Acts 18:2

Ἀκύλαν, cf. Acts 18:18; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19; 2 Timothy 4:19 : the Latin Aquila in its Greek form; the name may have been assumed, as often the case, in place of the Jewish name. It is altogether unreasonable to suppose that Luke made a mistake and that this Aquila's name was Pontius Aquila, which he bore as a freedman of the Gens Pontia, a distinguished member of which was called by the same two names, Pontius Aquila, Cic., Ad Fam., x., 33; Suet., Jul. Cæs., 78. The fact that another Aquila, who is famous as giving us the earliest version A.D. of the O.T. in Greek, is also described as from Pontus goes far to show that there is nothing improbable in St. Luke's statement (Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii., vol. ii., p. 226, E.T.). The name, moreover, was also a slave name (Ramsay, p. 269), as a freedman of Mæcenas was called (C. Cilnius) Aquila. But it is probable that as the greater part of the Jews in Rome were freedmen, Aquila may also have belonged to this class, see Schürer, u. s., p. 234, and also further, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xxvii., 418; Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 173. τῷ γένει : “by race,” R.V., cf. Acts 4:36, of Barnabas, and Acts 18:24, of Apollos; the word need not mean more than this. Ἰουδαῖον : The word has been pressed sometimes to indicate that Aquila was still unconverted to Christianity. But the fact that he is called a Jew may simply refer to the notice which follows “that all Jews,” etc. Whether Aquila was a Christian before he met St. Paul is very difficult to determine. He is not spoken of as a disciple, and similarity of employment rather than of Christian belief may account for the Apostle's intercourse with him and Priscilla, Zahn, Einleitung, i., 189. But the suspicion with which most of his countrymen regarded St. Paul rather indicates that Aquila and Priscilla must at least have had some leanings towards the new faith, or they would scarcely have received him into their lodgings. It is quite possible that, as at the great Pentecost Jews from Rome had been present, cf. Acts 2:10, Christianity may have been carried by this means to the imperial city, and that such tidings may have predisposed Aquila and Priscilla to listen to St. Paul's teaching, even if they were not Christians when they first met him. If they were converted, as has been supposed, by St. Paul at Corinth, it is strange that no mention is made of their conversion. That they were Christians when St. Paul left them at Ephesus seems to be beyond a doubt. Renan describes them as already Christians when they met the Apostle, so too Hilgenfeld, on the ground that their conversion by St. Paul could scarcely have been passed over, see further “Aquila,” B.D. 2, and Hastings' B.D.; Wendt, in loco; Lightfoot, Phil., pp. 16 and 17, Hort, Rom. and Ephes., p. 9. προσφάτως : here only, lit [317], lately slaughtered or killed; hence recent, fresh; Latin, recens (Grimm). In LXX, Deuteronomy 24:5; Ezekiel 11:3; Judges 4:3; Judges 4:5 2Ma 14:36, so too in Polybius, Westcott on Hebrews 10:20 πρόσφατος regards all derivations from σφάω (σφάζω) φάω (φένω) φάω (φημί) as unsatisfactory. Πρίσκιλλαν : in Epistles, Romans 16:3 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Timothy 4:9, Prisca, R.V., W.H [318], Priscilla, perhaps the diminutive, cf. Lucilla, Domitilla. Probably St. Luke used the language of conversation, in which the diminutive forms were usually employed, St. Paul, p. 268. On Bezan text see critical note, Ramsay, u. s., and Church in the Roman Empire, p. 158. In Acts 18:18; Acts 18:26 we have Priscilla mentioned before her husband, and so by St. Paul, except in 1 Corinthians 16:19. The reason may be that she was of higher social status, and indeed not a Jewess at all, as this seems the best way of accounting for the curious arrangement of the sentence here, the point being to emphasise the fact that Aquila was a Jew. Her name may indicate some connection with the Priscan Gens; whilst Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 420, in an interesting discussion find reasons to connect both her (and possibly her husband) with the Acilian Gens. That she was a woman of education is evident from Acts 18:26, and it is possible that her marriage with Aquila may afford us another proof amongst many of the influence of the Jewish religion over educated women in Rome, Jos., Ant., xviii., 3, 5. But many commentators from St. Chrysostom have referred the precedence of Priscilla not to social rank, but to her greater fervency of spirit or ability of character; or it may be simply due to the fact that she was converted first. διὰ τὸ διατεταχέναι : St. Luke's statement is fully corroborated by Suet., Claudius, 25: “Judæos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit”. But Dio Cassius, lx. 6, in referring to what is most probably the same edict, states that the Jews were not expelled, because of the difficulty in carrying such an order into effect on account of their great numbers. Another passage in Suet., Tiberius, 36, gives us the probable explanation: “expulit et mathematicos sed deprecantibus veniam dedit”: an instance of a contemplated expulsion, afterwards abandoned. If we thus interpret the meaning of Suetonius with reference to the edict of Claudius by giving the same force to “expulit,” it explains the silence of Tacitus and Josephus, who do not mention the edict, while the words of Dio Cassius emphasise the fact that although no expulsion took place the assemblies of the Jews were prohibited, and on that account, we may fairly suppose, that many Jews would leave the city, Schürer, u. s., p. 237. On any view the edict could not have remained in force very long, cf. Acts 28:15, and also the return of Aquila and Priscilla to Rome, Romans 16:3. Ramsay dates the edict at the end of 50 A.D. on the ground that although Orosius, Hist., vii., 6, 15, states that it occurred in the ninth year of Claudius, 49 A.D., the historian here, as elsewhere (e.g., cf. the famine) in connection with the events of this reign, is a year too early. Wendt (1899), p. 59, gives 49 50 as the year of the edict. But it must be remembered that the authority of Orosius is not altogether reliable in this case, as there is no proof that he had any direct reference to Josephus, to whom he appeals for his date; see O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, p. 129; Blass, Proleg., 23, and Turner, “Chronology of the New Testament” Hastings' B.D. McGiffert, p. 362, maintains that as the date of the edict is thus unknown, we cannot base any chronological conclusions upon it, cf. Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 634. Meyer maintained that by Chrestus Suetonius meant a Jewish agitator so called, but it is more probable that the historian confused Christus with Chrestus an unfamiliar name with one in use among both Greeks and Romans. This Chrestus Suetonius speaks of as actually living, as the historian might have heard enough to lead him to regard the commotions between Jews and Jewish Christians in Rome as instigated by a leader bearing this name, commotions like those excited in the Pisidian Antioch, in Thessalonica, and elsewhere; or it may be that he thus indicates the feverish hopes of the Messiah amongst the Jews resident in Rome, hopes so often raised by some pretentious deliverer. But Lightfoot makes the important remark that even in this case we may fairly suppose that the true Christ held a prominent place in these reports, for He must have been not less known at this time than any of the false Christs (Philippians, p. 16, note). Such indifference on the part of a Roman of the period is surely not surprising, and the probability is more generally maintained that this Chrestus was really Christ, the leader of the Christians, see Weiss, Didache 1 N. T., p. 227; Wendt (1899), in loco; Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 47, 254; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 362, note, but, on the other hand, Zahn, Einleitung, i., p. 306.

[317] literal, literally.

[318] Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.