St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A...

128. This is evidently the idea of Orosius, vii. 7.

129. I draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus (Ann. ii. 47) states that twelve cities were ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions this earthquake as ‘the greatest within the memory of man’ (N.H. ii. 86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, Chron. Ol. 198 (II. p. 146 sq., ed. Schöne), names thirteen cities, coinciding with Tacitus as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was found at Puteoli (see Gronov. Thes. Græc. Ant. VII. p. 433 sq.), and is now in the Museum at Naples (Museo Borbonico XV, Tav. iv, v), dedicated to Tiberius and representing fourteen female figures with the names of fourteen Asiatic cities underneath; these names being the same as those mentioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (Fragm. 42, Müller’s Fragm. Hist. Græc. III. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the restoration of the ruined cities (see Eckhel Doct. Num. Vet. VI. 192 sq.). But no earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (Ann. iv. 13) six years later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former.

But we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously injured by an earthquake in the same year—perhaps not on the same night—with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. Ann. ii. 47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the lost portion of the fifth book of the Annals which comprised the years A.D. 29–31; but this bare hypothesis cannot outweigh the direct testimony of Eusebius.

130. Hertzberg (Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer, II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to two different events, and that Laodicea was visited by earthquakes twice within a few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.

131. Tac. Ann. xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 126. To this fact allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107 Τλῆμον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ τρώσει ποτὲ σεισμὸς πρηνίξας, στήσει δὲ πάλιν πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν, where στήσει must be the 2nd person, ‘Thou wilt rebuild thy city with its broad streets.’ This Sibylline poem was written about the year 80. The building of the amphitheatre mentioned above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of reconstruction.

132. See below, p. 43.

133. Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Μάρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to Colossæ was paid.

134. 2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (Oriens Christ.I. p. 833) substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.

135. It was apparently during the interval between St Paul’s first captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely, but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.

136. Rev. iii. 14–21.

137. Col. i. 15–18.

138. Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), which so closely resembles the language of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.

139. Col. iii. 1.

140. Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν κ.τ.λ.

141. Rev. iii. 21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. Here again it must be noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John.

142. Col. iv. 17.

143. Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be still more striking; see Trench’s Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197 sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.

144. Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the embodiment of wretchedness, etc.

145. Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

146. In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579.

147. See the next chapter of this introduction.

148. Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.

149. i. 27.

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.