inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Acts 4:9)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding the priests that Peter addresses) or the dual (Peter and John).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (Acts 4:9)

Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 4:9:

  • Uma: “Right now you are examining us (excl.), because we (excl.) helped this lame person, you want to know how we (excl.) healed him.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “if you investigate us (excl.) this day concerning the good deed that was done to this former cripple, and as to how he was healed,” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “if what you are asking us is how we did this good thing here to this person who could not walk, and if what you are asking us also is what is this power that was used to cure him,” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “your trying of us (excl.) today, if it is concerning (concession particle) the good that we (excl.) did to this lame-one and how he got-well,” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “if what you are interrogating us (excl.) about is because of this good thing done by us (excl.) to this lame person, as to how he became well,” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Acts 4:9 – 4:10

In Greek the use of the conditional sentence introduced by if is very effective. However, in some languages this would be nonsense since there is absolutely no doubt as to the fact that Peter has just been asked how the lame man was made to walk. Therefore, this type of expression must be changed into a declarative, for example, “we are evidently being questioned today about….” Though in Greek the form is conditional, there is obviously no real condition implied—it is only a rhetorical device.

In the Greek text the use of the passive makes possible the elimination of a direct reference to the agent. In other languages, however, an active form may require the agent, for example, “you are evidently questioning us today about….”

Questioned translates a Greek word (see 12.19; 17.11; 24.8; 28.18) which suggests a judicial hearing.

In the phrase the good deed done to the lame man there is no reference to the agent. This may need to be supplied because of the passive form and the semantically redundant expression deed done. One may use “the good which we did for the lame man” or even “how we helped the lame man.”

The passive expression in how he was made well may be shifted to an expression indicating change of state, for example, “how he became well.”

Some type of transitional element at the beginning of verse 10 (see then in Good News Translation) is very important. In some languages one may employ an expression such as “evidently” at the beginning of verse 9 and a corresponding “therefore” at the beginning of verse 10.

It should be noted that no reference has been made in the introduction to this section (vv. 5-7) of the presence of the man who has been healed. However, his presence is indicated in verse 10 and he is further mentioned in verse 14.

The instrumental relationship expressed by the power of the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth may need to be expressed as a causative subject in some languages, for example, “the power of the name of Jesus Christ has caused this man to stand here before you completely well.” In certain instances a distinction must be made between the healing and the standing such as “the power of the name of Jesus Christ has healed this man and therefore he stands before you.”

As has been noted in other contexts, the use of name as a substitute for the personality, or as a symbol of the personality, is not understood in some languages, and therefore the more satisfactory equivalent may be simply “the power of Jesus Christ.”

The last clause whom you crucified and God raised from death must in many languages be expressed as a separate sentence with an emphatic identification of the subject, for example, “This is the one you crucified but whom God raised from death.” In these two expressions the contrastive features may require some such conjunction as “but.”

When there is no specific term for crucify, it may be important to employ some type of descriptive equivalent which will indicate both the execution and the means by which it was done, for example, “killed him by nailing him to a cross” or “put him on a cross and in this way killed him.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .