of Judea had formerly been the kingdom of Archclaus, and was formed when he was deposed (6 AD) Speaking roughly, it took in the southern half of Palestine, including Samaria. Being an imperial province (i.e. under the direct control of the emperor), it was governed by a procurator (see PROCURATOR; PROVINCE). The procurator was the personal servant of the emperor, directly responsible to him, and was primarily concerned with finance. But the powers of procurators varied according to the appointment of the emperor. Pilate was a procurator cum porestate, i.e. he possessed civil, military, and criminal jurisdiction. The procurator of Judea was in some way subordinate to the legate of Syria, but the exact character of the subordination is not known. As a rule a procurator must be of equestrian rank and a man of certain military experience. Under his rule, the Jews were allowed as much self-government as was consistent with the maintenance of imperial authority. The Sanhedrin was allowed to exercise judicial functions, but if they desired to inflict the penalty of death, the sentence had to be confirmed by the procurator.

2. Pilate's Procuratorship: We have no certain knowledge of Pilate except in connection with his time of rule in Judea. We know nothing of his birth, his origin, or his earlier years. Tacitus, when speaking of the cruel punishments inflicted by Nero upon the Christians, tells us that Christ, from whom the name "Christian" was derived, was put to death when Tiberius was emperor by the procurator Pontius Pilate (Annals xv.44). Apart from this reference and what is told us in the New Testament, all our knowledge of him is derived from two Jewish writers, Josephus the historian and Philo of Alexandria.

Pilate was procurator of Judea, in succession to Gratus, and he held office for 10 years. Josephus tells (Ant., XVIII, iv, 2) that he ruled for 10 years; that he was removed from office by Vitellius, the legate of Syria, and traveled in haste to Rome to defend himself before Tiberius against certain complaints. Before he reached Rome the emperor had passed away. Josephus adds that Vitellius came in the year 36 AD to Judea to be present at Jerusalem at the time of the Passover. It has been assumed by most authorities (so HDB and EB) that Pilate had departed before this visit of Vitellius. They accordingly date the procuratorship of Pilate as lasting from 26 to 36 AD. As against this view, yon Dobschutx points out (RE under the word "Pilate") that by this reckoning Pilate must have taken at least a year to get to Rome; for Tiberius died on March. 16, 37 AD. Such delay is inconceivable in view of the circumstances; hence, von Dobschutz rightly dates the period of his procuratorship 27-37 AD. The procurator of Judea had no easy task, nor did Pilate make the task easier by his actions. He was not careful to conciliate the religious prejudices of the Jews, and at times this attitude of his led to violent collisions between ruler and ruled.

On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he caused them to bring with them their ensigns, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in privily by night, put their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. For five days he refused to hear them, but on the sixth he took his place on the judgment seat, and when the Jews were admitted he had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews thereupon flung themselves on the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to slay so many, yielded the point and removed the ensigns (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 1; BJ, II, ix, 2, 3).

At another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (qorban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 4).

Philo tells us (Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii) that on other occasion he dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod in honor of the emperor. On these shields there was no representation of any forbidden thing, but simply an inscription of the name of the donor and of him in whose honor they were set up. The Jews petitioned him to have them removed; when he refused, they appealed to Tiberius, who sent an order that they should be removed to Caesarea.

Of the incident, mentioned in Luke 13:1, of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, nothing further is known.

Josephus (Ant., XVIII, iv, 1, 2) gives an account of the incident which led to Pilate's downfall. A religious pretender arose in Samaria who promised the Samaritans that if they would assemble at Mt. Gerizim, he would show them the sacred vessels which Moses had hidden there. A great multitude assembled in readiness to ascend the mountain, but before they could accomplish their aim they were attacked by Pilate's cavalry, and many of them were slain. The Samaritans thereupon sent an embassy to Vitellius, the legate of Syria, to accuse Pilate of the murder of those who had been slain. Vitellius, who desired to stand well with the Jews, deposed Pilate from office, appointed Marcellus in his place, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome and answer the charges made against him before the emperor. Pilate set out for Rome, but, before he could reach it, Tiberius had died; and it is probable that, in the confusion which followed, Pilate escaped the inquisition with which he was threatened. From this point onward history knows nothing more of Pilate.

