384
XVill.
πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαιους ἐκ τῆς Ρώμης, προσῆλθεν αὐτοῖς: 3.) καὶ
διὰ τὸ ὁμότεχνον εἶναι, ἔμενε Trap αὐτοῖς καὶ εἰργάζετο: ἦσαν γὰρ
1 At the commencement of the verse Syr. Harcl. mg., Flor. (Aug.) add ο δε Π. εγνωσθη te AxvdAq, and before opotexvov Syr. Harcl. mg., Aug. add ομοφνλον και, so Blass in B (cf. Flor. in νετ. 2, salutavit eos); see Belser, Beitrage, p. 84, on the
bearing of this reading on the conversion of Aquila and Priscilla. ὼΒ, Boh. Ong., Tisch,, W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt read ηργαζοντο. (for acc.), So SABELP, Chrys., Lach., Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt.
For ειργαζετο
τῃ τεχνῃ D. Gig.
(not Flor.) omit the clause ησαν yap σκη. τῃ τεχνῃ, and so Blass in B, and see Blass, p. Χ., and note above on xvii. 1δ. Ramsay follows Western text in supporting omission, see St. Paul, p. 253, and, on the other hand, Weiss, Codex D, p. 43.
St. Paul, except in 1 Cor. xvi. το. 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 account- ing for the curious arrangement of the sen- tence 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 ver. 26, and it is possible that her marriage with Aquila may afford us an- other proofamongst many ofthe influence of the Jewish religion over educated women in Rome, Jos., Ant., xviii., 3, 5. But many commentators from St. Chry- sostom 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 state- ment is fully corroborated by Suet., Claudius, 25: ‘‘ Judzosimpulsore 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 1n- stance of a contemplated expulsion, after- wards 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, Schiirer, u. s., p- 237. On any view the edict could not have remained in force very long, ef. xxviii. 15, and also the return of Aquila and Priscilla to Rome, Rom. xvi. 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 remem- bered that the authority of Orosius is not altogether reliable in this case, as there is no proof that he had any direct refer- ence to Josephus, to whom he appeals for his date; see O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschtchte, p. 129; Blass, Proleg., 23, and Turner, ‘“‘ Chronology of the New Testament” Hastings’ B.D. McGiffert,