While I didn't have a line of people waiting to burn me at the stake Sunday, I did have two people wonder why an explanation I gave specifically disagreed with the notes in their study Bibles. The point I was making was unaffected but the structure of the argument certainly was. Since different interpretations generally don't come out of thin air (people do some research when they are writing a study Bible, after all), I thought it was worth some investment.

The topic: Who were the "Hellenists" referred to in Acts 11:20? 

The background: When Stephen was martyred (Acts 7) there were about 25,000 Christians (followers of Christ as Messiah- mostly Jewish) in Jerusalem. The persecution that followed spread them all around (Acts 11:19), including Syrian Antioch, the third largest city in the Roman Empire. God tells us in Acts that these Christians spoke the Gospel to Jews only. but it took some others- men of Cyprus and Cyrene- to speak the Gospel to "Hellenists."

What's at stake: Who spread the gospel to these Hellenists, and who were the Hellenists? Ironically, the point (see below) remains unchanged, but the historical background is significant to its appication.

Why it really gets interesting:
The normal bedfellows don't agree on this one.  Here's what word various translations use:
"Greeks" or "Grecians": King James, New American Standard, New International
"Hellinists": English Standard (what I preach from), New King James, New Revised Standard
These are not the "usual suspects" in translation choices.

Here's what I found out:
A) There are two interpretations in play:
Men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who were certainly not of Jewish genetics, culture or religion, were the ones who broke through a culture barrier and ministered to the "Hellenists." That means, depending on translation, they ministered either to:
1) People of Jewish genetics who followed Greek culture- which means the gospel spread between people of different genetics but similar culture.
2) People of Greek birth who followed Greek culture- which means the gospel spread between people of similar genetics and similar culture.

B) There are two words in play- both are transliterated from Greek:
1) Hellenistas- People of Jewish genetics who were born outside of Palestine, and thus tended toward Grecian culture. This is a more general term, a subset of which is...
2) Hellenas (long "a," like "lake")- Non-Jewish pagan Greek people, who were considered by Jews as distinct from the non-Greek pagans, who were called "Barbaroi," which is where we get our word "barbarian." This is a more specific term.

C) Where I went "wrong"
The notes in the commentary I read, and the translation of the ESV text, rely on a set of manuscripts that uses the more general term "Hellenist." The problem is, though, that this set of manuscripts is generally considered farther away from the originals. Folks disagree on this, but it usually follows King James only or not King James only divides. And this isn't the case here. The reading that yields the "Greek" translation is what I would generally prefer, and what I would use if I were preaching this text again.

What you can learn from this:
1) Culture over content kills- The culture barrier between those Jews who followed Greek customs and those who followed Jewish customs made it difficult to convince each other to follow Christ as Messiah- ultimately the only content that saves. Either way, The first Christians (who happened to be  genetically Jewish) allowed genetic or cultural barriers to stop their proclamation of the Gospel. Part of this is natural, as we sometimes relate better to people who are similar to us. But it shouldn't have been that hard. They all spoke Greek, at least a little (see Peter, Galilean fisherman and Letter writer par excellence. More likely they let genetic and cultural prejudices hinder their ministry. Don't imitate that.

2) You can trust your English Bible- the painstaking work of finding the best manuscripts has been done, and the translations you hold are likely very good. The different manuscripts that account for differences between, say, the New King James and the New American Standard versions are relatively minor, and while some people make a huge deal out of this they are entirely misguided in doing so.

3) When in doubt, go with what's "above the line"- Study Bibles are great if you keep them in perspective. But remember that what's ABOVE the line is God's Word, while what's BELOW the line is man's efforts to interpret. Man usually does okay, but it's not God's Word. You are particularly safe in following the commentary below the line when it teaches context- date, location, cultural settings, etc. Every commentary is theologically biased. I love The Lutheran Study Bible from Concordia Publishing. Most of my baptist friends don't. I tell them, "Hey, why should the baptists have all the good study Bibles?"

Go serve your King,
PW