Philippians, Epistle to – Phrurai

Philippians, Epistle to

1. The Church oi Philippi . — St . Paul visited Philippi on his second missionaryjourney, and founded there his first Church in Europe. The names in Philippians 4:2 f.; probably those of early converts, lead us to infer that the Gentile element continued strong from the days when the Church began in the households of Lydia and the jailor (Acts 16:12–40). it is only by the exercise of much imagination that the character of the city — a Roman colony enjoying the jus Italicum, and therefore with a sense of its own importance — can be discerned in the letter, though probably the fact that St. Paul was a Roman citizen, and the virtual apology with which he was sent away by the prsetors, may have had some effect on the subsequent treatment of the Christians. As one of the Churches of Macedonia referred to in 2 Corinthians 8:2 ff.; it was doubtless in deep poverty, but is held forth along with them as a model of liberality. St. Paul seems to have treated the Philippians in an exceptional way, by accepting from them support which he ordinarily refused (2 Corinthians 11:7 ff.; Philippians 4:15). He must have visited Philippi at least three times (Acts 16:12, 2 Corinthians 2:13. Acts 20:6), and he always found his own love reciprocated by the Church, and experienced a unique joy in their fellowship with him for the furtherance of the gospel (Philippians 1:3–8). The Apostle’s ascendency in the Church was never questioned, as in Corinth. There were, it is true, rivalries in the congregation, especially. It would seem, among some of the active women of the Church, and St. Paul does not hesitate to use the most powerful of Christian motives to give force and direction to the shaft that he aims at discord (2). But, unlike the Churches of Galatia, Philippi had not been disturbed by a severe attack from the Judaists, though the Apostle sees threatening indications of their approach (S^- ‘s’-). The Church was organized with bishops and deacons, from whom St. Paul seems to have received the people’s gift (1:1). which they sent by Epaphroditus, probably with a letter. In no part of his missionary field, so far as we know, did he find such a pure Christian lite. They were ‘lights in the world’ (2:15, 16) and the Apostle’s ‘joy and crown’ (4:1).

2. Situation of St. Paul. — The Apostle is a prisoner (1:7, 13, 1. 17). It appears that his imprisonment had become more rigorous since the Philippians received their first word concerning him; and it must have been of some duration, because there had been several communications between them (2:25–30 4:10). They are distressed by the fear that the gospel will suffer through his strict confinement and possible martyrdom. But this imprisonment, instead of hindering the gospel, has really led to a more eager preaching of Christ by the Christians of the city of Rome. The motive of this increased activity wa.s sometimes an unworthy emulation of the Apostle, and there must have been those in the Church who refused to acknowledge his leadership, being aroused by the success with which ‘his bonds became manifest throughout all the PrEetorium and to all the rest’ (1:12–18). He has come to be recognized as no mere disturber of the peace (Acts 24:5 25:8). but as a preacher of a religion different from that of the Jews, and one which had already reached Csesar’s household (Philippians 4:22). His defence has been partly made, and he is full of hope of a speedy acquittal (l^"‘), though the possibility of martyrdom hangs like a cloud in his sky, bright to his own view, but casting a shadow upon his readers’ joy

(H9-30),

It has been assumed, in accordance with the overwhelming opinion of scholars, that St. Paul was at the time imprisoned in Rome; but some say in Caesarea. The chief reasons for the Roman imprisonment are — (1) that the wide-spread activity on behalf of the gospel by friends and enemies of the Apostle involves a larger Church than seems to have been in Csesarea; and (2) his own conviction that his acquittal is near. With this view the indications of 1:13 and i^ most naturally agree. ■ Prsetorium ‘might, indeed, mean Herod’s palace, which was used as the headquarters of the Roman governor in Cffisarea, but the words’ in the whole Praetorium’ seem to point to the bodyguard of the Emperor, though Mommsen supposes that the conditions are best realized if the words imply that St. Paul was handed over to the judicial prefects of the Praetorian guard, who presided over the supreme Imperial court in Rome. No sufficient proof has been adduced that the word was used tor the Emperor’s palace in Rome, or for the barracks of the guard. Also ‘CiEsar’s household’ (,4P) probably means the attendants of the Emperor in Rome, including those of high rank and slaves.

