Finally, an inscription placed here in the reign of Trajan shows that an imperial ship was epenaling so long a time at this point of its course between Alexandria and Italy that there was time to erect some considerable work, whose nature is not specified. There can hardly be any doubt that the ship was lying up for the winter, and the imperial freedman who was in authority on the ship employed the crew at some useful work on shore. The sailing-master, gubernator (compare κυβερνήτης, Ac 274), and the ship’s sign, parasemum compare παράσημον, Ac 28"), are both mentioned.
ee Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck, 261.
Thus we see that Loutré was beside a harbour where at least occasionally the large ships of that Egyptian corn service wintered.
he identification of Loutré as the harbour called Phoenix in Ac 27" seems beyond dispute, if these accounts of travellers and explorers rest on a sufficiently minute examination of the coast. But
the identification is encumbered by one serious difficulty. The harbour of Phcenix is described in Acts as looking towards the south-west and the north-west, #.e. auparently as opening towards the
west, with a mouth just so wide that the entrance extends up towards north-west and down towards south-west. But the harbour of Loutré opens towards the east, looking between north-east and south-east.
In this difficulty there seem to be only three alternatives open. 1. The harbour of Loutré is formed by a very narrow isthmus connecting a broader peninsula with the mainland ; and there is a harbour on each side of the isthmus. As the isthmus runs out south from the mainland, one of these harbours looks east, viz. Loutré, while the other looks west. Bishop Wordsworth has sug- gested that the western harbour may be the ancient Phenix, and has pointed out that on the Admiralty chart the name Phinika is given to it. Obviously, most of the arguments for identifying Loutré as Phenix would apply equally well to this western harbour, which is separated from the other only by a narrow isthmus, and is almost equally near Aradhena and Anapolis. The only difficulty lies in the ve sitive assertions that Loutré is the only well-sheltered harbour ; and certainly the chart represents the western harbour as more widely open. Still it is distinctly desirable that the western harbour should be more closely and critically examined. Sprat, indeed, can hard] have failed to do so, and his weighty authority is almost conclusive (though not quite); but the rest of the evidence depends much on the statements of residents in Loutré; and every traveller knows how prone the Greeks are to emphasize too strongly the arguments which support the identification of their own town with an ancient place of fame; their very love and respect for antiquities lead them to exaggerate the ane of their home.
The conclusion must be that Wordsworth’s sug- gestion is not absolutely disproved, though the evidence accessible at present is against it. Among
PHRYGIA
other things one desiderates careful examination as to whether the coast-line has been modified during eighteen centuries, and whether there are any traces of the western harbour having been used in ancient times.
2. James Smith suggests that the words of Ac 27 βλέποντα κατὰ Λίβα καὶ κατὰ XGpov, do not mean, as is commonly thought, ‘looking towards south- west and north-west,’ but ‘looking in the direction in which the south-west and north-west winds blow’ (i.e. towards north-east and south-east). His rendering is distinctly against the analogy of Greek literary expression ; but, considering how little is known of Greek technical sailor language, one cannot feel quite certain that the rendering is absolutely impossible.
3. It has been pointed out* that Luke did not actually visit Phenix (for the ship never went there), but merely speaks on report: his authority was the argument used by the captain and the sailing-master of the vessel in the council which the centurion called. Naturally these arguments were reported to him by Paul; and, even if Luke were wrong, his mistake would prove, not want of observation of a place which he had seen, but misapprehension of the description of a place strange to him, after that description has passed through an intermediate channel. If (as was often the case) the expression of sailors differed from that of literary Greek and of the ordinary landsman, an error might have thus been produced without any one being conscious of it.
The case, therefore, must be pronounced unde- cided until Sprat’s statement (weighty as it is) is confirmed by new and careful examination; but the balance of evidence is strong that Loutré is Pheenix ; and in that case the third alternative is Derhape least improbable, though the second is not proved to be impossible. W. M. Ramsay.
PHOROS (opis)=Parosh; 1 Es δ᾽ 8 (Β Φαρές, AV Pharez), 9:5.
PHRURAI.—In Ad. Est 111} the Book of Esther is called ‘the epistle of Phrurai’ (ἐπιστολὴ τῶν Ppoupal, A... Φρουραιά) ; cf. Est 955, and see ESTHER, and PURIM (FEAST OF).
PHRYGIA.—
I. Geographical and Historical. II. Pauline Geography. ΠῚ. Phrygia in Acts 210, IV. Christianity in Phrygia. V. The Jews in Phrygia.
Phrygia (Φρυγία) was the name of a very large country in Asia Minor. On the view which will be here set forth, the noun Phrygia never occurs in the Bible, but only the term ‘the Phrygian region’ (Ac 16° 18%) ;+ and in 2 Mac 553 the ethnic ‘Phrygian’ is applied to Philip, who was left as governor of Jerusalem by king Antiochus Epi- phanes about B.c. 170. In addition to this, a journey right across Phrygia is implied tacitly in Ac 167°, and another is briefly described in Ae 19! (according to the view to be here explained). But in Pye of the very small appearance made by the Phrygian name in the Bible, there are such difficult questions connected with the passages where it occurs that a somewhat long discussion is needed. Moreover, Phrygia had unusual importance in early Christian history, and the monuments of Christianity before the time of Constantine that remain in the country are of unique number, interest, and importance. It can