of Neapolis, and formerly called Datum or Datos, but afterward taking
its name from Philip, the celebrated king of Macedon, by whom it was
repaired and beautified. In process of time, it became a Roman colony.
It was the first place at which St. Paul preached the Gospel upon the
continent of Europe, A. D. 51. He made many converts there, who soon
afterward gave strong proofs of their attachment to him, Phil. iv, 15.
He was at Philippi a second time, but nothing which then occurred is
recorded. The Philippian Christians having heard of St. Paul’s
imprisonment at Rome, with their accustomed zeal, sent Epaphroditus to
assure him of the continuance of their regard, and to offer him a supply
of money. His epistle was written in consequence of that act of
kindness; and it is remarkable for its strong expressions of affection.
As the Apostle tells the Philippians that he hoped to see them shortly,
Phil. ii, 24, and there are plain intimations in this epistle of his
having been some time at Rome, Phil. i, 12; ii, 26, it is probable that
it was written A. D. 62, toward the end of his confinement.
It is a strong proof,” says Chrysostom, of the virtuous conduct of the
Philippians, that they did not afford the Apostle a single subject of
complaint; for, in the whole epistle which he wrote to them, there is
nothing but exhortation and encouragement, without the mixture of any
censure whatever.”
PHILISTIM, or PHILISTINES, a people who are commonly said to have
descended from Casluhim, the son of Mizraim or Mizr, who peopled Egypt.
The Philistines, it is probable, continued with their progenitors in
Egypt until they were sufficiently numerous and powerful to stretch
themselves along the coast of Canaan; doubtless by driving out that
portion of the family of Ham. It is certain that, in the time of
Abraham, the Canaanites were in possession of the rest of the land, to
which they gave their name: but the extreme south of Philistia, or
Palestine, was even then possessed by the Philistines, whose king,
Abimelech, reigned at Gerar. After this, in the time of Joshua, we find
their country divided into five lordships or principalities; namely,
Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron; giving sometimes also, as it
appears, the title of king to their respective rulers; Achish being
termed king of Gath, I Sam. xxi, 10. The time of their coming to
Palestine is unknown; but they had been long in Canaan when Abraham came
thither, in the year of the world 2083. The name Philistine is not
Hebrew. The Septuagint generally translate it Ἀλλόφυλοι, _strangers_.
The Pelethites and Cherethites were also Philistines; and the Septuagint
sometimes translate _Cherethim_, Κρῆται, _Cretes_. They were not of the
cursed seed of Canaan. However, Joshua did not forbear to give their
land to the Hebrews, and to attack them by command from the Lord,
because they possessed a country promised to Israel. But these conquests
of Joshua must have been ill maintained, since, under the Judges, under
Saul, and at the beginning of the reign of King David, the Philistines
had their kings, and their lords, whom they called Sazenim; since their
state was divided into five little kingdoms, or satrapies; and since
they oppressed the Israelites during the government of the high priest
Eli, and of Samuel, and during the reign of Saul, for about a hundred
and twenty years, from A. M. 2848 to A. M. 2960. True it is, that
Shamgar, Samson, Samuel, and Saul, opposed them, and killed some of
their people, but did not reduce their power. They continued independent
till the time of David, who subdued them, 2 Sam. v, 17; viii, 1, 2, &c.
They continued in subjection to the kings of Judah down to the reign of
Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, about two hundred and forty-six years, when
they revolted from Jehoram, 2 Chron. xxi, 16. Jehoram made war against
them, and probably reduced them to his obedience again; because it is
observed in Scripture, that they revolted again from Uzziah, who kept
them to their duty during his whole reign, 2 Chron. xxvi, 6, 7. Uzziah
began to reign A. M. 3194. During the unfortunate reign of Ahaz, the
Philistines made great havoc in the territory of Judah; but his son and
successor Hezekiah subdued them again, 2 Chron. xxviii, 18; 2 Kings
xviii, 8. Lastly, they regained their full liberty under the later kings
of Judah; and we may see, by the menaces made against them by the
Prophets Isaiah, Amos, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, that they
brought a thousand hardships and calamities on the children of Israel,
for which God threatened to punish them with great misfortunes.
