# The Translation of Acts 16.34b



## bookslover (Jan 19, 2014)

An acquaintance of mine, Eddie Pitts (a Reformed pastor in Arkansas), is preaching through Acts. He has noticed that, in the Greek text, the word "believed" in Acts 16.34b is third-person singular, not third-person plural. So, it should be translated "he believed," not "they believed," regarding the Philippian jailer and his family.

Here's the ESV of that part of the verse: "And he rejoiced, along with his entire household, that he had believed in God." Eddie notes that only the ESV and the old ASV (1901) translate this part of the verse correctly, and that the ESV has the clearest translation. The KJV, the NASB, and the NIV all get Acts 16.34b wrong.

The passage, beginning at verse 31, makes clear that both the jailer and his family heard the gospel. But Acts 16.34b seems to strongly imply that, up to that point, only the jailer himself believed. This could have bearing on our theology of baptism.

Any thoughts?


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 19, 2014)

bookslover said:


> An acquaintance of mine, Eddie Pitts (a Reformed pastor in Arkansas), is preaching through Acts. He has noticed that, in the Greek text, the word "believed" in Acts 16.34b is third-person singular, not third-person plural. So, it should be translated "he believed," not "they believed," regarding the Philippian jailer and his family.
> 
> Here's the ESV of that part of the verse: "And he rejoiced, along with his entire household, that he had believed in God." Eddie notes that only the ESV and the old ASV (1901) translate this part of the verse correctly, and that the ESV has the clearest translation. The KJV, the NASB, and the NIV all get Acts 16.34b wrong.
> 
> ...



I think that the question is whether the proper referent of the masculine singular is "he" (the jailer) or "it" (the household). If you look at 1 Corinthians 16:15, you'll see that a masculine singular verb can be used collectively of a household. Referring to the household of Stephanus, the English versions translate the Greek masculine singular variously as "it" (KJV) or "they" (modern versions). So I think the KJV, NASB and NIV do not so much "get it wrong" as make a different interpretive choice as to the antecedent. Both translations are possible, so I'd be hesitant to make it a central feature of one's theology of baptism.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 19, 2014)

iainduguid said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > An acquaintance of mine, Eddie Pitts (a Reformed pastor in Arkansas), is preaching through Acts. He has noticed that, in the Greek text, the word "believed" in Acts 16.34b is third-person singular, not third-person plural. So, it should be translated "he believed," not "they believed," regarding the Philippian jailer and his family.
> ...



Thank you for your response, Dr. Duguid. I'll pass it along. May I ask another translation question? I've noticed that the ASV and the NIV (oddly enough) are the only major translations to translate the definite article in this phrase from Ephesians 2.12 - "...and strangers to the covenants of *the* promise..." I think that's an accurate translation, theologically, because there are several covenants (or covenantal administrations, if you will), but only one "promise." Can you think of a reason why other translations would leave that definite article untranslated? Thanks in advance.


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2014)

AV: And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

NASB: And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

ESV: Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

NIV: The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God – he and his whole household.

The adverb in Greek is amphibolous because the "household" can be connected with "rejoiced" or "believed." AV and NASB leave it unresolved. ESV attempts a resolution. NIV, if taken grammatically (which is not always safe), appears to resolve it in the opposite direction.


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2014)

bookslover said:


> I've noticed that the ASV and the NIV (oddly enough) are the only major translations to translate the definite article in this phrase from Ephesians 2.12 - "...and strangers to the covenants of *the* promise..." I think that's an accurate translation, theologically, because there are several covenants (or covenantal administrations, if you will), but only one "promise." Can you think of a reason why other translations would leave that definite article untranslated? Thanks in advance.



http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/definite-article-ephesians-2-12-a-18386/


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 20, 2014)

bookslover said:


> iainduguid said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



I'm not a New Testament scholar, so take my answers with the appropriate caution. But for what it's worth, here's my 2c.
The HCSV also has "the covenants of the promise", which is literally what the Greek says. Without having any commentaries to consult, it is possible that the difference is an English style issue: "the covenants of the promise" may sound a little awkward to our ears. It is also important to note that definite articles don't always translate directly from one language to another. For example, in Acts 7:8 the Greek is indefinite but all the English translations render it "he gave him _the_ covenant of circumcision." Hebrew also uses the definite article in many places where in English we wouldn't. Given that it is clear that Greek doesn't necessarily use the definite article for the second term in the phrase "covenant of X" elsewhere, I think I would prefer "the covenants of the promise" here. But you should probably check a real NT scholar before you build a major case on it.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 20, 2014)

iainduguid said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > iainduguid said:
> ...



Thank you, again, Dr. Duguid. I appreciate you stepping out of your Old Testament comfort zone, so to speak.


----------

