JETS 62.3 (2019): 533–42 INFANTICIDE IN THE APOSTOLIC DECREE OF ACTS 15 REVISITED CHARLES H. SAVELLE JR. * Abstract: In a 2009 JETS article, David Instone-Brewer argued that πνικτός in the pro- hibitions of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) is better understood as “smother” rather than “strangle” and relates to the practice of infanticide, specifically the “smothering” of an infant, a practice observed by Gentiles but abhorrent to Jews. Instone-Brewer’s proposal has received little interaction since its proposal. Therefore, this article seeks to outline Instone- Brewer’s argument, indicate why it might be helpful, and then provide a critical examination of it. While Instone-Brewer’s view would solve difficult problems related to the identification and purpose of the prohibitions, it faces significant textual, text-critical, and logical challenges that ultimately call its viability into question. Key words: Acts, Apostolic Decree, apostolic prohibitions, infanticide, Jerusalem Council Significant disagreement and debate continue over the origin, purpose, and significance of the prohibitions in the apostolic decree of Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). 1 In 2009, David Instone-Brewer 2 made a new and potentially significant contribution to this issue in arguing that πνικτός in the prohibitions of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) would be better understood as “smother” rather than “strangle” and relate not to the killing of animals but rather to the practice of infanticide, namely the “smothering” of an infant, a practice ob- served by Gentiles but abhorrent to Jews. Unfortunately, Instone-Brewer’s pro- posal has received little interaction in recent works. Many recent commentaries do not even mention the proposal. 3 Even Craig Keener’s massive four-volume treat- ment of Acts does not really interact with it. 4 Therefore this article has two primary * Charles H. Savelle Jr. is Adjunct Professor of Bible Exposition at Southwestern Baptist Theologi- cal Seminary, 2001 W. Seminary Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76115. He may be contacted at csavelle@swbts.edu. 1 Although in need of some updating, see Charles Savelle, “A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,” BSac 161 (2004): 449–68. 2 David Instone-Brewer is senior research fellow in rabbinics and the NT at Tyndale House. 3 See William S. Kurz, Acts of the Apostles (CCSS; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013); Guy Prentiss Waters, Acts (EP Study Commentary; Holywell, UK: EP, 2015); Carl R. Holladay, Acts: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016); and David E. Garland, Acts (Teach the Text; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). 4 Craig Keener’s massive 4,640-page commentary devotes almost 100 pages to the Jerusalem Coun- cil and yet only one non-engaging footnote to Instone-Brewer’s view: “More nuanced, cf. Instone- Brewer, ‘Infanticide’ (esp. 321), noting Jerusalem’s culinary emphasis but that for Gentile ‘smothering’ could connote infanticide.” (Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3: 15:1–23:35 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014], 2260 n. 528). Similarly, Eckhard Schnabel, Acts (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), mentions the proposal several times but does not interact with its merits.