Appendix 2: Who Has Confused Whom?
Appendix 2
Who Has Confused Whom?
Which Philip Lived in Hierapolis
When researching Papias one commonly finds discussions concerning the possibility that Papias may have met or known the apostle Philip. Many, however, believe that Eusebius inadvertently mistook Philip the Evangelist of Acts 6:5; 8:4–40; 21:7–9; for Philip the apostle.47 If Eusebius erred, the source of his error is easily traceable. He does not often mention either Philip, but in Ecclesiastical History III.31.1–5 he discussed either one or both at some length, drawing largely from a letter from Polycrates, a bishop of Ephesus, and the debate between Gaius and the Montanist Proclus. An English translation of the text in question is here provided.
The time and manner of the death of Paul and of Peter, and the place where their corpses were laid after their departure from this life, have been already described by us. The date of the death of John has also been already mentioned, and the place of his body is shown by a letter of Polycrates (he was bishop of the diocese of Ephesus) which he wrote to Victor, bishop of Rome. In this he mentions both John, Philip the Apostle, and Philip’s daughters as follows: “For great luminaries sleep in Asia, and they will rise again at the last day of the advent of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and call back all the saints, such as was Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis with his two daughters who grew old as virgins and his third daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus. And there is also John, who leaned on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest wearing the mitre, and martyr and teacher, and he sleeps at Ephesus.” So far concerning their deaths. And in the dialogue of Gaius, which we mentioned a little earlier, Proclus, with whom he was disputing, speaks thus about the death of Philip and his daughters and agrees with what has been stated. “After him the four daughters of Philip who were prophetesses were at Hierapolis in Asia. Their grave is there and so is their father’s.” So he says. And Luke in the Acts of the Apostles mentions the daughters of Philip who were then living with their father at Caesarea in Judaea and were vouchsafed the gift of prophecy. He says as follows: “We came to Caesarea and entered into the house of Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven, and remained with him. And he had four daughters who were prophetesses.48
Before continuing it should first be duly noted that Eusebius was convinced that at least one Philip was buried in Hierapolis, and that the one buried there was none other than the apostle Philip. He clearly stated in Ecclesiastical History III.39.9 that the apostle had resided in Hierapolis, and in V.24.2 he documented that Hierapolis was the city where the apostle Philip was buried. However, some reasonable questions still remain. The first is, was Eusebius confused; and secondly, did the apostle Philip actually live and die in Hierapolis. As to the second question, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the apostle Philip was not buried at Hierapolis. There is, in fact, no evidence that demands that both Philips could not have been buried at Hierapolis. The coincidence of their names, however, and that fact that they were both blessed with multiple daughters causes some to pause and conjecture that an error has occurred, either on the part of Polycrates, Proclus, Eusebius, or any combination of the three.
Christopher Matthews wrote an entire monograph on this subject in which he concluded that Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist was the same person.49 He theorized that Luke never intended to communicate that there were two Philips. Luke created the confusion between the two because by the time he wrote Acts the vocabulary of the early church had changed. As a result of Philip’s missionary activities he was no longer identified as an apostle, but instead became known as an evangelist.50 Matthews argued, therefore, that the confusion between the two Philips is completely the fault of Luke, writing that
In the second century of the Christian era, whenever Christian sources mention Philip, it is the apostle of the same name who is in view. There is no evidence to suggest the existence of competing or parallel traditions of two early, influential Christian figures that happened to share the name Philip. Both the later ecclesiastical view that carefully distinguishes the “deacon” Philip from the apostle of the same name and the pervasive modern assumption that there were two high profile Philips in the earliest days of the church are based solely on Luke’s presentation in Acts. Were it not for Acts, there would be no clue that a problem existed with respect to Philip’s identity.51
While it is possible that there is some confusion on the part of patristic and modern authors regarding these two Philips, an error or ambiguity on the part of Luke has not been proven and, therefore, should not be assumed. Matthews’s theory ignores the fact that Luke associated Philip the apostle with the apostolic colloquium and distinguished Philip the deacon and evangelist as separate from the twelve. In Acts 1:13 Philip is named among the eleven apostles (pre-Matthias). In Acts 6:2, however, Luke referred to “the twelve” (post-Matthias) who called the Jerusalem congregation and commissioned them to choose spiritual men to solve the crisis concerning the distribution of food to widows. Consequently, the apostle Philip should be assumed to be among the twelve. The congregational search led to the selection of seven men, one of which was a Philip who later became known as the evangelist who settled in Caesarea along with his four prophetic daughters (Acts 21:8–9). A closer study of Acts, therefore, reveals that Luke was not confused nor did he create confusion by being ambiguous. Luke knew that there was one Philip, who was a member of the apostolic tribe, he also knew of another Philip who served widows and initiated the Gentile mission; consequently, this Philip was identified as “the evangelist” (Acts 21:8). The apostle Philip as a member of the apostolic colloquium was to be devoted to prayer and the “ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4); while Philip the evangelist undertook the ministry of service to the Hellenistic widows. And, as Luke recorded, this was the entire purpose for the division of their ministries, so that the apostle Philip could be free to focus upon the ministry that Jesus had commissioned him. It would have been a dereliction of the apostle Philip’s divine calling from Jesus Christ to allow himself to be entangled in a different ministry. Coincidentally, however, both of them came to have several daughters, and both of them apparently settled in Hierapolis. If anyone was confused about which Philip lived in Hierapolis it does not appear to have been Luke, for on this topic Luke is completely silent, nor is there any evidence indicating that he was ever aware of where both Philips may have settled in their later years.
