[150]. ii. 2, 3.
[151]. Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.’
[152]. Canon Murator. fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Documents pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39.
[153]. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39.
[154]. Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. iii. 31, v. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων , ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἠ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πολιτευσαμένη, ἣ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. To this third daughter the statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. H.E. iii. 30), ἣ καὶ τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἀποδοκιμάσουσι· Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκε. On the other hand in the Dialogue between Caius and Proclus, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at Hierapolis (Euseb. H.E. iii. 31) μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες αἱ Φίλιππου γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, where the mention of the four daughters prophesying identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8). Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2–5). (2) After Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the presence of an Apostle (viii. 14–17). (3) When St Paul and his companions visit Philip at Cæsarea, he is carefully described as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be questioned. Yet Eusebius (H.E. iii. 31) assumes the identity of the Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the Dialogue of Caius and Proclus as being ‘in harmony with (συνᾴδων)’ the language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (H.E. iii. 39), when he has occasion to mention the conversations of Papias with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be the same who are mentioned in the Acts.
My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early traditions. It is confirmed moreover by the notice in Clement of Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of information also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an Ionian Greek (Strom. I. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends solely on the authority of the Dialogue of Caius and Proclus. I have given reasons elsewhere for questioning the separate existence of the Roman presbyter Caius, and for supposing that this dialogue was written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (Journal of Philology I. p. 98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at least after Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents them as prophetesses, thus showing a distinct aim of reproducing the particulars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, as it also drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly resist the impression that incidents relating to Andrew and Philip had a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also for his hearers (John i. 40, 43–46, vi. 5–8, xii. 20–22, xiv. 8, 9). Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as inseparable companions. (4) Lastly; when Papias mentions collecting the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apostles τί Ἀνδρέας ... εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος, but there is no reference to Philip the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip intended is the same person whom he has mentioned previously. It should be added, though no great value can be assigned to such channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at Hierapolis; Tischendorf, Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 75 sq.
On the other hand, those who suppose that the Evangelist, and not the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, account for the other form of the tradition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality. There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were married and had daughters.
[155]. John xii. 20.
[156]. See above p. 45, note [154].
[157]. Euseb. H.E. iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those particulars respecting Papias which are derived from Eusebius.