It is difficult to determine whether Luke intends for his readers to understand the stoning of Stephen to be the result of legal action on the part of the Jewish Council or whether it is to be taken as mob violence. The method of stoning is altogether different from the description of execution by stoning as described in the Mishnah, the Jewish source which tells how the Jews carried out this action. For this reason many understand the stoning here to be that of mob action rather than as a carrying out of the legal decision of the court. In cases demanding the capital offense, the Jewish court required the testimony of two witnesses. If a man were convicted, it was the duty of one of these witnesses to push him headfirst off a precipice and then roll a stone over him. If this did not kill him, then the second witness rolled another stone on him which was supposed to crush his chest. In the Mishnah there is nothing said of the witnesses taking off their outer garments, though the Mishnah does state if the criminal is a man then he must be unclothed before he is put to death. From reading Luke’s account one is of the opinion that Stephen was put to death by people throwing stones at him, and that the persons who threw the stone removed their outer garments so they would have better freedom in throwing the stones.

Though the Greek term literally means “threw out,” the action of the mob would suggest more “drive out forcibly.” There seems to be no suggestion that Stephen was literally thrown from a wall or over any cliff.

Stoned him is simply equivalent to “threw stones at him” or “killed him by means of throwing stones at him.” Is this particular verse, however, the rendering may need to be “were killing him” since they continued the process for some time, as noted in verse 59.

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 .

The invitation of the Ethiopian official to Philip must frequently be expressed as direct discourse, for example, “he said to Philip, Please come up and sit in the carriage with me.”

In some languages it is important to specify that the carriage continues to go forward, and therefore a term for “sitting” must also imply “riding,” for example, “ride along in the carriage with me.”

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 .

One night (so New English Bible, Phillips, An American Translation*, Moffatt) translates a genitive construction which may be intended to emphasize the qualitative aspect of “nighttime” as opposed to “daytime” (see Jerusalem Bible “when it was dark”). This genitive may, however, simply specify the time during which an event took place.

Through an opening in the wall (see Phillips, Zürcher Bibel) translates a rather ambiguous phrase. The rendering of the Good News Translation seems to express the meaning of the Greek preposition, though a number of translations have “over the wall” (An American Translation*, Moffatt, Barclay; see Jerusalem Bible “from the top of the wall”), New American Bible “along the wall,” and New English Bible “by the wall.” The words used for basket in this passage and in 2 Corinthians 11.33 are two different words. The word used in 2 Corinthians refers to a large woven bag or basket which may be used for straw or for bales of wool; the basket here is made of similar material, but was probably smaller, though it was evidently large enough for a man to stand in.

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 .

Again it may be necessary to introduce the subject, for example, “God spoke to him again.” The meaning of unclean … clean in the sense of “that which should not be eaten” and “that which is suitable to be eaten” may need to be quite specific, for example, “do not think that anything is unsuitable to eat if God has said it is suitable to eat.”

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 .

The first guard station can be rendered as “the first group of soldiers who were guarding.” The second can, of course, be “the second group of soldiers who were guarding.”

The mention of the iron gate that opens into the city has caused most commentators to assume that Peter was being held prisoner in the tower of Antonia, located at the northwest corner of the temple area, with gates leading into the temple area and into the city itself.

The iron gate that opens into the city may cause certain difficulties since people will not understand the nature of the prison (or palace) in which Peter had been imprisoned. In some languages the only reasonable equivalent is “door,” but in other instances one can speak of “the iron gate in the wall.” One cannot, however, employ the word opens in a number of languages since this would imply opening into a room but not into the city. One must, therefore, use an expression such as “leads out into the city” or “opens and one may go into the city.”

The gate opened for them by itself may be rendered as “the gate became open but no one had moved it.”

It is held by some that a street (Greek “one street”) may possibly have the meaning of “a certain street.”

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 .

As in other instances, the expression the God of this people of Israel may need to be semantically restructured as “the God whom this people of Israel worships.”

There is a particularly difficult problem of inclusive and exclusive first person plural in the expression our ancestors. The difficulty is that Paul has addressed both the Israelites and the Gentiles. If he were addressing only Israelites, our would be translated as inclusive in a language which makes a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural. If he were addressing Gentiles, then our would be exclusive. But since he is addressing both groups, there are serious difficulties. This may be dealt with, however, in some instances as “chose the ancestors of the Jews of whom I am one.” That is to say, one specifies who the ancestors are, but then it is necessary for Paul to identify himself as a Jew if one is to represent properly the significance of our.

Made … a great nation may refer either to the numerical increase of the Israelites or to their increase in power, but the former of these seems more probable inasmuch as the Israelites remained slaves while in Egypt. During the time they lived as foreigners in the land of Egypt (see New English Bible “when they were still living as aliens in Egypt”) is the correct meaning of the Greek phrase used by Luke; a literal rendering such as “during their stay” fails to carry the full implications of the phrase.

By his great power is literally “with a high arm,” a Semitic idiom indicating great strength or power. In many languages it is difficult to speak of “power” as an instrument, that is, by his great power. Generally the equivalent is represented as a causal clause “because he was so strong” or “by means of his being so strong.”

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 .

Perhaps the gesture of shaking the dust off one’s feet originally arose as travelers returning to Palestine shook the dust off their feet before entering the Holy Land so as not to defile it. As practiced by the Jews in New Testament times, the gesture evidently indicated that those persons against whom they shook the dust off their feet were considered to be pagans (see Luke 9.5; 10.11; Matthew 10.14). In the present setting the gesture may indicate that the missionaries feel as if they have cleared themselves of all further responsibility for the city that refuses to repent. It is not easy to introduce the concept of against them in speaking of shaking the dust off one’s feet. Usually one must be somewhat more specific than is suggested by merely the preposition against, for example, “they shook the dust off their feet as a sign against the people of that city.” By introducing a word such as “sign” or “symbol” one can suggest the symbolic significance of this act of shaking the dust off their feet. It may also be useful to have at this point a brief marginal note indicating the historical background for this symbolic action.

Iconium was a city about 80 miles southeast of Antioch in the Roman province of Galatia, and it would probably have required four or five days’ travel to arrive there.

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 .