The apostle Philip appears in the Synoptic tradition only in the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14). He always appears fifth, behind Peter, Andrew, James, and John. Along with Peter and James, the son of Alphaeus, Philip is one of three apostles who always appear in the same position in the apostolic lists—first, fifth, and ninth respectively—which may indicate their leadership roles over their respective subgroups.1 In Acts 1:13, Philip again appears fifth, but this time he is paired next to Thomas rather than Bartholomew. Philip is clearly among the middle-level apostles, and given his consistent primary listing among this group, he may have had some degree of prominence and responsibility within the Twelve.
Philip appears most frequently in the Gospel of John, which describes him as coming from Bethsaida, the “town of the apostles”2 (John 1:44). He may have been a disciple of John the Baptist, since Jesus called him to discipleship near Bethany, where John was baptizing. The day after calling Peter and Andrew, Jesus went to Galilee and found Philip, and said to him: “Follow me” (John 1:43). The text does not specifically say that he chose to follow Jesus, but the implication is clear, since Philip immediately goes to Nathanael and proclaims that he has found the Messiah (1:45). Yet Nathanael responds with incredulity: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Rather than giving an answer, Philip merely invites Nathanael to come and see Jesus in person and consider the evidence himself (1:46).
This brief episode of the call of Philip reveals three important things about his character. First, he was expecting the Messiah. He spoke of Jesus as the one to whom the Old Testament Scriptures bore witness (cf. Luke 24:27). Second, Philip had a missionary mindset. As Andrew had brought Peter, and possibly Philip, to Jesus, Philip in turn witnesses to Nathanael. Third, Philip was a personal witness of Jesus and could act as a legal witness on his behalf.3 Like the other apostles, he was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus (Acts 1:3), and was willing to suffer for that conviction (Acts 5:17).
Philip appears a second time in John’s Gospel for the feeding of the five thousand (6:1–15), the only miracle story recorded in all four Gospels. In the Johannine account, there was not enough food for them to eat, so Jesus asked Philip: “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” (6:5). Jesus decided to test Philip, even though he already knew how he would feed them. Philip replied: “Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not be enough for each of them to get a little.” Even though John reports “the signs that he [Jesus] was doing on the sick” (6:2), Philip perceives the problem entirely on a human level, hopelessly wondering how they could produce the means to feed all the people. While it is not entirely clear why Jesus chose Philip, the point of Jesus’s question was to determine whether Philip understood who he was. Although he does answer Jesus, clearly Philip, like the rest of the disciples, does not yet fully understand his mission or identity. Even though Jesus had turned water to wine at Cana (2:1–12), Philip failed to see that he could do the same with the fish and bread.
In this brief account, some Greeks come to see Jesus in Jerusalem during Passover. Josephus speaks of a large number of Greeks coming to worship at Passover, but of their not being allowed to offer sacrifices.4 There is scholarly disagreement about the identity of the Greeks. But it is clear they were outsiders captivated by Jesus. The Greeks had become fascinated by the powerful stories of Jesus and wanted to meet him personally. They first come to Philip, who takes them to Andrew, who in turn brings them to Jesus. It seems likely the story singles out Philip and Andrew because they are the only two disciples with Greek names. Since Philip takes their request to Andrew rather than directly to Jesus, he seems to clearly understand his moderating role among the apostles.
The final passage involving Philip occurs during the Last Supper. Jesus was telling his disciples to believe in him since he is going to prepare a place for them in heaven. Thomas asks how they can know the way, and Jesus famously replies: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (John 14:6–7). Then Philip speaks up and says: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us” (14:8). Jesus gently rebukes Philip for not yet knowing him, and by extension, the Father (14:9–11).
