It isn't possible to have a "bias-free" translation. Translating the text is a form of "commentary." Of course, the main idea is to not let too much interpretation creep in, and let the author speak. Both translations are "fair," in that they stop short of an explicit "they" or "it" (the house) believed. "He having believed" is the true sense. Also note that the KJV puts the modifying phrase at the end. It is too much to argue that those translators were advocates of credobaptism. This reading is carried into the NKJ.
The argument presented is one argument for the translation. The view that the rejoicing and the believing are
both coordinated with "with his house" is the position JAT Robertson (of Gk grammar fame) defends. If you read the ASV1901 or the ESV, they do a little more literal-rendering, a little less "smoothing" it out, and leave more interpretation in the hands of the reader. If you predicate faith-present
on the basis of baptism-administered, then the note makes sense which says: this circumstance is unambiguous to the original readers, therefore it is permissible to remove any ambiguity for English readers, even to the point of insisting that the "having believed" is the full experience of everyone involved. Obviously, if you are not convinced a priori of the prerequisite for baptism according to the Baptist-stricture, the explanatory note is only partly serviceable.
There isn't any punctuation in the original text, not even that which you find in a modern rendition. The verb of the final sentence are 3MS, he brought them, he set food, and he rejoiced. The interjected (one word Gk, adv.) phrase, "with his house," immediately follows "he rejoiced," and seems clearly to indicate (to me) that his actions instituted a celebration which caught everyone up, and rightly so.
The final verbal form is a participle, NMS, and unambiguously refers to the subject of all the main verbs, the Jailer, who is also now a "Believer." All the things that take place flow from his initial question (v29) and the answer (v30). As Lydia was the previous actor, so now the Jailer is the actor. The other figures are peripheral, but wrapped up with the main figure. But it would be fallacious to automatically impute to secondary characters everything attributed to the main actor.
We are BOTH encouraged to think that his family was
integrated in this process, as well as to see that the focus is on him. Its not rational to suppose that everyone in the house washed Paul's and Barnabas' stripes. But, perhaps the Jailer didn't do it
himself, in his person; but he still did it. He still set the food before the apostles,
even if it was by the hand of his wife or servant girl. The point with respect to the baptism is: the only reason to
exclude infants from the house that is baptized is an apriori that they simply
cannot be. Not everything in the passage is predicated upon every individual in the passage--with the exception of the Jailer. He is responsible for everything, but there are many others who are involved.
I find the attempt to coordinate "with his house" between "he having believed" (participle) and "he rejoiced" (finite verb) lacks cogency. The "having believed" is explanatory of the
entire series of verbs.
he taking them (NMS participle) the same hour
he washed their stripes
he was baptized
he bringing them in (NMS participle)
he set food before them
he rejoiced {with his house}
The final participle (he having believed) is explicative of the entirety of this sequence; it rationalizes everything said up to this point.
Note the parallels in construction.
1. He took them in (part.), he having believed
2. He washed their stripes, he having believed
3. He was baptized (he and those of him ALL, immediately), he having believed
4. He brought them in (part.), he having believed
5. He set food before them, he having believed
6. He rejoiced (with his house), {especially as} he having believed
"Having believed" properly modifies every one of the actions of the Jailer. But it is also for the sake of this literary structure that I find the idea that the "with his house" was intended to be split between {he rejoiced and he having believed} is specious.
Those of us who read Scripture with a predisposition to "solidarity" are going to see here a strong text confirming this sense. It is the Jailer's faith that brings salvation to this household (ala Zaccheus, Lk.19:9). Others believe (no doubt), because he believed. But it seems plain to this reader that the baptism of the house in the passage is explicitly predicated on the faith of the head of that house (as it was in the case of Lydia). And it certainly cannot be gainsaid that the text plainly reads this way. The supposition is that "household" carries the same, undifferentiated freight that it carries throughout the Scripture. And the implication is that however many others may have specifically and explicitly also professed faith that night, the WHOLE house was baptized that night, rather than a portion thereof.
So, in the end, I'm not persuaded that with what phrase "with his house" goes is a toss-up. I'm reasonably sure it belongs with "he rejoiced." Nevertheless, if we say with the KJV and other translations that "[he] having believed in God with all his house," I don't think we have a corrupt translation. Not when we can see that this "house" was identified with the Believer-Jailer as a house of faith and a baptized house, regardless of how many specific and explicit professions there were.
or 
