Interpret Scripture Correctly

The Missionary Artisan Priscilia and the Universal Praise That Is Her Due (18:1-3, 18-19, 24-28)

by Ivoni Richter Reimer

Introductory Observations

Priscilla is one of the few women mentioned more than once in the New Testament. Her memory, together with that of her husband, Aquila, is preserved not only by Luke, but also by Paul and in one of the Pastoral letters: 1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19; Acts 18:2-3, 18, 26-27. The individual passages combine to form a larger picture. What is reported is not complete in itself, nor is it separable from its context. It is embedded in the sphere of Paul’s work and in his circle. But it should be said that we owe the preservation of the memory of this woman, or rather of this artisan couple, to the recollections of Paul’s work and of his overall activity. It is recognized that Luke had a special interest in the deeds of Peter and Paul; for that reason, the stories of people who worked within their spheres of influence have a better chance of being remembered than those of others who did not come into contact with their missionary work. On the other hand, the fact that Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned only in passing is typical of the kind of historical writing that concentrates on “great personalities and events.” The fact that historical composition of this type mentions them at all, in spite of this focus, points to their significance and the great influence of their activity on other groups of people.(1)

Priscilla was very important in the work of mission. This is evident from the fact that on four separate occasions she is mentioned first: in 1 Cor. 16:19, Rom. 16:3, and 2 Tim. 4:19 she is named before Aquila, and even Luke uses this sequence, except in Acts 18:2. Priscilla is mentioned before Aquila in Acts 18:18, 26. This is not some kind of bourgeois “ladies first” rule, as has often been suggested. (2 )The witness of Acts, and of the Pauline texts cited, by no means justifies the way in which theologians have treated Priscilla and Aquila. They often Priscilla in Aquila’s shadow: for example, many scholarly treatment mention “Prisc[ill]a” with a reference such as: “see Aquila.”(3) This procedure is certainly “appropriate” (4 ) in terms of the patriarchal treatment and understanding of women, then and now, but it is not appropriate to the New Testament testimony about Priscilla.

Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned by Luke in the context of Paul’s second missionary journey. It is very interesting that the word “Rome” appears for the first time in the Lukan account in the story of Priscilla and Aquila: and we find it in a report of a most inauspicious situation for Jews and people who lived as Jewish Christians. We learn of the banishment of these people from Rome as a result of an imperial edict that fell especially on people who, as Jewish Christians, confessed Jesus Christ as Messiah. That confession created an uproar in Rome that was not tolerated by the Roman authorities. (For more detail, and a listing of sources, see pp. 212-16 and 224-25 below.) This first mention of Rome corresponds to the reference to Roman officials in Acts 16:16-39, where they intervene in a riotous situation in the Roman colony of Philippi. The result at that time was that Paul was taken prisoner. In the Lukan account of Paul’s second missionary journey, not only are important women mentioned, but we find for the second time a reference to political conflicts with Roman power. These represent Paul’s first contacts and experiences with Roman officialdom.

These experiences were part of the life of Jewish-Christian communities, a life that included daily labor both in the workplace and in missionary activities. At this point I will inquire what the work life of Priscilla and Aquila, and hence of Paul also, may have looked like, to appears to me that the text associates the two realms of craft work an missionary labor very closely; consequently, I will attempt to deternun as precisely as possible the meaning of the occupation of skenopoios “tent maker” (Acts 18:3), and whether Priscilla could have practiced as well. (5) I will have to treat this matter at length. A text-critical study is necessary because Acts 18:1-28 has been very extensively revised, review of research will show how scholars have treated the text different times and places. This review will also include reference to ancient church literature. Next follows a description of represents pieces of Christian exegesis, especially from the last two centuries. In dialogue with the dominant exegesis, I will sharpen the focus of my interest and my thesis, all of which I will summarize in the final own section.

Text-Critical Problems in Acts 18:1-28

The story of Priscilla and Aquila has provided a great many occasions for alterations in the order and interpretation of the text. Let me begin with some text-critical observations. In doing so, I will refer especially to the two recensions of Acts 18:1-27 distinguished by Adolf von Harnack in 1900. (6) One he designates as text a (= the majuscule text), and the second as text ß (= the text of D, Itala, and the Syriac). According to Harnack, text a is the older, and a variety of alterations have been made in it, especially in the so-called “Western” text (ß). Harnack points to fifteen or sixteen important differences, (7) of which I will cite those that are most important because of their immediate application to Priscilla and Aquila:

Verse 2. First alteration: Text ß makes some important changes in the older text. While a asserts that Paul met Aquila and (kai) Priscilla in Corinth, ß writes that Paul met Aquila with (syn with the dative) Priscilla. At first glance that may seem no major difference, but in fact it already points toward a subordinate position for the woman in ß.

Second alteration: ß inserts, before the meeting of the three, ho de Paulos egnôsthê tô Akyla, dia to homophulon kai homotechnon einai kai hemeinen pros autous kai êrgazeto(“Paul, however, knew Aquila, and since they were of the same race and practiced the same trade, he stayed with them, and he worked”). Codex D (sixth century), which is Part of the text ß group, offers a weighty nuance to this, writing: “Paul went to [stay with] him (prosêlthen autô), that is, with Aquila alone. Here we have a concentration of important differences, especially with regard to the craft by which they earned their living. While the oldest text a, asserts that “Paul stayed with them, because they were of the same trade, and they worked [together],” ß alters this statement to the extent that, in it, only Paul “worked.” Add to this that Codex D omits the whole phrase “by trade they were tentmakers.”

Verse 7 ß inserts name Aquila, so that the text reads: “Paul Aquila and went to the house of Titius Justus.”

Verse 22. ß inserts the name of Aquila again, indicating that he remained in Ephesus when Paul went to Caesarea.

Verse 26. ß reverses the sequence “Priscilla—Aquila,” so that Aquila is placed before Priscilla. Since this scene refers to the synagogue and the work of teaching, this reversal is of central importance for the interpretation of the passage.

Verse 27. Here ß has a completely different version: “Some Corinthians were staying in Ephesus, and when they heard him, they asked him to travel with them to their own country. When he agreed, the Ephesians wrote to the disciples in Corinth to receive this man.”

In summary: Text ß three times inserts the name of Aquila without mentioning Priscilla, and attempts to create a stronger relationship between Paul and Aquila. It not only thrusts Priscilla out of her craft position, but out of the missionary work as well. All this culminates in v. 27, where the adelphoi, the “brothers and sisters,” among whom Priscilla and Aquila could also be counted, are turned into “the Ephesians.” Thus in the sixth century it was no longer thought possible that Priscilla could have written or co-written a commendatory letter. Adolf von Harnack concluded from all this: “It is therefore evident that the a-text is the older, while ß contains a chain of interpolations that are not without an ecclesiastical disciplinary tendency (namely the repression of women).”(8)

Since v. 3 contains a particularly large number of textual variants, I will show how this verse read in the words of the older recension:

kai dia homotechnon einai
and, because he was of the same trade,

emenen par autois ,
he stayed with them,

kai; ergazonto
and they worked (9) together

êsan gar skênopoioi tê technê
for by trade they were tentmakers

According to the older text tradition, Paul went to Priscilla and Aquila and being of the same trade, remained with them. To the observation that Paul was associated not only with Aquila, but with Priscilla and Aquila, we should add the further note that they were all tentmakers by trade. The construction, continuity, and grammatical structure of the text all make it clear that Priscilla is also included within this plural (skênopoioi); that is, that she, too, carried on this trade. I will go into this more fully in the exegesis below.

Interpretation of the Text

In the following exegesis I will concentrate especially on Priscilla, Aquila, jnd Paul’s craft work and activity as missionary teachers. First, a survey of research on crafts will indicate the representative trends in interpretation. Then a more precise picture of the trade will be sketched, although the sources are inadequate in this field. This will be followed by the question of the missionary activity of this artisan couple, and finally I will offer some considerations toward a feminist liberation theological exegesis of the text.

“By Trade They Were Tentmakers”

In light of these text-critical considerations, it is clear that all three of the persons named in the text practiced the trade of tentmaking. At this point we may ask what kind of work was included in this term. The tradition of interpretation is long and contentious. However, it should at least be sketched here insofar as it can contribute to a clarification of the question thus posed.

The word skênopoioi, “tentmakers,” is a New Testament hapax legomenon. Therefore no New Testament passage can be adduced to explain it; nor is it found in the LXX, although there we do find skênê “tent” (10) (e.g., Gen. 4:20: “those who live in tents . . .”). As far as I can see, the word skênopoios attested only twice in literary sources, (11) and not at all in Greek inscriptions. It is a composite of the two words skene and poieô, which in the active voice means “to make tents,” not in the sense of “pitching tents,” but in that of producing them. In describing some of the attempts at solution in the interpretive tradition, I will first adduce a few theologians of the ancient church who were closer to the text at least in time, in order to clarify their understanding of the word. Then some later exegetes who have something concrete to contribute to the discussion will be heard.