Assuming that the letter was written from a Roman prison, what is its relationship to Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon— the other letters of the captivity? Some hold that these were written from Caesarea while Philippians was sent from Rome, but most assign all these Captivity Epistles to Rome. There is, however, no unanimity as to whether Philippians preceded or followed the others. Some of the most distinguished English and American scholars put Philippians earliest. for the reason that in style and language it is very much akin to Romans, while Ephesians and Colossians are more like the Pastorals, and their atmosphere is quite different from that of Romans and Philippians. There is much force in this, though Ephesians also presents strong similarity to Romans. But the situation of the Asian Churches, invaded as they were by a new type of error, might have called forth new themes in a formal Epistle like Ephesians, while Philippians is a friendly letter to an old Church whose life was apparently now for the first time being threatened by the Judaists, with their gospel of legal righteousness. Nor would the year or so which on this supposition elapsed between Phil, and Eph. account for the difference between them. The question of priority may not admit of final decision, but in Philippians St. Paul’s imprisonment seems to be nearer its end than in the other letters. Hort, who is in favour of the priority of Philippians, holds that the request to Philemon to prepare a lodging is not to be taken in a ‘crude literal sense,’ and that in the contemporary Colossians there is no expectation of a speedy release. Also in Philippians St. Paul has no friends upon whom he can depend, except Timothy (cf. Colossians 4:7 ff. with Philippians 2:20, 21). An additional reason of less weight in favour of placing Philippians last is, that a somewhat long duration of St. Paul’s imprisonment is involved by the communications of the Philippians and their anxiety at the change in the rigour of his captivity.

In regard to the date of Philippians, a further difficulty emerges because of the uncertainty of the Pauline chronology, but since a.d. 61 is the most probable year for the Apostle’s arrival in Rome, this letter may, though not without hesitation, be assigned to a.d. 63. In this letter St. Paul refreshes his lonely spirit by perfect freedom of fellowship with his favourite Church. Rome was not so homogeneous, nor did it acknowledge his gospel so whole-heartedly as the Churches of his own creation; thither would come Christians of every shade of opinion — Judaists, Hellenists, Petrinists, and sympathizers with St. Paul. It is doubtful whether the Church of Rome was ever of a thoroughly Pauline type; for, notwithstanding the change effected by the Neronian persecution, that Church could not have soon become so decidedly Petrine had it originally been strongly imbued with the Pauline Gospel. This letter shows us a very active and varied missionary effort in the capital — partly by St. Paul among the Praetorians and in the Imperial household, partly by his friends, and to some extent by others who probably preached to the Jews and their proselytes.

3. Contents of the Epistle. —

(i.) Greeting, 1:1, 2. Paul and Timothy salute the saints of Philippi, together with their bishops and deacons.

Cii.) introduction, YV.^-^^. St. Paul is constantly moved to thanksgiving for their generous fellowship with him in the furtherance of the gospel from the beginning, and they are all ever on his heart where Christ dwells. His prayer for them is that their love may abound in knowledge and insight as to what befits the Christian life, that so they may live sincere and blameless fives until Christ comes.

(iii.) The present condition of St. Paul, w.^2-26_ ujg im_ priaonment has, contrary to expectation, led to thespread of the gospel, partly by his being chained to the Praetorian guards, partly throughanew courage among his friends, and partly tnrough envious rivalry. He, however, rejoices because he is assured that in answer to their prayers the Spirit of Christ will enable him to glorify his Lord whatever be the issue of his imprisonment; he does not know what to desire, though he believes that he will be acquitted and will work for their Christian welfare.

(iv.) Exhortations to tke Philippians to walk worthily of the gospel, 1:27. No hostility must deter them from maintaining the gospel in a spirit of unity, for ability to sufferf or Christ is a sign of Divine grace to them and of ruin to their enemies. An appeal is also made to them, by all that they have experienced of Christian love, to complete nis joy by living in fellowship, and to exhibit that unselfish mind which prompted Christ to come to earth and die for them. Wherefore He is now exalted to be worshipped by every creature. By reverent obedience let them work with God and effect His will of good towards them, so that at the last day the Apostle and his beloved Phihppians may rejoice in what the gospel has done for them.

(v.) The promise to send Timothy, and the commendation of Epaphroditus to ih£ Philippians (2:19–30).

