The Thinklings

"Membership in the family of God is neither inconsequential or something to be casually ignored. The church is God's agenda for the world. Jesus said, "I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." The church is indestructable and will exist for eternity. It will outlive this universe, and so will your role in it."

- Rick Warren

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Help Me Out, Greek Nerds

Posted by Jared @ 6:01 pm CST
Filed under: Bible, Theology

Hey, biblical Greek "experts," lend me a hand. Which translation of Acts 16:34 is more accurate, do you think, and why?

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 family.

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.

Did the jailer and his whole family believe? Or did he and his whole household rejoice because he believed? (Or both?)

Which translation gets at the best sense of the Greek text?

no trackbacks 13 comments

Trackbacks:

Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5822.

Comments on "Help Me Out, Greek Nerds":

1. Quaid - 02/10/2010 11:43 pm CST

The ESV is more accurate as far as the literal translation of the verse goes. Here is a literal translation of the Greek (my translation):
"And he brought them into the house, set a table, and he rejoiced with his entire household he had come to believe in God."

Here is a note from the NET Bible concerning your question:

The phrase “together with his entire household” is placed at the end of the English sentence so that it refers to both the rejoicing and the belief. A formal equivalence translation would have “and he rejoiced greatly with his entire household that he had come to believe in God,” but the reference to the entire household being baptized in v. 33 presumes that all in the household believed.

Hopefully this helps . . .

2. Jared - 02/11/2010 6:09 am CST

It helps.

I don't like this, though:

the reference to the entire household being baptized in v. 33 presumes that all in the household believed

This is an inference based on a credobaptistic reading of the text, a case of the theological tail wagging the exegetical dog, I think.

I'm credo and believe the household believed also, but I want to work with what the text actually says, not what I want it to.
Just wondered if the Greek could help.

3. Quaid - 02/11/2010 8:10 am CST

You're right - exegetically, only he had believed. I guess the question that you have to ask is, why would a family celebrate something they did not, themselves, embrace?

Certainly, it's possible that they were happy because he was happy. And I suppose it's possible that they celebrated because he was the head of the household and everyone was to be happy because he said so.

But the question probably isn't whether or not the translators of the NET Bible are credobaptists, but whether or not Luke was. A simple word search shows that Luke used Baptism mostly when speaking about the baptism of the Spirit, or as an event after belief in Christ.

In this scenario, Paul & Silas go to the house, speak the "word of the Lord" to the household, baptize the household and then the household celebrates corporately. I think that the text strongly suggests that they were all believers, although the Greek never explicitly says so. And I don't think this interpretation is derived from my credo-baptist viewpoint (although I won't deny its existence and possible sway over my thinking).

I would argue that the only reason the text refers to the jailer's belief is that the passage focuses entirely on Paul and Silas' ministry to him. His family is simply an extension to that.

SO - You're not wrong to ask exactly what the text is saying exegetically, but just because there isn't a third-person plural verb for believe doesn't mean that Luke meant to communicate that they did not believe. I wouldn't suggest throwing the baby out with the baptistmal waters.

4. Quaid - 02/11/2010 8:15 am CST

I just went back up and saw that you said that you believed that they were believers, so I apologize for the lengthy argument trying to convince you of something you already believe.

I still think, though, that Luke's POV is important here in how you interpret the text. I don't personally think that believing that they were believers is reading into the text something that is not there.

5. Shrode - 02/11/2010 8:26 am CST

Where's Asbell when we need him? ;-)

6. nhe - 02/11/2010 9:23 am CST

I want to know which translation renders the ages of all the children - so that we can determine paedo or credo and age of accountability.......certainly Luke meant to tell us those details.......right? :)

7. Jared - 02/11/2010 11:38 am CST

Quaid, yes, I agree with you. I believe the context warrants believing that the household believed too. I just wanted to mind my linguistic p's and q's b/c that verse is sticky for paedobaptists, and I don't want to argue that it says something it doesn't, even if it helps my case. The evidence is there for my case otherwise, but could be weakened by making an unnecessary leap.

