Pharaoh – Philippi

Pharaoh

The later Egyptian royal title, Per-‘o, " Great House," adopted into Hebrew. Originally designating the royal establishment in Egypt, it gradually became the appellative title of the king, and from the 22nd Dyn. (c. B.C. 950) onwards was regularly attached to the king’s name in popular speech. The Hebrew Pharaoh-necho and Pharaoh-hophra are thus precise renderings of Egyptian. Shishak also was entitled Per-‘o Sheshonk in Egyptian, but apparently Hebrew had not yet adopted the novel fashion, and so gave his name without Pharaoh (1 Kings 11:40 14:24). Tirhakah is not entitled Pharaoh as in Egyptian documents, but is more accurately described as king of Cash (2 Kings 19:9).

The following Pharaohs are referred to without their names being specified: 1. Pharaoh of Abram (Genesis 12:10–20). impossible to identify. The title Pharaoh and the mention of camels appear to be anachronisms in the story. 2. Pharaoh of Joseph (Genesis 39 etc.). The proper names in the story, viz. Potiphar, Potiphera, Asenath, Zaphenath-paneah are at once recognizable (when the vocalization is discounted) as typical names (Petepre, Esneit, Zepnetefonkh) of the late period beginning with the 22nd Dyn. (c. B.C. 950), and ending in the reign of Darius (c. B.C. 500). It has been conjectured that the Pharaoh of Joseph was one of the Hyksos kings, but it is not advisable to press for historical identifications in this beautiful legend. 3. and 4. The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus. The name of,Baamses, given to a store-city built by the Hebrews" (Exodus 1:11). points to one of the kings named Ramesses in the 19th-20th Dyn. as the Pharaoh of the Oppression. The chief of these was Ramesses ii. (c. B.C. 1350), after whom several towns were named. Hebrews 9 the greatest builder in Egyptian history. His son Mineptah might be the Pharaoh of the Exodus: but from the fifth year of Mineptah bijiere is an Egyptian record of the destruction of ‘Israel," who, it would seem, were already in Palestine. At present it is impossible to ascertain the proportion of historical truth contained in the legends of the Exodus. 5. 1 Chronicles 4:18.’ Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh": no clue to identity. Bithiah is Heb., and not like an Egyp. name. 6. 1 Kings 3:1 9:16, 24 11:1. Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solomon, must be one of the feeble kings of the end of the 21st Dynasty. 7. 1 Kings 11:18. the Pharaoh who befriended Hadad the Edomite in the last days of Solomon, and gave him the sister of his queen Tahpenes: not identified. (At this point in the narrative Shishak comes in: he is never called Pharaoh, see above.) 8. Pharaoh, king of Egypt in 2 Kings 18:21. Isaiah 36 etc., perhaps as a general term for the Egyptian king, not pointing to any individual. In the time of Sennacherib and Hezekiah, Tirhakah or some earlier king of the Ethiopian Dynasty would be on the throne. 9. For Jeremiah 37, Ezekiel 29, see Hophra. F. Ll. Griffith.

Pharathon

Named, with Timnath and Tephon, among the cities which Bacchides ‘strengthened with high walls, with gates and with bars’ (1 Maccabees 9:50). Some authorities read with LXX ‘Timnath-pharathon,’ as indicating one place. Conder suggests Fer’on, about 15 miles W. of Nablus. This seems to be too far to the north, as the towns mentioned are all ‘in Judffia.’ It may possibly be Fer’ata, 6 miles S.W. of Nablus, although the same difficulty exists in a modified degree. Cf. Pikathon. W. Ewing.

Phares

See Perez.

Pharida

See Perjda.

