Acts 15:20 and 29

[John2]

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.

The Berean Literal translation of the NT version says:

... but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and sexual immorality, and that which is strangled, and from blood.

https://biblehub.com/acts/15-20.htm


https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/15-20.htm


Other translations (in the first link) have the word "food," but I don't see that in the Greek (in the second link), though according to this next link it might be implied by the word for "pollution" (alisgéma):


https://biblehub.com/greek/234.htm


Anyway, while looking at some comments about this verse on the biblehub I noticed something interesting:

... in , cf. Irenæus, Hær., iii., 12, 14; Cyprian, Testim, iii., 119; Tertullian, De Pudicitia, xii., the words καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ are omitted here and in the decree, Acts 15:29, although it is also possible that the laxer views on the subject in the West may have contributed to the omission ... Dr. Hort leaves the difficulty unsolved, merely referring to the “Western” text without adopting it.


https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/15-20.htm

And here is the verse that Irenaeus cites in AH 3.12.14:

Wherefore I for my part give judgment, that we trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that it be enjoined them, that they do abstain from the vanities of idols, and from fornication, and from blood; and whatsoever they wish not to be done to themselves, let them not do to others ...


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103312.htm

And here is the verse that Tertullian cites in On Modesty 12:

“It has seemed (good),” say they, “to the Holy Spirit and to us to cast upon you no ampler weight than (that) of those (things) from which it is necessary that abstinence be observed; from sacrifices, and from fornications, and from blood: by abstaining from which you act rightly, the Holy Spirit carrying you.”


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm

And here is a translation of 15:20 and 29 in the Western text of Acts:


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_02_text.htm

Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles turn to God: but that we enjoin on them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, [and from what is strangled] and from blood: and that whatsoever they would not should be done to them ye do not to others.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from idol sacrifices, and from blood, [and from things strangled], and from fornication and whatsoever ye would not should be done to yourselves, ye do not to another.

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.


https://books.google.com/books?id=aJ2DD ... xt&f=false

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.

It is easily understandable that ritual prescriptions should be modified so as to assume a moral character in an age when the former had lost their practical relevance to the Church. The opposite process would be unintelligible.


https://books.google.com/books?id=HGuYc ... xt&f=false

So what's going on here? Did Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian use a Western text of Acts? Is the NT version superior to the Western text in this case? Does the proscription against "blood" mean different things in the NT version and the Western text?

[John2]

In this book, however, Flusser writes:

The first step towards a solution of the problem was taken by the German scholar Adolf Resch already in 1905. He rightly recognized the eminent value of the so called Western text of the Apostolic Decree. In contrast to the common text, where Gentiles are obliged to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled and from unchastity, in the Western text the prohibition to eat what is strangled is missing, Resch also succeeded in showing that for the most important of the Church Fathers only the three prohibitions -not including the one concerning that which is strangled- formed the text of the Apostolic Decree and that these three prohibitions were originally identical with the three capital sins in early patristic literature, namely idolatry, bloodshed and fornication ... the three capital sins ... are often mentioned in rabbinic literature and .. according to a decision from the beginning of the second century C.E., a Jew must choose death rather than let himself be coerced to transgress one of these three prohibitions ... idolatry, bloodshed and fornication are also three of the extant seven Noachic precepts ... it is more than probable that in the Apostolic Age the official Jewish position was to require the Noachites, the God-fearing Gentiles, to abstain from idolatry, bloodshed and fornication. Hence quite naturally this same rule was accepted by the Apostolic Church.


https://books.google.com/books?id=s1B8g ... xt&f=false

[John2]

If this is the case, then I figure the proscription against blood in both the NT and Western version of Acts 15:20 and 29 means "bloodshed," since it would seem redundant if it meant consuming blood in the NT version given that it also refers to not eating "that which is strangled," which implies eating an animal that hasn't had its blood drained out.

[John2]

And it would make a lot of sense to me if Acts 15:20 and 29 were related to the later Rabbinic Noachide laws since I view Christianity as being a faction of the Fourth Philosophy, which Josephus says (aside from their rejection of the oral Torah, just like in Christianity) "agree[d] in all other things with the Pharisaic notions." And while they are ruled against on the issue of Gentile circumcision, as Acts 15:5 notes, there were "believers from the party of the Pharisees."

[John2]

If this is the case, then I figure the proscription against blood in both the NT and Western version of Acts 15:20 and 29 means "bloodshed," since it would seem redundant if it meant consuming blood in the NT version given that it also refers to not eating "that which is strangled," which implies eating an animal that hasn't had its blood drained out.

But if "blood" means murder in the Western text then it would be missing the element of not consuming blood as per Gen. 9:4-5, since it doesn't refer to "that which is strangled":

But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it. And surely I will require the life of any man or beast by whose hand your lifeblood is shed. I will demand an accounting from anyone who takes the life of his fellow man:

But then maybe "blood" in Acts 15:20 and 29 means both the consumption of blood and murder (like in Gen. 9:4-5). But if so, then why does the NT version say (or add?) "that which is strangled"?

