Acts 11:20

Acts 11:20 ~Ellhnista,j {C}

The textual problems of this verse are compounded by the diversity of views concerning the meaning of ~Ellhnisth,j. This noun, which appears to be a new formation from e`llhni,zein, “to speak Greek” or “to practice Greek ways,” is found nowhere in previous classical Greek literature or in hellenistic-Jewish literature; in the New Testament it occurs only here and in Acts 6:1 and Acts 9:29. According to the prevailing opinion, current since the time of Chrysostom, ²¹⁵ the ~Ellhnistai, of Acts 6:1 were Greek-speaking Jews (or Jewish-Christians) in contrast to those speaking a Semitic language (so Thayer, Souter, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker). Since, however, in the present passage the author seems to draw a contrast between ~Ellhnista,j (or the variant reading {Ellhnaj) and VIoudai,oij of ver. Acts 11:19, it has been urged that the word must possess some more distinctive meaning than merely “Greek-speaking Jews.” Thus, Warfield ²¹⁶ and Cadbury ²¹⁷ argue that it means Gentiles (and so is synonymous with {Ellhnaj); the former translates it “Graecizers” and the latter “Hellenists.” Other alternatives include the proposal to take ~Ellhnista,j as connoting proselytes, ²¹⁸ or to interpret it as referring to a radical, reforming, “gentilistic” sect within Judaism, to which Stephen may have belonged before he became a Christian. ²¹⁹ None of these views, however, is entirely free from more or less serious difficulties, ²²⁰ and perhaps the least unsatisfactory assumption to make is that the meaning of the word, though quite definite in the early church, was lost to Christian usage. When the word reappears in patristic literature (other than that influenced by Chrysostom’s exegesis of Acts 6:1), it means “a defender of paganism” (E. A. Sophocles’s Lexicon), or simply, “a pagan” (Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon).

In assessing the evidence for the variant readings in the present passage, no weight can be attached to the fact that the early versions all read “Greeks” (so the Latin, Syriac, ²²¹ Coptic, Armenian, Old Georgian, and Ethiopic), for, as Hort justly observes, they “would naturally be at a loss to provide a distinctive rendering for so rare and so peculiar a word as ~Ellhnisth,j.” ²²² The first hand of codex Sinaiticus, which already in ver. Acts 11:19 gives the meaningless VIoudai/oi without subsequent correction, writes in ver. Acts 11:20 the equally meaningless pro.j tou.j euvaggelista,j, which, however, has been corrected by a later hand to {Ellhnaj. ²²³ Likewise the testimony of codex Alexandrinus is weakened, if not discredited, when one observes that in Acts 9:29 the scribe substituted {Ellhnaj for ~Ellhnista,j, which is acknowledged to be the true reading.

Transcriptional probability is all in favor of ~Ellhnista,j, for the temptation to editor or scribe was to substitute an easy and familiar word ({Ellhnaj) for one which was by no means familiar. There is no counter temptation to set against this, so that the argument drawn from it is a strong one.

Perhaps the chief objection of modern scholars to adopting ~Ellhnista,j here is the belief that it always means “Greek-speaking Jews,” and therefore is inappropriate to stand in contrast with the preceding VIoudai/oi. But since ~Ellhnisth,j is derived from e`llhni,zein, it means strictly “one who uses Greek [language or customs]”; whether the person be a Jew or a Roman or any other non-Greek must be gathered from the context. In Acts 6:1 the contrast is no doubt between Greek-speaking Jewish Christians and Semitic-speaking Jewish Christians. What the word connotes in Acts 9:29 is not altogether clear; in any case they are not believers as in Acts 6:1. In the present passage, where the preponderant weight of the external evidence combines with the strong transcriptional probability in support of ~Ellhnista,j, the word is to be understood in the broad sense of “Greek-speaking persons,” meaning thereby the mixed population of Antioch in contrast to the VIoudai/oi of ver. Acts 11:19.

²¹⁵ Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LX, col. 113.

²¹⁶ B. B. Warfield, “The Readings {Ellhnaj and ~Ellhnista,j, Acts xi:20, ” Journal of Biblical Literature, [III], 1883, pp. 113—127.

²¹⁷ H. J. Cadbury, “The Hellenists,” The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V, pp. 59—74.

²¹⁸ So E. C. Blackman (reviving the view of Salmasius of the seventeenth century), Expository Times, XLVIII (1936—37), pp. 524 ff.

²¹⁹ So Oscar Cullmann, “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXIV (1955), pp. 220 ff., and Marcel Simon (partly following G. P. Wetter and W. Bauer), St. Stephen and the Hellenists (New York, 1958). The latter nevertheless admits that “the term Hellenists, as used by Luke, includes all Greek-speaking Jews,” and that “to the author of Acts, the word apparently has no other meaning” (p. 15).

²²⁰ See C. F. D. Moule’s critique, “Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?” Expository Times, LXX (1959), pp. 100—102. Moule adopts the traditional definition of the word, but refines it slightly; thus, “Jews who spoke only Greek” in contrast to ~Ebrai/oi, “Jews who, while able to speak Greek, knew a Semitic language also.”

²²¹ In Acts 9:29 the Syriac Peshitta renders ~Ellhnista,j “Jews who understood Greek,” which may show a connection between Chrysostom and the Peshitta.

²²² Notes on Select Readings,” p. 93.

²²³ It is often assumed that the reading of a* presupposes ~Ellhnista,j, on account of its similar termination. But since it seems certain that euvaggelista,j was suggested by, and results from, the proximity of euvaggelizo,menoi, which follows immediately, it is with considerable hesitation that one can take the weight of a* to be in favor of ~Ellhnista,j.