As in the earlier case when Philip spoke up at the feeding of the five thousand, his response characterizes the ill-informed and dull-witted nature of the apostles who do not yet understand the full extent of who Jesus is. Philip wanted to see the Father with his physical eyes through some sort of theophany, as Moses experienced. But he failed to realize the far greater privilege he had personally been granted by being with Jesus.5 Based on the criterion of embarrassment, this story has the ring of authenticity and is likely reliable. Tenney explains what this reveals about the character of Philip:
If Thomas was a skeptic, Philip was a realist. Having determined in his thinking that the Father of whom Jesus spoke must be the Ultimate Absolute, Philip demanded that he and his associates might see him. Philip was materialistic; apparently abstractions meant little to him. Nevertheless he had a deep desire to experience God for himself. If he and the other disciples could only apprehend God with at least one of their senses, they would be satisfied.6
Traditions about Philip emerge in the second century onward. One of the difficulties in knowing what traditions apply to the apostle Philip is that he seems to be frequently conflated with Philip the evangelist (Acts 6:5; 8:4–8; 21:8–9). One tradition identifies Philip as the disciple who requested to bury his father before following Jesus (Matt 8:21; Luke 9:56; Clement, Stromata 3.4.25; 4.9.73).7 A Coptic Gospel of Philip is used by Gnostics and Manicheans which dates to the mid-fourth century, but is likely dependent upon an earlier Greek text. It is technically anonymous, and may bear the title “Philip” since he is the only apostle mentioned by name (73:9–14).8 Philip also appears in other Gnostic writings, such as Pistis Sophia and the Book of Jews, as a mediator between their teachings and Christ. The Letter of Philip to Peter is a late second- or third-century document from the Nag Hammadi library that emphasizes the leadership role of Peter and the importance of suffering. Given that Philip is named fifth in the apostolic lists and his prominence in John, it should come as no surprise that he is a common figure in apocryphal texts of the second century onward. In fact, considering his influence in the Gospels, Acts, and non-canonical works of the second century onward, Christopher Matthews argues that Philip’s name should be included among the select group of apostles who guaranteed the accurate transmission of the faith in the early Christian era.9
Later traditions place Philip in Parthia, Athens, Scythia—among the Anthropophagi10—and various cities in Asia for his missionary journeys. There is also a tradition by Isidore of Seville (AD 560–636) that the apostle Philip preached in France (De ortu et obitu partum, c. 72), but this tradition is difficult to substantiate.11 The earliest and most consistent tradition places Philip in Hierapolis. In the early second century, Papias is the first to mention that Philip went to Hierapolis.12 This finds further support in the writings of Polycrates and Gaius,13 as well as later apocryphal works such as the Acts of Philip and The Apostolic Acts of Abdias (Book X). Thomas Schmidt says there is good reason to believe Philip preached in Hierapolis, but qualifies his position with the possibility that early church fathers conflated Philip the apostle with Philip the evangelist or that there was later confusion by Eusebius.14
There is no good reason to doubt that Philip engaged in missionary activity, even though there is debate about the particular locale. In his first appearance in the Gospel of John, Philip shows his missionary intent by inviting Nathanael to come and see the Messiah (1:45–46). Philip had seen the risen Jesus and personally received the commission to take the Gospel to the world (Matt 28:19–20; Acts 1:8). Given the general evidence the apostles engaged in missionary activity, as well as the variety of traditions from the second century onward, there is little reason to doubt Philip left Jerusalem to proclaim the Gospel.
One of the difficulties in tracing the missionary endeavors and fate of the apostle Philip is the existence of Philip the evangelist in Acts, apparently a different figure than the apostle (6:1–6; 8:4–14, 26–40; 21:8–9). Given the number of stories in Acts about Philip the evangelist, Barclay concludes that more is known about him than about the apostle Philip.15 Philip the evangelist has been suggested as the author of a number of anonymous New Testament documents of which authorship is unknown.16 McBirnie concludes that there is no good reason to doubt that the apostle Philip ministered and met his fate in Hierapolis. Yet surprisingly, McBirnie makes no attempt to distinguish the apostle Philip from Philip the evangelist, and he may have conflated traditions concerning the two.
In the book of Acts, the apostle Philip only appears by name in the apostolic list (1:13). In Acts 6, the Twelve choose seven to help serve widows in the daily distribution of food. Among the seven are Philip and Stephen (6:5). The Twelve lay their hands on them in prayer, and commission them for service. In this passage, Luke is clearly distinguishing the two Philips, since he uses the term “twelve” to refer to the original apostles in contrast with the newly appointed “seven.”
The evangelist Philip appears again in Acts 8. After the martyrdom of Stephen, Christians were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. While Saul is ravaging the church and the apostles remain in Jerusalem, Luke shifts the story to the missionary work of the evangelist Philip in Samaria, revealing that the preaching of the Gospel is not limited to the Twelve, but also includes Stephen and Philip. It is not merely the Twelve who take the Gospel from Jerusalem to Judea to Samaria and to “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Philip proclaimed Christ, performed many signs and wonders, and as a result, there was much joy in the city (8:6–8). Even Simon the magician believed when he saw the signs Philip performed (8:9–13).