(vi.) Christian progress through the knowledge of Jesus Christ, 3:1. Tobit 77:1 up his letter, the Apostle would say, ‘Rejoice in the Lord.’ But, as though suddenly reminded of a danger, he returns, even at the risk of wearying them, to a wamingagainst thejudaists— dogs, evil workers, mutilators of the flesh. He who believes in Christ alone as a sufficient Saviour is the true Israelite. St. Paul, who had enjoyed every Hebrew privilege, knows of how small value they were for attaimng true righteousness, and now he boasts only in Christ. For personal knowledge of Him he will gladly lose all else, in order that he may get the righteousness which is from God by faith, and in close union with Him may realize the meaning of His sufferings, death, and resurrection. Christian perfection is still in the distance, but all who have been laid hold of by Christ must respond by striving eagerly for perfect fellowship with Him. The mature Christian must keep on in the path of progress, and not be misled by teaching which will end in an earthly goal and the rejection of the cross. St. Paul and his followera are to be their example, for their Commonwealth and its ideals are above, whence Christ will soon come to transfigure them into His likeness. Wherefore let this Church, which will be his crown at that day, stand fast in the Lord.

ivii.) Conclusion, 4:2–19. a) Exhortations to individuals to unity (w.2- s). Posy ‘yoke-fellow’ (v. 3) refers to Epaphroditus, or more probably it should be translated ‘Synzygus,’ a proper name. (6) St. Paul their example for Christian joy and conduct (w.’-‘). (c) Thanks for their gifts and for their many past favours. Contented as he is with whatever God sends, ne might have done without them, but they will add interest to the account of the Philippians , and he gives them a receipt in full which God will acknowledge (w.!"-!^). (viii.) Doxology and final greetings (w.^‘‘-^^).

4. Purpose and Characteristics. — Epaphroditus had fallen sick at Rome before his work of love for St. Paul was done, and the news, having reached Philippi, cast the Church into anxiety; Epaphroditus in his turn having heard of their alarm has grown home-sick. St. Paul uses the occasion of his return to set their mind at rest about his own imprisonment for the gospel, and to deal with some affairs about which they had informed him. The letter is so thoroughly personal that it has no plan or any single aim. He thanks the Philippians for their gift, crowning many acts of generosity towards him, and yet, lest they should feel that he was too dependent upon them, he reminds them that it is their spirit that he values most. Again he warns them against a Judaistic gospel, and is urgent in seeking to compose personal jealousies of two of the women workers. His gospel is the only one, and it is the gospel of love. His union with Christ fills him with love and contentment, and thrills the lonely prisoner with joy, which may be called the note of the Epistle, and he hopes by this letter to impart some of this spirit to the Philippians also. Should the view that St. Paul was not acquitted be correct, this letter might be called ‘his last testament to his beloved Church’; but there is good reason to believe that his hope of release was fulfilled.

Philippians is an excellent example of the Pauline method of sustaining Christian life by doctrinal truth which is the outcome of personal experience. Human thought has made few nobler flights into the mystery of redemption than Philippians 2:6–11. but it is used to exalt the homely duty of sacrifice in the ministry of fellowship. Like 2 Corinthians 8:9. the dynamic of the truth lies not in an intellectual interpretation of the mystery of Christ’s personality, for little is told further than that He was in His nature essentially Divine, and enjoyed the prerogatives of Divinity; but it lies in the fact that St. Paul had learned from his own Intercourse with the risen Christ His extraordinary power and grace as the eternal. Divine Son of God. Everything earthly becomes worthless in comparison with the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, his Lord. The contrast between His earthly life of suffering and death and the eternal, glorious existence involved in the vision of the risen Lord, has become the religious motive of supreme efficacy. Similarly in S*-"- ‘"■ 21 the doctrine is deduced from experience, and is to be wrought into character. The emphasis on the practice of virtue, especially in 4:8–12. is said to reflect the finest contemporary teaching of the pagan world, but the form is pervaded with the purest Christian spirit.