3. Pilate and Jesus Christ: The shortest and simplest account of Pilate's dealings with Jesus Christ is given in the Gospel of Mark. There we are told that Jesus was delivered to Pilate; that Pilate asked Him if He was the king of the Jews, receiving an affirmative answer; that, to Pilate's surprise, Jesus answered nothing to the accusations of the chief priests; that Pilate tried to release Jesus according to an ancient custom; that the multitude, in spite of the protest of Pilate, demanded the release of Barabbas, and cried out that Jesus should be crucified; that Pilate scourged Jesus and delivered Him to be crucified; and that Jesus, when He had been scourged and mocked, was led away to be crucified. Mark tells further how Joseph of Arimathea begged of Pilate the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that Jesus died so quickly, and questioned the centurion about it. Pilate's surprise and question are peculiar to Mark. Being satisfied on this point, Pilate granted the body to Joseph. Matthew adds the dream and message of Pilate's wife (27:19); it also tells how Pilate washed his hands before the people, disclaiming responsibility for the death of Jesus, and how the people accepted the responsibility (27:24 f); also how Pilate granted a guard for the tomb (27:62-66). Luke alone narrates the sending of Jesus to Herod (23:6-12), and reports Pilate's three times repeated asseveration that he found no fault in Jesus (23:4,14,22). John gives by far the fullest narrative, which forms a framework into which the more fragmentary accounts of the Synoptics can be fitted with perfect ease. Some critics, holding that Mark alone is trustworthy, dismiss the additional incidents given in Matthew and Luke as apologetic amplifications; and many dismiss the narrative of Jn as wholly unworthy of credence. Such theories are based on preconceived opinions as to the date, authorship and reliability of the various Gospels. The reader who holds all the Gospels to be, in the main, authentic and trustworthy narratives will have no difficulty in perceiving that all four narratives, when taken together, present a story consistent in all its details and free from all difficulty. See GOSPELS. It should be noted that John evidently had special opportunities of obtaining exacter knowledge than that possessed by the others, as he was present at every stage of the trial; and that his narrative makes clear what is obscure in the accounts of the Synoptics.

The parts may be fitted together thus: Jesus is brought to Pilate (Matthew 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28). Pilate asks for a specific accusation (John 18:29-32). Pilate enters the praetorium, questions Jesus about His alleged kingship, and receives the answer that He rules over the kingdom of truth, and over the hearts of men who acknowledge the truth. Pilate asks: "What is truth?" (reported briefly in Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3, and with more detail John 18:33-38). Pilate brings Him forth (this is the only detail that needs to be supplied in order to make the harmony complete, and in itself it is probable enough), and many accusations are made against Him, to which, to Pilate's surprise, He makes no reply (Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5). Pilate affirms His innocence, but the charges are repeated (Luke 23:4 f). Pilate sends Him to Herod, who in mockery clothes Him in shining raiment, and sends Him back (Luke 23:6-12). Pilate declares that neither Herod or himself can find any fault in Him, and offers to scourge Him and let Him go (Luke 23:13-16; John 18:3; John 8:1-59 b). Pilate offers to release Jesus in accordance with an ancient custom (Matthew 27:15-18; Mark 15:6-10; John 18:39). Pilate's wife sends him a message warning him not to harm Jesus because she has suffered many things in a dream because of Him (Matthew 27:19). The people, persuaded thereto by the chief priests and elders, choose Barabbas, and, in spite of the repeated protests of Pilate, demand that Jesus shall be crucified (Matthew 27:20-23; Mark 15:11-14; Luke 23:18-23; John 18:40). Pilate washes his hands before the people, and they take the guilt of the deed upon themselves and their children (Matthew 27:24 f). Pilate releases Barabbas and orders Jesus to be scourged (Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24 f). Jesus is scourged and mocked, buffered and spit upon (Matthew 27:33-27Mt 1:1-25a; Mark 15:22-160a; John 19:1-3). Pilate again declares the innocence of Jesus, brings Him out, and says: "Behold the man!" The chief priests and officers cry out: "Crucify him!" They accuse Him of making Himself the Son of God. Pilate, becoming more afraid at this saying, once more interviews the prisoner in the praetorium. He again tries to release Him, but is accused of treachery to the emperor. Overborne by this, Pilate sits on the judgment seat (see GABBATHA), and says: "Behold your King!" Again the cry goes up: "Away with him, crucify him!" Pilate says: "ShallI crucify your King?" The chief priests answered with a final renunciation of all that God had given them, saying: "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:4-15). Pilate sentences Jesus and gives Him up to be crucified, and He is led away (Matthew 277:3Mt 1:1-25b; Mark 155:20b; Luke 233:2Lu 6:1-49a; John 19:16). Pilate writes a title for the cross, and refuses to alter it (John 19:19-22). The Jews ask of Pilate that the legs of the three who were crucified might be broken (John 19:31). Joseph of Arimathea begs the body of Jesus from Pilate (Matthew 27:57, 5; Matthew 8:1-34 a; Mark 15:42 f; Luke 23:50-52; John 19:3; John 8:1-59 a). Pilate is surprised that Jesus has died so soon, and questions the centurion (Mark 15:44). He gives up to Joseph the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:5; Matthew 8:1-34 b; Mark 15:45; John 19:3; John 8:1-59 b). The chief priests and the Pharisees obtain permission from Pilate to take precautions against any theft of the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:62-66).

