THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
dorf, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, pp. xxxi.-xl., 75-104, Leipsic, 1851; W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, ii. 69 sqq., London, 1S71; Apocryphal Gospels, Arts, and A', relations. Eng. transl. by A. Walker, pp. 301-324, Edinburgh, 1S73; R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostel/iescliichten urut A postrllegenden, ii. 2, pp. 1-53, Brunswick, ]sS4; Anale-ta Bollandiana, ix (1890), 204-249; T. Zahn, Geschichte des ncutextamentlichen Kanons, ii. 761-768, Leipsic, 1890; Stolten, in JPT, 1891, pp. 149-160; Apocrypha Anecdota, in TU, ii. 3 (1893); A. S. Lewis, Mythological Acts of the Apostles, in Horce Semitica, iv., London, 1904; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 138.
PHILIP THE ARABIAN (MARCUS JULIUS PHILEPPUS ARABS): Roman emperor 244-249; b. at Bostra (119 m. s. of Damascus) in the Roman province of Arabia Petra?a (whence his epithet of "the Arabian"); killed in battle near Verona, Italy, in the autumn of 249. Elevated to the purple by the murder of his predecessor, Gordianus III., he was able, during his reign, to subdue the Carpi who had ravaged Dacia, and, in 248, to celebrate the millennial of the founding of Rome, but was, on the other hand, obliged to conclude a humiliating peace with the Persians. In 249 Philip became involved in civil war with his rival Decius, by whom he was defeated and slain, his young son, whom he had made coregent at the age of seven, being murdered by the Pretorian Guard at Rome.
Philip the Arabian, whose high moral ideal is evinced by his earnest, though unavailing, efforts to suppress the practise of unnatural vice, is of interest theologically chiefly because of an ancient and wide-spread tradition which makes him the first Christian emperor of Rome. This tradition appears earliest in Eusebius (Hist, eccl., vi. 34), who states that, according to report, Philip had desired to attend divine service on Easter, but had been obliged to perform penance. Vincent of Lerins (fifth century), Dionysius of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Jerome, the first Valesian Fragment, and Orosius likewise either explicitly state or at least imply that Philip was the first Christian emperor. It is plain, however, simply from the coins and. medals struck by him that he was a worshiper of the Olympic gods and that he was himself pontifex maximus.
But though Philip was not a Christian, he was remarkably friendly to the new religion, and the tradition that he himself was an adherent of it was doubtless due, at least in part, to his tolerant attitude toward it. During his reign Origen could refute Celsus, and conversions could be made en masse; but he could not prevent Christians from falling victims to mob violence in Alexandria.
(Fraxz Gorres.) Bibliography: Sources are: Zosimus, Hist., i. 17-22; Julius Capitolinus, Gordiani tres, chaps, xxii., xxvi.-xxx., ed. H. Peter, Leipsic, 1865; Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Ca-saribus. ed. J. F. Gruner, pp. 308-313, 429-430, Erlangen, 17N7. Consult in general the history of the period in work** on the Roman Empire, and in particular: B. Aube, Les ('hretirns dans Vempire romain, pp. 467 sqq., Paris, 1S81; P Allard, Hist, des persecutions, ii. 215-256, 474 -47s. Paris, 1SS0; K. J. Neumann, Der romische fitaal und die allgemeine Kirrlte bis auf Diokletian, i. 231-254, 330-331, Loip-ir. 1S90; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chaps, vii., x., xvi.; DCB, iv. 355; KL, ix. 2008-09; Neander, Christian Church, vol. i., passim.
PHILIP THE EVANGELIST: One of the sewn named in Acts vi. 5 as chosen to direct the cm re of
the poor, to " serve tables," and possibly to direct outward concerns generally. Their office was probably different from the later diaconate (see Deacon), being, in any case, dissolved with the persecution and dispersion of the congregation (Acts viii.) and later supplanted by the more comprehensive office of presbyter (Acts xi. 30, xv. 29). Since that earlier office was instituted because the Grecian members of the primitive congregation complained that their widows were neglected, it may be assumed that at least a contingent of the seven was chosen from the Hellenist members themselves, and probably one of these was Philip. Philip, like Stephen (Acts vi. 13), took a comparatively liberal stand in relation to the Jewish law and worship, and evolved from that liberal mode of teaching its practical sequel, in that after his flight from Jerusalem he began an eventful missionary activity among the Samaritans (Acts viii. 5 sqq.), who were accounted nearly the same as heathen. Moreover, he baptized an uncircumcised half-proselyte, the queen of Ethiopia's eunuch (Acts viii. 26 sqq.). Next he journeyed, preaching the Gospel, " till he came to Casarea." Here Paul took up his abode with him, together with his fellow travelers, on Paul's final journey (Acts, xxi. 8). And as this incident is related in Acts, Philip is designated not only with reference to his former office as " one of the seven," but also with reference to his missionary activity as " the evangelist " and as the father of " four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy " (xxi. 9). This is the last notice of him in the New Testament.
The patristic tradition in regard to the subsequent fortunes of Philip is of impaired value for the reason that he has been confused with the apostle of like name, as in Polycrates of Ephesus, who reports of the Apostle Philip (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., xxxi. 3, V., xxiv. 2), that he rests in Hierapolis, as do two of his daughters, who grew old as virgins; whereas his third daughter, whose " walk and conversation were in the Spirit," lies buried in Ephesus. These family particulars so closely resemble what is reported in Acts xxi. 9 of the evangelist that it is hardly tenable to think of two different men of the same name in this connection. Error in the Book of Acts is the less likely since it is precisely there that the reports are from an eyewitness. It is evident that Polycrates erroneously held the Philip of Hierapolis to be the apostle, though this does not exclude the proposition that his particulars in regard to the Evangelist Philip are correct. In comparison with these details the statements of Caius of Rome (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., xxxi.) are not so exact. It is probably duo to a confusion of the two named Philip that Clement of Rome (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., xxx. 1) asserts that the Apostles Peter and Philip had begotten children, and that Philip had given his daughters in second marriage Neither are those communications of ICusebius himself quite clear (III., xxxi.) which have arisen from a combination of what is stated by Polycrates and by Caius. Confusion of the apostle with the evangelist may have been easier because of the possibility that the two lived at the same time in Asia Minor. The later