5. Authenticity and Integrity. — The objections urged against this Epistle by Baur and his followers are not seriously regarded to-day, and have been abandoned by all but a few extremists who start from certain presuppositions as to primitive Christianity, and are offended by the tone of 3:17 4:9. as well as by the abrupt transition in 3:1, 2. The recurrence of the motives, ideas, and language of the great Pauline Epistles, and the external evidence of its use from the early sub-Apostolic age, make it unnecessary to consider the objections in detail. More plausibility attaches to the theory that the Epistle, as we now have it, consists of two letters, which are joined at 3:2. the last two chapters being probably earlier and addressed to different readers. In support of this, appeal is made to Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (iii. 2), where the words ‘who also wrote you letters’ are held to prove that they had not then been united. But in itself this supposition is baseless; and Polycarp, who knew apparently only our letter, may either have heard of others which St. Paul wrote to the Philippians or have employed the term loosely; or perhaps he was referring to a collection of St. Paul’s Epistles used widely tor edification by all the Churches. The abruptness in 3:1, 2, however, is explained by the fact that St. Paul is expressing himself freely in an intimate letter to his friends, and perhaps it was partly due to something in their letter to him which he suddenly remembered.

R. A. Falconeh.

Philistia

See next art. and Paiebiine.

Philistines

The inhabitants of the Maritime Plain of Palestine (cf. art. Palestine, 1) from the period of the Judges onward to the 6th cent, or later. They are said to have come from Caphtor (Amos 9:7. Jeremiah 47:4. Deuteronomy 2:23), which is with much probability identified with Crete. At all events they came from over the sea.

Kameses iii, of the XX th Egyptian dynasty encountered a piratical sea-faring people on the borders of Syria, whom he called Purusati (, = Pulista or ‘Philistines’ ) . ‘They afterwards made incursions on the northern coast of Egypt as well as on the coast of Palestine. In the latter country they gained a permanent foothold, owing to its disorganized condition. When Wenamon made his expedition to Lebanon for a king of the XXIst dynasty (c. 1100), a Philistine kingdomexistedat Dor. (For these facts cf. Breasted,A?jcien< Records, iv. 274 £f., and History of Egypt, p. 513.)

The Philistines first make their appearance in Biblical history late in the period of the Judges, when Samson, of the tribe of Dan, is said to have waged his curious single-handed combats with them (Jg 13-16). These conflicts were the natural result of the impact of the Philistines upon Israel’s western border. The reference to the Philistines in Judges 3:31 is a later insertion (cf. Israel, §1. 11). During the time of Eli these invaders were trying to make their way into the central ridge of Palestine, and in one of the battles captured the ark of Jahweh, which a pestilence (probably bubonic plague) induced them to return (1 S 4-6).

When Saul became king the Philistines tried to break his power, but were defeated through the bravery of Jonathan (1 Samuel 13. 14). Saul did not permanently check their progress, however, as by the end of his reign the whole of the rich plain of Jezreel was in their possession, including the city of Bethshean at its eastern end (1 Samuel 31:10). David early in his reign inflicted upon them a severe defeat (2 Samuel 5:22 ff.), afterwards reducing them to vassalage (2 Samuel 8:1). Down to this time Philistine power was concentrated in the hands of the rulers of Gath. The rulers of these cities are called by a peculiar title, which is translated ‘lords of the Philistines’ (wh. see).

After the reign of David, probably at the division of the kingdom, the Philistines regained their independence, tor we find the kings of Israel in the 9th cent, trying to wrest from them Gibbethon, a town on the border of the Maritime Plain (1 Kings 15:27 16). Late in the same century the Assyrian king Adad-nirari m. took tribute of Philistine kings (KIB i. 190), and began the long series of Assyrian interferences in Philistine affairs. Amos (l«-8) denounces Philistine monarchies as among the independent kingdoms of his time.

