Didymus the Blind : Speaking somewhat accurately the things concerning Jesus is not different from laying out somewhat accurately the things concerning the way, the teaching of Christ, for it is possible that someone, having a generally precise knowledge about the things of Christ, needs a most nuanced explanation of them. Apollos, being a Jew, had the opportunity to know the Old Testament that gives witness concerning Jesus. Therefore, being learned, he was speaking in the Spirit, and he was teaching in the synagogues what he knew about Jesus. Being students of the apostle Paul, Priscilla and Aquila take him, being full of eagerness, aside in order to pass on to him the entire way of the gospel. It is probable that Apollos knew that Jesus had lived among humankind and had commanded these things of the way, but it is unlikely that he knew why he had come among us. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 18.28 John Chrysostom : "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the Spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John." If this man knew only the baptism of John, how is it that he was "fervent in the Spirit," for the Spirit was not given in that way? It seems to me that this was one of the hundred and twenty who were baptized with the Apostles: or, if not so, then the same that took place in the case of Cornelius, took place also in the case of this man. Though not knowing all, by his zeal he attracted the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as Cornelius and his company. — Homily on Acts 40 Oecumenius : "though he only knew the baptism of John." It is worth asking how, if he knew only John's baptism, he could therefore be filled with the Spirit. For the Spirit was not given in that way. And if those who came after him needed John's baptism, much more would this man have needed it. What then is one to say? For he did not simply place both in succession. It therefore seems that this man is one of the one hundred and twenty who were baptized after the apostles. If not that, what happened in the case of Cornelius may have happened here as well. But he is not baptized. When this matter is examined precisely, it seems this is not the case, since he too ought to have been baptized. For the other twelve knew nothing precisely, not even about Jesus. It is plausible then that he was baptized. And if those of John, after the baptism, again baptized, then it was necessary for the disciples to do the same. [CHRYSOSTOM] — Commentary on Acts