When the Twelve heard about the work of God in Samaria, they sent Peter and John so they might receive the Holy Spirit (8:14–16). Two key observations are important. First, Peter and John realize that messianic salvation is universally offered to all, including the Samaritans.17 While Philip was the author and initiator of salvation, the apostles completed the work of salvation in Samaria. Second, the mission of Philip is only complete when the apostolic witnesses, Peter and John, come to pray for the Holy Spirit. The need for apostolic prayers for the reception of the Holy Spirit is not set up as a normative pattern for new believers. Normally, the spirit comes by faith (Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 12:3, 13). Yet these are unique circumstances to indicate that God is breaking through old barriers in a new way.18 If the Philip of this story were an apostle, he would have been able to lay hands on the Samaritans himself so they would receive the Holy Spirit. The fact that he needs an apostolic witness underscores that Luke does not view this Philip as a member of the Twelve, but as a separate evangelist.
The evangelist Philip appears as the main character in one more narrative, involving an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40). After Samaria, an angel guided Philip to head south to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. He met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the queen of Ethiopia (Nubia), reading the book of Isaiah. Philip shared with him the meaning of the passage, and then baptized him by the side of the road. Both Irenaeus and Eusebius report that the Ethiopian eunuch became a missionary to his own people.19 Philip was taken away by the Lord and preached in multiple towns until he came to Caesarea.
The final time Philip the evangelist appears is roughly twenty years later, still living in Caesarea (Acts 21:8–9). In this passage, Luke is clearly referring to the evangelist Philip, since he refers to him as “one of the seven.” This reference is the first indication the evangelist Philip has four daughters. The earlier passages involving Philip are written from the third-person perspective, but this latter passage appears in the “we” section, and thus provides incidental confirmation for its integrity. When these three passages are considered, Luke unmistakably considers the apostle and the evangelist to be separate individuals who share the name Philip.
It may seem strange that Luke would commit so much space in his narrative to the work of a figure who was not even an apostle. Still, if Luke were inventing the story, it seems far more likely he would have given credit for such an important missiological breakthrough to one of the apostles. The fact that he highlights the work of an otherwise obscure evangelist provides support for the credibility of the narrative.
Luke clearly portrays the two Philips as separate individuals with distinct roles; however, confusion regarding their identities seems to arise in the second century, when traditions about Philip emerge in the writings of the early church fathers. Scholars take three general positions in identifying various traditions of Philip.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, wrote the earliest known non-canonical statement about Philip. Eusebius claims that Papias learned key truths about the faith from those who directly knew Jesus. He provides a direct quote from Papias:
If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord.20
Eusebius also reports that Papias personally heard miraculous stories from the daughters of the apostle Philip, who lived at Hierapolis.21 Papias clearly refers to the apostle Philip, since he pairs him with Thomas, James, John, and Matthew.
Earlier in the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius reports the missionary travels of Philip the “diaconate.” Eusebius reports his preaching in Samaria, his success and fame, and his interaction with the Ethiopian eunuch.22 Clearly, Eusebius understands this Philip to be the evangelist, not the apostle, since all these stories adhere with the accounts in Acts. But later, he seems to conflate the two. He cites a letter from the Ephesian bishop Polycrates that refers to John and Philip the apostle:
For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus.”23
Then Eusebius quotes Proclus in the Dialogue of Gaius: “After him there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father.”24 Finally, Eusebius cites the biblical writer Luke to indicate that Philip and his daughters were at Caesarea.25
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Eusebius has confused traditions regarding the two different Philips, since clearly Eusebius believes that all three of the quotes he included in Ecclesiastical History refer to Philip the apostle. The first quotation by Polycrates is introduced specifically as referring to the apostle Philip. And before the second quote by Proclus, Eusebius says that he “speaks similarly about the deaths of Philip and his daughters.” He gives no indication he is referring to a different Philip. In the final quotation, Eusebius clearly believes that the Philip who moved to Caesarea and was one of the seven was the apostle Philip, even though the passage in Acts is clear they are distinct. Tertullian seems also to have confused the two Philips, attributing the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch to an “apostle.”26 The Calendar of the Coptic and Armenian Churches commemorates Philip as “deacon and apostle.”27 A similar conflation may have also occurred in the Letter of Peter to Philip (second/third century), a Gnostic text that came to light in the Nag Hammadi collection.28 And the Acts of Philip likely conflated traditions of the apostle Philip with the deacon and evangelist.29 This is why most scholars conclude that both Philips were fused as one in later church tradition, although later medieval authors do distinguish them.30 If this view is correct, it would be exceedingly difficult to know which traditions of his travels and fate accurately apply to the apostle Philip as opposed to the evangelist.
