inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Acts 19:40)

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 inclusive form (including the crowd in Ephesus).

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

complete verse (Acts 19:40)

Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 19:40:

  • Uma: “Because what we are doing is very frightening. The Roma government will say that our gathering is to make a rebellion/opposition. And if we are accused, what could we say, because we have no right [lit., seat] to make this noisy meeting.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Because we (incl.) are in danger, we (incl.) might be accused because of the trouble that happened this day, when (in fact) there is no cause-for-it. Na, we (incl.) cannot give any excuse for this our (incl.) gathering.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Because we might be asked today why we rioted in this way, and we have no reason to give why we did this.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because here-now I am worried, because if they file-charges-against us to our leaders in Roma on-account-of this rioting/disruption of yours, what perhaps will we give-as-an-excuse, because there is emphatically no proper cause-for-it?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “For if the government in Roma finds out that we have done like this, it’s certain that we will all be accused of breaking their law which forbids making trouble. There really will be nothing we can come out with in defence of that trouble a while ago.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Acts 19:40

The city clerk expresses his fears, which are certainly not without grounds, that the right of self-government may be taken away from the city if there is a riot which they cannot explain or defend to the Roman authorities. We will be accused of a riot may be rendered as “the Romans will accuse us of causing a riot” or “the Romans will say, What had happened today is a riot.”

There is no excuse for all this uproar may be rendered as “no one can defend all this uproar” or “no one can say there was a good reason for all the uproar.” This latter alternative expression combines the two final clauses of verse 40 into one.

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 .