Pharisees

A study of the four centuries before Christ supplies a striking illustration of the law that the deepest movements of history advance without the men, who in God’s plan are their agents, being clearly aware of what is going on. The answer to the question — How came the Pharisees into the place of power and prestige they held in the time of our Lord? involves a clear understanding of the task of Israel after the Exile. It was to found and develop a new type of community. The Hebrew monarchy had been thrown into perpetual bankruptcy. But monarchy was the only form that the political principle could assume in the East. What should be put in its place? In solving this problem the Jews created a community which, while it was half-State, was also half-Church. The working capital of the Jews was the monotheism of the prophets, the self -revelation of God in His character of holy and creative Unity, and, inseparable from this, the belief in the perfectibility and indestructibility of the Chosen Nation (the Messianic idea). Prophecy ceased. Into the place of the prophet came the schoolmaster and the drill-master. They popularized monotheism, making it a national instinct. Necessarily, the popularization of monotheism drew along with it a growing sense of superiority to the heathen and idolatrous nations amongst whom their lot was cast. And by the same necessity the Jews were taught to separate themselves from their heathen neighbours (Ezra 10:11). They must not intermarry, lest the nation be dragged down to the heathen level. This was the state of things in the 3rd cent. B.C. (see Essenes), when Hellenism began to threaten Judaism with annihilation. The deepest forces of Judaism sounded the rally. The more zealous Jews drew apart, calling themselves the ‘Holy Men" iPhoMdlm), Puritans, or those self-dedicated to the realization of Ezra’s ideal. Then came the great war. The tendencies of Judaism precipitated themselves. The Jewish Puritans became a distinct class called the’ Pharisees," or men who separated themselves from the heathen, and no less from the heathenizing tendencies and forces in their own nation. They abstained even from table-fellowship with the heathen as being an abominable thing (Galatians 2:12 ff.). . As years went on It became more and more clear that the heart of the nation was with them. And so it comes to pass that in our Lord’s time, to use His own words, ‘the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat ‘(Matthew 23:2). They, not the priests, are the source of authority.

The history of Pharisaism enables us to understand its spirit and ruling ideas, to do justice to its greatness, while emphasizing its limitations and defects. Into it went the deepest elements among the forces which built the Jewish church and nation. The Pharisees are seen at their best when contrasted with the Zealots (see Canan^an) on the one side and the Herodians (wh. see) on the other. Unlike the latter, they were deeply in earnest with their ancestral religion. Again and again at critical times they showed the vigour and temper of fearless Puritanism. Unlike the former, they held back from the appeal to force, believing that the God of the nation was in control of history, that in His own good time He would grant the nation its desire; that, meanwhile, the duty of a true Israelite was whole-hearted devotion to the Torah, joined to patient waiting on the Divine will. This nobler side of Pharisaism could find itself in Psalms 119. The Pharisees were in a sense Churchmen rather than statesmen. And they emphasized spiritual methods. Their interests lay in the synagogue, in the schooling of children, in missionary extension amongst the heathen. They deserved the power and prestige which we find them holding in our Lord’s time. The Master Himself seems to say this when He distinguishes between their rightful authority and the spirit which they often showed in their actions (Matthew 23:1–4). Hence we are not surprised when we learn that, after the conflicts with Rome {a.d. 66-135), Pharisaism became practically synonymous with Judaism. One great war (the Maccabaean) had defined Pharisaism. Another war, even more terrible, gave it the final victory. The two wars together created the Judaism Icnown to Europeans and Americans. And this, allowing for the inevitable changes which a long and varied experience brings to pass in the most tenacious race, is in substance the Pharisaism of the 2nd century.

A wide historical study discovers moral dignity and greatness in Pharisaism. The Pharisees, as contrasted with the Sadducees (wh. see) , represented the democratic tendency. As contrasted with the priesthood, they stood both tor the democratic and for the spiritualizing tendency. The priesthood was a close corporation. No man who was unable to trace his descent from a priestly family could exercise any function in the Temple. But the Pharisees and the Scribes opened a great career to all the talents. Furthermore, the priesthood exhausted itself in the ritual of the Temple. But the Pharisees found their main function in teaching and preaching. So Pharisaism cleared the ground for Christianity. And when the reader goes through his NT with this point in mind, and when he notes the striking freedom of the NT from ritualistic and sacerdotal ideas, he should give credit to Pharisaism as one of the historical forces which made these supreme qualities possible.

We have not yet exhausted the claims of the Pharisees on our interest and gratitude. It was they who, for the most part, prepared the ground for Christianity by taking the Messianic idea and working it into the very texture of common consciousness. Pharisaism was inseparable from the popularization of monotheism, and the universal acceptance by the nation of its Divine election and calling. We need only consider our Lord’s task to see how much preparatory work the Pharisees did. Contrast the Saviour with Gautama (Buddha), and the greatness of His work is clearly seen. Buddha teaches men the way of peace by thinking away the political and social order of things. But our Lord took the glorified nationalism of His nation as the trunk-stock of His thought, and upon it grafted the Kingdom of God. Now, it was the Pharisees who made idealized nationalism, based upon the monotheism of the prophets, the pith and marrow of Judaism. It was they who wrote the great Apocalypses (Daniel and Enoch). It was they who made the belief in immortality and resurrection part of the common consciousness. It was they who trained the national will and purpose up to the level where the Saviour could use it.