8. Shrode - 02/11/2010 11:55 am CST

FWIW,
A.T. Robertson in "Word Pictures in the New Testament says:

"with all his house" is panoikiai and is only found here in the NT. "It is in an amphibolous position and can be taken either with "rejoiced" (egalliasato) or "having believed" (pepisteukos, perfect active participle, permanent belief) coming between them."

So there you go. It could go either way. It looks to me like a case where it is good to have more than one translation, so you can see another legitimate way to translate something. (I love it when the NIV does that in footnotes.)

Robertson's conclusion is this:

The whole household (family, warden, slaves) heard the word of God, believed in the Lord Jesus, made confession, were baptized, and rejoiced.

9. TheCalvinator - 02/11/2010 8:11 pm CST

I don't agree that this passage is sticky for paedobaptists, but I will agree that accounts of household baptisms aren't particularly good evidence to support the paedo view. For me, having been a Baptist until I was 32 years old, the paedo position is based much more on an over-arching theological/hermeneutical approach, rather than relying on any particular proof texts.

10. Roy - 02/11/2010 10:18 pm CST

While I'd make no claim my Greek skills make me a 'Greek Nerd', I do know enough to realize that several posts (Quaid, Schrode) above correctly observed that translating skills do not in this case allow definitive insistance re subject and verb.

Which ought (get this) *not* surprise. (Kinda the pont The Calvinator made, tho not the way he made his point.)

Of course one could note (I do) the absurdity of demanding every single one of the household baptisms of Acts involved zero small kids, zero infants. I mean, get real. But even this pales against the point The Calvinator made.

Just as it turns out for many issues, this one hinges on hermeutic.

Thus, eg, while there exist a multitude of correctly used 'proof texts' for an amil eschatology, it is hermeneutics that in the final analysis determines one's eschatology. Tell me how you approach understanding scripture and I'll tell you your eschatology. And your view regarding paedo vs credo baptism.

Of course lots of stuff makes sense, sticks together, seems obvious, flows well when one sees a whole picture. Yet these don't so much constitute demonstrations, but expectations.

11. Jared - 02/12/2010 6:08 am CST

I don't agree that this passage is sticky for paedobaptists

Calvinator, my bad. By "sticky" I didn't mean "problematic," really, but more like "of interest to."
The NIV would seem to help a credobaptist in talking about the verse, the ESV the paedobaptist case.

I wasn't asking so that I could prove or disprove anybody right or wrong. I was asking so I could be helped make sure I get this verse right.

12. Weekend Fisher - 02/12/2010 11:41 am CST

I think a lot of understanding household baptism is about understanding historical context. Christianity inherited household baptism from Judaism, and they definitely included children regardless of age in household baptims. The Talmud makes that plain. Origen also mentioned that infant baptism was received from the Jews (he says the apostles, but it works out the same). So it doesn't really matter what the age of this particular guy's household members might have been; it already shows that the "household baptism" practice had been inherited from Judaism.

Take care & God bless
WF

13. Quaid - 02/12/2010 10:00 pm CST

For the record, I did not intend to get into a debate between credo vs. paedo baptism. Nor did I mean to assert this verse proves/argues for/strengthens an argument for either camp.

When I said, "the question probably isn't whether or not the translators of the NET Bible are credobaptists, but whether or not Luke was . . ." I didn't mean to argue that Luke is or isn't credobaptist. I simply meant to say that Luke had a theology and it is his understanding of the Spiritual events that occurred with the jailer that we ought to be attempting to understand, independent of the theological viewpoints of any translator(s).

If, in writing of the family's baptism, Luke meant to imply that they had all trusted in Christ (regardless of age), it is certainly relative to Jared's understanding of the verse. I think all Jared wanted was a literal reading of the Greek - and he got that. Still, I thought it might be appropriate to insert the NET Bible note to illustrate that very learned men take the verse to mean that not only was the jailer a follower of Christ, but his family as well, in case that served a need of Jared.

My apologies if anyone was offended or confused by my wording.

Name:
URL:	(optional)
Email:	(optional - will not be published)