Esar-haddon, successor to Sennacherib, besieged Ashdod, or Azoth, and
took it by the arms of his general, Thasthan, or Tartan. Psammetichus,
king of Egypt, took the same city after a siege of twenty-nine years,
according to Herodotus. During the siege of Tyre, which held out
thirteen years, Nebuchadnezzar used part of his army to subdue the
Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and other nations bordering on
the Jews. There is great probability that the Philistines could not
withstand him, but were reduced to his obedience, as well as the other
people of Syria, Phenicia, and Palestine. Afterward they fell under the
dominion of the Persians; then under that of Alexander the Great, who
destroyed the city of Gaza, the only city of the Phenicians that dared
to oppose him. After the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, the
Asmoneans took by degrees several cities from the country of the
Philistines, which they subjected. Tryphon, regent of the kingdom of
Syria, gave to Jonathan, the Asmonean, the government of the whole coast
of the Mediterranean, from Tyre to Egypt; consequently, all the country
of the Philistines.
The land of the Philistines bordered on the west and south-west of
Judea, and lies on the south-east point of the Mediterranean Sea. The
country to the north of Gaza is very fertile; and, long after the
Christian era, it possessed a very numerous population, and strongly
fortified cities. No human probability, says Keith, could have existed,
in the time of the prophets, or at a much more recent date, of its
eventual desolation. But it has belied, for many ages, every promise
which the fertility of its soil, and the excellence both of its climate
and situation, gave for many preceding centuries of its permanency as a
rich and well cultivated region. And the voice of prophecy, which was
not silent respecting it, proclaimed the fate that awaited it, in terms
as contradictory, at the time, to every natural suggestion, as they are
descriptive of what Philistia now actually is. I will stretch out my
hand upon the Philistines, and destroy the remnant of the sea coasts,”
Ezek. xxv, 16. Baldness is come upon Gaza; Ashkelon is cut off with the
remnant of their valley,” Jer. xlvii, 5. Thus saith the Lord, For three
transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn away the
punishment thereof. I will send a fire upon the wall of Gaza, which
shall devour the palaces thereof. And I will cut off the inhabitant from
Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon; and I will turn
my hand against Ekron; and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,
saith the Lord God,” Amos i, 6, 7, 8. For Ashkelon shall be a
desolation;” it shall be cut off with the remnant of the valley; and
Ekron shall be rooted up.--O Canaan, the land of the Philistines, I will
even destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant; and the sea coast
shall be dwellings and cottages for shepherds, and folds for flocks,”
Zeph. ii, 4, 5, 6. The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall
not be inhabited,” Zech. ix, 5.
The land of the Philistines was to be destroyed. It partakes of the
general desolation common to it with Judea and other neighbouring
states. While ruins are to be found in all Syria, they are particularly
abundant along the sea coast, which formed, on the south, the realm of
the Philistines. But its aspect presents some existing peculiarities,
which travellers fail not to particularize, and which, in reference both
to the state of the country and the fate of its different cities, the
prophets failed not to discriminate as justly as if their description
had been drawn both with all the accuracy which ocular observation, and
all the certainty which authenticated history, could give. Volney,
(though, like one who in ancient times was instrumental to the
fulfilment of a special prediction, he meant not so, neither did his
heart think so,”) from the manner in which he generalizes his
observations, and marks the peculiar features of the different districts
of Syria, with greater acuteness and perspicuity than any other
traveller whatever, is the ever ready purveyor of evidence in all the
cases which came within the range of his topographical description of
the wide field of prophecy: while, at the same time, from his known,
open, and zealous hostility to the Christian cause, his testimony is
alike decisive and unquestionable: and the vindication of the truth of
the following predictions may safely be committed to this redoubted
champion of infidelity. In the plain between Ramla and Gaza,” the very
plain of the Philistines along the sea coast, we met with a number of
villages badly built, of dried mud, and which, like the inhabitants,
exhibit every mark of poverty and wretchedness. The houses, on a nearer
view, are only so many huts, (cottages,) sometimes detached, at others
ranged in the form of cells, around a court yard, enclosed by a mud
wall. In winter, they and their cattle may be said to live together; the
part of the dwelling allotted to themselves being only raised two feet
above that in which they lodge their beasts:”--“dwellings and cottages
for shepherds, and folds for flocks.”--“Except the environs of these
villages, all the rest of the country is a desert, and abandoned to the
Bedouin Arabs, who feed their flocks on it.”--Thus accomplishing the
words of prophecy, The remnant shall perish; the land of the Philistines
shall be destroyed, that there shall be no inhabitant; and the sea coast
shall be dwellings and cottages for shepherds, and folds for flocks.”