But along with this great work went some lamentable defects and limitations. Though they stood for the spiritualizing tendencies which looked towards the existence of a Church, the Pharisees never reached the Church idea. They made an inextricable confusion between the question of the soul and the question of descent from Abraham. They developed the spirit of proud and arrogant orthodoxy, until the monotheism of the prophets became in their hands wholly incompetent to found a society where Jew and Gentile should be one (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). They developed Sabbatarianism until reverence for the Sabbath became a superstition, as our Lord’s repeated clash with them goes to show. And in spite of many noble individual exceptions, the deepest tendency of Pharisaism was towards an over- valuation of external things, Levitical correctness and precision (Matthew 23:23), that made their spirit strongly antagonistic to the genius of Prophetism. For Prophetism, whether of the Old or of the New Dispensation, threw the whole emphasis on character. And so, when John the Baptist, the first prophet for many centuries, came on the field, he put himself in mortal opposition to the Pharisees, no less than to the Sadducees (Matthew 3:7 f.; John 1:19 ff.). And our Lord, embodying the moral essence of Prophetism, found His most dangerous opponents, until the end of His ministry, not in the Sadducees or the Essenes or the Zealots, but in the Pharisees.

See also artt. Sadducees and Scribes.

Henry S. Nash.

Phaselis

Phaselis is mentioned 1 Maccabees 15:23 as a city to which the Romans in B.C. 139 sent letters on behalf of the Jews. It was at the E. extremity of the coast of Lycia, a Dorian colony which apparently always maintained its independence of the rest of Lycia. Its early importance was due to its position In the trade between the M%x3,n and the Levant. Its alliance with Cilician pirates caused it to be captured by Servilius Isauricus in B.C. 77, and it seems never to have recovered its former importance. It was a bishopric in the Byzantine period.

A. E. HiLLARD.

Phasiron

A NabatiEan tribe (1 Maccabees 9) unknown.

Phassurtjs

Phassurtjs (1 Esdras 5:2), Ezra 10:22.

Pherezite

See Pehizzites.

Phicol

Abimelech’s captain (Genesis 21:22, 32 26:26).

Philadelphia

Philadelphia was a city of Lydia, 28 miles from Sardis, in the valley of the Cogamis, a tributary of the Hermus, and conveniently situated for receiving the trade between the great central plateau of Asia Minor and Smyrna. The district known as Katakekaumme (‘Burnt Region’), because of its volcanic character, rises immediately to the N.E. of Philadelphia, and this was a great vine-producing region.

Philadelphia was founded and named by Attalus Philadelphus of Pergamus before B.C. 138. It was hame to serious earthquakes, but remained an important centre of the Roman province of Asia, receiving the name of Neo-Caesarea from Tiberius, and, later on, the honour of the Neocorate (i.e. the wardenship of the temple for Emperor-worship). There is no record of the beginning of the Church at Philadelphia, but in the Apocalypse it is one of the seven churches to which, as heads of districts, special messages are sent. In its message (Revelation 3:8–13) it is said to have ‘a little strength’ (which perhaps refers to its recent origin), and to have set before it ‘an open door,’ which seems to refer to the opportunities it had of spreading the gospel in the centre of Asia Minor. In 3:9 ‘the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews and are not’ must mean that the Jews of Philadelphia had been lax, and had conceded too much to Gentile ways. But the message contains no reproach against the Christians, although they are bidden to hold fast that which they have, and the promise to him that overcometh is that ‘I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, . . . and mine own new name.’ Doubtless there is a reference here, as in the message to Pergamus, to the new name taken at baptism, and apparently sometimes kept secret.

Philadelphia was the seat of a bishop, but was not a metropolis until about a.d. 1300, when the importance of Sardis had become less. In the 14th cent., when the Greek Empire retamed nothing on the mainland of Asia except a strip of territory opposite Constantinople, Philadelphia still resisted the Ottoman arms, though far from the sea and almost forgotten by the Emperors. In the words of Gibbon (ch. Ixiy): ‘Among the Greek colonies and churches of Asia, Philadelphia is still erect, a column in a scene of ruins: a sometimes be the same.’ The date of its final capture is uncertain— probably a.d. 1391. Its modem name is Ato- Sheher, and a considerable portion of the population is Chiiatian. A. E. Hillard.

