and deliberate disposition, and how little he had yet shown himself able to make any of the bolder etibrts of faith. And He evidently hoped that on this occasion Philip would rise from the manifest inadequacy of the existing material resources to the thought of the unseen powers which He (the Christ) had at His command. But the hope was to be disappointed. Philip was so occupied with his own careful calculations as to what the actual feed- ing of the multitude meant, that he could think of nothing else. And even the matter-of-fact Andrew showed more imagination when, after the mention of the lad's little store, he at least hazarded the suggestion, ' But what are they amongst so many ? '
(3) The case is similar when we turn to anotlier occasion when we find the two Apostles together. It is in entire accord not only with Philip's (possible) Greek origin, but with his symi)athetic, inquiring- disposition, that the Greek visitors to the Temple should select him as their ambassador to Jesus (Jn 12-'"''-). But it is equally characteristic that,' as he realized the greatness and significance of the request, coming as it did fi-om pure Gentiles, he should hesitate to act upon it on his owr respon- sibilitj-. He would do nothing until he had con- sulted Andrew. And even when Andrew had approved, it was only in conjunction with him, and leaving him to occupy the foremost place (' Andrew and Philip'), that Philip went to tell .Jesus.
(4) This ' faith without confidence ' is even more marked in the last glimpse which St. John gives us of his brother A]H)stle. When, in His farewell dis- course to the Twelve, Jesus announced that He was going to the ' Father,' and that no one could come to the ' Father ' except bj- Him, it was left to Philip to say, ' Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us ' ( Jn 14**). With him ' seeing ' was 'believing.' He could not believe that any real knowledge of the Father was possible except such as resulted from an actual theophany ; and so proved how blinded he had been to that higher manifestation of which he had for so long been witness in the words and the acts of the Son.
(5) With the pathetic personal appeal to him which this dulness of spiritual vision called forth (Jn 14^), Philip disappears from the Gospel story. And we hear nothing more of him in the NT excejit for the mention of his name amongst the Ai)ostles who assembled in the upper room at Jerusalem after their Lord's Ascension (Ac 1'^). Various traditions have, however, gathered round his memory.
The most interesting of these is the account preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. 4, J 2.5), which identifies him with the unknown disciple who, when the Lord's call came to him, asked that he might first go anfl bury his father— an identification at least in keeping with what we have seen of Philip's character. The apocr>"phal Jovrneyings of Philip the Apostle (3rd cent.) represent him as travelling through Lydia and Asia, and finally settling in Hierapolis. And it was there, according to Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus c. 190 a.d.), that he was 'buried ' 'along with his two aged virgin daughters' (Eus. HE iii. 31; cf. Lightfoot, Colossiam'^, p. 45fT.). The same authority adds that another daughter who 'lived in fellowship with the Holy Spirit' was buried at Ephesus— a circumstance that may perhaps point to Philiji's own residence there for a time, and consequently to a renewed intercourse with his old friend the Apostle .John. If so, we have an additional reason why St. John should have introduced Philip's name so freely in the' ' memoirs ' on which at the time he was engaged. Of the later connexion with Hierai^olis already alluded to we have now- interesting confirmation in the discovery of an inscription show - ing that the church there was dedicated to the memory ' of the holy and glorious Ajwstle and theologian Philip ' (reS kyitu xi 'cthoioii cc-vjo-Toka-j x'i (iio>.cya%i 4>i>.itt6-j : see Ramsav, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrynia, 1. p. 552 f.).
In the West, St. Philip's Day is observed along with that of St. James the Less on Maj* 1st. In the East. St. Philip's Day is Nov. 14th, St. James', Oct. 23rd.
LrrF-R.^rrRB. — In addition to what has been noted above, see Westcott, The Gospel of St. John, p. Ixxiiif. ; A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Tirelre (see 'Philip' in the Index); H. P. Liddon, University Sermons, 2nd ser., i. 'Prejudice andExperi-
360
PHYLACTERIES
PHYSICAL
ence ' (Jn I'*'') ; J. B. Lightfoot, Cambridge Sermons, p. 129 ff. 'Show us the Father' (Jn 148- «) ; R. C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 68 ; A. llaclaren, A Year's Ministry, ii. 155 ; J. D. Jones, The Glorious Company of the Apostles, p. 109; R. H. Lovell, First Types of the Chr. Life, p. 514 ; and the present writer's The Twelve Apostles (Dent), p. 49 ff.
2. Herod Philip.— See vol. i. p. 722''.
George Milligan.
PHYLACTERIES (OT ' frontlets').— The observ- ance of i^hylacteries is based on Ex 13^' '" and Dt 6** W^. For the Heb. and Greek terms see Hast- ings' DB, s.v. It is disputed whether the passages in the Pentateuch are to be understood literally (so most of the Rabbinic writers, and Ginsburg in Kitto's Cyclop.) or metaphorically (so Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, the Karaites, Jerome, Lyra, Calvin, Heng.stenberg, Knobel, Keil, and Kennedy in Hastings' DB) ; some assign a metaphorical mean- ing to the passages in Ex. and a literal to those in Deuteronomy. Under the more legal and formal interpretation and observance of the OT which flourished after the Return, the literal interjireta- tion became dominant. The exact date of the in- troduction of the literal observance of the precept cannot be given. No indisputable reference is found in the OT ; passages like Pr 1" being indecis- ive. From the relatively large number of regulations referring to phylacteries — some of them connected with the Tannaim — it follows that they were used as early as the time of the Sopherim, the 4th or at least the 3rd cent. B.C. (see JE x. 26). The first explicit reference, and that to the hand phylactery, is in the letter of the pseudo-Aristeas, the date of which is variously assigned between 200 and 100 B.C., where they are regarded as an established custom. They are also mentioned in connexion with Simeon ben Slietach, brother-in-law of Alex- ander Jannaeus (B.C. i05-78). Josephus {Ant. iv. viii. 13) speaks of them as an established and recog- nized custom. We may, therefore, regard them as having preceded by about tMO centuries the birth of Jesus Christ. For our knowledge of the customs associated with them we are indebted chiefly to the references in the Mishna (for which see Schiirer, HJF II. ii. 113). Though the collection of these traditions took place in the 2nd Christian cent., they may be regarded, for the most part, as repre- senting an earlier state of things.