The position of the Philistines exposed them to every approach of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and during the last third of the 8th cent, and the whole of the 7th then: history is a series of conquests, conspiracies, and rebellions. It is possible to follow these with much fulness in the Assyrian inscriptions, but full details cannot be given here. Tiglath-pileser in. received tribute from Philistines (KIB ii. 20). They became Sargon’s vassals the year that Samaria fell, B.C. 722 (.KIB ii. 54), but ten years later a rebellion was led by Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1; KIB ii. 64 fl.). At the beginning of the reign of Sennacherib another effort was made to shake off the Assyrian yoke. In this Hezekiah of Judah took part by imprisoning Padi, the Philistine king of Ekron, who remained faithful to Sennacherib. The allies thus brought together were defeated at Eltekeh {,KIB ii. 92 ff.), and the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib was the result (2 Kings 18. 19). Esarhaddon {.KIB ii. 148), and Ashurbanipal {KIB ii. 240) marched across the Philistine territory and held it in subjection. With the decline of Assyria the Philistines began to , suffer from the rise of Egypt under the XXVI th dynasty. Psammetichus i. took Ashdod after a siege of 29 years (Herod, ii. 157). Necho ii., a contemporary of Josiah of Judah, captured Gaza (Herod, ii. 159). It is probable that the Philistines suffered at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, but no record of his doings among them has been preserved. The Assyrians call the Philistine rulers ‘kings.’ The older title, ‘lords of the Philistines,’ has disappeared.

When Cambyses made his expedition into Egypt (B.C. 525), Gaza opposed him (Polyb. xvi. 40). The Sidonian king Eshmunazar claims that Dor and Joppa were added to the dominions of Sidon. Gaza in 332 held out against Alexander the Great, and his siege of it is famous (Diod. Sic. xvii. xlviii. 7). The Ptolemys and Seleucids often fought over Philistine territory. It finally passed imder Roman rule, and its cities had then an important history.

The Philistines cease to be mentioned by this name after the time of the Assyrians. Some infer from the fact that Herodotus (ill. 5) speaks of the Arabians as being in possession of the coast in the time of Cambyses, that the Philistines had even then been supplanted. It is probable that in the ebb and flow of the nations over this land they were gradually absorbed and lost their identity.

Probably the Philistines adopted in the main the religion and civilization of the Canaanites. Their chief god, Dagon (1 Samuel 5:2 ff.). was a Semitic deity . He appearsin the el-Amarna letters and also in Babylonia (cf. Barton, Semit. Or. 229 ff.). There was also at Ashkelon a temple of Ashtart (Herod. 1. 105). If their religion was Semitic, so also were probably the other features of their civilization. If they brought other customs from beyond the sea, they are not described in our scanty records.

George A. Barton.

Philologus

A Christian greeted in Romans 16:15.

Philosophy

This word occurs in EV only in Colossians 2:8, wher? it refers to an unsound and pernicious form of teaching. ‘Philosophy’ proper falls outside between it and the Bible will be found in such articles as Gnosticism, Logos, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom; cf. also Epicureans, Stoics. PHINEES.— 1. =Phinehas, 1 (1 Esdras 6 S^- 2«, 2 Esdras 1). 2. =Phinehas, 2 (2 Esdras 1:25). 3. =Phinehas, 3 (1 Esdras 8:63). PHINEHAS.— 1. The son of Eleazar, who was the third son of Aaron. Both his name and that of his mother Putiel are perhaps of Egyptian origin. The only certain occurrence of the name in a pre-exilic writing is in Joshua 24:33; a hill {Gibeath Pinhas) in Ephraim was named after him, where his father and (LXX) he himself was buried. In P and the Chronicler he rises into great prominence. He succeeded Eleazar as chief priest (Exodus 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6, Ezra 7:5, 1 Esdras 8:2, 2 Esdras 1:2). and was the superintendent of the Korahite Levites (1 Ch 9:20). The succession of the priesthood in his line was assured to him when he showed his zeal at Shittim in Moab, when Israel ‘joined themselves unto Baal-peor,’ An Israelite brought into the camp a woman from the Midianites who had beguiled the people into foreign worship. Phinehas slew the man and the woman (Numbers 25). This is referred to in Psalms 106:30 f.; Sirach 45:23–25. 1 Maccabees 2:26, 54. As priest he accompanied the expedition to punish the Midianites (Numbers 10:8 f.). He was the spokesman of the western tribes concerning the altar which the eastern tribes had erected (Joshua 22:13, 30–32. See Ed.). The war between Benjamin and the other tribes occurred in his high priesthood (Judges 20:28). After the Exile a clan of priests, ‘the sons of Phinehas,’ claimed descent from him (Ezra 8:2 [1 Es S", 2 Esdras 1 Phinees]). 2. The younger son of Eli (1 Samuel 1:3 [2 Esdras 1:25 Phinees]). See Hophni and Phinehab. 3. Ezra 8:33 father of a priest named Eleazar; =1 Esdras 8 Phinees. a. H. M’Neile.