Philemon

Known only as the person addressed by St. Paul on behalf of the runaway slave Oneslmus (Philem ‘). The closeness of the personal tie between him and the Apostle is expressed in the terms’ beloved and fellow-worker,’ and appears In the familiar confidence with which St. Paul presses his appeal. From Colossians 4:9 it seems that Onesimus, and therefore Philemon, resided in Colossse; Archippus, too, who is joined with Philemon in the salutation, is a Colossian (Colossians 4:17). and there is no reason to doubt the natural supposition that St. Paul’s greeting is to husband, wife (Apphia), and son, with the church in Philemon’s house. That lie was of good position is suggested not only by his possession of slaves, but also by his ministry to the saints and by Paul’s hope to lodge with him (Philem s- 22). Hebrews 90 ently owed his conversion to St. Paul (v. 19), possibly during the long mmistry in Ephesus (Acts 19:10), for the Apostle had not himself visited Colossas (Colossians 2:1).

S. W. Green. PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO.— 1 . Occasion and contents . — This beautiful private letter, unique in the NT, purports to be from St. Paul (with whose name that of Timothy is joined, as in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Cor., Philipp., Col.) to Philemon, with Apphia and Archippus, and the church in his house. This plural address appears, quite naturally, in vv. 22 and (‘you’); otherwise the letter, is to Philemon alone (‘thee’). St. Paul is a ‘prisoner’ (vv. 1, 9, 1), — a first Imk of cormexion between this letter and Philippians (1:7, 13 etc.), Ephesians 3:1 4:1 6:20), and Col. (4:3, 18) ijpith Col. there is also close connexion in the fact that Onesimus was a Colossian (Colossians 4:9), and in the salutations in both Epistles from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. It is almost certain that the letter was sent from Rome (not Ceesarea) to Colossae, along with the Colossian Epistle, by Tychicus and Onesimus, to be handed to Philemon by the runaway slave, who at St. Paul’s instance was returning to the master he had wronged by embezzlement and flight. Oiiesimus had in some way become known to the Apostle, who had won him to the Christian faith (v. 10). St. Paul regards him as his ‘child,’ his ‘very heart,’ a ‘brother beloved’ (vv.. ib)^ and would fain keep his helpful ministry (vv.) But the convert must first put himself right by voluntary surrender: his service belongs to Philemon, and, however desired by St. Paul, can be accepted by him only of his friend’s free will (v. 14). So St. Paul sends the slave back, with this letter to secure his forgiveness and the welcome of one Christian brother for another (vv. 15–17) He founds his appeal on what he has heard of Philemon’s love ‘toward all the saints’ (vv. 4–7, 9); yet makes it also a personal request from ‘Paul the aged and now a prisoner,’ who has claims upon Philemon’s service (vv. 9–14 "■ ^n), with just a hint of an authority which he will not press (vv. 8, 19 21, ‘obedience’). A wistful humour appears in the play on the meaning of the name Onesimus; ‘I beseech thee for Profitable, who was aforetime unprofitable, but now is profitable . . . Yea, let me have profit of thee’ (yv.u. 20); also when at v. 19 St. Paul himself takes the pen and with playful solemnity (cf., for the solemn formula ‘I Paul,’ 1 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Corinthians 10:1. Colossians 4:18. 2 Thessalonians 3:17) gives his bond for the debt, ‘I Paul write it with my own hand, I will repay it.’ (It is possible, though less probable, that the Greek tense should be rendered ‘I have written,’ and that the previous verse also, if not the whole letter, is by St. Paul’s hand.) Indeed, the mingled earnestness, tact, and charm amply endorse Kenan’s verdict — ‘a little masterpiece’: the letter exemplifies the Apostle’s own precept as to ‘speech seasoned with salt’ (Colossians 4:6), and shows the perfect Christian gentleman. sincerity of St. Paul’s religious faith that this private letter in its salutation, thanksgiving, and benediction is as loftily devout as any Epistle to the Churches. Apart from this, the dogmatic interest lies in its illustration of Christianity at work.. The relation of master and slave comes into conflict with that of the Christian communion or fellowship: the problem is whether that fellowship will prove ‘effectual in the knowledge of every good thing which is in you unto Christ,’ and the slave be received as a brother. St. Paul does not ask that Onesimus be set free. It may even be doubted whether ‘the word emancipation seems to be trembling on his lips’ (Lightfoot, Col. p. 321): if it is. It is rather that Onesimus may be permitted to return to continue his ministry to the imprisoned Apostle than that Christianity, as he conceives it, forbids slavery. That institution is not in St. Paul’s judgment to be violently ended, though it is to be regulated by the Christian principle of equality and responsibility before God (Ephesians 6, Colossians 3); to the slave himself his worldly position should be matter of indifference (1 Corinthians 7:21–24). Yet if Philemon should choose to assert his rights, it will mean a fatal breach in Christian ‘fellowship’ and the rejection of a Christian ‘brother.’ Thus St. Paul laid down the principle which inevitably worked itself out— though not till the 19th cent. — into the impossibility of slavery within a Christian nation. Christians long and strenuously defended it: Christianity, and not least this letter, destroyed it.