Pilate is mentioned three times in Acts: in a speech of Peter (3:13), in a thanksgiving of the church (4:27), and in a speech of Paul (13:28). He is also mentioned in 1 Timothy (6:13) as the one before whom Christ Jesus witnessed the good confession.

4. Pilate in Tradition and Legend: Eusebius, who lived in the 4th centuries, tells us (Historia Ecclesiastica, II) on the authority of certain Greek historians that Pilate fell into such calamities that he committed suicide. Various apocryphal writings have come down to us, written from the 3rd to the 5th centuries, with others of a later date, in which legendary details are given about Pilate. In all these a favorable view is taken of his character; hence, the Coptic church came to believe that he became a Christian, and enrolled him among the number of its saints. His wife, to whom tradition gives the name of Claudia Procula, or Procla, is said to have been a Jewish proselyte at the time of the death of Jesus, and afterward to have become a Christian. Her name is honored along with Pilate's in the Coptic church, and in the calendar of saints honored by the Greek church her name is found against the date October 27.

We find not unkindly references to Pilate in the recently discovered fragment of the Gospel of Peter, which was composed in the 2nd century. In the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus, which belongs to the 4th or 5th century, we find in the first part, called the Acts of Pilate, a long account of the trial of Jesus. It tells how the standards in the hall of judgment bowed down before Jesus, in spite of the efforts of the standard-bearers, and others who attempted it, to hold them erect. It tells also how many of those who had been healed by Jesus bore testimony to Him at the trial (see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS). There has also come down to us, in various forms (e.g. in the Acts of Peter and Paul), a letter, supposed to be the report of Pilate to Tiberius, narrating the proceedings of the trial, and speaking of Jesus in the highest terms of praise. Eusebius, when he mentions this letter, avers that Tiberius, on perusing it, was incensed against the Jews who had sought the death of Jesus (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 2). Elsewhere (Historia Ecclesiastica, IX, 5) he recounts that under Maximin forged Acts of Pilate, containing blasphemies against Christ, were circulated with consent of the emperor. None of these, if they ever existed, have come down to us. In the Paradosis Pilati we read that Caesar, being angry with Pilate for what he had done, brought him to Rome as a prisoner, and examined him. When the Christ was named, all the gods in the senate-chamber fell down and were broken. Caesar ordered war to be made on the Jews, and Pilate, after praying to Jesus, was beheaded. The head was taken away by an angel, and Procla, seeing this, died of joy. Another narrative, of late date, recounts that Pilate, at his trial, wore the seamless robe of Jesus; for this reason Caesar, though filled with anger, could not so much as say a harsh word to Pilate; but when the robe was taken off, he condemned Pilate to death. On hearing this, Pilate committed suicide. The body was sunk in the Tiber, but such storms were raised by demons on account of this that it was taken up and sunk in the Rhone at Vienne. The same trouble recurred there, and the body was finally buried in the territory of Losania (Lausanne). Tradition connects Mt. Pilatus with his name, although it is probable that the derivation is from pileatus, i.e. the mountain with a cloud-cap.

