Acts 15:20 and 29

[Ben C. Smith]

The Western text:

Acts 15.19-20 (codex Bezae): 19 On this account I judge that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from blood, and, as many things as they do not wish to be done to themselves, do not do to others. / 19 διὸ ἐγὼ κρείνω μὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, 20 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γείνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε.

Acts 15.28-29 (codex Bezae): 28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication, and, as many things as you do not wish to be done to yourselves, not to do to others; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well, borne along by the Holy Spirit. Farewell.” / 28 ἔδοξεν γὰρ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι καὶ ἡμεῖν μηδὲν πλέιον ἐπιτίθεσθαι ἡμεῖν βάρος πλὴν τούτων ἐπάναγκες, 29 ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πορνίας, καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς γείνεσθαι ἑτέρῳ μὴ ποιεῖν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξατε, φερόμενοι ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. Ἔρρωσθε.

Thanks for this. I forgot about the Golden Rule part. And it's interesting that it is phrased here like Hillel's version, i.e., as "do not" as opposed to "do." That makes a connection to Rabbinic Judaism even stronger. But I wonder why it is phrased as "do" in Mt. 7:12 then, but maybe it doesn't matter since in the case of Acts it is a decree from James and not Jesus and they amount to the same thing anyway.

The positive ("do") version is rarer in antiquity than the negative ("do not") version. The gospels kind of go their own way on that score.

I find it interesting that the Golden Rule stands apart syntactically from the other three rules, all three of which depend upon the infinitive ἀπέχεσθαι (while the Golden Rule does not). In verse 20, the infinitive construction even gives way (a bit awkwardly) to a second person imperative construction. It looks like the Golden Rule intrudes upon the other three; it may have been added later.

[davidmartin]

I find it interesting that the Golden Rule stands apart syntactically from the other three rules, all three of which depend upon the infinitive ἀπέχεσθαι (while the Golden Rule does not). In verse 20, the infinitive construction even gives way (a bit awkwardly) to a second person imperative construction. It looks like the Golden Rule intrudes upon the other three; it may have been added later

Like maybe from the Didache?

I expect someone could write a whole book just on an assumed use of the Didache as one of the sources for Acts
It's a shame we don't have more copies of it, i bet there were textual variants aplenty...

[Ben C. Smith]

I find it interesting that the Golden Rule stands apart syntactically from the other three rules, all three of which depend upon the infinitive ἀπέχεσθαι (while the Golden Rule does not). In verse 20, the infinitive construction even gives way (a bit awkwardly) to a second person imperative construction. It looks like the Golden Rule intrudes upon the other three; it may have been added later

Like maybe from the Didache?

I expect someone could write a whole book just on an assumed use of the Didache as one of the sources for Acts
It's a shame we don't have more copies of it, i bet there were textual variants aplenty...

I have not written a book about it, but this old post of mine may interest you.

[John2]

I wonder why the NT and Western versions of Acts 15:20 and 29 added a fourth thing to the (apparent) three capital sins of idolatry, fornication and (I'm now convinced) murder. And why "strangled things" in the case of the former? Could it be tied to the seventh Rabbinic Noachide law against not consuming flesh torn from a living animal or to the prohibition against consuming blood in Gen. 9:4? I would lean towards the latter, but I'm curious if the word for "strangled things" could apply to the former. Both options would make sense for Gentiles, at least.

And the Golden Rule also makes sense for Gentiles in the latter case, since it is negative like Hillel's version and his is addressed to a Gentile too.

I figure either one could be genuine (i.e., from James). He could have simply added one more thing to the three capital sins that he deemed applicable to Gentiles. Or both versions could have been added on by other people for the same reason.

Edit: I just found this interesting looking book and want to read more of it when I get time.