3. Authenticity. — The external testimony is full and consistent, although so short and personal a letter might easily lack recognition. It is contained in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and named in the Muratorian Fragment. Marcion accepted it (Tert. adv. Marc.y. 21). Origeii quotes from it three times, in each case as St. Paul’s. Eusebius includes it among the undisputed books. On internal grounds it may fairly be claimed that the letter speaks for its own genuineness. Some modern critics (since F. C. Baur) have questioned its authenticity, mainly because they reject Colossians, with which this letter is so closely connected. As Renan writes: ‘If the epistle is apocryphal, the private letter is apocryphal also; now, few pages have so clear an accent of truth. Paul alone, it would seem, could have written this little masterpiece’ (,St. Paul, p. xi.). But it must sufiBce here to afiirm as the all but universal judgment, that ‘Philemon belongs to the least doubtful part of the Apostle’s work’ (Jillicher, Introd. to NT, p. 127).

4. Date and place of writing.— The argument for Rome as against Csesarea (Meyer, etc.) seems decisive. Opinion is greatly divided as to the order of the Epistles of the Captivity, i.e. whether Philippians or the group Eph.- Col.-Philem. is the earlier (see Lightfoot, Philip, pp. 30-46). In either case the limit of date for Philem. lies between c. a.d. 60-62, and the later date is suggested by VV.21- 22 (see Colossians and Philippians).

S. W. Gheen.

Philetus

Mentioned in St. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:17) a^ an example of one of those who were doing harm by their false teaching on the subject of the resurrection of the body. For them the resurrection was past. It was a spiritual resurrection from sin to holiness, and there was no future resurrection of the body, no life to come. St. Paul says their teaching will eat away the true doctrine as a canker or gangrene eats away the flesh. Cf. HYMEN^aans.

MoRLEY Stevenson.

Philip

(Apocr.). 1. Father of Alexander the Great (1 Maccabees 1:1 6:2). 2. A friend or foster-brother (2 Maccabees 9:29) of Antiochus Epiphanes, who received the charge (previously given to Lysias) of bringing up the young Antiochus Eupator (1 Maccabees 6:44). On the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Lysias took upon himself to proclaim young Eupator king (b.c. 164). The jealousy over this matter led to open hostilities between Lysias and Philip. Philip

2 z was overcome by Lysias at Antioch and put to death. He is by many regarded as identical with — 3. A Phrygian who (in B.C. 168). when left in charge of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, was remarkable for the cruelty of his government (2 Maccabees 5:22 6:11). Little more is known of him unless the details of his life be filled up by assuming his identity with the former Philip. 4. A king of Macedonia(B.C. 220-179) overthrown by the Romans (1 Mac 8:5). T. A. MoxoN.

Philip

(NT). 1. The Apostle (Matthew 10:3 =Mk S" =Lk 6^*); one of the disciples whom Jesus won at Bethany beyond Jordan in the morning of His ministry (John 1:28–51). He was a fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter (v. 44), and seems to have had a special friendship with the former (John 6:8 12:21, 22). He was of a timid and retiring disposition. He did not, like Andrew and John, approach Jesus, but waited till Jesus accosted him and invited him to join His company. Andrew and John found Jesus (v. 41) Jesus found Philip (v. 43). This characteristic gives some countenance to the tradition that the disciple who would fain have declined the Lord’s call that he might ‘go and bury his lather’ (Luke 9:59, 60 g2i, 22)^ ^as none other than Philip. Though somewhat slow of heart and dull in spiritual understanding (cf. Jn 14:8, 9), he had his aptitudes. He had a turn for practical affairs, and, just as Judas was treasurer to the Apostolic company, so Philip was purveyor, attending to the commissariat(Bengel on John 6:5). If Andrew was the first missionary of the Kingdom . of heaven, bringing his brother Simon to Jesus (John 1:40–42), Philip was the second, bringing his friend Nathanael (vv. 45, 46) it is said that after the departure of Jesus he laboured in Asia Minor and was buried at Hierapolis.