John Chrysostom places some emphasis on artisanal work. It is probably for that reason that he repeatedly comments on passages in which there is mention of Paul’s work. Because Acts 18:3 contains the only mention of the apostle’s trade, he treats it intensively, and cites it again whenever Priscilla and Aquila appear in the lists of greetings in the Pauline letters. He gives an extensive treatment of Rom. 16:3 in his writing Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam, and there he says quite clear that “they were very poor, and they lived from the work of their hands for by trade they were tentmakers (skênopoioi).” (12) This Greek word appears in the Latin version, which has been transmitted together with the original Greek, as scenofactoriae artis, with the added clarification tabernaculorum opifices. It thus appears that some explanation of the term was needed. That the Greek word created difficulties even for the church fathers and/or their readers is indicated by the fact that John Chrysostom added other terms to explain it, including skutotomos; which can mean “saddler,” “leather worker” “shoemaker.” (13) He intends in this way to make it clear that the three of them worked in leather. Chrysostom further specifies this work, as he imagines it, by saying that Paul was not ashamed to cut leather and sew tanned hides together as well as to preach. (14) The idea is one of despised labor, as Chrysostom also emphasizes in other places. (15)

In Origen’s interpretation also, the skênopoioi worked in leather. This is clear in his translation of Acts 18:3: “et quia erat consimilis artificii, mansit apud eos, et operabantur simul. Erant enim artifices tabernaculorum, hoc est sutores.” (16) He thus translates the Greek word with “tabernaculorum,” and clarifies the Latin term with the addition of “sutores,” i.e., “leather workers.” Theodoret is part of this same tradition of interpretation; (17) there are even supposed to have been people who imitated Paul’s way of life. That is the opinion, at least, of Mark the Deacon in his biography of Porphyry: Saint Porphyry (ca. 410) is supposed to have worked just as Paul did: “He devoted himself to the art of leather-working, washing hides and sewing them together.” (18)

This interpretive tradition from the early church is unanimous in the opinion that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul worked in leather: all agree that they sewed hides together. We may venture to ask whether words like, skutotomos“leather worker,” smilê, “cutting knife,” byrsas plynôn kai raptôn” washing hides and sewing them together,” are also meant to hint that the craft of tentmaking overlapped with that of tanning. (19) In any case, for these interpreters it meant working with leather. (20)

According to Rafael Silva’s review of research, in the Middle Ages almost all the theologians who said anything about this passage agreed that skênopoioi were tentmakers; some attempted to make the ‘ more precise. For example, Erasmus believed that they made tents from leather. (21) According to Silva, almost all the medieval theologians agree on this point as well. It is striking that, in contrast to Calvin, (22) for whom Paul was a tentmaker by trade, Luther, in translating Acts 18:3, understood Paul as a carpet maker (23) It is still more surprising in this connection that Luther did not treat the greetings list from Romans 16 in his lectures on Romans, (24) and therefore did not mention Priscilla and Aquila or speak of their and Paul’s occupation.

In later Western interpretation of the text, exegetes have repeatedly expressed the opinion that the tents were made of woven material. According to Silva’s survey of research, J. L. Hug (25) was the first to associate Paul’s homeland with his trade. This gave a reason for connecting the material from which the tents were made with cilicium (a material made of goats’ hair, woven in Cilicia). This suggestion started a discussion that is still ongoing. (26) It is true that Luther’s translation makes it clear that he already presumed that Paul worked with woven material in the making of tents, especially since he understood Paul (and also Priscilla and Aquila) concretely as “carpet maker(s).” But he did not make a connection with cilicium. Wilhelm Weitling also interpreted Paul as a “carpet maker.” (27) In this tradition, Adolf Deissmann (28) developed the Western portrait of Paul with still broader strokes: a tentmaker working with woven stuff, and therefore seated at the loom as well.

The earlier commentators from this century continue this trend of interpretation: thus Rudolf Knopf (1906) and Gustav Hoennicke (1913) presume that Paul was a weaver. (29) Billerbeck summarizes for Acts 18:3 : skênopoios = maker of tent cloths or tent covers. The rough cloth that served as a covering for the tent was woven of goats’ hair.” (30)

Joachim Jeremias and Wilhelm Michaelis are opposed to this interpretation of the word skênopoioi to mean those who make tents from woven cloth or from cilicium. Jeremias asserts: “It therefore appears to me [i.e., because the craft of weaving was regarded as indecent in Palestine, partly because it was a women’s trade] utterly impossible to translate skênopoioi” [note the singular!] in Acts 18:3 as ‘weaver of tent cloths,’ for weaving . . . was something avoided by educated people.” (31) seems to me, however, that the starting point of his argument makes it inconclusive, because the trade of a tanner or leather worker was also despised and was, for that reason, avoided by educated people. (32)We should emphasize in this context that, in spite of this contempt, at least one rabbi, Joseph ben Halafta, is supposed to have been tanner by trade. (33) Michaelis argues in the same vein: “It is … more probable that  Paul and Aquila were ‘leather-workers’ or ‘saddlers’ and that as such they manufactured tents, for which there was considerable use in antiquity.” (34)

The background of the idea that this trade implied the making of cloth woven of goats’ hair was that Paul came from Tarsus in Cilicia j was known that so-called cilicium was made there, (35) a “rough-haired loden cloth … used by, among others, the Bedouins called ‘Skenites’ for making their tents.” (36) Thus Paul made this product, and he learned weaving in his home town. (37) The argument is not conclusive: first because cilicium is not synonymous with skênê, and second, because it stems only from Paul’s home country. Aquila and Priscilla, however were not from Cilicia. Acts 18:2 asserts that Aquila’s origins were in Pontus. It was not only Paul who carried on this trade, but the couple as well! Even Theodor Zahn rightly observed that Paul could have learned his trade during his stay in Jerusalem, while he was sitting at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and we may suppose that he could possibly have managed it alongside his studies in the Torah. (38)

The majority of newer commentaries connect the trade of tentmaking with leather work. (39) I. Howard Marshall emphasizes that, although tents were often made of woven materials, the word used in Acts 18:3 points rather to “leather-worker.” (40)

This discussion is not closed. Peter Lampe, (41) the most recent to assume the use of linen for the manufacture of these tent coverings, also cites a passage from Tacitus and asserts that Nero had “sun sails spread in his wooden amphitheatre on the Campus Martius (cf. Tac. Ann. 13.31.1).” In another context, Tacitus says that tents made of hides were used for military purposes: in Annales 13.35.1-3, he writes that Corbulo had a great deal of difficulty with the conscripted Roman soldiers because they were “lethargic” and “reluctant.” He therefore discharged all the aged and infirm. At 13.35.3 we read: “Levies were held in Galatia and Cappadocia, and a legion from Germany was added with its complement of auxiliary horse and foot. The entire army was kept under canvas [better: in tents of hides = sub pellibus], notwithstanding the winter was of such severity that the ice-covered ground had to be dug up before it would receive tents.”

As we can tell from this passage in Tacitus, leather tents were used by soldiers in camp. Scholarly works also speak frequently of the use leather tents, especially by the army, and assert that those who madethem are part of the imperial household: that is, the tentmakers produce leather tents for the use of the Roman armies. (42) According to Lampe| however, Aquila was not part of the imperial household, but an independent artisan. Lampe does not consider the possibility that leather tents could have served other than military purposes. For him, Aquila and Paul produce “sun shades” or “tent coverings” or “linen market stalls” for use of shopkeepers. That is possible, but not necessary. Ultimately, Lampe supports his arguments by a reference to Paul’s home town: “In my opinion, Paul the tentmaker would have been less likely make leather military tents than these linen tent-coverings; Paul came from Tarsus, where linen was produced! (Dio Chr. Or.34.21ff.). If he sewed linen tent coverings, he belonged to that branch of the business of his home town that processed the product.” (43)

Rafael Silva is probably correct in emphasizing that this trade was understood in the East as having to do with the working of leather In the West, on the other hand, and especially in the minds of German theologians, there is a presumption that it involves working with textiles or goats’ hair. (44) I myself adhere to the tradition of interpretation from the ancient church. The ancient authors cited above had no difficulty in associating this trade with working in leather. It is possible that they were even acquainted with it, and therefore did not need to give a more thorough description. To the question of the nature of the work in its individual details, the recent exegetes give practically no answer at all. The early theologians thought that it included the cutting and sewing of leather, an interpretation that probably stems from their knowledge of the craft. It was a hard, and also a despised type of work.