In contrast, J.B. Lightfoot has provided four reasons why he believes the Philip at Hierapolis is the apostle, not the evangelist.31 First, Polycrates (c. AD 130–196), the earliest witness, distinctly says that the apostle Philip resided in Hierapolis with his daughters and is buried there. Second, the subsequent historical account by Proclus is questionable in its authenticity, at least a quarter of a century later, and is suspicious in form—it reports four daughters instead of three. Third, the relationship between John and Philip would likely draw him to Asia after John. Incidents involving Philip had special interest for the writer of John as well as his audience. Fourth, Papias mentions Philip the apostle in his list of those he gathered stories from, but he never mentions Philip the evangelist. It seems natural, claims Lightfoot, that when Eusebius later mentions his interactions with the daughters of Philip, he is referring to the same person. Thus, Lightfoot concludes: “There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were married and had daughters.”32 Although often dismissed by contemporary scholars, this view deserves greater consideration than it typically receives. It may seem unlikely, but it is certainly not impossible. The second and third arguments above are somewhat speculative, but the first and last have some merit. That there were two Philips with daughters, and that the apostle Philip travelled to Hierapolis is certainly a live possibility. If this view were correct, it would provide some confidence that the apostle Philip met his fate in Hierapolis.
A final option for the identity of Philip is that there was only one Philip, who was both apostle and evangelist. In an extensive study on Philip, based upon his 1993 Harvard dissertation, Christopher Matthews suggests there was only one historical figure Philip, who was used by the early church in a variety of ways. Thus, the Gospels, Acts, early church fathers, as well as other non-canonical texts all refer to the same apostle Philip, who was also an evangelist.
To support his thesis, Matthews provides three primary arguments. First, he argues that the reason scholars largely agree that early church fathers confused the two Philips is because they accept Lukan priority.33 According to Matthews, if scholars recognized that Papias was a contemporary of Luke, who was at least as reliable historically, then they would see that the evangelist and apostle are one and the same. Second, the available onomastic evidence for Palestine suggests it is quite unlikely two early Christian figures would both have the name Philip.34 Third, the term “evangelist” for Philip does not exclude him also being an apostle.35 Even Martin Hengel and F.F. Bruce concede the plausibility of this approach.36
Although this is certainly not an impossible reconciliation of the data, the question is whether it is the most probable. Significant questions can be raised against each of the points mentioned. First, while it is true that the case for two separate Philips rests largely upon Lukan priority, dismissing Luke is not so easily done. Against the consensus of most scholars, Matthews dates Papias before AD 110.37 Even if this dating were correct, it is still at least a generation after standard dating for Acts. Although a strong case can be made for dating Acts in the 60s, many scholars date it to AD 80–90. Thus, it is minimally one generation before the writings of Papias. If the early dating of Acts is correct, as well as the later dating for Papias, they may even be two generations removed. While Papias undoubtedly falls within the living memory of the apostles, Matthews needs to provide solid reasons for dating Acts late and Papias early before scholars reject Lukan priority.
Second, the onomastic evidence indicates that Philip was not among the most common names for Jewish men of Palestine. It ranks sixty-first—seven instances from 330 BC to AD 200.38 Nevertheless, the fact that it was borne by several Macedonian kings, including the father of Alexander the Great, as well as a son of Herod the Great suggests it was not entirely uncommon either.39 The unlikelihood that Philip would be the name of two prominent early Christian figures, as Matthews suggests, must be considered in light of the entirety of onomastic evidence for the Twelve. Richard Bauckham has observed that the frequency of names for the Twelve fits nicely with the onomastic evidence of ancient Jewish Palestine.40 When considered against the prominence of certain individuals named Philip and the overall accurate frequency of apostolic names in the wider Jewish culture, the claim that there was likely only one Philip loses its force. If numerous Philips appeared in the New Testament, the onomastic evidence would present concern, but the mere existence of two individuals named Philip, a name that is not entirely uncommon, provides minimal reason to overturn the Lukan tradition.