2. The Evangelist. — It was soon found necessary in the Apostolic Church that there should be a division of labour; and that the Twelve might give themselves without distraction to prayer and the ministry of the word, seven of the brethren were set apart for the management of the business matters of the Church (Acts 6:1–6). Philip was one of these. He seems to have been a Hellenist, i.e. a Greek-speaking Jew; at all events he was a man of liberal sympathies, and he greatly helped in the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles. He was in fact the forerunner of St. Paul. During the persecution which followed the martyrdom of Stephen, he preached in Samaria (Acts 8:4–8). He was instrumental in the conversion of the chamberlain of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, thus introducing Christianity into that historic heathen country (S^o-™). On parting from the chamberlain he went to Azotus (Ashdod), and travelled along the sea-board, preaching from city to city, till he reached C^sarea (v. 40). There he settled, and there he was still residing with his four unmarried daughters, who were prophetesses, when Paul visited Cassarea on his last journey to Jerusalem. The two men were like-minded, and it is no wonder that Paul abode with him during his stay at Caesarea (21:8, 9).

3. Herod Philip. — See Herod. David Smith.

Philippi

Philippi was a city situated E. of Mt. Pangasus, on the E. border of Macedonia, about 10 miles from the coast. It was originally (under the name of Crenides) a settlement of Thasians, who mined the gold of Mt. Pangeeus; but one of the early acts of Philip of Macedon was to assure himself of revenue by seizing these mines and strongly fortifying the city, to which he gave his own name. The mines are said to have yielded him 1000 talents a year. Philippi passed with the rest of Macedonia to the Romans in B.C. 168. Until B.C. 146 Macedonia was divided into four regions, with separate governments, and so divided that a member of one could not marry or hold property in another. But in 146 it received the more regular organization of a province. The great Eastern road of the Roman Empire, the Via Egnatia, after crossing the Strymon at Amphipolis, kept N. of Mt. Pangaeus to Philippi and then turned S.E. to Neapolis, which was the port of Philippi. Philippi stood on the steep side of a hill, and immediately S. of it lay a large marshy lake.

The Church at Philippi was founded by St. Paul on his second missionary journey. With Silas, Timothy, and Luke he landed at Neapolis, and proceeded to Philippi, which St. Luke describes as ‘a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a Roman colony.’ Philippi was not the capital city of either of the regions into which Macedonia had been divided in 168, but the most natural explanation of the phrase ‘first of the district’ is that the province had at this time a division for official purposes of which we do not know. Other explanations are that it means ‘the first city we arrived at’ (which the Greek could scarcely mean), or that Philippi claimed a pre-eminence in much the same way that Pergamus, Smyrna, Ephesus all claimed to be the ‘first city’ of Asia. It had become a Roman colony after the battle of Philippi, B.C. 42, when Octavian and Antony, having vanquished Brutus and Cassius, settled a number of their veterans there. Another body of veterans was settled there after Actium, b.c. 31. As a colony its constitution was modelled on the ancient one of Rome, and its two chief magistrates had not only lictors (EV Serjeants), but also a jurisdiction independent of that of the governor of the province. It was the first essentially Roman town in which St. Paul preached. There was no synagogue, but on the Sabbath, says St. Luke, ‘we went forth without the gate by a river-side where we supposed there was a .place of prayer.’ At this place, therefore, St. Paul found a number of women assembled, Jewesses or proselytes, one of whom named Lydia (wh. see), a merchant in purple from Thyatira, was immediately converted and baptized. For the subsequent incidents see Python, Magistrate, etc.

It is probable that the Church at Philippi was left in charge of St. Luke, for at this point in the narrative of the Acts the first person is dropped until St. Paul passes through Macedonia on his return from the third missionary journey (20’). The Church flourished, and always remained on terms of peculiar affection with St. Paul, being allowed to minister to his needs more than once. See art. Philippians [Epistle to], which was probably written during his first imprisonment at Rome. From 1 Timothy 1:3 we assume at least one later visit of the Apostle to Philippi.

Before A.D. 117_Ignatius passed through Philippi on his journey from Antioch to his martyrdom in Rome. Hebrews 7 welcomed by the Church, and they wrote a letter of consolatioa to the Church of Antioch andanother to Polycarp of Smyrna, asking for copies of any letters that Ignatius had written in Asia. Polycarp wrote his Epistle to the Philippians in answer. In the 4th and 5th centuries we read of the bishop of Philippi as present at Councils, but apart from this the Church passes out of history. A. E. Hillard.