DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0222
Apr. CHRISTIAN INSCRIPTIONS, 553
There is much discrepancy in opinion whether it was Philip the Deacon
and Evangelist {Ads VI 5, VIII, XXI 8), or Philip of Bethsaida the
Apostle, that settled in Hierapolis. Probably there will be a general
disposition to acquiesce in Lightfoot's conclusion 1 that we must follow
the earliest testimony, that of Polyerates, bishop of Ephesos c. 190 A. D.
He says that Philip, one of the Twelve Apostles, was laid to rest in
Hierapolis along with two daughters virgins, while a third daughter of
his was married and buried in Ephesos2. The divergence of later autho-
rity 3 is to be explained by pure confusion between the two Philips, a
confusion which was facilitated by the fact that Philip the Deacon is
said to have had four daughters who prophesied at Caesareia [Acts XXI
8). This confusion affected Eusebius, who says that Philip the Apostle
lived at Hierapolis with his daughters (III 31 and 39); and yet refers to
Acts as mentioning these daughters in Caesareia.
420. Hierapolis. CIG 3920. <I>Aaowos ZeC^i? epyao~Tr]s i:\evo-ai virep
MaXeav eh Irakiav irkoas e/3So/x?;/coz>ra hvo KareaKevaaev to iu.vrjp.eiov kavrui
Kal roty tskvols <£>\aovl<j> ©eo5(upa> «ai &\aovi<j) Qevba Kal <S hv eKeivoi avv-
yu>pi]rrijxriv.
The religion is doubtful. The extreme freedom in granting the use of
the tomb to any person whom the sons may allow is not in accordance
with pagan feeling, and the names of the two sons are suitable for Chr.;
but it is of course impossible to attain any certainty about a point which
Fl. Zeuxis would carefully conceal. The date must probably be not later
than the middle of the second century, to judge from style and the
name Flavius in every case. See above pp. 106 f.
421. (R. 1883). On the site of Tripolis. 6 tottos KvptctKov, a[v]a\op.a \
[be tG>v t4kvo>v ?] 'HOepiov Ke KvpiaKrjs.
The inscr. belongs clearly to the fourth century or later, from the
coarse style of the lettering. But the mention of the survivors who have
made the grave is a mark of the early style. According to M. Le Blant,
the maker of the tomb ceases to be mentioned in Roman Chr. inscr. after
a.d. 408, in Gaul (which was always half a century later than the
Roman fashion) after 470. We may therefore conclude that this inscr.
is not much later than a. D. 400.
1 Ed. of Colossians pp. 45 f. Euseb. Ill 31.
2 Qikurirov rav b&beKa anotTTokav os 3 This is practically reducible to the
KeKoifiriTai ev 'UpaivoXei ko\ bio Bvyarcpis Dialogue of Gains and Proclus, the work
avrov yfyrjpaKvtai wapdevoi, Kai rj irepa of a Roman ecclesiastic, 25 years or so
avrov dvydrrjp iv 'Ayla UiKv/xaTi jroXt- later than Polyerates (according to
Tcvcrafxivr] ev Ei^e'cra avaTraverai ap. Liglltfoot).
There is much discrepancy in opinion whether it was Philip the Deacon
and Evangelist {Ads VI 5, VIII, XXI 8), or Philip of Bethsaida the
Apostle, that settled in Hierapolis. Probably there will be a general
disposition to acquiesce in Lightfoot's conclusion 1 that we must follow
the earliest testimony, that of Polyerates, bishop of Ephesos c. 190 A. D.
He says that Philip, one of the Twelve Apostles, was laid to rest in
Hierapolis along with two daughters virgins, while a third daughter of
his was married and buried in Ephesos2. The divergence of later autho-
rity 3 is to be explained by pure confusion between the two Philips, a
confusion which was facilitated by the fact that Philip the Deacon is
said to have had four daughters who prophesied at Caesareia [Acts XXI
8). This confusion affected Eusebius, who says that Philip the Apostle
lived at Hierapolis with his daughters (III 31 and 39); and yet refers to
Acts as mentioning these daughters in Caesareia.
420. Hierapolis. CIG 3920. <I>Aaowos ZeC^i? epyao~Tr]s i:\evo-ai virep
MaXeav eh Irakiav irkoas e/3So/x?;/coz>ra hvo KareaKevaaev to iu.vrjp.eiov kavrui
Kal roty tskvols <£>\aovl<j> ©eo5(upa> «ai &\aovi<j) Qevba Kal <S hv eKeivoi avv-
yu>pi]rrijxriv.
The religion is doubtful. The extreme freedom in granting the use of
the tomb to any person whom the sons may allow is not in accordance
with pagan feeling, and the names of the two sons are suitable for Chr.;
but it is of course impossible to attain any certainty about a point which
Fl. Zeuxis would carefully conceal. The date must probably be not later
than the middle of the second century, to judge from style and the
name Flavius in every case. See above pp. 106 f.
421. (R. 1883). On the site of Tripolis. 6 tottos KvptctKov, a[v]a\op.a \
[be tG>v t4kvo>v ?] 'HOepiov Ke KvpiaKrjs.
The inscr. belongs clearly to the fourth century or later, from the
coarse style of the lettering. But the mention of the survivors who have
made the grave is a mark of the early style. According to M. Le Blant,
the maker of the tomb ceases to be mentioned in Roman Chr. inscr. after
a.d. 408, in Gaul (which was always half a century later than the
Roman fashion) after 470. We may therefore conclude that this inscr.
is not much later than a. D. 400.
1 Ed. of Colossians pp. 45 f. Euseb. Ill 31.
2 Qikurirov rav b&beKa anotTTokav os 3 This is practically reducible to the
KeKoifiriTai ev 'UpaivoXei ko\ bio Bvyarcpis Dialogue of Gains and Proclus, the work
avrov yfyrjpaKvtai wapdevoi, Kai rj irepa of a Roman ecclesiastic, 25 years or so
avrov dvydrrjp iv 'Ayla UiKv/xaTi jroXt- later than Polyerates (according to
Tcvcrafxivr] ev Ei^e'cra avaTraverai ap. Liglltfoot).