Third, these points must also be coupled with the unlikelihood that Luke would invent a fictional character named Philip. Why would Luke intentionally name a significant character Philip if the name is so unlikely, as Matthews suggests, when it could so easily lead to confusion? And more pressing, if Luke felt free to “to redescribe literarily or ‘reinvent’ known personalities or events in order to conform them to the needs of his narrative presentation,”41 then why invent a non-apostolic character to preach so successfully, perform such powerful signs, and be the first to take the Gospel outside Judea? It seems far more likely Luke would have imparted this role to a member of the Twelve, or at least to a more prominent individual such as Paul, Timothy, or Barnabas. Craig Keener observes:
Likewise, he [Luke] would hardly invent from whole cloth Philip’s ministry to a Gentile (8:26–40), since he already has the standard, institutional version of the earliest Gentile mission in the Cornelius narrative (Acts 10–11). Assuming Philip was a fairly reliable informant (and he seems to have been trusted by Paul and Caesarean church, 21:8–10), Luke’s account of Philip’s ministry in 8:5–40 likely is Luke’s rendition of genuine historical truth.42
Even though Jesus had personally commissioned the apostles to reach Samaria (Acts 1:8), Philip the evangelist, not one of the Twelve, fulfilled this command. It seems unlikely Luke would invent this narrative, and potentially cast the apostles in a negative light. The fact that Peter and John, who represented the apostles (cf. Acts 3:1–7; 4:20), came to approve of the ministry in Samaria shows that Luke viewed the apostle and evangelist as separate individuals.
The most likely reason Luke includes two separate Philips, and ascribes the traditions in Acts 6, 8, and 21 to the evangelist, is that this was the earliest account he received during his investigation (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–3). Comparing the various accounts of Philip in Acts, F. Scott Spencer concludes:
Finally, the nexus between 8.1 and 8.4–5 sets apart the itinerant evangelist, Philip, from the company of apostles who remain in Jerusalem. This distinction goes back to 6.1–7 and becomes a critical factor in 8.14–25. Moreover, it eliminates any prospect of identifying Philip the evangelist with his apostolic namesake (Lk. 6.1; Acts 1.13).43
Nevertheless, if the traditions do in fact refer to one Philip, both apostle and evangelist, then there would be little reason to question his journey and death in Hierapolis. Still, while adopting this view would make the martyrdom of Philip in Hierapolis more likely, the evidence simply does not warrant it.
There is no easy answer to the question of the identity of the apostle Philip after the New Testament era. The existence of two Philips in Hierapolis is a live possibility that should not so easily be dismissed. Yet the majority position that early church fathers conflated the two Philips seems most probable, as this also happened with other apostles, such as Matthew and Matthias, and the various biblical figures named James.
While the earliest church fathers, such as Papias, Polycrates, Proclus, and Eusebius, mention Philip the apostle in Hierapolis, none mentions his martyrdom.44 They state that he lived, ministered, and died in Hierapolis, but not how he met his fate. Only so much can be drawn from the absence of a martyrdom account for Philip in the earliest church fathers, but it is undoubtedly noteworthy that the first account arises in the fourth-century apocryphal text the Acts of Philip.
Thanks to the work of François Bovon and Christopher Matthew, there is an almost complete version of the Acts of Philip, which was previously unavailable.45 While the Acts of Philip was put into its final form in the late fourth century, some of the content derives from the second and third centuries, and it was likely written in Phrygia, perhaps in Hierapolis itself.46 Like the other Apocryphal Acts, the Acts of Philip contains many bizarre legendary tales, but it likely retains a historical core. The Acts of Philip has many similarities to some of the earlier Acts. For instance, reminiscent of the Acts of Peter, Philip gives a speech on the cross and then is crucified upside-down. Nevertheless, Matthews properly cautions critics not to simply assume literary dependence and uncreative borrowing from these earlier works.47
The Acts of Philip begins with the apostle Philip departing Galilee for ministry. He travels through multiple cities performing miracles, casting out demons, preaching the Gospel, debating Jewish religious leaders, and eventually dying by crucifixion. Perhaps the most memorable story in the Acts of Philip occurs when Philip, Bartholomew, and Mariamne travel through the wilderness of the she-dragons.48 A leopard comes out of the wilderness, prostrates himself at their feet, and shares that he had a change of heart and decided to spare a kid (young goat) rather than eat him. Philip prays for the leopard to receive a human heart, and invites him and the kid to join them on their journey.
