The Acts of the Apostles

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 251
Western Fathers, including Irenaeus ; it is also that of
Codex D) must accordingly be regarded as due to
interpolation.
Since that time—and I may say with great reluct-
ance and after long consideration—I have arrived at
a different conclusion. I am not fond of correcting
myself—and it is not the first time—but magis arnica
Veritas! Besides, the main structure of my article
still stands firm. The conversion was eflected by the
excellent and exhaustive treatise of Resch, junior. Das
AposteldeJcret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Teoctgestalt
(Texte und Unters., Bd. 28, Heft 3, I905).i But
there were two other contributory influences : (1) A
conviction, strengthened by Wellhausen (Noten z,
Jpostelgesch., s. 19 ff.), that the word itvlktov did not
belong to the original text, and (2) the perception
that the Decree in its ordinary form did not fit in
well with its context in chapter xv.
YiviKTov is wanting in Dd, Athous, Sahid., Iren.,
Porphyr., Gigas, Augustine (ep. 82, Specul. and else-
where), Tertull., Cyprian, Pacian, Hieron, App. ad
Eucher. opp., Ambrosiaster, Fulgent. It is combined
with al/jia to form one idea in the Vulgate [sanguine
stiff'ocato], and by Cyril of Jerusalem [a^/xaro? tti/iktov]
and by Gaudentius [a sanguine id est s^iffocatis'] ; on
the other hand, aT/xa is wanting in Orig. lat. in Matth.
1 In the year 1906 there also appeared a treatise by A. Seeburg
entitled, Die hciden Wege und das Aposteldekret. In my article in the
Sitzsungsherichten I had already touched upon the " Two Ways,"
and used it to illustrate the Apostolic Decree in its Western form.
Seeburg in his careful treatise has carried this much further ; but
I cannot accept his conclusions, seeing that they presuppose the
originality of the prohibitions of food in Acts xv.