The Acts of the Apostles

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 258
before him—Hilgenfeld ^ have answered in the affirmative,
in opposition to all other scholars. What
support, then, can be found for the usual interpreta-
tion (prohibition of meats and of fornication), if
irviKTov does not belong to the original text ? Nothing
certainly in the context of the Acts—whether one
considers only chapter xv. or the whole book nor in
the epistles of St. Paul. Moreover, the united testimony
of the exegesis of the ancient Western Fathers
is opposed to this interpretation. So far as I can see,
the conception that the Decree originally included
prohibition of meats can be based only on the follow-
ing considerations :
—
(1) Upon the exegesis of the Eastern Fathers, but
not until St. Clement and Origen
(2) On passages in very ancient documents (e.g.
The Revelation), in which the eating of flesh offered
to idols appears as something that is altogether
abominable
;
;
—
(3) On the consideration that as eating is referred
to in the word elScoXoOuTov, it may also be understood
in the case of aijuLa ;
(4) Upon the consideration that it would seem
superfluous to insist upon plain and obvious moral
commandments, and that the Decree must there-
fore have dealt with more special precepts;
(5) Upon the consideration that it is more probable
that ceremonial ordinances should have been trans-
formed in course of tradition into general ethical
commandments than the opposite case.
1 Ztschr./.wiss. Theol.y 189G, s. C25 /. ; 1809, s. 138/.; Acta
App. Greece et Latine, 1899.