The martyrdom account begins in Chapter 15, when Philip enters Hierapolis. Nicanora, the wife of the Proconsul Tyrannos, became a believer in Jesus after hearing Philip’s preaching. Nicanora told her husband to repent from worshipping idols, but he became angry and demanded Philip and Bartholomew be tortured for their deception: “And he ordered Philip to be hung up and his ankles pierced through, and that iron instruments of torture be brought and passed through his heels, and that he be hung head downward before the temple on a tree.”49 Suddenly, the apostle John appears in the story. The people attempt to kill John as well, and Philip lashes out in anger, threatening to destroy them all.50 Philip then curses the people, which results in the earth opening up and swallowing the entire temple, the Viper the people were worshipping, and about seven thousand men, plus women and children. The only place left standing was where the apostles stood. The Lord appears and castigates Philip for returning evil for evil, barring him outside paradise for forty days.51 After giving a speech on the cross, Philip gives up his spirit. After forty days, Jesus appears in the form of Philip to give instruction to Bartholomew and Mariamne about where they are to minister next.
Later writers affirm the tradition of the martyrdom of Philip. For instance, Isidore of Seville says: “Afterwards, he [Philip] was stoned and crucified, and died in Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia, and having been buried with his corpse upright along with his daughters rests there.” According to (Pseudo-)Hippolytus on the Twelve: “Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there.”52 The Breviarum Apostolorum (c. AD 600) and other apostolic lists of the Middle Ages depict Philip as a martyr as well: “Thereupon he [Philip] was crucified in Hierapolis in the province of Phrygia and he died lapidated. And there he rests with his daughters. And his feast day is celebrated on the first of May.”53 The Irish Biblical Apocrypha also contains an account of the crucifixion of Philip in Hierapolis. In this story, Philip preaches to the people and Jewish priests about Christ, and in an attempt to silence him, they cut out his tongue, beat him, and stone him. But they cannot cause him harm:
Thereupon the people and priests ordered that the apostle should be crucified, since they failed to inflict any other death on him. A certain wicked cruel man among them came forward, and placed a deadly noose around the apostle’s neck, and they hanged him then, after he had endured much pain, insult, and scourging, like his master, Jesus. Hierapolis, then, is the name of the city in which Philip the apostle was crucified. Great splendor and ministering angels were seen around the gallows when Philip expired, and the angels placed the soul of the apostle in the mansions of the kingdom of heaven in the glory of the angels, after his attainment of the crown of martyrdom.54
The tradition of Philip’s martyrdom in Hierapolis finds some confirmation in the Martyrium of Philip, an ancient site that many believe was built on the place where Philip was martyred.55 Around AD 400, the Philip Martyrium was built outside the city of Hierapolis to mark the spot where the apostle was crucified according to the Acts of Philip. Yet at the same time Francesco D’Andria released his article on the Philip Martyrium, he announced that he had in fact found the tomb of the martyred apostle Philip, though not where expected.56 Rather than on top of the Martyrium, it was located in a newly excavated church about forty yards away. While the body is gone, D’Andria believes the tomb originally held the remains of the apostle Philip.57
The tradition of the martyrdom of Philip, however, is not unanimous. In the Latin text of The Apostolic Acts of Abdias (Book X), Philip goes to Hierapolis to battle the Ebionites. He marries, and has two daughters who become evangelists in their own right. But rather than face martyrdom by crucifixion, he dies naturally aged 87. Like the apostle John, Philip experiences a peaceful death at an advanced age. John, Philip, and Thaddeus are the only three apostles whose apocryphal traditions end with their peaceful deaths. Although there are some points of contact between the Acts of Philip and Pseudo-Abdias (for example, the dragon), there is unlikely to be any textual relationship between these two works.58 This may represent an independent line of tradition regarding the fate of Philip, and thus provides a significant counterexample to the crucifixion account in the Acts of Philip. In addition, there is a hymn from the medieval ages, Fulget coruscans, which describes a similar natural death for Philip as the collection of Pseudo-Abdias. Most hymns of this sort treat the apostles as martyrs, and most hymns of Philip give him a martyr’s death, but in this hymn Philip dies peacefully after ministering in Scythia.