The Four Prohibitions of Acts 15 and Their Common Background in Genesis 1-3 by Elena Butova

https://books.google.com/books?id=fYV8D ... -3&f=false

[Ben C. Smith]

I wonder why the NT and Western versions of Acts 15:20 and 29 added a fourth thing to the (apparent) three capital sins of idolatry, fornication and (I'm now convinced) murder. And why "strangled things" in the case of the former? Could it be tied to the seventh Rabbinic Noachide law against not consuming flesh torn from a living animal or to the prohibition against consuming blood in Gen. 9:4? I would lean towards the latter, but I'm curious if the word for "strangled things" could apply to the former. Both options would make sense for Gentiles, at least.

I do not think it is a common word, and I have no special insight to its range of meaning.

The LSJ has very little on it: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... pnikto%2Fs.

[John2]

I wonder why the NT and Western versions of Acts 15:20 and 29 added a fourth thing to the (apparent) three capital sins of idolatry, fornication and (I'm now convinced) murder. And why "strangled things" in the case of the former? Could it be tied to the seventh Rabbinic Noachide law against not consuming flesh torn from a living animal or to the prohibition against consuming blood in Gen. 9:4? I would lean towards the latter, but I'm curious if the word for "strangled things" could apply to the former. Both options would make sense for Gentiles, at least.

I do not think it is a common word, and I have no special insight to its range of meaning.

The LSJ has very little on it: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... pnikto%2Fs.

I just noticed something in Butova's book above that might settle the issue. She notes on page 20 that Tertullian (in Apology 51) "explains the reason for abstaining from strangled things; 'that we may not in any way be polluted by blood' ... The wording Tertullian provides in his Apology has strong similarities with the wording in the Decree."

[John2]

And on page 23 Butova cites Origen (Against Celsus 8:30):

As to things strangled, we are forbidden by Scripture to partake of them, because the blood is still in them; and blood, especially the odour arising from blood, is said to be the food of demons. Perhaps, then, if we were to eat of strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us. And the reason which forbids the use of strangled animals for food is also applicable to the use of blood.

I guess that settles it, then.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

While taking a closer look at James' proscriptions for Gentiles in Acts 15:20 and 29 I came across something I had been unaware of and thought I'd see what others here might have to say about it.

Hi John. Thanks for the interesting problem and your solutions.

I suppose that since Irenaeus, Tertullian (and Cyprian) were "westerners" they may have had a Western text of Acts, so I guess it ultimately comes down to the value of the Western text (at least in this case).

This book seems to imply that it was tampered with:

The Western text gives an ethical spin to the decree of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 by omitting "what is strangled" and adding the Golden Rule to 15:20, 29.

As does Leuba:

By eliminating [what is strangled] and adding the golden rule, the Western text gives to these prohibitions a moral rather than ritual bearing; the contamination of idols implies pagan idolatry, [some Greek word I can't copy and paste] means impurity, blood means murder.

Just for clarification: there are other Western texts, in particular Old Latin mss, not omitting "what is strangled" (bolded and underlined)

the textual variants in Acts 15:29 "what is strangled"

- καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ] p45 ‭א C E L P 049 056 0142 36 88 104 181 307 326 330 436 451 453 610 614 629 (630) (945) 1175 1241 1409 1505 1678 (1739) 1877 (1891) 2127 2344 2412 2492 2495 Byz l1178 itar itc itdem ite itl itp itph itro itw vg syrp syrh copsa (copbo) arm eth geo slav Origenlat(1/2) Chrysostom ς

- καὶ πνικτοῦ] p74 A B Ψ 33 81 pc Apostolic Constitutions WH

- omit] (see Acts 15:29; Acts 21:25) D itd itgig Aristides Irenaeusaccording to 1739 (Ambrosiaster) Ephraem Ambrose Augustine

[John2]

Thanks for that, KK. Butova's book also gets into the textual history of Acts 15:20 and 29, and on pages 58-59 she cites Bockmuehl regarding the meaning of "strangled" that re-opens the possibility that it might mean "torn" in the sense of not eating meat torn from a living animal (as per the seventh Noachide law):

Marcus Bockmuehl understands the Noachide commandments "as a key formulation of Jewish ethics for Gentiles." Noting that Luke recalls the halakhah "with great accuracy," he shows Luke treating Gentiles as Noachides. Bockmuehl emphasizes that the Decree deals with "three carefully defined forbidden foods: food sacrificed to idols, meat with blood still in it (nebelah, i.e. probably including that which died by itself), and meat from an animal that was not properly slaughtered (i.e. 'strangled' or possibly also 'torn,' terefah).

