NLT and Acts 2:1
I am back in warm south Florida where I belong. I think my laptop is thawing out in our 80 degree weather. I have been reading through the NLT and am already encountering good renderings and troubling translations. I want to like the NLT, but I am bothered by some of the interpretative renderings that I find in various places. Acts 2:1 is one of those instances.
On the day of Pentecost all the believers were meeting together in one place. (Acts 2:1; NLT)
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. (Acts 2:1; ESV)
All of the major translations render this verse as the ESV does. The NLT brings in the interpretation that it was all the believers who were gathered in Acts 2. Therefore all of the believers experienced being filled with the Holy Spirit. However, this does not seem likely because of the surrounding context.
The verse previous to Acts 2:1 is Acts 1:26, which reads:
And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (ESV)
The “they” in Acts 2:1 refers back to Matthias and the eleven apostles with whom he was numbered. The apostles are the last subject. Erase the chapter break and the paragraph simply reads:
And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.
But even if one is disagreeable to this argument, further proof is found in Acts 2:14 where Peter stands with the eleven apostles, not the 120, and preaches the meaning of the Holy Spirit falling upon them. Also, Acts 2:37 again states that Peter and the rest of the apostles were addressing the crowd, not the 120. If the Holy Spirit fell on the 120, then we should expect to read about them in the rest of this chapter, and the rest of the book of Acts. But we do not. Rather, we read about the twelve apostles.
The NLT needs to go with the word “they” and not “all the believers.” Using the word “believers” inserts too much interpretation into the reading. The word “they” allows the student to decide who the “they” refers to.
Don't forget to browse Biblical Studies or Translations.
Your Thoughts
9 Comments so far9 Responses to “NLT and Acts 2:1”
By submitting a comment here you grant Christian Monthly Standard a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at our discretion.
Gary Zimmerli
January 5, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Hi Brent, from up here in frigid Minnesota!
I’m also a bit concerned about the NLT’s “interpretative” renderings. Usually I think what they have done actually clears up a passage, but even so, it usually adds words that aren’t in the original at all, which has to be of concern. It opens the translation up to all sorts of possible interpretations.
It’s certainly a fine line the translators have to walk, and I think it’s all the more reason that serious Bible students need to use several different translations.
My concern about the NLT’s renderings has also caused me to move away from it as my main Bible translation, though I still use it in comparing with other translations. In some cases, like Isaiah 53, I think there is no other translation that gives the real meaning any better.
Joe
January 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm
You must have been reading my mind, I was looking at this verse over the weekend and noticed the NLT rendering here and how they would have to tie it back to the 120 in Acts 1:15 to make it work.
Unless mistaken, while the ESV does have they(which is obviously more accurate), their notes in the ESVSB seem to lean towards how the NLT has it (I could be reading it wrong, it happens ;-).
Most commentaries go that way also it seems.
Keith Williams
January 5, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Brent,
Thanks so much for your comments here.
I’m not so sure the referent of pantes is as clear as you make it out to be. I checked a few commentaries that I have available here at the office, and they either don’t address the question or come to the opposite conclusion. I. Howard Marshall says “the whole company of 120 people is doubtless meant, and not just the reconstituted twelve apostles” (TNTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 68).
The closest usage of pas in Acts is in 1:24, where the referent certainly extends beyond the apostles (though I don’t really think that is determinative). Also, it is natural that the Twelve would be the primary spokespeople for the believers, even if they were all participants in the miracle of Pentecost.
In any case, I will pass this post along to our scholar team to be evaluated at their next Bible Translation Committee meeting.
Richard
January 5, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Unfortunate interpretations have nothing to do with scholarship and everything to do with viewpoints. When what I believe trumps the plain limits of the text and reasonable scholarship then people will be mislead; unless they do as Gary suggests.
As to other remarks – it doesn’t much matter about opinions, seriously conceived or not. I would suggest that it is simply not possible to put anyone other than the twelve in the power business until you get into the sixth chapter of Acts. Every single incident prior to that point is clearly listed of the twelve (2:41, 4:33,35, etc. etc.). The clincher for me is in 5:12-13, where the one’s identified whom the crowd would not out of reverence “join” themselves to is clearly the twelve. No one was applying to be the thirteenth apostle; and the reason the twelve were not approached by anyone out of multitude is because no one but they had these abilities and displayed this kind of power both to do miracles and over life and death (following Ananias and Sapphira’s demise). If that is not what happened, perhaps someone out there can explain what did. I’m no master either of Greek or English, but the simple construction eliminates any other consideration.
Interesting discussions…
Joe
January 5, 2009 at 7:06 pm
It’s interesting when you read through chapter 2 in Acts…
I have quoted the following from the NLTse not for accuracy purposes but because it’s the translation under discussion.
Acts 2:14 Then Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles
Acts 2:37 Peter’s words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?â€
Act 2:42 All the believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to fellowship, and to sharing in meals (including the Lord’s Supper), and to prayer.
Acts 2:43 A deep sense of awe came over them all, and the apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders.
One has to question, if the 120 received the same as the apostles did, what exactly were they doing, because everything seems to be centered around the apostles and what they were teaching and doing.
Brent Kercheville
January 6, 2009 at 9:02 am
Yes, it just seems to me that if the 120 received the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 that we would read about them somewhere else. Not only in Acts 2, but anywhere in the New Testament. I think we must leave the text open to this event referring only to the apostles.
I appreciate Keith Williams weighing in on this and am glad he will forward this along for consideration for future NLT editions.
Simon J. Kistemaker, scholar at the Reformed Theological Seminary, wrote this for the New Testament Commentary:
“How many persons were together on the day of Pentecost? We expect that the number includes all the believers in the group of 120 (1:15). Some objections to this interpretation are raised, however. The last verse of the preceding chapter (1:26) mentions the apostles; in the second chapter, no the 120 but Peter and the Eleven occupy center stage (v. 14); and at the conclusion of Peter’s sermon, the crowd addresses the apostles and not the 120 (v. 37). Conversely, we cannot limit the adjective all to the twelve apostles whent he context of the preceding chapter stresses basic Christian harmony. Therefore, we interpret the adjective to include all the believers mentioned in the preceding chapter.” (pg. 75-76)
Interesting that he seems to make my point, but then still concludes it refers to all believers. At least he shows my argument is valid.
Keith Williams
January 6, 2009 at 10:30 am
I should be clear about future editions of the NLT.
While our scholar team will continue to meet each year to discuss issues that arise with the translation, the published text will be stable for the foreseeable future. I don’t expect any changes to the published text until 2012 at the earliest.
No question the point could be argued in either direction, so a strong case can be made for a translation that allows for either interpretation.
Thanks again, Brent.
Gary Zimmerli
January 6, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I also appreciate seeing Keith W. working the blogs. I have noticed in my use of the NLT that when there is a rendering that I find unusual, Tyndale’s translation team has already struggled over it and have concluded that their final rendering has a strong case, at least as strong as any other rendering. They’re not giving us anything less than the best scholarship.
nlt for 2009 new year | Happy 2009
January 11, 2009 at 6:42 pm
[...] ]|||NLT and Acts 2:1I am back in warm south Florida where I belong. I think my laptop is thawing out in our 80 degree weather. (…)Christian Monthly Standard – http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/ [...]