PHILIP THE EVANGELIST: One of the seven named in Acts vi. 5 as chosen to direct the care 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 (
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 due 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 Eusebius 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
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Because of the confusion noted in the text, the literature named under PHILIP THE APOSTLE covers in large part the subject of this article. Consult the commentaries on Acts (e.g.. G. T. Stokes, in Expositor's Bible, vol. i., chaps. xvii., xx., London and New York, 1891), and the works on the apostolic age (e.g., A. C McGiffert, pp. 73-74, 95, 340, 424, New York, 1897); T. Zahn, in Forachungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vi (1900), 158 sqq.; DB, iii. 838-837; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, part xxxi., cols. 270-272; ASB for June 6; Harnack, Litteratur, ii. 1, pp. 357-358, 368, 669.
Calvin College. Last modified on 06/03/04. Contact the CCEL.