Acts 11:20

Acts 11:20. Men of Cyprus. It would be reasonable to imagine that one of them may have been Mnason, who in Acts 21:16 is spoken of as ‘an old disciple.' We should have been sure, but for what follows, that Barnabas was one of them; and there is little doubt that he had influence in promoting the active missionary work of his fellow-Cypriotes. It has been noted above (on Acts 4:36) that the Jews were very numerous in Cyprus; and it is worth while to add, in reference to the mention of Cyrene which follows, that about this time Cyprus and Cyrene were united in one Roman Province. Thus there was close political connection between them, as well as active mercantile intercourse.

Cyrene. In that part of the coast of Africa, of which Cyrene was the capital, immediately to the west of Egypt, and opposite Cyprus on the south, the Jews were very numerous. We have a proof of this in Acts 6:9, where we find that ‘Cyrenaus' had a synagogue of their own in Jerusalem. Again, ‘Jews from the parts of Libya about Cyrene' were in Jerusalem at the Great Pentecost; and one such Cyrenian Jew at least (Luke 23:26) was there at the solemn Passover immediately preceding. It is a reasonable conjecture that the occasion before our attention here may have been the time of a great festival. Another incidental proof of the existence of a strong Jewish element in Cyrene, and of the connection of this place with the early spread of Christianity, is found in Acts 13:1, where ‘Lucius of Cyrene' is named as one of the ‘prophets' who were inspired to originate St. Paul's first missionary expedition.

When they were come to Antioch. We should observe how our thoughts are drawn to this place, as to a focus on which all our attention is presently to be concentrated. The name of this city occurs six times in nine verses.

Spake unto the Grecians. We here encounter one of the most important textual difficulties in the Acts of the Apostles. It always has been, and still is, a debated question whether the true reading here is Έλληνας (i.e. Greeks or Heathens) or Έλληνιστάς (i.e. Grecians or Hellenistic Jews). The manuscripts are very evenly balanced. We might have looked to the Sinaitic MS. to have settled the question; but in this instance it presents a strange anomaly, its reading here being εὐαγγελιστάς which is clearly wrong, while on the one hand it seems to point to Έλληνιστάς as that which was intended, and on the other hand was clearly influenced by the word εύαγγελιζόμευοι, which immediately succeeds. On the whole, the evidence is in favour of Έλληνιστάς. The Bishop of Lincoln argues strongly in favour of it. Dr. Alexander, whose (American) commentary is excellent, is inclined to the same view. So also is Dr. Kay, in a paper printed when he was Principal of Bishop's College, Calcutta. On the other hand, the majority of modern commentators feel strongly in the opposite direction, because of the obvious advantage which the reading Έλληνάς would give us as to the coherence and point of the history. With this reading all is easy in the interpretation of the passage; and the sequence of events flows on naturally. It is urged most truly, that with the other reading there is no sharp contrast between those who now received the Gospel and those who had received it previously, and that there is no apparent reason why the historian should mark the occurrence as anything new. Thus writers of the most various shades of opinion have confidently asserted that the true word here must be Έλληνάς, not Έλληνιστάς. Dean Alford says that the latter reading' gives no assignable sense whatever,' and that ‘nothing to his mind is plainer than that these men were uncircumcised Gentiles.' Canon Norris (Key to the Acts of the Apostles, p. 135) uses similar language.' Renan (Les Apotres, p. 225) says, ‘La bonne lecon est Έλληνας Έλληνιστάς est venu d'un faux approchement avec ix. 29.' Reuss (Histoire Apostolique, p. 133) says, ‘La lecon Hellenistes est d'autant plus absurde, qu'a Antioche et dans les contrees environnantes on n'aura guere trouve des Juifs parlant l'hebreu. La conversion des paiens disparait ainsi du récit et tout ce qui suit n'a plus raison d'être.' It is difficult to resist such unanimity of opinion, based on arguments so strong. Yet the very facility with which the problem is solved inspires some doubt. It is always hazardous, in such cases, to adopt the easier reading. The question must be left in some uncertainty; and it may be urged that there is really some contrast between the words Ίουδαῑοι and Έλληνισταί. that the Hellenistic Jews and the Heathen Greeks were probably in very free intercourse with one another at Antioch, and that the Gospel would naturally pass from the former to the latter. This too is to be added, that, if the received text is retained, the case of Cornelius stands on a much higher pinnacle than it would otherwise occupy.