Historically Challenged
But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also preaching the Lord Jesus and the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. Acts 11:20-21 NASB
Greeks – Perhaps we should petition the government for a new class of protected minorities, those who are historically challenged. We could then nominate nearly every Christian as a member of this class. J They have been reading texts like this one for centuries without a clue about its true import. A marginal note in the NASB mentions that the word heiselthontes could mean “Greek speaking Jews.” That’s about as close as we get to understanding the significance this word has in the development of the Way. It’s clearly not enough.
The word occurs in other verses in Acts (6:1, 9:29). It describes a particular segment of Jewish society in the first century. The importance of this segment cannot be swept under the carpet of obscurity. Martin Hengel’s seminal study of the influence of Hellenism in Judaism between 400BC and 100AD demonstrates why we cannot afford to be so historically blind. From extensive examination of ancient resources, he makes the following points:
- Hellenism was more than an educational and political philosophy of Alexander the Great’s empire. It was the basis for the social class system, economic well-being, military success and political power. As Alexander conquered the known world, he instituted an educational system that rewarded those who adopted the Greek language and the Greek way of life (Hellenizein) and relegated the rest to the lower classes.
- As the principle vehicle of economic commerce, Greek speakers dominated trade. Anyone doing business across political and tribal boundaries was influenced by the great machine of Greek thinking.
- War was a Greek game. The success of Greek speakers on the battlefield only served to emphasize the necessity of becoming a Hellenist if one wanted to survive the subsequent political intrigue. By the end of the Ptolemaic empire (305BC to 30BC), a significant segment of the Jewish population in Jerusalem was thoroughly committed to the Greek way of life. This portion of the Jewish population were the men in power, the ruling kings, the Sadducees and those economic figures aligned with Rome in order to maintain their financial success.
- Politics in the first century in Israel was based in Greek ideals. The rulers in the time of Yeshua were well acquainted with the Greek way of life, many embracing its ideals (there was actually a Greek gymnasium in Jerusalem). Because Greek thought was systematically opposed to the tribal and traditional norms of the ancient Hebrew religion, these Jews offered constant opposition to those who sought to maintain the old ways.
- Rabbinic Judaism, born in the fourth century BC, was heavily influenced by Hellenism. Among other actions, the temple priests (no longer only the descendants of the tribe of Levi) claimed the tithe as their due. They distinguished themselves socially and theologically from the am ha’eretz, the common people of the land. They established the Temple as a separate “tax-free” state with its own currency. This created significant tension within Judaism, represented chiefly by the Pharisees who advocated a return to ancient traditions and the Sadducees who leaned toward the adopting of Hellenized Judaism.
- The Jewish upper classes and aristocracy rose to power on the back of Hellenism and were loath to reject it. Their influence over education, trade, politics and society created enormous tensions within Israel; tensions that were only exacerbated by the appearance of proclaimed Messiahs who advocated a return to Torah obedience.
- Hellenism was a movement toward city-states and an ethos of city life. It disparaged rural, pedestrian existence. It embraced an implicit polytheism based on economic advantage. It viewed ancient traditions and norms as impediments to progress. In opposition to this movement, religious zealots of Israel sought to eradicate the influence of Hellenism in both social and religious realms.
There is more, much more. All of this plays a part in the interface between the Greek-speaking Jews (those who had become proponents of Hellenism) and the traditional Hebrew speaking Jews. The disagreements we find in the New Testament are often not arguments between Jews and Gentiles but rather arguments between two groups within the Jewish population. All of this must be considered when we seek to understand a text as simple as Acts 11:20-21. What is certain it this: no clear picture of the cultural background of the New Testament text can emerge without this historical context. Yet, for the most part, Christians are completely clueless about this critical part of history. They act as if God’s “superintendence” of Scripture simply bypasses what actually occurred in the lives of the men who wrote it.
Isn’t it time to insist that our teachers and exegetes tell us what actually happened so that we can understand why a word like heiselthontes shows up in Acts?
Topical Index: heiselthontes, Hellenists, Greek-speaking, Ptolemaic, Acts 11:20-21
In a discussion with my former pastor, he was adamant that the Jews had so displeased God, that God totally turned His back on the Jews and the Hebrew language, and Greek became the new “blessed” language (don’t you realize the whole NT was written in Greek — how can you understand any other meaning?) Of course, this supports the whole concept that the “Church” replaced Judaism.
Thanks, Skip, for continually chipping away this fallacy.
How much of our supposed ‘knowledge’, or “science falsely so called”, has been plucked out of thin air to support our already existing paradigm?
Is there such a thing as the paradigm of “I don’t think I know yet”?
I have been itching to ask somebody sometime – who knew the Sadducees intimately, of course – if the reason they did not believe in a resurrection is because they were already subscribing to some sort of “eternal spirit”, thought? Hell, we know, is a very Greek idea, which relies on the supposition that our spirits don’t ever cease to exist – so therefore cannot be resurrected – but also can by the same token be tormented forever, such as in the story of Lazarus and Abraham that Yeshua quoted. to make a point.
Oh yeah, same story from many many pastors in many different denominations. What do they learn in seminary anyway???
What most pastors learn in seminary is doctrine, not history, culture or exegesis. Yes, most main line seminaries require Greek and sometimes Hebrew but the emphasis is on doctrinal education. If you think about it, you understand why this is the case. Most seminaries are denominational. They support providing the denomination with pastors. Therefore, they teach what they believe and require pastors to adopt that particular view in order to have a church within the denomination. So, if you want to serve in a Southern Baptist church you must go to a Southern Baptist school, etc. In this pedagogy, what matters is doctrinal difference, not the actual historical and cultural study.
That is absolutely frightening. I left the Catholic church so that I could be freed from man-made religion and really learn the Bible… what I got were even more rigid rules and regs (many unspoken) on how to live… stuff I could never see in the Scriptures and then was accused of either being ignorant or rebellious.
What a mess.
Skip, this is the transliteration that you are using (heiselthontes) – Is that the same as this word from BibleHub from Acts 11:20?
1675 [e]
Hellēnistas
Ἑλληνιστάς* ,
Hellenists
The reason I ask is that after hearing a message just a few weeks ago on this as the ‘turning point’ for the focus now going to the Gentiles – I did some digging and discovered that while Biblehub, Studylight, and BlueBible shows Hellenistas as the Greek word used here AND the other 2 places you mentioned in Acts; only SOME Bible translations show it to be “Greek-speaking Jews” (in English) in ALL 3 verses. Many show the first 2 instances as “Greek-speaking Jews” but then translate the usage in 11:20 as “Greeks”. So then I looked further and read that the discrepancy is because the usage in 11:20 is due to Gk fragments that differ….??
I agree with your points, I am just trying to get to the bottom of this particular word and I do not know enough about Greek to discern as I would like…. thanks for any clarification.
Thanks for your clarification and question. My Greek NT is on the bookshelf at home and I am in Mexico. So this will have to wait a bit. Sorry.
Jeni, I just want to applaud you and thank you for DIGGING DEEPER… for actually questioning and trying to study with an objective point of view! What each of us does affects the other.
Jeni,
If I may interject, I believe I can assist you. You are definitely on the right track. The word in question, Hellēnistēs, is a noun meaning one who uses the Greek language, a Hellenist. In the BDAG, the definitive Greek-English lexicon, it notes that it is used specifically in the NT as “a Greek-speaking Israelite in contrast to one speaking a Semitic lang[uage].” However, not all agree with this limited definition, as we’ll see. This term is found only three times in the NT – in Acts 6:1, 9:29, and 11:20 (the different endings indicate difference in case – genitive, accusative, and accusative, respectively).
In the last two instances there are textual variances (some manuscripts with an alternative word here) in the Greek. In both cases, the alternate word is Hellēnas, which means “Greek”. In 9:29 there are only two manuscripts with this alternate reading, which is poor evidence. Thus, Hellēnistēs is the most likely word there. Comparatively, in 11:20 the evidence in the manuscripts is somewhat evenly split.
A problem here, though, is that Hellēnistēs is apparently a newly-coined term, while Hellēnas was/is very common. According to Metzger’s commentary on textual variants in the NT (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. [New York: United Bible Societies, 1994], pp 340-342) specifically regarding 11:20, though pertinent to the other instances
In other words, it’s most likely that scribes changed the original Hellēnistēs to the more familiar [Hellēnas rather than the other way around. Metzger continues to illustrate the difficulties regarding this neologism:
“External evidence” is evidence outside the manuscripts themselves.
For an opposing view, based on the more limited definition of Hellēnistēs (Greek-speaking Jews), here’s F. F. Bruce (The Acts of the Apostles, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990], p 272) – who, incidentally, cites Hengel, though not specifically in this instance:
But could they be speaking to Greek-speaking non-Jews and non-Greeks as Metzger opines? It is because of this difference of opinion that some English Bible versions adopt one word over the other here.
As far as this possibly being the turning point of Paul preaching to the Gentiles, I’ll offer some further thoughts in a separate comment as this one is already quite long!