Treating the four prohibitions in Acts 15, Bockmuehl takes [blood] "as a dietary injunction with broader implication" and sees in it the abrogation of homicide.

So maybe "strangled" (pniktos) is an attempt to translate terefah. In any event, and going by whichever version of Acts 15:20 and 29, all of the proscriptions seem pertinent to Gentiles and appear to relate to the later Rabbinic Noachide laws (and to Hillel's maxim in the case of the Golden Rule). Perhaps they are (as I mentioned upthread) an early formulation of them, before they became codified as seven laws in later Rabbinic writings. And maybe they were thus James' attempt (assuming they are real since Paul and the Didache also mention some of them) to placate the Pharisee Jewish Christians in Acts 15:5-6 who said that Gentiles should be circumcised and required to observe all of the Torah, as a way of meeting them halfway.

But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter.

My take on Acts 15:19-22 is not that James is saying that Gentiles shouldn't observe more of the Torah if they choose to but that it shouldn't be imposed on them (like in the Didache), since Gentiles can hear the Torah on their own in synagogues on the Sabbath and observe more of it to whatever extent they are able to:

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not cause trouble for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

Cf. Did. 6:

See that no one cause you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able, what you are able that do. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on your guard; for it is the service of dead gods.

[gryan]

The Western text:

Acts 15.19-20 (codex Bezae): 19 On this account I judge that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from blood, and, as many things as they do not wish to be done to themselves, do not do to others. / 19 διὸ ἐγὼ κρείνω μὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, 20 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γείνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε.

Acts 15.28-29 (codex Bezae): 28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication, and, as many things as you do not wish to be done to yourselves, not to do to others; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well, borne along by the Holy Spirit. Farewell.” / 28 ἔδοξεν γὰρ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι καὶ ἡμεῖν μηδὲν πλέιον ἐπιτίθεσθαι ἡμεῖν βάρος πλὴν τούτων ἐπάναγκες, 29 ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πορνίας, καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς γείνεσθαι ἑτέρῳ μὴ ποιεῖν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξατε, φερόμενοι ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. Ἔρρωσθε.

Acts 21.25 (codex Bezae): 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, they have nothing to say against you, for we sent, giving judgment, that they should observe nothing of that sort, except to guard themselves from the thing sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.” / 25 περὶ δὲ τῶν πεπιστευκότων ἐθνῶν οὐδὲν ἔχουσι λέγειν πρὸς σέ, ἡμεῖς γὰρ ἀπεστείλαμεν κρείνο̣ντες μηδὲν τοιοῦτον τηρεῖν αὐτούς εἰ μὴ φυλάσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς τό ἐδωλόθυτον καὶ αἷμα καὶ πορνείαν.

Acts 15:29 in codex Bezae, line length preserved
https://www.logos.com/product/29619/cod ... brigiensis:

απεχεσθαι ειδωλοθυτων
και αιματος και πορνιας
και οσα μη θελετε εαυτοις γεινεσθαι
ετερω μη ποιειν
αφ ων διατηρουντες εαυτους
ευ πραξατε φερομενοι
εν τω αγιω π̅ν̅ι̅ ερρωσθε

Chat GPT Translation

απεχεσθαι ειδωλοθυτων
to abstain from idol sacrifices

και αιματος - and blood και πορνιας
and sexual immorality

και οσα μη θελετε εαυτοις γεινεσθαι
and whatever you do not wish to happen to yourselves

ετερω μη ποιειν
do not do to another

αφ ων διατηρουντες εαυτους
as for which, keeping yourselves

ευ πραξατε φερομενοι
act well while bearing

εν τω αγιω π̅ν̅ι̅ ερρωσθε
in the Holy Spirit, be strengthened or be in good health