Hugo Blumner offers an extensive description of the art of leather working. (45) He explains all the words that were used in the ancient church literature to describe tentmaking. Sutor, or skutotomos , can refer generally to cutting or working with leather, or specifically to shoemaking. The most important actions in any kind of leather work are cutting and sewing. The cutting knife (smilê) had a straight edge, and its use demanded significant physical strength. A tabernacularius was a tent-maker who worked in leather. Blümner’s descriptions depict exactly what the ancient church tradition has in mind: in the kind of tentmaking that is referred to with the concepts just described, the artisans work with leather. (46) This understanding also coincides with that of the ancient church literature cited above. Samuel Krauss (47) attempts to describe how a tent was made: It was supported by poles; the internal living space was adorned with carpets and curtains; a separate covering was spread over the exterior, and that covering could be made of woven goats’ hair but also of leather, linen, mats or palm branches.

Priscilla as Artisan

Even among those commentators who read “and they worked” in their translation of the text there is only one whose commentary is not satisfied with merely with treating Paul and Aquila at length, but also mentions Priscilla, writing that Paul dwelt “with the Jewish couple Aquila and Priscilla, who practiced the same trade as he.” (48) All the other exegetes I know (49) speak of the artisanal activity only of Paul and Aquila. Wilhelm Michaelis is a good example of how the exegetical thought process works: “Though par autois refers to Aquila and Priscilla, only Paul and Aquila can be the subjects of ergazonto and especially êsan Hence one does not have to think in terms of a technê in which the co-operation of the wife was possible or even customary. The context itself does not show us what the technê! was,” (50) although in this regard the author concludes that it most probably was work with leather. Nor does he explain why Priscilla cannot be one of the subjects of the clause in v. 3c Presumably the assumption is that this work was too difficult for a woman and, besides, that it was not “typical woman’s work.”

While Michaelis argues against reckoning Priscilla among those who practiced the trade of tentmaking, Gottfried Schille thinks that we should make no attempt at all to determine anything about Priscilla’s and Aquila’s life on the basis of Acts 18:1-4: “Those who want to know anything about the couple, Aquila and Priscilla, should not begin with our text, since it is apparently an inaccurate reproduction of some received information.” (51)

In my opinion, even “received information” can be highly communicative. For example, without the note in Acts 18:3 we would have no concrete information at all about the working lives of Priscilla, Aquila, or Paul! It is the only notice that, in conjunction with other passages, enables us to have a more complete idea of the life of thos who were engaged in the work of mission. It was apparently a “Western” tendency, as we can see from a comparison with Codex D, to attempt to exclude working life, especially the hard work of artisans, from this context.

I am assuming, especially since the text points in that direction, that Priscilla practiced the art of tentmaking alongside Aquila and Paul. As have already said, this work included the cutting and sewing of pieces of leather. No doubt that was hard work, and it was done, at least in part, by women. Although I have not found any inscriptions about tabernacularii that mention women, (52) I believe that we should always proceed on the assumption that women’s and men’s lives were not restricted to what has been written or reported. Moreover, we may suppose that by no means all the material that could tell us about has thus far been discovered or published. (53) Let me mention just one example of the changes that have taken place in our view of womens’ working lives as a result of the research that has been devoted to women, whereas Natalie Kampen, in her very good description of the kinds of work done by women, based on iconographic material, (54) asserted on the basis of her sources from Ostia that women were excluded from work with metal, leather, and ceramics, by 1988 Monika Eichenauer was in a position to present some inscriptional evidence that contains concrete reference to women in leather work. (55) These were sutrices, women who cut and sewed leather; perhaps as shoemakers. This kind of insight requires an intensive examination and evaluation of already existing sources, and a specific type of inquiry as a basis for the investigation of and search for new sources. (56)

In addition, as early as 1980 Luise Schottroff pointed out (57) that women frequently worked alongside men, but ordinarily were not mentioned. Thus Acts 18:3 can attest that Priscilla and Aquila were a married artisan couple who produced their wares in common. It is all the more astonishing to see the efforts of exegetes to remove a woman from the work scene the moment she appears alongside men. Paul himself attests, in 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Thess. 2:9, that it was hard work: “You remember our labor and toil, brothers and sisters; we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.” Apostles and missionaries slave away, working with their own hands. Women also—and here Priscilla serves as an example—struggled with their overwhelming missionary work, as is obvious from Rom. 16:6, 12.

The Question of Priscilla and Aquila’s Income Level

We may observe a developing trend in recent New Testament research regarding the question of Priscilla and Aquila’s socio-economic position. More and more theologians are adopting the opinion that this artisan couple belonged to a superior social group. Adolf von Harnack (58) counted them among the “most prominent” Christians in Rome (whatever that may have meant for him). In his opinion, this prominence is evident from the fact that Paul places them at the head of the list of persons greeted in Romans 16. Ernst Haenchen gives a more direct comment on the pair’s socio-economic status: Priscilla and Aquila “are common labourers, but a well-to-do couple. . . . Paul worked for weeks in their workshop, presumably together with other journeymen, and lived with them.” (59) Unfortunately, at this point the author gives no information about or support for his argument that would enable one to confront it directly. Gerd Theißen simply asserts that the couple could not have been insolvent, since “[l]ater on, in Ephesus they [Priscilla and Aquila] gathered a ‘house congregation’ around themselves.” (60) At this point he mentions the idea that “Paul possibly worked as an ’employee’ of Aquila and Priscilla in one of the shops which have been excavated by the agora.” Rudolf Pesch (61) supposes that they were well-to-do because they had their own workshop: “Presumably they were well off, since they were able to open a new work-shop immediately in Corinth.” Whereas these exegetes express such ideas with some caution, the opinion seems to be spreading more and more widely in the form of a thesis, namely, that this couple possessed a higher than average socioeconomic status. Let me sketch several such proposals. (62)

H.-J. Klauck (63) regards Aquila as an entrepreneur: “In Corinth, Aquila opened a business as tentmaker or leather worker.” Aquila not only had a house in Corinth, but others in Rome and Ephesus, which is why he must have been very well-to-do. (64) It has even been asserted that, during his stay in Corinth, Aquila left a slave behind in Rome to carry on his business there. (65) The supposition that Aquila was an entrepreneur with a number of branch workshops, in one of which Paul was employed alongside others, tends in the same direction.(66)

In contrast to this tendency, John Chrysostom and Mark the Deacon presumed that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul were poor, and this was the understanding of the entire ancient church tradition. These writers presumably speak out of their own knowledge of the social situation of tentmakers. Paul was not ashamed to practice this trade. Chrysostom connects their identity as artisans with their socioeconomic status: “They were poor and without means, and earned their living from the work of their hands, for, as it says, they were tentmakers.” (67) Probably this author still saw the same kind of work being done in his own vicinity, so that he could speak of it quite naturally and objectively.

Not only these literary evidences from the ancient church, but inscriptional, archaeological, and finally Pauline material as well can be adduced to challenge the new exegetical “well-to-do entrepreneur’ thesis. But first we should point out still another internal contradiction or insecurity in the thread of argumentation connected with the thesis. Ernst Haenchen, who asserted that this couple, for whom Paul and other companions worked, were people of means, further comments on Acts 18:7-8 that after Paul had received assistance from Macedonia he no longer needed to work with his hands and was able to give his entire energies to the mission. Haenchen writes: “The result was that he had to look around for a room for this purpose. The synagogue did not stand at his disposal, nor was Aquila’s [note the singular!] workshop the right place for constant discussion with individual visitors or addresses to groups. So the report that Paul moved with his missionary preaching from there, namely from Aquila [!], into a suitable private house can be understood without more ado.” (68) Even though this working hypothesis is very questionable, it manages to express the idea that Priscilla and Aquila were, after all, not wealthy enough to be able to put some space at Paul’s disposal! Gerd Theißen says of this statement by Haenchen: “. . . nothing is said about this. . . . We have no information about the social status of Titius Justus. It can only be assumed that it was not inferior to that of Aquila and Priscilla, as Paul would hardly have made claims on anyone who would have found it a greater burden than they had. The opposite is more probable.” (69) In other words: Those who are trying to support the thesis that the couple was wealthy or well-to-do are continually working in the realm of conjecture. In my opinion, their conjectures are invalid, for the following reasons:

First, as far as inscriptional material is concerned, we find that “in comparison to their actual percentage in the population . . . artisans of Aquila’s stamp are under-represented in the inscriptions,” (70) precisely because they were among the socially despised. Their trade and its activities enjoyed very little prestige. They scarcely belonged to the “advanced level of entrepreneurs,” as Lampe correctly concludes. (71)

Second, we may also obtain information from archaeological, inscriptional, and iconographic sources that sheds light on the general conditions under which this kind of craft work was conducted. At least two pieces of iconographic evidence are found in Natalie Kampen’s book to support the statement that the space within which this kind of work was done was very small. (72) Peter Lampe produces archaeological material on the measurements of the combination workroom/shops or workshop/houses of artisans: “In Corinth, tabernae in the form of long tows of shops have been excavated. The little row of stalls north of the southern stoa contains 14 tabernae with a total frontage of 44 meters, which would mean that the individual shops were each only a little over 3 meters wide; their length was a little less than 4 meters. The section … west of the forum contained a row of “large” shops: these were about 4.5 meters wide and 6 meters long.” (73) From this he calculates the size of an assembled house church: “In a space of 27 square meters, the maximum number of believers in a house church would be 20.” (74) In addition, several inscriptions translated by Herwig Maehler (75) give some evidence for the question of house ownership. A common laborer (ergatês) says in his census information that, in addition to the house and yard (oikia kai aulê|) where he lives, he owns other parts of houses in which his many sons and daughters live. (76) These part of houses (perhaps only rooms) are expressly called “houses” (oikos / oikia). In official documents we also find information that women and men owned parts of houses, often including equipment for artisanal work. (77) The size of such rooms can again be illustrated by the archaeological excavations in Corinth, as given by Lampe.