“The ruins of white marble, sometimes found at Gaza, prove that it was
formerly the abode of luxury and opulence. It has shared in the general
destruction; and, notwithstanding its proud title of the capital of
Palestine, it is now no more than a defenceless village,” (baldness has
come upon it,) peopled by, at most, only two thousand inhabitants.”--“It
is forsaken,” says the prophet, and bereaved of its king.” “The sea
coast, by which it was formerly washed, is every day removing farther
from the deserted ruins of Ashkelon.” Amidst the various successive
ruins, those of Edzoud,” Ashdod, so powerful under the Philistines, are
now remarkable for their scorpions.”--Here again we are reminded of the
words of inspiration: The inhabitants shall be cut off from Ashdod.”
Thus Volney becomes an unconscious commentator upon prophecy. But let us
hear a Christian traveller. Ashkelon,” says Richardson, “was one of the
proudest satrapies of the lords of the Philistines: now there is not an
inhabitant within its walls; and the prophecy of Zechariah is fulfilled:
‘The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited.’
When the prophecy was uttered, both cities were in an equally
flourishing condition; and nothing but the prescience of Heaven could
pronounce on which of the two, and in what manner, the vial of its wrath
should be poured out. Gaza is truly without a king. The lofty towers of
Ashkelon lie scattered on the ground, and the ruins within its walls do
not shelter a human being. How is the wrath of man made to praise his
Creator! Hath he not said, and shall he not do it? The oracle was
delivered by the mouth of the prophet more than five hundred years
before the Christian era, and we beheld its accomplishment eighteen
hundred years after that event.” There is yet another city which was
noted by the prophets, the very want of any information respecting
which, and the absence of its name from several modern maps of
Palestine, while the sites of other ruined cities are marked, are really
the best confirmation of the truth of the prophecy that could possibly
be given. Ekron shall be rooted up.” It is rooted up. It was one of the
chief cities of the Philistines; but, though Gaza still subsists, and
while Ashkelon and Ashdod retain their names in their ruins, the very
name of Ekron is missing.
PHILOSOPHY, in general, is defined, the knowledge and study of nature
and morality, founded on reason and experience.” Philosophy owes its
name to the modesty of Pythagoras, who refused the high title of σοφός,
_wise_, given to his predecessors, Thales, Pherecydes, &c, as too
assuming; and contented himself with the simple appellation of
φιλόσοφος, _quasi_ φίλος τῆς σοφίας, _a friend_ or _lover of wisdom_:
but Chauvin rather chooses to derive the name from φιλία, _desire to
study_, and σοφία, _studium sapientiæ_; and says that Pythagoras,
conceiving that the application of the human mind ought rather to be
called study than science, set aside the appellation of wise, and, in
lieu thereof, took that of philosopher.
A knowledge of the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, or the
science of natural history, was always an object of interest. We are
informed that Solomon himself had given a description of the animal and
vegetable kingdoms, 1 Kings iv, 33. Traces of philosophy, strictly so
called, that is, the system of prevailing moral opinions, may be found
in the book of Job, in the thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and
seventy-third Psalms; also in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,
but chiefly in the apocryphal book of Wisdom, and the writings of the
son of Sirach. During the captivity, the Jews acquired many new notions,
particularly from the Mahestani, and appropriated them, as occasion
offered, to their own purposes. They at length became acquainted with
the philosophy of the Greeks, which makes its appearance abundantly in
the book of Wisdom. After the captivity, the language in which the
sacred books were written was no longer vernacular. Hence arose the need
of an interpreter on the sabbatic year, a time when the whole law was
read, and also on the Sabbath in the synagogues, which some think had
been recently erected, in order to make the people understand what was
read. These interpreters learned the Hebrew language at the schools. The
teachers of these schools, who, for the two generations preceding the
time of Christ, had maintained some acquaintance with the Greek
philosophy, were not satisfied with a simple interpretation of the
Hebrew idiom, as it stood, but shaped the interpretation so as to render
it conformable to their philosophy. Thus arose contentions, which gave
occasion for the various sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. In
the time of our Saviour, divisions had arisen among the Pharisees
themselves. No less than eighteen nice questions, if we may believe the
Jewish rabbins, were contested at that period between the schools of
Hillel and Shammai; one of which questions was an inquiry, what cause
was sufficient for a bill of divorce. If the Shammai and Hillel of the
Talmud are the same with the learned men mentioned in Josephus, namely,
Sameas and Pollio, who flourished thirty-four years before Christ, then
Shammai or Sameas is undoubtedly the same with the Simeon who is
mentioned, Luke ii, 25–35; and his son Gamaliel, so celebrated in the
Talmud, is the same with the Gamaliel mentioned, Acts v, 34; xxii, 3.