5. Character of Pilate: Philo (Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii) speaks of Pilate in terms of the severest condemnation. According to him, Pilate was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as obstinate. Philo calls him a man of most ferocious passions, and speaks of his corruption, his acts of insolence, his rapine, his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending and most grievous inhumanity. This is very highly colored and probably much exaggerated; certainly the instances given do not bear out this description of the man. Much of what he says of Pilate is in direct opposition to what we learn of him in the Gospels. There he appears to us as a man who, in spite of many undoubted faults, tries hard to conduct the trial with fairness. Pilate had the ethics of his class, and obviously tried to act up to the standard which he had formed. There was in him, however, no deep moral basis of character, as is shown by the utter skepticism of his question, "What is truth?" When he found that the doing of strict justice threatened to endanger his position, he reluctantly and with a great deal of shame gave way to the demands of the Jews. He sent Jesus to the cross, but not before he had exhausted every expedient for saving Him, except the simple and straightforward one of dismissing the case. He had the haughtiness of the dominant race, and a profound contempt for the people over which he ruled. This contempt, as we have seen, continually brought him into trouble. He felt deeply humiliated at having to give way to those whom he utterly despised, and, in the manner of a small mind, revenged himself on them by calling Christ their king, and by refusing to alter the mocking inscription on the cross. It is certain that Pilate, in condemning Jesus, acted, and knew that he acted against his conscience. He knew what was right, but for selfish and cowardly reasons refused to do it. He was faced by a great moral emergency, and he failed. We rest on the judgment of our Lord, that he was guilty, but not so guilty as the leaders of the chosen people.

LITERATURE.

The Gospels; Philo, Legatio ad Caium; Josephus, Josephus, Antiquities and BJ; the Annals of Tacitus; Eusebius, HE; Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations in the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library," and for the Gospel according to Peter, volume IX of the same series err, New Testament Apocryphal Writings ("Temple Bible Series"), gives the text of the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Gospel of Peter.

There is a great mass of literature on the subject, but there is no English monograph on Pontius Pilate. In German there is G.A. Muller, Pontius Pilatus der funfe Prokurator von Judaa (Stuttgart, 1888). See also the various articles on Pilate in books of reference on the New Testament, notablyRE (von Dobschiitz),HDB (G. T. Purves), DCG (A. Souter), and Encyclopedia Biblica (W. J. Woodhouse). For the name of-Pilate see the articles on "Pontius Pilatus et les Pontii" by Ollivier in Review Biblical, volume V. For the Apocryphal Gospels see article on "Gospel of Nicodemus" inHDB , also article "Apocryphal Gospels," in the supplementary volume ofHDB ; Orr, New Testament Apocryphal Writings; Zahn, Geschichte des New Testament Kanons; Harnack, Altchristliche Litteraturgeschichte. For the trial of Jesus see Lives of Christ by Keim, Edersheim, Stalker, Andrews and others; Taylor Innes, Trial of Jesus Christ, a Legal Monograph, 1899; and for the historical background, Schurer,HJP .

J. Macartney Wilson

Pildash

Pildash - pil'-dash (pildash, "steely"): Nephew of Abram (Genesis 22:22).

Pile

Pile - pil (medhurah, from dur, "heap up"): Isaiah 30:33, "The pile thereof is fire and much wood"; Ezekiel 24:9-10, "I also will make the pile great. Heap on the wood, make the fire hot." Isaiah 30:33 may be paraphrased, `the pyre thereof is of much wood, burning fiercely.'

See TOPHETH.

Pileha

Pileha - pil'-e-ha, pi'-le-ha.

See PILHA.

Pilgrim; Pilgrimage

Pilgrim; Pilgrimage - pil'-grim, pil'-grimaj: "Pilgrim" in English Versions of the Bible for parepidemos (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11). "Pilgrimage" for maghor (Genesis 47:9 (the Revised Version margin "sojournings"); Psalms 119:54; and (the King James Version) Exodus 6:4 (the Revised Version (British and American) "sojournings")). Both the Hebrew (see GER) and Greek words contain the idea of foreign residence, but it is the residence and not travel that is implied. Consequently "pilgrim" is a poor translation, and "sojourner," "sojourning" should have been used throughout. In the New Testament passages heaven is thought of as the contrasted permanent dwelling-place, while the Old Testament usages seem to be without a contrast definitely in mind.