Third, Paul himself says a good deal about the exertions of his work and the way it was regarded, all of which applies, of course, to that of Priscilla and Aquila as well. He says of himself and those who work as he does: “. . . we are hungry and thirsty, we are poorly clothed and beaten and homeless, and we grow weary from the work of our own hands. When reviled, we bless . . .” (1 Cor. 4:11-12); they had to work “night and day” in order not to be a burden to anyone (1 Thess. 2:9). But of Corinth in particular, where Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul worked together, Paul says that he was in need, to the point that help had to be supplied from elsewhere (2 Cor. 11:9).

On this basis, it is impossible to understand why Priscilla, Aquila, Paul, and those like them should be counted among the well-to-do entrepreneurs of the time. Certainly the wealth, or even the character of Priscilla and Aquila as an entrepreneurial couple (78) is not supported by Acts 18:1-3; Rom. 16:3; 1 Con 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19, or the material presented above. Rather, they belong to that “very populous lower order of minor craftspeople” (79) in Corinth who earned their living with their own hands and thus were probably able to extend help to other people who were less well off than they (Acts 20:35).

Priscilla, the Distinguished Missionary

As in the case of her business activity, so also with regard to the work of preaching, attempts have been made to reduce and minimize Priscilla s importance. (80) However, it is most interesting to note that in exegetic treatments Priscilla is more likely to be recognized as active in preaching than as an artisan. This may be a sign that the exegetes are using the Pauline letters as a basis and occasionally adding the text of Acts 18: 1-3, but not for the purpose of referring to her craft work; instead, intention throughout is to emphasize her work of preaching and teaching, in light of w. 24-27. This emphasis is found both in the biblical texts and in the interpretive tradition. However, I do not think it is necessary to separate the two; one activity need not be neglected for the sake of the other. The biblical text and a major portion of the ancient church tradition, in fact, avoids any such separation.

John Chrysostom had no problem in speaking of these three people’s craft and the poverty connected with it, nor did he have any difficulty about recognizing Priscilla’s outstanding activity as a missionary. In Salutate Priscillam 2.1 he praises both: her handiwork and her preaching. He also emphasizes that, despite their work as artisans, the couple lived in poverty, yet because of their missionary work they are praised more highly than any kings.

In contrast to Chrysostom, who was able to keep both fields of activity united, modern research has created a split, or at least has focused on the “spiritual and intellectual” activity. This process of separation is still going on, but it was perceptible as early as Adolf von Harnack, who had no difficulty in describing Priscilla as “the distinguished missionary.” (81) Even in speaking of Priscilla and Aquila as a couple, he can say: “or rather, Prisca the missionary, with her husband Aquila.” (82) But no matter how often he mentions the two of them, he does not refer even once to their shared work as tentmakers.

I think it is important to keep these two fields of Priscilla and Aquila’s—and Paul’s—activity together, for reasons founded in the work of mission itself. From Paul’s own writings and from the information in Acts 18:1-3 we know that the couple was constantly on the move. Travelers were in regular contact with other people, both those living in a given place and other strangers who were on the road. Traveling was especially characteristic of the lives of small merchants and artisans. These people were very important for the spread of Christianity, so that we are not surprised to learn that Priscilla and Aquila were praised throughout the whole oikumene (the known world) because of their “Missionary work. (83) This missionary activity was not a burden on others because of the craft practiced by Priscilla and Aquila. The fact that they have to eam their own living also gives us some clues about the socio-economic composition of the Christian communities.

Priscilla and Her Husband Aquila as Teachers

18:24-27 attests that Priscilla and Aquila not only took part in synagogue worship, but also taught. This is first stated in the text after Paul has left them (w. 22-23), when Priscilla and Aquila remain behind in Ephesus. Only at this point is anything said about the couple’s work as preachers. According to Acts 18:24-27, they come into contact with an Alexandrian Jew named Apollos, “who had been instructed in the way of the Lord,” and taught accurately “the things concerning Jesus ” but knew only the baptism of John (see also Acts 19:1-6). Apollos spoke boldly in the synagogue about the “way of the Lord,” and that is where Priscilla and Aquila heard him. After hearing him, they took him aside and “explained the Way of God to him more accurately.”

The words used in Acts 18:24-27 clearly allow us to infer that teaching was involved: this is true both of Apollos and of Priscilla and Aquila. What is said of Apollos is similar to what is predicated of Philip in Acts 8:35, that is, that he was “well-versed in the scriptures.” There follow, in v. 25, two central concepts from the field of instruction: katêcheo, “to instruct,” and didaskô, “to teach.” Apollos is said to have been instructed in the way of the Lord, that is, in Christian teaching. This instruction was followed by a handing on of what he himself has learned: he taught accurately. Here Luke indicates that, at this time, Christian catechesis was not yet connected with baptism in the name of Jesus, inasmuch as Apollos is said not to know it. (84) What appears to me important at this point, as regards the missionary activity of the artisan couple, is that although Apollos did all this teaching so accurately (akribôs), their teaching was still more accurate (akribesteron, Acts 18:26)!

This teaching is being done in the context of the synagogue. That can be a reference to instruction in Scripture, (85) which would at the same time underscore the attempt to understand Christian belief on the basis of Jewish Old Testament faith in the fulfillment of messianic hopes. There are three important items in the text that, taken together, point to a single whole: knowledge of Scripture, instruction, and teaching. If these are asserted for Apollos, they can be taken for granted as applying to Priscilla and Aquila, since it says that they explained the way of God more accurately to Apollos. It is possible, but not necessarily true, that this represents a “more developed Pauline theology.” (86) In any case, they teach a teacher!

Ektithenai, “to expound,” “to set forth,” appears only in Acts, and there only four times: at 7:21; 11:4; 18:26; and 28:23. Of these, Acts 11:4 and 28:23 can be considered in connection with 18:26. The word in 11:4 means, in context, to give an explanatory exposition of the progress of events in the mission. In 28:23, Paul describes the reign of God to some Jewish people, in the form of a discussion and person testimony. The form of discussion or exposition described with ektithenai is not hostile, but edifying and explanatory. This interpretation is reinforced by the use of proslambanô, “to take aside,” “to receive,” in Acts 18-26. This may, in fact, include the idea that Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos into their own circle because they wanted to “assist” him, especially since the verb can also have that meaning. Moreover, it seems to me especially important that this form of discussion is attested in Acts, and in the New Testament as a whole (Acts 11:4; 18:26; 28:23) only for Peter, Paul, and Priscilla with her husband, Aquila.

From the text it would appear that there was very good cooperation between Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos. It is not reported that the highly educated Jew (now Jewish Christian) Apollos took offense at being taught by a missionary artisan woman. Acts 18:27 follows smoothly and without any problem after the preceding statement about Apollos’s teaching. Apollos intended to travel to Achaia, and the “brothers and sisters” encouraged him and wrote a letter to the disciples, asking them to welcome him. Here, following the Codex D version of v. 27, Rudolf Pesch assumes (87) that Priscilla and Aquila are not included in the “brothers and sisters.” He argues that otherwise Luke would have said that the couple themselves had written the letter of recommendation. He prefers to assign this writing to people who had been converted by Apollos. The word adelphoi, “brothers and sisters,” (88) appears for the first time in this context (Acts 18:1-27), and is found alongside mathêtai, “disciples,” referring to those in Achaia. The word adelphoi is used in Acts especially to describe brothers and sisters in the faith. Moreover, it very frequently refers to Jewish (or Jewish Christian) sisters and brothers. Hence it is not remarkable if, after the process of instruction, the relationship of these people had developed in such a way that the intimate notion of brother and sisterhood was applied to Priscilla and Aquila as well. The Codex D recension, in fact, avoids this word, substituting “Ephesians.” It thus denies any possible participation of Priscilla and Aquila in the composition of the letter of recommendation, because they were not “Ephesians.” I see no compelling evidence in a (89) at would speak against a participation of the couple in the composion of the letter. Here, instead, we might see a reference to Priscilla’s actually doing so: Priscilla, whom Adolf von Harnack ultimately considered as a possible author of the letter to the Hebrews. (90) In addition, these letters of commendation also indicate missionary authority, (91) and “in is case Priscilla and Aquila are more likely recommenders than “the Ephesians.”

