Acts Chapter 11 verse 20 Holy Bible

ASV Acts 11:20

But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
read chapter 11 in ASV

BBE Acts 11:20

But some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, when they came to Antioch, gave the good news about the Lord Jesus to the Greeks.
read chapter 11 in BBE

DARBY Acts 11:20

But there were certain of them, Cyprians and Cyrenians, who entering into Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, announcing the glad tidings of the Lord Jesus.
read chapter 11 in DARBY

KJV Acts 11:20

And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus.
read chapter 11 in KJV

WBT Acts 11:20


read chapter 11 in WBT

WEB Acts 11:20

But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus.
read chapter 11 in WEB

YLT Acts 11:20

and there were certain of them men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who having entered into Antioch, were speaking unto the Hellenists, proclaiming good news -- the Lord Jesus,
read chapter 11 in YLT

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 20. But there were some of them... who for and some of them were.., which, A.V.; the Greeks also for the Grecians, A.V. and T.R. This last is a most important variation of reading - Ἑλλῆνας, Greeks for Ἑλληνίστας, Grecians, i.e. Grecian Jews, or Hellenists. It is supported, however, by strong authority of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, and is accepted by Grotius, Witsius, Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, Meyer, Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Westcott, Bishop Lightfoot, and the 'Speaker's Commentary' (apparently) and most modern critics. It is also strongly argued that the internal evidence proves Ἑλλῆνας to be the right reading, because the statement that the men of Cyprus and Cyrene preached the gospel to them is contrasted with the action of the others, who preached to the Jews only. Obviously, therefore, these Hellenes were not Jews. Moreover, there was nothing novel in the conversion and admission into the Church of Hellenistic Jews (see Acts 2:5, etc.; Acts 9:22, 29). And these very preachers were in all probability Hellenists themselves. Bishop Wordsworth, however, on the contrary, defends, though with doubt, the reading Ἑλληνίστας; and argues that even if Ἑλλῆνας is the right reading, it must mean the same as Ἑλληνίστας. He also hints that it might mean "proselytes" (see Acts 14:1, where the Hellenes attend the synagogue, and Acts 17:4). But there is no evidence that these were proselytes any more than Cornelius was. The Hellenes, or Greeks, here were probably uncircumcised Greeks who feared God, like Cornelius, and attended the synagogue worship (see Meyer on Acts 14:1). It is very likely that in Antioch, where the Jews occupied such a prominent position, some of the Greek inhabitants should be attracted by their doctrines and worship, repelled, perhaps, by the prevalent superstitions and profligate levity of the great city.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(20) And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene.--Better, But some. These were, from the nature of the case, Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jews. Who they were we can only conjecture. Possibly Lucius of Cyrene, who appears in the list of prophets in Acts 13:1; possibly Simon of Cyrene, of whom we have seen reason to think as a disciple of Christ. (See Notes on Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21.) The founders of the Church of Antioch, like those of the Church of Rome, must remain unknown.Spake unto the Grecians.--The MSS. present the two readings--Hellenistae Greek-speaking Jews, and Hellenes, Greeks or Gentiles by descent. As far as their authority is concerned, the two stand nearly on the same level, the balance inclining slightly in favour of Hellenistae, which is found in MSS. B and D, while A gives Hellenes. The Sinaitic has the almost incomprehensible reading "they spake unto the Evangelist?," which is obviously wrong, but which, so far as it goes, must be thrown into the scale in favour of Hellenistae, as the word which the transcriber had before him, and which he misread or misheard. If we receive that reading, then we must suppose St. Luke to lay stress upon the fact that the preachers of whom he speaks, instead of speaking to the Jews at large, many of whom, being Syrians, would speak Aramaic, addressed themselves specially to the Greek-speaking Jews and proselytes, and were thus following in St. Stephen's footsteps, and indirectly preparing the way for St. Paul--the Hellenistae being, as a body, the link between the Jews as a race and the Hellenes. On the whole, however, internal evidence seems to turn the scale in favour of the other reading. (1) As the Hellenistae were "Jews," though not "Hebrews," they would naturally be included in the statement of Acts 11:19, and so there would be no contrast, no new advance, indicated in Acts 11:20 in the statement that the word was spoken to them. (2) The contrast between Jews and Hellenes is, on the other hand, as in Acts 14:1; Acts 18:4, a perfectly natural and familiar one, and assuming this to be the true reading, we get a note of progress which otherwise we should miss, there being no record elsewhere of the admission of the Gentiles at Antioch. (3) It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Hellenes who are spoken of had been heathen idolaters up to the time of their conversion. Probably, as in Acts 18:4, they were more or less on the same level as Cornelius, proselytes of the gate, attending the services of the synagogue. (4) The question whether this preceded or followed the conversion of Cornelius is one which we have not sufficient data for deciding. On the one hand, the brief narrative of Acts 11:19 suggests the thought of an interval as long as that between the death of Stephen and St. Peter's visit to Caesarea, and it may have been part of the working of God's providence that there should be simultaneous and parallel advances. On the other, the language of those of the circumcision to Peter in Acts 11:3, implies that they had not heard of such a case before; and that of the Apostle himself, in Acts 15:7, distinctly claims the honour of having been the first (possibly, however, only the first among the disciples at Jerusalem) from whose lips the Gentiles, as such, had heard the word of the gospel. On the whole, therefore, it seems probable that the work went on at Antioch for many months among the Hellenistic and other Jews, and that the men of Cyprus and Cyrene arrived after the case of Cornelius had removed the scruples which had hitherto restrained them from giving full scope to the longings of their heart. We must not forget, however, that there was one to whom the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, the Gospel of Humanity, had been already revealed in its fulness (Acts 20:21; Galatians 1:11-12), and we can hardly think of him as waiting, after that revelation, for any decision of the Church of Jerusalem. His action, at any rate, must have been parallel and independent, and may have been known to, and followed by, other missionaries. . . .