Phinoe

Phinoe (1 Esdras 5:31) Paseah, Ezra 2:49, Nehemiah 7:51.

Phlegon

The name of a Christian greeted by St. Paul in Romans 16:14.

PH(EBE. — The bearer of the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:1). She was a ‘deaconess’ of the church at Cenchreae. See Deaconess.

Phcenicia, Phcenicians

Phoenicia was the strip of coast land between Lebanon and the hills of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. Its northern and southern limits are indefinite, being differently defined by different ancient geographers.

The Semitic name of the country Iwas • Canaan’ {Kinachchi and Kinackna in the el- Amama tablets, and Chna on Phoenician coins ; cf. Canaanites) . The name Phosnicia comes from a Gr. root signifying ‘blood-red,’ and was probably given on account of the colour of the soil. It was once thought to be derived from the Egyptian Fenkh, but that is now conceded to have been a designation of Asiatics in general (cf. W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa, 208 ff.).

The extent of the country may be roughly determined by its chief cities — Arvad or Arados, on the island now called Ruad, eighty miles north of Sidon, Simyra, Arka, Gebal or Byblos. Birutaon thesiteofthe modern BejTout , Sidon, Sarepta, Tyre, Achzib, and Acco. The latter, the modern Acre, not far north of Mt. Carmel, was the most southerly of these cities.

The Phoenicians are proved by their language and religion to have belonged to the Semitic race. Herodotus (1. 1 and vii. 89) records a tradition that they came from the Red Sea. Scholars now suppose that this refers really to the Persian Gulf, and that the Canaanites, of whom the Phcenicians were a part, came from North Arabia by way of the shore of the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates valley. This migration was probably a part of that movement of races which about B.C. 1700 gave Babylon the Kassite dynasty and Egypt its Hyksos kings (cf. Paton, Early Hist, of Syria and Pal. ch. v.). Perhaps the Canaanites were the last wave of Amorites (wh. see). Their chief cities may have been built by a previous race. Herodotus (ii. 44) records a tradition which, if true, would carry the founding of the temple at Tyre back to B.C. 2730.

The civilization of the Phoenicians was a city civilization, and each city had its petty king. The history is therefore the record of a number of petty dynasties, often jealous of one another, and never powerful enough to resist a strong invader from without. Hemmed in between the mountains and the sea, they alone of the early Semites developed navigation, and became the merchantmen and the carriers of the ancient world. Their ships and shipping were important as early as B.C. 1400 (cf. KIB V. 150", 152«8). Herodotus tells (Iv. 42) how Necho of Egypt, a contemporary of Jeremiah, employed Phesnicians to circumnavigate Africa, while Strabo (xvi. ii. 23) again testifies to their excellence in seamanship. According to Homer, they had intercourse with Greeks in the time of the Trojan war (/;. vi. 290). Traces of their influence are found in Greece (cf .Barton, Semit. Or. 316 ff.), and their maritime skill led them later to found colonies, especially in Sicily, Carthage, and Cyprus.

For some reason Sidon so excelled the other cities in the eyes of Israelites and Greeks, that in the OT and Homer the Phcenicians are frequently called ‘Sidonians,’ even when, as in the case of Ahab’s marriage, Tyrians are really referred to Ccf. Judges 10:6, 12 igv, i K 5:6 ll’- ss 16, 2 Kings 23:13; Horn. II. vi. 290, Od. iv. 618, xv. 118). The reason for this is obscure.