In the reference to the two missionary parties (Apollos on the one hand, Priscilla and Aquila on the other) I see no hint of a competition, as if Luke had attempted to “minimize” the effectiveness and importance of Apollos, as Pesch thinks. (92) Such an interpretation conceals danger of appearing to defend Apollos against Priscilla in the Lukan account. It does not seem to me that such a thing is necessary, especially since we know of Apollos’s missionary activity from the Pauline texts (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:1-6; 4:6; 16:12; Titus 3:13). It is not necessary to set the two in contrast or competition to one another In my opinion, Apollos is by no means disparaged here. Such an interpretation is not intended by Luke. And even the statement in 1 Corinthians 3 that Apollos is very confident says nothing against the report in Acts 18:24-27. (93) Here, too he appears as confident and highly effective. But (this is the important detail) Priscilla and Aquiia were still somewhat better able to “explain” matters than Apollos. The problem of competition between Apollos and the couple has, in my opinion, been created by the dominant exegesis.

Finally, one critical note should be added regarding the Lukan account. Luke probably is unjust to Priscilla and Aquiia in not expressly calling them missionaries, as he does Apollos. A critical reading of Luke is called for at this point in light of Pauline and other ancient church witnesses. As already emphasized, teaching and missionary activity can be discerned within the Lukan account, but Luke says nothing directly about them. Still, I do not think one should conclude from this that Luke imagines there were no missionaries in Asia and Achaia besides Paul and Apollos. (94) Why, then, did Priscilla and Aquila travel with Paul and remain behind in Ephesus, on their own? What does it mean when Paul himself describes them as his “fellow workers” (Rom. 16:3)? We should take note of the fact that Paul describes Apollos and Priscilla, with her husband, Aquila, in equal terms as “fellow workers.” This direct description is lacking in Luke’s account. In his case, we need to pay sharper attention to the context (as well as the expressions used) in order to reconstruct the missionary activity of Priscilla and her husband, Aquila.

The Itinerary of Priscilla the Missionary and Her Husband, Aquila

The whole civilized world gives thanks for Priscilla and Aquila and praises them for their work. This statement (95) means that both were known everywhere, or almost everywhere in the Christian world of the time, and that they had been sojourners for a while in a number different places. The New Testament evidence indicates that the reason for their itinerant life were political, missionary, and work-related nature. Peter Lampe (96) has already produced enough arguments against the misconception that these journeys by Priscilla and Aquiia were a sign of their supposed wealth; therefore I will not go into that matter in detail at this point.

Acts 18:2 asserts that Aquila (97) and Priscilla had been expelled from Rome, together with other Jewish women and men. If both of them had already become Christians in Rome, this favors the conviction that at that time there was, as yet, no strict distinction drawn between Jews and Christians (see also Acts 16:20). At the same time, we may conclude from this fact that women and men had been active in the mission at Rome long before the Pauline message arrived by letter. That also means that quite a few women and men who were active in small merchandising and craft work had come to believe in Christ, and were passing the message along, especially since people traveling on business were very strongly represented in the Roman population. (98) Priscilla and Aquila are two examples of this.

Aquila, at least, came from Pontus, and thus from the Roman point of view was a foreigner from the east who, like many other women and men, was trying to carry on his business in Rome. Of Priscilla we know at least that she had also been in Rome. Whether it was her native place, or whether she had come with Aquila from Pontus, we cannot determine. In either case, both of them were expelled from Rome by the edict of Claudius.

The assertion in Acts 18:2 that all the Jews had been expelled from Rome has led to an extensive scholarly discussion. (99) The edict of Claudius should be dated to the year 49. There are two texts outside the New Testament that record an imperial expulsion of Jews (and/or Jewish Christians) from Rome. Suetonius (100) reports that the Jews who were immediately associated with “Chrestus,” and because of him were causing disturbances, were expelled from Rome. According to Orosius (fifth century) (101) the Claudius edict was issued in the year 49 C.E.: the author repeats the information derived from Suetonius. According to Peter Lampe, (102) however, there was a reason why not all the Jews could have en expelled from Rome, namely that there were at the time “Roman citizens among the Jews of the city.” The general allusion in Acts 18:2 to “all the Jews” thus really applies only to some of the Jews of Rome, namely those who were involved in unrest on account of “Chrestus,” or “Christus.” (103) There are numerous, although tendentious reports in Acts . to the effect that belief in Christ as the fulfilment of Jewish messianic hopes created an uproar in the Jewish community. (104) Since Acts 18:1-4 says nothing about the conversion of Priscilla and Aquila as it usually does, we may suppose that the two of them had already become Christians while they were still in Rome. We know Priscilla and her husband as outstanding missionaries. Probably it was for that very reason that they were expelled from Rome. Because of their missionary activity they were counted among those who stirred up other people Their expulsion would indicate that they did not have Roman citizenship. Expulsion is a political act on the part of the government, which does not wish to see any kind of “disorder” within its fixed boundaries The expulsion also had major socio-economic consequences for those concerned, especially since they had to reestablish themselves somewhere else. They are strangers and foreigners again; they have to start over from the beginning.

It is at this initial stage that they encounter Paul, for Priscilla and Aquila had only recently (prosphatôs) come from Italy. He stayed with them, and they worked together. How can anyone imagine that, given the conditions of the time, a woman and a man who had just been expelled from a city for political reasons were major entrepreneurs? Is it so difficult for exegetes in the Western world at the present time to appreciate that missionary activity is something that was and is possible alongside the work of earning one’s living? When it is said that the missionaries had exhausted themselves at their work, that means nothing less than that their “work” included both these kinds of activity. After all, Paul can bear witness to that.

According to Acts 18:11, Paul was in Corinth for a year and a half, and in the course of his work there he also obtained the house of Crispus, the head of the synagogue, as a locus for Jewish-Christian mission. Before the continuation of the story of his travels, there is an account of a Jewish-Christian conflict that took place in Corinth during the proconsular term of Gallio (51-52 C.E.). (105) This time is congruent with the reported time of the group’s residence in Corinth: they arrived near the end of the year 49 and moved in the year 51, a year and a half later, to Ephesus. (106) Hence a number of stages in the travels of Priscilla and Aquila can be determined from the reports in Acts: (Pontus), Rome, Corinth, Ephesus—in other words, Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor.

This picture can be expanded and illustrated by the aid of some Pauline texts. In 1 Cor. 16:19, Paul sends greetings from Aquila and Priscilla to the community in Corinth. If the letter was written in Ephesus around 54 or 55, (107) this could mean that at that time Priscilla and Aquila were still, or again, in that place. Acts 20:31 says that Paul was in Ephesus for three years, with some interruptions, but Priscilla and Aquila “vanish” from the Lukan account at 18:26-27. It is difficult to determine whether they are to be thought of as being present during Paul’s “farewell address” in Acts 20:17-35. What may be decisive here is Paul’s statement that everyone knows that he was not a burden to anyone during that whole time, because he worked with his own hands (20:34). We cannot prove whether Priscilla and Aquila remained in Ephesus during the whole time after their departure from Corinth. In any case, at the time when he wrote 1 Corinthians, Paul attests that they had their own house church: “Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, greet you warmly in the Lord” (1 Cor. 16:19). This notice again attests to a strong relationship between the community in Ephesus and Priscilla, Aquila, and the community in Corinth.

In the list of greetings in Rom. 16:3-4, Paul also greets Priscilla and Aquila. It is uncertain whether this greetings list belongs to a fragment of a letter of Paul written to Ephesus, or whether it was originally part of the letter to the Romans. (108) In the latter case, there is some evidence that at the time Romans was written, about the year 56, (109) Priscilla and Aquila were again in Rome and had gathered a community about them. But if the greetings list was part of a letter to Ephesus, this is still the same house church whose greetings Paul sends in 1 Cor. 16:19. In either case, the greetings in Rom. 16:3-16 enable us to elaborate the picture sketched in Acts 18:1-28. Here the missionary activity of these two people is accorded the highest honor. Priscilla and Aquila are Paul’s “co-workers” in Christ Jesus, even when he himself is absent. Thus they do not always work alongside Paul, but also independently, as was already clear from Acts 18:26. Paul says of them in Rom. 16:4 that they had risked their own necks for his life. Exactly what Paul means by that, and in what kind of conflict Priscilla and Aquila took his part, cannot be determined. In any case, their cooperative work was life-threatening. For this reason, too—because they did not seek to avoid this danger—all the churches of the Gentiles give them thanks. The reference to the Gentiles in this context can indicate that the conflict in question was some kind of intra-Jewish dissonance, perhaps in connetion with the discussion of the acceptance of “Gentiles” into the Christian community. That discussion was not always nonviolent, as Acts 17:5-9; 18:12-17; 20:17-35, and other passages show.