Craig and HSB, thank you for your valued contributions to this discussion. I have read your comments and need to digest them more thoroughly. I really appreciate the clarifications on the details of the Greek terms used. I am too limited in Greek to refute much of anything here, but I have two other matters going through my mind in regard to this passage. Maybe they play a role in understanding this better. Or maybe they muddy the water even more – but I did see that this word was also used in Acts 11. So, my new questions are these: what is the difference between Hellen (es) (1672) (Studylight shows this word appearing for the first time in Acts 14:1)- and Ethnos (1484) which is also used in Acts 11:1, 18. If they really meant ‘Gentiles’ (those completely disconnected to ‘any’ Judiasm of the day – then wouldn’t they have used Ethnos in 11:20? Is that a valid question? And secondly, could the use of (Judeans) in Acts 11 be referring to the distinctions made by Gruber in ‘Copernicus and the Jews’?
Also, if I remember correctly, Paul went to the Jews first in every place. Then to the Gentiles in that same place – starting either here in Acts 11, our questionable passage, or more certainly beginning in Acts 14. I also was erroneously taught that He went to the Jews first and then they rejected him and he turned to the Gentiles – as if it was ONCE and done. (The typical ‘church’ view). But upon further study, he gave both groups opportunity at each new location.
Jeni,
A quick search confirmed what I thought by looking at the contexts of 11:1 and 11:18. That is, the word ethnos should be understood as non-Jews, gentiles, non-believers in these contexts. It should be understood generally. Comparatively, Hellēnas means “Greek”. So, a Hellēnas is an ethnos, a subset of ethnos, and ethnos can include other races such as Ethiopians, Arabs, etc. Thus ethnos, in this context, can include both sub-groups of non-Greeks – those who have been Hellenized and those who have not been.
With this in mind, 11:20 focuses on a sub-group of ethnos – either Hellēnistas (whatever that means precisely) or Hellēnas.
Not being familiar with Gruber’s work, I cannot comment on that, though I think you’ll be able to deduce your answer from the info above in this comment.
Let me amend this: “With this in mind, 11:20 focuses on a sub-group of ethnos – either Hellēnistas (whatever that means precisely) or Hellēnas.” —- With this in mind, 11:20 is either focusing on a sub-group of ethnos, the Hellēnas, or its focus is on Hellēnistas (whatever that means precisely) – and this last group may or may not be included in ethnos, depending on exactly what the definition is.
Jeni,
Providing more information regarding your central question about whether Acts 11:20 is the ‘turning point’ of Paul focusing on the Gentiles, here are some words of Darrell Bock (Acts, BECNT, [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007], p 414):
Essentially, the answer to your question is not so simple!
However, note Paul’s own words in Acts 18:6, “From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” This context is very clear, as Paul was very frustrated with the Jews and Greeks of the Synagogue in Corinth (18:4-6). On 18:16 Bock remarks:
Reading 18:6-17 illustrates further opposition from the synagogue against Paul. Note that scholars date the writing of 1 Corinthians to ca. 55 near the close of Paul’s three-year residency in Ephesus (see 1 Corinthians 16:5-9 and Acts 20:31).
Craig: here are a few tidbits that present a different opinion:
1.Antioch: “It was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period.” from a Wiki article on Antioch
2.”The opening verse of Acts 6 points to the problematic cultural divisions between Hellenized Jews and Aramaic-speaking Israelites in Jerusalem, a disunion that reverberated within the emerging Christian community itself: it speaks of “Hellenists” and “Hebrews.” The existence of these two distinct groups characterizes the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. The Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek.
They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem. To identify them, Luke uses the term Hellenistai. When he had in mind Greeks, gentiles, non-Jews who spoke Greek and lived according to the Greek fashion, then he used the word Hellenes (Acts 21.28). As the very context of Acts 6 makes clear, the Hellenistai are not Hellenes.[18]” from article on Hellenistic Judaism
3. My thoughts are that the Hellenistai were in fact Greek speaking Jews as discussed above in other’s comments.
HSB,
I don’t disagree with point 1 and the first paragraph of point 2. As for the 2nd paragraph of 2, I’ll agree that Acts 6 is making a clear differentiation; however, all this does not help us with Acts 11:20. First, given the disparity in the Greek manuscripts, it’s not clear whether the word in 11:20 should be Hellēnistas or Hellēnas. Given this, one must try both in the context. Second, in v. 19 it states the message was only given to the [Judean?] Jews (Ioudaiois) – not Hebrews (Ebraious) as in 6:1 – then in v. 20 some began to speak to the ________________ also. Looking at both verses, what better fits the context: (a) Greek-speaking Jews, or (b) Greeks?