Phoenicia first appears in written history in the record of the Asiatic campaigns of Thothmes iii. of Egypt. In his earlier campaigns that king conquered the region between the Lebanon ranges. In his 7th expedition (b.c. 1471) he came out to the coast and conquered Arvad, the most northerly of the important Phoenician cities (cf. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, ii. 196). There are reasons for supposing that Tyre had previously been added to his empire (Breasted Hist, of Egypt, 298). Probably the same is true of the rest of Phoenicia, for in the el-Amarna letters all the Phoenician cities were included in the Egyptian empire of Amenophis in. and Amenophis iv. These letters show that under Amenophis iv. Rib-Adda was vassal king of Gebal, Ammunira of Biruta, Zimrida of Sidon, and Abimilki of Tyre. These kings were in constant feud with one another, with the people of Arvad, and with the Amorites beyond the Lebanon. They are constantly accusing one another (cf. Nos. 33 fl., 128-130, and 147-156). Under the XlXth dynasty Phoenicia was again invaded. Seti i. held Acco and Tyre (Breasted, Records, iii. 47), while Eameses u. pushed northward to Biruta (.ib. iii. 123). In the reign of his successor Merenptah the cities from the Lebanon to Ashbelon revolted. Phoenicia was probably included in the revolt, for in the poem written to celebrate the resubjugation of these lands, we read: ‘Plundered is Canaan with every evil’ (Breasted, Records, iii. 264, Hist. 470). In the XXth dynasty Rameses in. (b.c. 1198-1167) still held the country from Arvad and southward (Breasted, Records, iv. 34, 37). It is probably because of this long Egyptian vassalage that Genesis 10:15 traces the descent of Sidon from Ham. By the end of the dynasty Phoenicia was again free, for in the fifth year of Rameses xii. (b.c. 1113) a certain Wenamon was despatched to Phoenicia for cedar from the Lebanon forests; and Dor, Tyre, and Gebal, the towns at which he touched, were not only independent but had small respect for a representative of Pharaoh (Breasted, ib. iv. 274 ff.). The king of Gebal was at this time Zakar-Bel. Probably the dynasty of Tyre traced to Josephus (c. Apion. i. 18) was founded at the time of this emancipation from Egypt, and the era to which he refers (Ant. vni. iii. 1) then began.

A century later than the time of Wenamon, Hiram king of Tyre was an ally of David, and furnished cedar to build him a place (2 Samuel 5:11). Later he was the ally of Solomon, and aided him in the construction of the Temple (1 Kings 5:1 7:13 9:11, 12). In the following century king Ahab of Israel married Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre. Thus Phoenician influence found its way into Israel.

Shortly before the time of Ahab, the Assyrian king Ashur-nasir-pal (b.c. 884-860) had made a raid to the Mediterranean coast and exacted tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and Gebal (.KIB i. 109). His successor, Shalmaneser ii., records tribute from the same cities in his 21st year I.KIB i. 143). Later he took it also from Arvad (ib. 173). Adad-nirari (b.c. 812-783) counted Tyre and Sidon among his subjects (.ib. 191). In the interval of Assyrian weakness which followed, Phoenicia became once more independent, and when the powerful Tiglath-pileser in. (B.C. 745-727) again invaded the West, Tyre joined a coalition against him, but in the end ‘Tyre and Gebal and Arvad paid tribute (KIB ii. 21, 23, 31). Sidon is not mentioned. Probably it was subject to Tyre. Tyre at this period ruled over a part of Cyprus. Menander relates (Jos. Ant. ix. xiv. 2) that Shalmaneser iv. (727-722) overran Phoenicia and unsuccessfully besieged Tyre for five years. Perhaps the issue of the siege came in the reign of Sargon, for the statue of that king in Cyprus shows that this dependency of Tyre was ruled by him. Sennacherib (705-681) records the submission of Sidon, Sarepta, Achzib, and Acco (KIB ii. 91). Tyre he did not disturb. Esarhaddon had to reduce Sidon by a siege, and changed its name to’ Esarhaddonsburg ‘(Kar-Assurakhiddina), but he failed to reduce Tyre (KIB ii. 125 ff., 149; Rogers, Hist. Bab. and Assyr. ii. 226 if.). Ashurbanipal (668-626) claims to have reduced Tyre and Arvad. At any rate he made an alliance with the king of Tyre (KIB ii. 169, 171). Before the end of his reign, however, Phoenicia was again independent, Assyria having become weak. We next hear that king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (604^562) unsuccessfully besieged Tyre for many years (Ezekiel 26:1 ff. 29:17 ff.).

In the Persian period (how Phoenicia became subject to Persia our sources do not tell) Sidon again became the leading city. Tyre taking a second place. An inscription of Yahaw-melech, king of Gebal, probably belongs to this period (CIS 1. 1).