Priscilla’s and Aquila’s memory was kept alive even at a later date (2 4:19). That reference presupposes that their work and their personalities were still remembered. This letter, one of the Pastorals, was written at a later time, which makes it understandable that there is mention of a church in their house. If 2 Timothy can be understood to be a kind of “testament of Paul,” (110) it is a magnificent accolade to the missionary artisan couple, Priscilla and Aquila: in this testament, they are handed over to the community, and as a result their memory is bound up with the memory of Paul.

Feminist Exegetical Initiatives in Confrontation with the Dominant Exegesis.
Retrospect and Summary

In light of what has been described here, it is repeatedly the task of a feminist theology of liberation to uncover the mechanisms that have been and are at work in the minimizing of Priscilla (and other women). In particular, women theologians of our own time (111) have drawn attention to the two recensions of the story of Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18:1-28 as collated and partly analyzed by Adolf von Harnack in 1900. Only a careful reading of the differently transmitted versions allows a critical access to the dominant exegesis, which often (although without saying so) rests on the “Western” text. Interpolations and reversals of the sequence of the names are not only subtle, but utterly massive interventions not only in the text, but especially in the history of women. In my opinion there are no small and unimportant alterations of a text. All such changes contribute to the destruction of an image. That this process began very early, even before the written compilation of Codex D, can be verified by the following observations: While John Chrysostom took a positive attitude toward Priscilla, the artisan and missionary, prizing and praising her highly, there is also another tradition that was silent about her. This is found in the work of Tertullian, (112) who asserts that it was Aquila, not Priscilla, who earned Paul’s praise. This may be a sign of the very early attempts that were made to demote Priscilla from her high station, and, with her, other active women who called upon Priscilla as their authority.

I emphasize the very early beginnings of this weakening of the tradition because the process of suppression has never ceased. In this context, feminist exegesis can rejoice in the efforts of Adolf von Harnack, who attempted to retrieve the importance of Priscilla in the face of church disciplinary tendencies. (113) The retrieval and accenting of the history of Priscilla as a story that attempts to preserve Priscilla as a fully rounded individual is important for women and men who can and will live their faith in their daily lives. Priscilla is owed “reparation” (114) in the sense “that she is to be recalled again and again to memory in the fullness of her womanhood: as wife, tentmaker, highly valued co-worker of Paul and acquaintance of Apollos.” But this retrieval is not simply for her sake. It should and can give others courage. It can encourage people who, just like Priscilla and Aquila, are risking their necks for others who are taking a stand against the terrifying power of sin and, as a result, are suffering repressive treatment at the hands of the powerful. Thus, for me, the goal of a feminist liberation-theological exegesis of this story is that we should take the history of Priscilla into our hands again, to preserve it and in this way to draw inspiration from it, especially for the manifold activities of women today.

Annemarie Ohler (115) also emphasizes the totality of Priscilla’s work. Although she initially asserts that Paul looked for a job as a tentmaker in Corinth “and found one with his colleague in the trade, Aquila,” she also holds that Priscilla was a tentmaker. She concludes this from the fact that Acts 18:1-28 consistently emphasizes that the couple worked together. According to her study, Luke sees “no occasion to distinguish between the work of the woman and that of her husband.” (116) This author, like Hanneliese Steichele, (117) sees Priscilla’s cooperation in the preaching of the Good News against the background of a situation in which church offices were not yet hierarchical: “Lack of concern for offices and honors still offered women the chance to follow the way of Jesus in freedom: to teach, as Prisca did together with her husband; to struggle just as Paul did, and to work for the spread of the gospel and the building up of churches as did Evodia, Syntyche, Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis.” (118) That is to say that the establishment of a system of hierarchical offices in the institutional church was one of the mechanisms by which women not only were forced out of broader and more liberating spheres of work, but also continue to be pushed aside. At the same time, it expresses the pain of innumerable women who experience this kind of church-political and dogmatic marginalization. It is a unified statement of longing and experience.

Feminist social-historical exegesis goes hand in hand with an interpretative perspective based on experience. The retrieval of the wholistic story of Priscilla acquires a subversive character because it returns to women a part of their own history, which for the most part has been ” by the dominant tradition of exegesis; from it, women can extract new strength for their efforts on behalf of liberation today. The retrieval of the story of Priscilla has a subversive character especially because it is an assertion that good missionary work does not necessarily require institutionalized structures in order to find recognition among those for whom that work is and has been liberating. This results not least from the fact that such a retrieval brings with it a unified understanding of work, when the hard labor done by women in various fields is accorded its true honor: in that labor, missionary work is not a burden to anyone and material work is not devalued. Here one kind of work does not render the other invisible; (119) instead, both are expressed simultaneously because they are not mutually exclusive. And yet, in the case of Priscilla the woman’s work has almost universally been pushed aside: from reading the dominant exegesis, one gets the impression that Priscilla sits at home and (of course) does the housework while the men are at their trade.

Feminist liberation-theological exegesis names and values both Priscilla’s missionary work and her artisanal labor. That in itself is one of its strengths. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (120) emphasizes that craft work serves to finance the missionary labor of the couple, in order that they, like Paul and other missionaries, should not be a burden to any community and can remain independent of them. In my opinion, material labor should not bring private wealth or comfort; it should be placed in the service of the building up and maintenance of communities of the saints. This, surely, is also one of the Jewish-Christian treasures brought to the church by Priscilla and Aquila, and for a very long time it was something highly esteemed. (121)

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza is correct when she writes that in her missionary work Priscilla was no more subject to the authority of Paul than were Barnabas and Apollos. She concludes this from the fact that Priscilla and Aquila accomplished their missionary work both within the house churches and outside, using them as a basis. This work was also regarded by Paul as cooperative and collegial. Women were equal in these house churches, not least because “traditionally the house was considered women’s proper sphere, and women were not excluded from activities in it.” (122)

Luke presents the work of Priscilla and Aquila as teamwork, but not in such a way that the woman remains in the man’s shadow; instead she takes the initiative. Their being married was not a determining factor. (123) Together with their teamwork in a community of equals, carrying on missionary work at the local level, they also had, according Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, (124) some missionary methods and practices that were different, for example, from those of Paul: “Insofar as they— like the ‘other apostles’ (1 Cor. 9)—traveled as a pair and gathered converts in house churches, they did not divide the apostolic diakonia to the eucharistic table sharing that establishes community and the word that aims at conversion of individuals.” In my opinion this method differs from that of Paul to the extent that he, when missionizing at the local level, did not head a house church, but preached the word starting from the existing house churches; for him, they were the centers of his mission. Unfortunately, we cannot determine precisely the extent to which Paul also integrated himself in these communities and their (eucharistic) table fellowship by the work of his hands. In my opinion he also participated equally on that level, especially since he describes Priscilla and Aquila as equal sunergoi, “fellow workers” (Rom. 16:3). This understanding is congruent with the account in Acts 18:1-28: not only in Paul’s writing, but also in Luke’s, Priscilla can be recognized as a highly esteemed missionary who is understood as Paul’s “co-worker” and who stands as an equal not only alongside Aquila, but also in the company of Paul and other missionaries. (125) Not least we should emphasize that, in Acts, Priscilla is the only married woman for whom marriage poses no obstacle to the totality of her work on behalf of justice. (126) According to the testimony of Rom. 16:15, however, the possibility and the actuality of such non-patriarchal marriages was not unique to Priscilla and Aquila.

Notes

1. Thus also Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 178.
2. See, e.g., Susanne Heine, Frauen der frühen Christenheit, 51.
3. On this, see Hanneliese Steichele, “Priska,” 155-56.
4. Annemarie Ohler, Frauengestalten, 203, describes this action on the part of scholars as “appropriate,” arguing in fact that “Acts and the Pauline letters always [speak] of the two in the same breath.” However in my opinion this argues directly against the procedure of the majority of scholars.
5. A positive answer to this last question has not been a matter of course for scholars. See, for example, the work of Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen, 156ff. a book that from a social-historical point of view is very good . In examining the evidence regarding the occupation mentioned in Acts, however, the author always speaks only of Aquila and Paul, and although the subheading reads “Aquila and Prisca,” Priscilla does not appear in the central part of the discussion. It appears that Aquila was the sole worker in this household, or, rather, that he alone practiced the craft. Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, 157, says of Acts 18:2-3 that Paul meets Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, lives with them, and “works with the couple, since they [!] practiced the same trade, tentmaking.” With this formulation, the author indicates his assumption that all three practiced the same trade, since the pronoun “they,” in context, refers to the couple and to Paul.
6. A. von Harnack, “Recensionen.”
7. Not all these variants have been retained in the critical apparatus of Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th ed.
8. A. von Harnack, “Recensionen,” 10. On this, see also Eldon J. Epp, Tendency.
9. Nestle-Aland, 26th ed., has in the text the singular ergazetô, “he [Paul] worked.”
10. See F. Rehkopf, Septuaginta-Vokabular, as well as W. Michaelis, “skênê, ktl,” TDNT 7:368-94.
11. See the references in W. Michaelis, “skênê” TDNT 7:393-94.
12. John Chrysostom, Salutate Priscillam, 1.2.
13. See, e.g., Epistulam II ad Timotheus, 2.5.
14. John Chrysostom, Salutate Priscillam, 1.5: Kai Paulos men ouk eschyneto homou kai smilên metacheirizôn, kai dermata raptôn, kai tois axiômasi dialegomenos. The Latin text translates the Greek as follows: Ac Paulum quidem non pudet simul et scalprum manu tractare, pelles consuere, et viros alloqui in dignitate constitutos.
15. John Chrysostom, Ad Romanos 2.5; Epistulam II ad Timotheus 2.4, where the word skutotomos appears once, again, and it is asserted that Paul was poor (penês) and without means.
16. Origen, Ad Romanos 10.18.
17. Theodoret, Graecarum Affectionem Curatio 5; De Providentia 10.
18. Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porphyrii p. 9: epedôken oun heauton eis tên tou skutotomou technên, plynôn byrsas kai raptôn. The Greek text is taken from R. Silva, “Fabricantes,” 126 n. 16.
19. Thus S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, 262.
20. On this, see also R. Silva, “Fabricantes,” 123ff.; T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 632-33.
21. Erasmus, In Acta Apostolorum (Basilea, 1541), 6: “artifices tabernaculorum, i. d. sutores”; “ob id opinor, quod tabernacula apud priscos pellibus conficiebatur.” Citations from R. Silva, “Fabricantes,” 128.
22. Citations in R. Silva, “Fabricantes,” 128, who refers to Calvin, Actes des Apôtres (Corpus Reformatorum), 85.
23. For this translation by Luther, see T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 633.
24. Luther, Vorlesung über den Römerbrief (1515/1516), ed. of 1927.
25. J. L. Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (1808).
26. Details, and a survey of research, are in R. Silva, “Fabricantes,” 130ff.
27. W. Weitling, Evangelium, 108, says that the apostles lived by the work of their hands, and that Paul was a carpetmaker.
28. A. Deissmann, Paulus, 35-36.
29. R. Knopf, Apostelgeschichte, 78; G. Hoennicke, Apostelgeschichte, 95 n. 2.
30. Billerbeck 2:746, citing Exod. 26:7 as proof. However, even if the “tent over the tabernacle” in Exodus 26 (LXX) was to be made primarily of “carpets” or “curtains,” it was to be covered with tanned skins; (dermata derreis) cf. Exod. 26:7-14.
31. J. Jeremias, “Zöllner,” 299.
32. On this, see Billerbeck 2:695; S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, 253ff.
33. S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, 254. At this point he names many other trades, including a number that were despised and still were practiced by rabbis.
34. W. Michaelis, “skênê” TDNT 7:394. Thus also T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte 2:634.
35. See, e.g., Pliny, Naturalis Historia 6.28.143; 8.203.
36. T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte 2:633.
37. Billerbeck 2:473-74 presents exactly this train of thought and concludes: “From this we can see why it was that the apostle, as a (skênopoios), sought his living from one of the principal industries of his homeland.”
38. Jewish scholars have traditionally placed great emphasis on the learning of a trade by those who study Torah: For example, in Midr. Qoh. 9.9 (42a) we read: “Acquire a handicraft for yourself together with Torah . . . R[abbi] Jose b. Meshullam and R[abbi] Simeon b. Menasia [both ca. 180] . . . used to divide the day into three parts—a third for studying Torah, a third for prayer, and a third for work”; Aboth 2.2: “Rabban Gamaliel [3rd c., ca. 220] . . . said: ‘Excellent is the study of the Torah together with a worldly occupation’ [e.g., craft work or trade].” And Rabbi Hillel the elder [ca. 20 B.C.E.], in order to pay for his study of Torah, worked as a day laborer. Quotations are from Billerbeck 2:745.
39. E. Haenchen, Acts, 534; R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:147; J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 270; G. Schill Apostelgeschichte, 363.
40. I. H. Marshall, Acts, 293.
41. P. Lampe, Christen, 157.
42. See, e.g., P. Lampe, Christen, 157, who also mentions other literature in the context. For the imperial tabernacularii, see CIL 6.5183a, 5183b, 9053, 5053a. More detail will be given below.
43. P. Lampe, Christen, 157-58. So also W. Elliger, Paulus, 250.
44. R. Silva, “Fabricantes,” 124. On the shift brought about by German interpretation (Wettstein, Hug, and Eichhorn), see p. 132.
45. H. Blümner, Technologie, 268ff., with numerous bibliographical notes.
46. It is true that Blümner (Technologie, 300) asserts that tents could also be made by weaving, e.g., of flax. But these were not the words that were used. The same is true when Blümner (Thätigkeit, 4-5, 30-31) speaks of the weaving of goats’ hair (i.e., cilicium). There, too, when he describes the types of business most practiced in Pontus (pp. 40ff.), tentmaking is not mentioned in connection with the weaving of linen. See also B. Büchsenschütz, Hauptstätten, 64, with th assertion that the weaving of linen screens only reached significant proportions in Cilicia in the second century C.E.
47. S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie 1:7-8.
48. G. Hoennicke, Apostelgeschichte, 95.
49. See, for example, J. Comblin Atos 2:87-88; E. Haenchen, Acts, 534 538; W. Michaelis, “skênê,” TDNT 7:393; J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 270; U Smidt, Apostelgeschichte, 136-37; R. Silva, “Fabricantes,” esp. 133; T. Zahn Apostelgeschichte, 632, 634; P. Lampe, Christen, 156ff.; H. Conzelmann, Acts 151.
50. W. Michaelis, “skênê,” TDNT 7:393.
51. G. Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 363.
52. P. Lampe, Christen, 156-57, has made an effort to collect all the tabernacularii inscriptions for the city of Rome. Only a few people practicing this trade are inscriptionally attested. They were employed in the imperial work-shops: CIL 6.5183a, 5183b, 9053, 9053a.
53. On this point, see, e.g., R. S. Kraemer, Maenads, 79.
54. N. Kampen, Image, 133; thus also R. Günther, Frauenarbeit, 136.
55. M. Eichenauer, Untersuchungen, 87-88. Natalie Kampen also reproduces an iconographic representation of a sutrix (fig. 90). Earlier, H. Blümner, Technologie, 271 n. 9, also mentions a sutrix.
56. M. Eichenauer’s documentary work is directed against the assertion that the state of the sources does not permit us to locate women in fields of labor that constitute “men’s work.” For example, she shows that women not only owned an officina plumbaria, a workshop for producing materials out of lead, but were also active in the production of lead pipes and well pipes; on this, see also H. Gummerus, “Industrie und Handel,” 1499-1500. Moreover, we can also see that women participated, just as men did, in the hard labor involved in other fields of work as well: thus, for example, H. Thierfelder, Unbekannte antike Welt, 147, presents a receipt, inscriptionally attested, for a woman who worked five days on a dam.
57. L. Schottroff, “Women as Disciples,” 88-91.
58. A. von Harnack, Mission and Expansion 2:242 n. 4.
59. E. Haenchen, Acts, 538.                                                                                    ..
60. G. Theißen, “Social Stratification,” 90. For the “boutiques” or small shops mentioned in the following citation, see below.
61. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:147.
62. For more detail, and a critique, see P. Lampe, Christen, 159ff.
63. H.-J. Klauck, Hausgemeinde, 3.
64. U. Wilckens, Römer 6.3:134.
65. See W.-H. Ollrog, Paulus, 26-27, with n. 105.