Anciently, learned men were denominated among the Hebrews חכמים, as
among the Greeks they were called σοφοὶ, _wise men_. In the time of
Christ, the common appellative for men of that description was
γραμματεὺς, in the Hebrew סופר, _a scribe_. They were addressed by the
honorary title of _rabbi_, רבי, great,” or master.” The Jews, in
imitation of the Greeks, had their seven wise men, who were called
_rabboni_. Gamaliel was one of the number. They called themselves the
children of wisdom; expressions which correspond very nearly to the
Greek φιλόσοφος, Matthew xi, 19; Luke vii, 35. The heads of sects were
called fathers;” the disciples were denominated sons,” or children,”
Matt. xii, 27; xxiii, 1–9. The Jewish teachers, at least some of them,
had private lecture rooms; but they also taught and disputed in
synagogues, in temples, and, in fact, wherever they could find an
audience. The method of these teachers was the same with that which
prevailed among the Greeks. Any disciple who chose might propose
questions, upon which it was the duty of the teachers to remark and give
their opinions, Luke ii, 46. The teachers were not invested with their
functions by any formal act of the church, or of the civil authority:
they were self-constituted. They received no other salary than some
voluntary present from the disciples, which was called an honorary,”
τιμὴ, _honorarium_, 1 Tim. v, 17. They acquired a subsistence, in the
main, by the exercise of some art or handicraft. That they took a higher
seat than their auditors, although it was probably the case, does not
follow, as is sometimes supposed, from Luke ii, 46. According to the
Talmudists, they were bound to hold no conversation with women, and to
refuse to sit at table with the lower class of people, Matt. ix, 11;
John iv, 27. The subjects on which they taught were numerous, commonly
intricate, and of no great consequence; of which there are abundant
examples in the Talmud.
St. Paul bids the Colossians beware lest any man should spoil them
through philosophy and vain deceit;” that is, a vain and deceitful
philosophy, such as was popular in that day, and had been compounded out
of all preceding systems, Grecian and oriental. An explanation of this
philosophy is given under GNOSTICS, and CABBALA.
On these ancient systems of pretended wisdom, Dr. Burton justly remarks:
“Philosophy is indeed the noblest stretch of intellect which God has
vouchsafed to man; and it is only when man forgets that he received his
reasoning powers from God, that he is in danger of losing himself in
darkness when he sought for light. To measure that which is infinite, is
as impossible in metaphysics as in physics. If it had not been for
revelation, we should have known no more of the Deity than the Heathen
philosophers knew before: and to what did their knowledge amount? They
felt the necessity of a First Cause, and they saw that that Cause must
be intrinsically good; but when they came to systems, they never went
farther than the point from which they first set out, that evil is not
good, and good is not evil. The Gnostics thought to secure the triumph
of their scheme by veiling its weaker points in mystery, and by
borrowing a part from almost every system. But popular, and even
successful, as this attempt may have been, we may say with truth, that
the scheme which flattered the vanity of human wisdom, and which strove
to conciliate all opinions, has died away, and is forgotten; while the
Gospel, the unpresuming, the uncompromising doctrine of the Gospel,
aided by no human wisdom, and addressing itself not merely to the head,
but to the heart, has triumphed over all systems and all philosophers;
and still leads its followers to that true knowledge which some have
endeavoured to teach ‘after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of
the world, and not after Christ.’”