Since the Acts of Philip is likely the earliest source for the martyrdom of Philip, we must ask whether it retains a historical core. Certain details give it the aura of historical underpinning. First, the Acts of Philip includes a number of historical figures, such as the emperor Trajan, the high priest Ananias, and the 12 disciples. Second, it accurately depicts the missionary journeys of Peter to Rome, Thomas to India, Andrew to Achaea, John to Asia, and more.59 Third, Philip meets his fate in Hierapolis, a destination multiple church fathers—from the second century onward—attest he visited.
Yet there are reasons to question whether or not the martyrdom account in Acts of Philip is historical. First, it was likely written in the fourth century, when many writings stop conserving historical material and resort to “pure legend and hagiography.”60 This does not mean the Acts of Philip necessarily contains an invented martyrdom account, but confidence that it is historical is greatly diminished. Second, the Acts of Philip likely did not circulate widely and was not well known.61 Unlike the five primary Acts—Peter, Paul, Thomas, John, and Andrew—there are few external references to the Acts of Philip, and these are late.62 Finally, Bovon notes:
The companionship of Mariamne and Bartholomew with Philip is a distinguishing difference between this text and most ancient apocryphal Acts of the apostles, such as Acts of John and the Acts of Andrew. It brings the Acts of Philip closer to the “second wave” of noncanonical Acts (like the Acts of Peter and Paul or the Acts of Andrew and Matthias).63
While difficult to unravel, the traditions surrounding the apostle Philip present a consistent voice from the early second century attesting that he went to Hierapolis, though even this is compromised by the possibility that early church fathers conflated traditions about Philip the evangelist with the apostle Philip. While the first church fathers list Hierapolis as Philip’s final destination, they do not mention his manner of death. The earliest source that mentions his fate is likely the Acts of Philip. While it may in fact report the actual martyrdom of Philip, it was written in the fourth or fifth century, when legend and fabrication often grew untethered by an historical anchor. In the case of Philip, counterbalancing evidence leads me to the following conclusion:
1. Philip engaged in missionary work outside Jerusalem—very probably true (general evidence for apostolic missions as found in Matt 28:18–20, Acts 1:8, and early non-canonical sources; Philip had a heart for evangelism, as seen in John 1:45; Letter of Philip to Peter; Acts of Philip).
2. Philip experienced martyrdom—as plausible as not (Acts of Philip; Isidore of Seville; Hippolytus on the Twelve 5; Breviarum Apostolorum; Philip Martyrium).
1 Beltran Villegas, “Peter, Philip, and James of Alphaeus,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 292–94.
2 The Gospels specifically link Peter, Andrew, and Philip to Bethsaida. The association of the apostle Philip to this city is appropriate since Philip, son of Herod, governed the surrounding region. See Fred Strickert, Philip’s City: From Bethsaida to Julias (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011), 47–48.
3 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 29.
4 Josephus, Wars 6.426–427.
5 William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1953), 2:269–70.
6 Merrill C. Tenney, John, in vol. 9 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. J.D. Douglas and Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 145.
7 David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), s.v. “Philip,” by Wesley W. Isenberg.
8 Ibid.
9 Christopher R. Matthews, Philip: Apostle and Evangelist (Boston, MA: Brill, 2002), 1. It must be recognized that the arguments of Matthews rest upon his assumption that there was only one Philip in the early church, and thus traditions from the New Testament, early church fathers, and apocryphal texts all provide information for Philip. Therefore, if he is mistaken about there being one Philip, then his claim may be an overstatement about the significance of the apostle Philip in guarding early church traditions.
10 The tradition that places Philip among the Anthropophagi is found in the third-/fourth-century Manichaean Psalms and the Irish Biblical Apocrypha.
11 Els Rose, Ritual Memory: The Apocryphal Acts and Liturgical Commemoration in the Early Medieval West (c. 500–1251) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 128, 136–37.