66. E.g., M. Hengel, Eigentum, 46; see also his “Arbeit,” 197 n. 81, where the author considers the possibility that Priscilla and Aquila “may have” owned “a large business with workshops in various localities.” After this consideration, Hengel continues by saying that it was an “exhausting job,” by which Paul and his companions “could scarcely earn the minimum necessary for their existence.” The whole conception seems to be that Paul worked for Priscilla and Aquila as a wage-earner.
67. John Chrysostom, Salutate Priscillam 1.2: ptôchoi kai penêtes , kai ek tês tôn cheirôn ergasias zôntes. ‘Esan, gar, phêsi skenopoioi tê technê(pauperes et egeni, quique opere manuum victum quaererent. Erant enim, einquit, sceno-factoriae artis).
68. E. Haenchen, Acts, 539.
69. Theißen, “Social Stratification,” 90-91.
70. P. Lampe, Christen, 158. See the list of inscriptions there. We should note here that Lampe counts only Aquila within this artisanal group. The inscriptions are mentioned in his n. 49.
71. Ibid., 159.
72. See N. Kampen, Image, e.g., figures 90 and 79, as well as 37, 38, 39, and 40, depicting the tiny stalls of the merchants.
73. P. Lampe,Christen, 161. In addition, he mentions literary material in which it is stated that this kind of craft work was also carried on in the dwelling spaces, e.g., Apuleius, Metamorphoses 9.24—25.
74. P. Lampe, Christen, 161.
75. H. Maehler, Urkunden, esp. 71-72, 163ff.
76. See ibid., 11-12.
77. See ibid., esp. 158, 163ff.; also J. Hengstl, Papyri, 307-8.
78. K. Thraede, “Frau,” 230; idem, “Ärger,” 97, where he also expressly calls Priscilla a god-fearer. Against this thesis of the “entrepreneurial couple,” see also L. Schottroff, “Women as Disciples,” 123-24 n. 50; and P. Lampe, Christen, 159ff. H. Steichele, “Priska,” 158ff., apparently follows this same line of reasoning. She does not simply opt for words like “wealth” and the like, but rather asserts that Priscilla and Aquila were tentmakers, and therefore had active employment. She does not, however, pose the social-historical question.
79. W. Elliger, Paulus, 250; this is also the conclusion of L. Schottroff, Women as Disciples,” 90-91 and n. 50.
80. The trend was started by the “Western” text recension of Acts 18:1-3, which still finds echoes in exegesis at the present time: for example, when R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:162 makes direct reference to parts of that recension in order to shield Apollos from what is said to be Luke’s preference for Priscilla and Aquila. Still more striking, however, is the treatment by H. Conzelmann, Acts 157-58), since in his work Priscilla does not appear either as an artisan or as active in missionary teaching. In the commentary on vv. 24-27, for example v. 26 is completely omitted, so that he speaks only of Aquila!
81. A. von Harnack, Mission and Expansion, 1:75.
82. Ibid., 1:79 and all other passages, in the second volume as well, in which he speaks of the couple in connection with Paul. See, similarly, his “Probabilia,” 33ff.
83. In addition to Rom. 16:4, see also Chrysostom, Salutate Priscillam
84. On this point R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:161, believes in agreement with other exegetes that this is “historically improbable, and can scarcely be otherwise understood than as an (unsuccessful) attempt on the part of Luke to minimize the impact of Apollos in Ephesus.”
85. Thus also K. H. Rengstorf, “didaskô, ktl ” TDNT 2:135-65, at 146. I do not, however, interpret instruction in Scripture as a “weapon against the attacks of Jews” (ibid., 146).
86. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:161-62.
87. Ibid., 2:162, with n. 11.
88. The understanding of this word as including “sisters” corresponds to the androcentric usage in New Testament Greek. On this, see L. Schottroff, “Mary Magdalene,” 169-71, 195; E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 43-48,
89. On this, see above, pp. 197-99.
90. See A. von Harnack, “Probabilia,” 32ff., esp. 37-38. Whatever the case is with regard to the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews, it is especially striking that the word skênê, “tent,” is nowhere so frequently used in the N Testament as here. Of twenty instances in the entire New Testament, ten appear in this letter. It is repeatedly emphasized that the sacred tent/tabernacle ( Exodus 26) was not made by human hands (Hebr. 8:2; 9:11, 24). This could very well indicate that the author was familiar with the making of tents (see a Hebr. 11:9, “living in tents”).
91. See, e.g., Rom. 16:2 (Paul urges the community to welcome Phoebe Phil. 2:29 (Paul asks the community to receive Epaphroditus).
92. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:161.
93. In comparing 1 Corinthians 3 with Acts 18:24-27, a number of exegetes cast doubt on the “historical reliability of the account of Aquila and Priscilla teaching Apollos” (H. Steichele, “Priska,” 160). Steichele agrees with that opinion, writing that the ecclesially oriented Luke could very well have introduced the teaching “redactionally,” so that Apollos’s mission would take place and be understood as belonging within the church. But by that very fact Luke would demonstrating that he had no difficulty at all in considering Priscilla a teacher.
94. Rom. 16:4 and John Chrysostom, Salutate Priscillam 2.1.
95. Thus R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:162, although (p. 163) he describes Priscilla and Aquila as an “active missionary couple.” But he makes a distinction only insofar as Apollos is described as an independent missionary, while Priscilla and Aquila are attached to Paul.
96. P. Lampe, Christen, 162ff., with citations of evidence and literature.
97. According to Billerbeck 3:486ff., Aquila appears to have been a name very frequently given to proselytes, and typical of Pontus.
98. See the evidence in P. Lampe, Christen, 141ff., 159.
99. See, e.g., G. Lüdemann, Paul, 162-71; P. Lampe, Christen, 4ff., with many bibliographical references.
100. Suetonius, Divus Claudius 25.4: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.
101. Orosius, Historiae adversum Paganos 7.6.15-16: Anno eiusdem nono expulsos per Claudium urbe Iudaeos Iosephus refert, sed me magis Suetonius movet, qui ait hoc mode: Claudius Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.
102. P. Lampe, Christen, 7.
103. See the documentation in P. Lampe, Christen, 6, showing that confusion or alternation between Chrestus and Christus was very common.
104. See, e.g., Acts 7:1ff.; 18:12ff.; 22:1ff.; for the (danger of) unrest among the population as a whole, see Acts 19:23ff.
105. A. Deissmann, Paulus, 159ff.; G. Lüdemann, Paul, 162-71.
106. Thus also H. Steichele, “Priska,” 159; R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:152; differently G. Lüdemann, Paul, 162-71, who dates the edict of Claudius to the year 41, and the proconsulate of Gallio to 51/52. In my opinion that would indicate that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul spent time in Corinth on two separate occasions, which is not historically impossible. But against Lüdemann’s arguments, see P. Lampe, Christen, 8.
107. For the dating of the letter and the place of composition, see H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 3—4, with n. 31 (written in the year 55); H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament 2: The History and Literature of Early Christianity, 120-21, thinks that 1 Corinthians was written in Ephesus around 53/54; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, 141, believes that Paul wrote the letter in Ephesus in the spring of 54, 55, or 56; according to W. Michaelis, Einleitung, 175, Paul wrote it in Ephesus around the time of Easter 55.
108. On this, see H. Steichele, “Priska,” 157; H. Koester, Introduction, 2:138-39.
109. P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, 175 (in Corinth, in 56 at the earliest, 59 at the latest); H. Koester, Introduction, 2:138-39 (in Corinth in the winter of the year 55/56); so also W. Michaelis, Einleitung, 164.
110. H. Koester, Introduction, 2:300.
111. See, e.g., Luise Schottroff, “Women as Disciples,” 107; E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 178-79; H. Steichele, “Priska,” 160ff.; S. Heine, Women and Early Christianity, 43-44.
112. Tertullian, “De Fuga in Persecutione,” 12.
113. A. von Harnack, “Recensionen,” 10. Unfortunately, until quite recently this attempt found very little positive echo; at any rate, it did not shape research on Priscilla until the most recent feminist initiatives.
114. H. Steichele, “Priska,” 162. The following quotation is also from her work.
115. A. Ohler, Frauengestalten, 203ff.
116. Ibid., 210.
117. H. Steichele, “Priska,” 162.
118. Ibid., 214.
119. On the way in which women’s work is made invisible by the dominant exegesis, see L. Schottroff, “Unsichtbare Arbeit,” 39ff.
120. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 178-79.
121. For this understanding, see A. Ohler, Frauengestalten, 226.
122. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 176.
123. See, similarly, Ben Witherington, Women, 153-54.
124. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 179.
125. On this, see E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 172-75-, L. Schottroff, “Women as Disciples,” 88-92 and esp. 123-24; eadem, “Critique,” 36-38.
126. Acts mentions only two married women: Sapphira and Priscilla. In Sapphira’s case, however, the story turned out differently: see ch. 1 above.

Return to the Contents page?