In any event, I think Flusser is on to something regarding the connection to the later Rabbinic Noachide laws (which is something I'd only casually thought about before). And it seems applicable to both the NT and Western versions of Acts. So I would call these three (or four) proscriptions "proto-Rabbinic Noachide laws."

[Ben C. Smith]

If this is the case, then I figure the proscription against blood in both the NT and Western version of Acts 15:20 and 29 means "bloodshed," since it would seem redundant if it meant consuming blood in the NT version given that it also refers to not eating "that which is strangled," which implies eating an animal that hasn't had its blood drained out.

But if "blood" means murder in the Western text then it would be missing the element of not consuming blood as per Gen. 9:4-5, since it doesn't refer to "that which is strangled":

But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it. And surely I will require the life of any man or beast by whose hand your lifeblood is shed. I will demand an accounting from anyone who takes the life of his fellow man:

But then maybe "blood" in Acts 15:20 and 29 means both the consumption of blood and murder (like in Gen. 9:4-5). But if so, then why does the NT version say (or add?) "that which is strangled"?

In any event, I think Flusser is on to something regarding the connection to the later Rabbinic Noachide laws (which is something I'd only casually thought about before). And it seems applicable to both the NT and Western versions of Acts. So I would call these three (or four) proscriptions "proto-Rabbinic Noachide laws."

It appears to me that there is a close connection to the 3 "capital sins" of rabbinic Judaism:

Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a: 74a .... Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, "The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod, 'With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told, "Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed," he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah's prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.'" ....

The Western text lacks the prohibition against consuming blood because it is indebted to the rabbinic tradition.

[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.

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.

[John2]

If this is the case, then I figure the proscription against blood in both the NT and Western version of Acts 15:20 and 29 means "bloodshed," since it would seem redundant if it meant consuming blood in the NT version given that it also refers to not eating "that which is strangled," which implies eating an animal that hasn't had its blood drained out.

But if "blood" means murder in the Western text then it would be missing the element of not consuming blood as per Gen. 9:4-5, since it doesn't refer to "that which is strangled":

But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it. And surely I will require the life of any man or beast by whose hand your lifeblood is shed. I will demand an accounting from anyone who takes the life of his fellow man:

But then maybe "blood" in Acts 15:20 and 29 means both the consumption of blood and murder (like in Gen. 9:4-5). But if so, then why does the NT version say (or add?) "that which is strangled"?

In any event, I think Flusser is on to something regarding the connection to the later Rabbinic Noachide laws (which is something I'd only casually thought about before). And it seems applicable to both the NT and Western versions of Acts. So I would call these three (or four) proscriptions "proto-Rabbinic Noachide laws."

It appears to me that there is a close connection to the 3 "capital sins" of rabbinic Judaism:

Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a: 74a .... Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, "The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod, 'With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told, "Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed," he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah's prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.'" ....

The Western text lacks the prohibition against consuming blood because it is indebted to the rabbinic tradition.

I wonder if the Rabbinic tradition against "bloodshed" pertains to murder and the consumption of blood. As Lev. 17:3-4 says:

What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.

Maybe that's convoluted though, and I haven't thought about the Noachide laws in ages so I need to take a fresh look at it them. But in any event, do you think that the Western version of Acts 15:20 and 29 is thus superior to the NT version?

[Ben C. Smith]

If this is the case, then I figure the proscription against blood in both the NT and Western version of Acts 15:20 and 29 means "bloodshed," since it would seem redundant if it meant consuming blood in the NT version given that it also refers to not eating "that which is strangled," which implies eating an animal that hasn't had its blood drained out.

But if "blood" means murder in the Western text then it would be missing the element of not consuming blood as per Gen. 9:4-5, since it doesn't refer to "that which is strangled":

But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it. And surely I will require the life of any man or beast by whose hand your lifeblood is shed. I will demand an accounting from anyone who takes the life of his fellow man:

But then maybe "blood" in Acts 15:20 and 29 means both the consumption of blood and murder (like in Gen. 9:4-5). But if so, then why does the NT version say (or add?) "that which is strangled"?

In any event, I think Flusser is on to something regarding the connection to the later Rabbinic Noachide laws (which is something I'd only casually thought about before). And it seems applicable to both the NT and Western versions of Acts. So I would call these three (or four) proscriptions "proto-Rabbinic Noachide laws."

It appears to me that there is a close connection to the 3 "capital sins" of rabbinic Judaism:

Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a: 74a .... Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, "The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod, 'With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told, "Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed," he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah's prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.'" ....

The Western text lacks the prohibition against consuming blood because it is indebted to the rabbinic tradition.

I wonder if the Rabbinic tradition against "bloodshed" pertains to murder and the consumption of blood. As Lev. 17:3-4 says:

What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.

Maybe that's convoluted though, and I haven't thought about the Noachide laws in ages so I need to take a fresh look at it them. But in any event, do you think that the Western version of Acts 15:20 and 29 is thus superior to the NT version?

Not sure yet.

[John2]

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. 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.