The previously provided Eusebian quote indicates that Eusebius stated that both Philips were buried in Hierapolis. Relying upon Polycrates, Eusebius believed that Philip the apostle was buried there with two of his daughters, while another daughter was buried in Ephesus. After his initial reference to Philip the apostle, Eusebius recorded that a second Philip was also buried in Hierapolis. For the tradition of this Philip, however, he relied upon the Montanist Proclus. Eusebius identified Proclus’s Philip with the Philip of Acts 21:7–9, and his identification may be correct since Proclus claimed this second Philip had four prophetic daughters, indicating that this Philip was the evangelist and not the apostle. Proclus also claimed that the graves of Philip’s daughters were also in Hierapolis with their father’s grave. This is not so concerning the graves of the daughters of the apostle Philip, for one had apparently married and was buried in Ephesus. Knowing Eusebius’s disdain for the Montanists, it is understandable that he might attempt to distance the apostle Philip from any association with the Montanists or their heritage.52 However, the fact that Eusebius never inadvertently quoted a Gospel text (e.g., John 1:43)53 while referring to the evangelist should cause one to realize that Eusebius was not confused and knew exactly which of the two Philips he was discussing.
Apparently both Philips had daughters, and it is this coincidence that aids in the confusion concerning which Philip may have lived and died in Hierapolis. The apostle Philip appears to have had at least three daughters, two of which lived out their devotion to Christ as virgins, while a third, although being a spiritual woman, married, died, and was buried in Ephesus.54 Additionally, Eusebius reported that Clement of Alexandria corroborated this tradition, stating that both Peter and Philip “begat children, and Philip even gave his daughters to husbands.”55 Luke, however, reported that all four of the daughters of Philip the evangelist were virgins (Acts 21:9). If a mistake has occurred, then it is either that the apostle Philip had more than three daughters, four of whom did not marry and migrated with him to Asia Minor, or that Clement was mistaken when he suggested that a daughter of the apostle Philip had married. Such errors, however, seem unlikely. Consequently, demanding that a mistake has occurred does not appear to be the best explanation to this conundrum. Moreover, there is no record that daughters of Philip the apostle were ever described as being “prophetesses.” That description was only applied to the daughters of the evangelist. It is interesting that Eusebius’s two other references to the evangelist actually focus upon his daughters rather than Philip.56 Regardless of Eusebius’s other references to the evangelist, it is his inclusion of Proclus’s statement about the Philip the evangelist in the context of a discussion about Philip the apostle that is most likely the source of most of the confusion regarding both Philips, their daughters, and Papias’s possible association with any of them. If Eusebius had not included Proclus’s comments about the second Philip then there would be no debate regarding which Philip had lived and died in Hierapolis, nor would there be any discussion concerning which Philip Papias may have known.57 Nevertheless, it appears that both Philips eventually lived, died, and were buried in Hierapolis.
Some may balk at the idea that two influential Philips, both of whom had multiple daughters, could have migrated to Hierapolis, and were inevitably buried there. Many, however, have no problem believing that there resided in Ephesus two Johns who were influential leaders of the Asiatic church. But of Eusebius’s mythical John the elder, we have no clear reference of him until Dionysius’s blind conjecture originating in the early third century. Concerning both Philips, however, we have sound historical data, from both the New Testament and other church historians, that both were active in the life of the church. The data seems to suggest that the apostle Philip did indeed migrate to Hierapolis, and that Papias did receive some traditions from his daughters, and possibly from the apostle Philip as well. This same data also suggests that Philip the evangelist also migrated to Hierapolis. Although such a migration seems rather coincidental, there is nothing to demand that it could not have occurred.58 Asia Minor proved to be fruitful soil for the expansion of the church during the late first century and well into the second century. It is not unreasonable, consequently, to believe that men so wonderfully blessed with charismatic daughters might want to locate in an area that provided their families with the greatest opportunity for peaceful lives and fruitful ministry.
47. Matthews, Philip, 31.
48. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.31.1–5 (LCL 153: 269–73).
49. Matthews, Philip, 3, 33.
50. Ibid., 8.
51. Ibid., 15.
52. For Eusebius’s reporting on Montanism see Ecc. Hist. V.14-18 (LCL 153:471–93).
53. John 1:43 reads as “The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and he found Philip. And Jesus said to him, ‘Follow me.’” This particular text clearly refers to the apostle Philip and not Philip the evangelist.
54. Eusebius recorded that “such as was Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis with this two daughters who grew old as virgins and his third daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus.” Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.31.2–3 (LCL 153: 269–71). It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that one of Philip’s daughters had married since she was not identified as a “virgin.”
55. Ibid., III.30.1 (LCL 153: 269).
56. Ibid., III.37.1; V.17.3 (LCL 153: 287, 485).
57. Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2:114–18.
58. Matthews, Philip, 32 note 66.