Sidon furnished the best ships for the fleet of Xerxes, Tyre the next best (Diod. Sic. xvi. xlvi.; Herod, vii. 44, 96, 98, viii. 67). Straton (Abd-Ashtart?) of Sidon in the next century effected Greek civilization (jElian, Yar. Hist. vii. 2; Athenieus, 531). About 350 his successor Tennes (Tabnith 7) joined m an unsuccessful revolt against Persia, and Sidon was again besieged (Diod. Sic. XVI. xlii.).

After the battle of Issus (b.c. 333), all the Phoenician cities except Tyre opened their gates to Alexander the Great. Tyre resisted and again stood a siege of seven months (Diod. Sic. xvii. xli. fl.). During the next century, under the Ptolemys, a native dynasty flourished at Sidon, from which a number of inscriptions survive (cf. G. A. Cooke, North Sem. Inscr. 26 ft.; JAOS xxiii. 156 ff.). The kings were Eshmunazar i., Tabnith, Bod-Ashtart, and Eshmunazar ii. Bod-Ashtart built a temple near Sidon, which has recently been excavated.

In the wars of the later Ptolemys and Seleucids the Phoenicians played an important part. Phoenicia belonged to the Seleucids after b.c. 197. In b.c. 65 it passed under Roman rule. The reference in Mark 7:26 to a woman who was a ‘Syrophoenician’ by race shows that the Evangelist recognized that the old stock survived. In b.c. 14 Augustus made Biruta a Roman colony. Claudius (a.d. 41-54) made Acco, then called Ptolemais (cf. Acts 21:7), a Roman colony. Septimius Severus (a.d. 193-211) performed a similar service for Tyre, and Elagabalus (218-222) for Sidon. Gradually the old race was merged with various conquerors.

In civilization the Phoenicians were for the most part borrowers from Babylonia and Egypt. What they borrowed they carried in their trading voyages all about the Mediterranean, and thus diffused culture and the arts of life. Perhaps they were pioneers in the art of seamanship, but of this we cannot be sure; they may have borrowed this from Crete or the Myoenseans. That they invented the alphabet and diffused it in their voyages, so that it was adopted by the Greeks and Romans, is generally conceded, but whether they obtained it by adapting Egyptian hieroglyphs, or Babylonian cuneiform characters, or from some other ancient form of writing, is still in dispute. In religion they closely resembled the other Semites (cf. W. R. Smith, KS; and Ba.Tton. Semit. Origins). BaaJ and Ashtart were the principal divinities, and much prominence was given to sexual rites (cf. Lucian, de Syria Dm, § 6). Human sacrifice persisted long among them in spite of their contact with the highly civilized Greeks (cf. EBi iii. col. 3189, 3190).

The best account that we have of the nature and extent of Phoenician traffic is contained in Ezekiel’s description (chs. 27. 28) of the trade of Tyre, which, as we have seen, had been the leading Phcenician city for a century or more before his time.

Geoeqb a. Barton.

Phcenix

Phcenix was a good harbour on the S. coast of Crete. It has been identified almost certainly with Loutro, which is said to be the only harbour W. of Fair Havens where a ship of such size as that by which St. Paul travelled (it was a cargo ship, but had crew and passengers on board numbering altogether 276) could find shelter. Strabo speaks of Phoenix as being on an isthmus (i.e. a narrow part of the island), and apparently as being in the territory of Lappa, which was not far from Loutro. Other authorities speak of it as if it were near Aradena, which is only a mile from Loutro. The identification would therefore be certain but for St. Luke’s description of the harbour of Phoenix as looking ‘towards the S.W. and the N.W.’ (Acts 27:12). whereas the harbour of Loutro looks towards the East. Hence some identified Phoenix with a harbour a little farther W., of which we have no evidence that it could accommodate so large a ship. It is perhaps more probable that St. Luke makes a mistake in his description of a harbour which he never reached. The RV understands the Greek to mean ‘in the direction in which the S.W. and N.W. winds blow,’ and therefore translates ‘looking N.E. and S.E.’ ‘This may have been a sailor’s way of expressing it, but we have no authority for it. A. E. Hillabd.

Phoros

Phoros (1 Esdras 5:9 8:30 9) (wh. see).

Phrurai

In Ad. Esther 11 the Book of Esther is called ‘the epistle of Phrurai’ (i.e. ‘Purim’ [wh. see]).