PHINEHAS, son of Eleazar, and grandson of Aaron, third high priest of
the Jews, A. M. 2571 to about A. M. 2590, B. C. 1414. He is particularly
commended in Scripture for zeal in vindicating the glory of God, when
the Midianites had sent their daughters into the camp of Israel, to
tempt the Hebrews to fornication and idolatry, Num. xxv, 7. On this
account the Lord promised the priesthood to Phinehas by perpetual
covenant; evidently including this tacit condition, that his children
should continue faithful and obedient: for we know the priesthood passed
out of the family of Eleazar and Phinehas to that of Ithamar, and that
it returned not to the posterity of Eleazar until after about a hundred
and fifty years.
PHUT or PUT, the posterity of Phut, the son of Ham, Gen. x, 6. Calmet is
of opinion that Phut, the third son of Ham, peopled either the canton of
Phtemphu, Phtemphti, Phtembuti, of Pliny and Ptolemy, whose capital was
Thara, in Lower Egypt, inclining toward Libya; or the canton called
Phtenotes, of which Buthas was the capital. The prophets often speak of
Phut. In the time of Jeremiah, xlvi, 9, Phut was under the obedience of
Necho, king of Egypt. Nahum, iii, 9, reckons this people in the number
of those who ought to come to the assistance of No-Ammon, or Diospolis.
PHYLACTERIES, called by the Jews תפלין, are little scrolls of parchment,
in which are written certain sentences of the law, enclosed in leather
cases, and bound with thongs on the forehead and on the left arm. They
are called in Greek φυλακτήρια, from φυλάττω, _custodio_, either because
they were supposed to preserve the law in memory, or rather because they
were looked upon as a kind of amulets or charms to keep them from
danger. The making and wearing these phylacteries, as the Jews still do
in their private devotions, is owing to a misinterpretation of those
texts, on which they ground the practice, namely, God’s commanding them
to bind the law for a sign on their hands, and to let it be as frontlets
between their eyes,” &c, Deut. vi, 8. The command ought doubtless to be
understood metaphorically, as a charge to remember it, to meditate upon
it, to have it as it were continually before their eyes, and to conduct
their lives by it; as when Solomon says, concerning the commandments of
God in general, Bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of
thy heart,” Prov. iii, 1, 3; vi, 21. However, the Jews understanding the
precept literally, wrote out the several passages wherever it occurs,
and to which it seems to refer, and bound them upon their foreheads and
upon their arms. It seems the Pharisees used to make broad their
phylacteries.” This some understand of the knots of the thongs by which
they were fastened, which were tied very artificially in the form of
Hebrew letters; and that the pride of the Pharisees induced them to have
these knots larger than ordinary, as a peculiar ornament. The Pharisees
are farther said to enlarge the borders of their garments,” τὰ κράσπεδα
τῶν ἱματίων, Matt. xxiii, 5. These κράσπεδα were the ציצית, the fringes
which the Jews are commanded to wear upon the borders of their garments,
Num. xv, 38, 39. The Targum of Onkelos calls them כרספדין, which has so
near an affinity with the Greek word κράσπεδον, that there is no doubt
but it signifies the same thing; which is, therefore, an evidence that
the κράσπεδα were the ציצית. These were worn by our Saviour, as appears
from the following passage: Behold, a woman, which was diseased with an
issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his
garment,” κράσπεδον του ἱματιου, Matt. ix, 20. Again: the inhabitants of
Gennesaret are said to have brought unto him their diseased, and to have
besought him, that they might only touch the hem of his garment,”
κρασπεδον τοῦ ἱματίου, Matt. xiv, 36. Κράσπεδον τοῦ ἱματίου is, in both
these passages, very improperly translated the hem of his garment.” It
should have been rendered the fringe.” The Pharisees are censured by our
Saviour for enlarging these fringes of their garments, which we may
suppose they did partly from pride, and partly from hypocrisy, as
pretending thereby an extraordinary regard for the precepts of the law.
It is reported by Jerom, as quoted by Godwin, that they used to have
fringes extravagantly long; sticking thorns in them, that, by pricking
their legs as they walked, they might put them in mind of the law. See
FRONTLETS.