As to your point 3, it’s possible that Hellēnistas refers to any Greek-speaking person, or one who follows the customs of the Hellenes in some way. When one word is used so sparingly, we cannot be 100% sure what the author intended. You may well be correct that the word means what you think. I don’t deny that possibility. However, no one can say definitively. And this is one of the reasons why the English versions are split on this issue.
Most words in any language derive meaning only in their specific contexts, as most words have more than one meaning, or at least more than one nuance. For example, it’s quite possible that the essential meaning of Hellēnistas is anyone so immersed in Greek culture so as to know the language and adhere to its customs and therefore be a Greek for all practical purposes. Taking that definition and placing it into the context of Acts 6:1, it’s obvious that the focus is on the language. If this is the case, 11:20 may have a different focus (an Arab who is Hellenized, e.g.).
“Isn’t it time to insist that our teachers and exegetes tell us what actually happened so that we can understand why a word like heiselthontes shows up in Acts?”
Hear, hear!!! And thanks, Skip!
wow! same word used in Acts 6:1 and 9:29 when the meaning is clearly Hellenistic Jews. Yet my NAS footnote says for 11:20 “Greeks: Not Greek speaking Jews but Gentiles”.
The founding of Antioch by the Seleucids involved offering Jews the same rights and privileges as Greeks given there loyalty in fighting on behalf of the Seleucids and made up as much as 40% of the city population. These Jews came from Babylon and settled not only Antioch but a buffer zone in Asia Minor. It was to these Jewish communities that Paul went on his missionary journeys. The only place he visited without a synagogue was Philippi in Greece proper, a Roman military retirement village. The Gentiles that Paul preached to were almost without exception God-fearers who were already attending Jewish synagogues and heard the good news there. I think 12 of Paul’s addresses in the book of Acts are in synagogues! He never rented a stadium to show a movie… rather he preached to Gentiles who were very familiar with Torah having sat weekly through the readings of the Law and Prophets. That explains why he and Barnabus could appoint elders so quickly after conversion… the converts were not new to the faith, they were simply unaware of Messiah Yeshua! They knew Torah!
HSB (and Jeni),
Adding to my comment above to Jeni, here are some further thoughts of F. F. Bruce from the same work regarding 11:20 (bold added for emphasis):
Bruce adds some further thoughts on this in his comments to 11:26 (p 274):
I added the last paragraph for historical purposes. However, my main point for quoting this is to illustrate that, according to Bruce’s opinion, the absence of Christ (= Messiah), with the presence of “Lord Jesus” here, is precisely because they were speaking to Greek-speaking non-Jews (though perhaps non-Greeks, as well). Note that “Christ” is specifically used in 9:22, thus preceding the use of the word in question (“Hellenists” = Greek-speaking_____) in 9:29.
Just to add to this, 🙂 another consideration is why a distinction was made at all. No matter what the term designates. A greek speaking gentile is still a gentile and their acceptance was already established.
If one substitutes “liberal” or “progressive” for Greek-speakers in Skip’s description above, it is uncanny how the standards described might apply to contemporary reform Judaism.
Or maybe…
Greek being the scholar seeking the knowledge
Jew being the student seeking the depth of understanding
OR
Being a son and daughter for YHVH – becoming an example of the lifestyle of Yeshua taking up our cross and no not following Him but doing what he did or even greater deeds as He is going to prepare our place… Of course we need to decide and do… Before He can be our mediator or provide in that one promise:
Whatever you ask for in my name I will provide… Or more correct YHVH will make a reality in our lives.
Skip,
As it turns out, yesterday, I happened to listen to your teaching on Hebrews 2:15 (recorded during the Israel 2016 trip). In the teaching you kept asking who were these people who were afraid of death, and it seemed you were leaning towards the Gentiles who were joining the assembly.
Might I suggest that the actual answer is in today’s TW? Not Gentiles, but Hellenized Jews? The seven points above make it clear that they had an understanding of their Jewish heritage, but they were in fact, more Gentile than Jew.
Skip,
I’ve noted that you quote Martin Hengel quite a bit; yet, I have an article by him in which he unequivocally affirms the Deity of Messiah Yeshua. The work in question is titled “The Prologue of the Gospel of John as the Gateway to Christological Truth” in Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser, eds. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008). Following is a snippet from the work:
Hengel rightly understands the logos as corresponding to Jesus in His preincarnate state. Later he refers to John 1:1-13 as “the ‘prehistory’…the logos ασαρκος [asarkos = not fleshed]”, which then becomes the logos σαρκος [sarkos = enfleshed], understood as in the following: