Tertullus was called is in the Greek a very ambiguous participle “when he was called” (see Revised Standard Version). Verse 2 suggests that Tertullus was the one called upon to speak; but it is also possible to understand this participle as Paul being called to the hearing (see 25.6, 17, 23). An American Translation*, Moffatt, New English Bible, and Phillips all explicitly identify Paul as the subject of this verb. Neither does the Greek give any object of the verb began to accuse, though all agree that Paul is its object.

In a number of languages one cannot say Tertullus was called. This would imply that he had not been there and someone “called to him.” The equivalent expression in some languages is simply “Governor Felix motioned to Tertullus to speak” or, in some instances, one may use a very general subject “they indicated to Tertullus that he should speak.”

As follows is literally “saying.” However, the force of this expression in Greek is merely to introduce an address (see Phillips “in these words”; New English Bible merely says “Tertullus opened the case”). In some languages the equivalent is “and these are his words” or “and this is what he said.”

In the Greek sentence structure Tertullus’ address begins with the words “much peace” (Good News Translation a long period of peace). Apparently in the first century A.D. it was quite common and proper to begin an address with the word “much,” and then later introduce the person addressed. However, in English it is more natural to being a speech by addressing the person or persons to whom one is speaking, and so this has been followed in the Good News Translation.

In some languages it is not possible to speak of your wise leadership has brought us a long period of peace; only persons can be spoken of as causing peace. Therefore, one may translate as “because you are such a wise leader, we have had peace for a long time.”

Of course, this introductory statement by Tertullus is pure flattery, but it was typical of all such statements made to government officials who in ancient times served not only as executives but also as judges.

Many necessary reforms is literally “reforms,” and has been rendered as “needed reforms” (An American Translation*), “improvements” (New English Bible, see Moffatt), and “improved conditions of living” (Phillips).

For the good of our country is literally “for this country,” but these reforms must be understood in terms of something good for the country. It is proper to understand the Greek expression “for this country” as an equivalent of “for our country,” since this is a natural way in Greek for one to refer to his own country. On the other hand, if one understands Tertullus not to have been a Jew, then perhaps he is referring to “their country” rather than our country. In this type of context, however, one must employ the exclusive first person plural in Tertullus’ remarks to Governor Felix since he certainly would not imply to the governor that the governor himself was to be identified with the country.

It may be that Tertullus, like any good lawyer, tries to identify himself with the position of his client. This would not mean, therefore, what Tertullus would necessarily be a Jew even though he might use we.

In some few languages there is a highly specialized distinction in the first person plural of pronouns. One is the nonrestrictive “we” which involves everyone in a group. Another form of “we” is the restrictive “we” and identifies within any particular group a subgroup which is aware of its own identity. For this type of language an expression such as our country would certainly employ the restrictive our.

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 .