ae
, 3γἱ ο) > ‘ ei / a σ ~ 22. Τότε ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις σὺν ὅλη τῇ
, 3 , ” 3 Φα έ Ἆα / 3 3 ΄ ‘ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὗτῶν méppar εἰς ᾽Αντιόχειαν σὺν
-- 3 τῷ Παύλω καὶ Βαρνάβα, ᾿Ιούδαν τὸν 1
ἐπικαλούμενον Βαρσαβᾶν, καὶ
1 επικ., but καλ. SNABCDEL, Tisch., W.H., Blass, Weiss, Wendt. Βαρσαβαν Vulg., Arm., Chrys.; βαρσαββαν ΝΑΒΟΕΗΙ.Ρ 61, Sah., Boh., Const., Tisch., W.H.., Blass, R.V., Weiss, Wendt; see on the word Winer-Schmiedel, ΡΡ. 56, 57;
βαραββαν D, so Hilg.
contends that all attempts to find the prohibition in the Pentateuch quite fail, although he considers it perfectly con- ceivable that the flesh of animals strangled in such a way as not to allow of the letting out of blood would be counted as unlawful food by the Jews, cf. Origen, ο. Cels., viii., 30; Fudaistic Christianity, Ρ. 73, and Appendix, p. 209. But his further remark, that if such a prohibition had been actually prescribed (as in his view it is not) we should have a separate fourth precept referring only to a particular case of the third precept, viz., abstinence from blood, is probably the reason why in D, ¢f. Irenzus, Her., iii., 12, 14; Cyprian, Testim, iii., 119; Ter- tullian, De Pudicitia, xii., the words καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ are omitted here and in the decree, ver. 29, although it is also possible that the laxer views on the subject in the West may have contributed to the omis- sion (see Zockler and Wendt). Dr. Hort leaves the difficulty unsolved, merely referring to the ‘‘ Western” text without adopting it. But in xxi. 25 the words are again found in a reference to, and in a summary of, the decree, although here too D consistently omits them (see critical notes).—rov αἵματος: specially forbidden by the Jewish law, Lev. xvii. το, ef. ill. 17, vii. 26, xix. 26, Deut. xii. 16, 23, xv. 23, and we may refer the prohibition, with Dr. Hort, to the feeling of mystery entertained by various nations of an- tiquity with regard to blood, so that the feeling is not exclusively Jewish, although the Jewish law had given it such express and divine sanction. ‘‘ The blood is the life,’’ and abstinence from it was a mani- festation of reverence for the life given by and dedicated to God. This was the ground upon which the Jews based, and still base, the prohibition. Nothing could override the command first given to Noah, Gen. ix. 4, together with the permission to eat animal food, and renewed in the law. αἵμ. cannot refer (so Cyprian and Tertullian) to homicide, as the collocation with πνικτοῦ (if retained) is against any such interpretation. See additional note 42) at end of chapter.
Ver. 21. ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων: pointing back to the first days when the Diaspora had first spread to any considerable extent in heathen lands: see on ver. 7. The exact phrase (ἀπὸ) γενεῶν apy. occurs in Psalms of Solomon, xviii., 14—from the generations of old the lights of heaven have not departed from their path. For the custom referred to here, see Schirer, Fewish People, div. ii., vol. ii., p. 55, Ε.Τ. The words seem closely connected in sense with the preceding in this way, viz., that the Gentile proselytes could long ago in the synagogues have been acquainted week by week with the spirit and enactments of the Mosaic law, and they would thus be the more easily in- clined to take upon themselves the few elementary precepts laid down in the decree of the Jerusalem Church, so as to avoid any serious cause of offence to their Jewish-Christian brethren. Others however take the meaning to be that, as the Jewish Christians in their continual association with the synagogue would still hear the law read every Sabbath, there would be no intercourse between them and the Gentile Christians, unless the latter observed the necessary restric- tions enjoined by the decree for brotherly intercommunion. There is no occasion to interpret the meaning to be that it is superfluous to write the decree to the Jewish Christians, since they knew its contents already from the law (so St. Chrysostom, and Blass), for a decree for the Jewish Christians is not in question, see νετ. 23. Others again interpret: there is no fear that the Mosaic law should be neglected or despised “for Moses, etc.”. See further, Wendt, Weiss, McGiftert, Knabenbauer.