12 Papias, Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.9.
13 The writings of both Polycrates and Gaius are recorded in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31.2–5.
14 Thomas E. Schmidt, The Apostles After Acts: A Sequel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 143.
15 William Barclay, The Master’s Men (London: SCM Press, 1960), 84.
16 Philip the evangelist has been proposed as the author of the first 13 chapters of the Gospel of Mark, special material in Luke’s Gospel (infancy stories, Sermon on the Plain, travel narrative in the middle section), the prime source for the Samaritan tradition in John, and the book of Hebrews. See F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, vol. 67, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1992), 15–16.
17 David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 285.
18 Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 256–57.331.
19 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.10; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.1.
20 Papias, Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, as quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4a, as cited in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890), 1:171.
21 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.8–9. Eusebius apparently contradicts his own report about whether or not he met the apostles in person. In ibid. 3.39.1–4, Eusebius states that Papias was not a direct hearer of the apostles, but garnered their teachings from those who knew them firsthand. Yet in ibid. 3.39–8-9, he states that Papias directly knew the apostle Philip and his daughters.
22 Ibid. 2.1.10–14.
23 Polycrates (an epistle), in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31.3, as quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4a, as cited in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890), 1:162.
24 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31.4.
25 Ibid. 3.31.5.
26 Tertullian, Concerning Baptism 18.
27 Barclay, The Master’s Men, 84.
28 Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 78–79.
29 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2:469.
30 Rose, Ritual Memory, 126.
31 J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1879), 46, accessed May 1, 2014, https://archive.org/details/saintpaulsepistl1880ligh.
32 Ibid., 46.
33 Matthews, Philip, 2, 15.
34 Ibid., 16–19.
35 Ibid., 93.
36 Martin Hengel, Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 118; F.F. Bruce, “Philip and the Ethiopian,” Journal of Semitic Studies 34 (1989): 378.
37 Matthews, Philip, 31.
38 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 102.
39 C.K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 1:315.
40 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 102.
41 Matthews, Philip, 65.
42 Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 2:1,488.
43 Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts, 34.
44 The one possible exception is a reference in the Chronicle by St. Jerome. Writing around AD 380, Jerome translated the Chronicle by Eusebius (c. AD 311) into Latin, adding some of his own content. It is difficult to know whether the reference to Philip is truly from Jerome since there were a number of medieval additions to the text. In his translation, Roger Pearse places it as a footnote, which indicates it was not in the reliable text. Nevertheless, under the 207th Olympiad, the Patrologia Latina version reads: “Philip, the apostle of Christ to the people in Hierapolis, a city of Asia, while preaching the Gospel, is nailed to a cross and stoned to death” (Jerome, Chronicle, trans. Roger Pearse and friends, accessed May 1, 2014, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm).
45 François Bovon and Christopher R. Matthews, The Acts of Philip: A New Translation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012).
46 Hans-Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 233.
47 Matthews, Philip, 161.
48 The Acts of Philip 8.16–21.
49 Ibid. 15.19.
50 Ibid. 8.25.
51 Ibid. 8.31.
52 If Hippolytus actually wrote this account, it would pre-date the Acts of Philip. But this has not been established, and many consider it spurious.
53 See translation in Rose, Ritual Memory, 136.
54 Marie Herbert and Martin McNamara, eds., Irish Biblical Apocrypha (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), 106–08.
55 Francesco D’Andria, “Conversion, Crucifixion, and Celebration,” Biblical Archaeological Review 37 (July/August 2011): 34–46.
56 Biblical Archaeology Society, “Philip’s Tomb Discovered—but Not Where Expected,” Biblical Archaeological Review 38 (January/February 2012): 18.
57 The Martyrium of Philip is interesting, and certainly demonstrates that there was a cult following surrounding the fate of the apostle Philip by the fourth century, perhaps even earlier. But given the lack of veneration or recognition of the site any earlier than the fourth century, it is difficult to consider the Martyrium positive evidence for his actual martyrdom by crucifixion in Hierapolis.
58 Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:473.
59 Acts of Philip 8.1.
60 Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, 231.
61 Bovon and Matthews, The Acts of Philip, 12–14.
62 For example, the Manichaeans valued the five Apocryphal Acts more than the biblical Acts. While the Manichaean psalm book contains episodes from each of the five Apocryphal Acts, there are no references to the Acts of Philip. See Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha, 132.
63 Bovon and Matthews, The Acts of Philip, 29.