32Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
The Greek in Acts 4:32 that is translated as “be of one heart and soul” in English is translated in Elhomwe idiomatically as “agree in hearts and thoughts.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
In the 2008 MobaYendu Kadapaaonn translation “be of one heart” is translated as “(this who believed) had one mouth.” (Source: Bedouma Joseph Kobaike in Le Sycomore 17/1, 2024, p. 3ff. )
In German, the idiom ein Herz und eine Seele (literally “one heart and one soul”) has become a widely-used idiom relating to a very close relationship. It was made popular in 1522 in the German New Testament translation by Martin Luther. (Source: Redewendungen aus der Bibel )
The Greek in Acts 4:32 that is translated as “of one heart and soul” or similar in English is translated as “like one single person in their souls” in Desano and “were all one inside” in Ayutla Mixtec. (Source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
The Greek in Acts 4:32 that is translated as “everything they owned was held in common” or similar in English is translated as “no one said, ‘This is mine.’ They owned everything together” in Isthmus Mixe, as “not one of them considered their things apart, because they considered their things as if they belonged to all of them” in Teutila Cuicatec, as “there was no person who said that one thing was his alone. But everything of theirs one only its thusness by them all” in Chuj. (Source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
The Hebrew, Greek, Ge’ez, and Latin that is translated as “soul” in English is translated in Chol with a term that refers to the invisible aspects of human beings (source: Robert Bascom), in Yagaria with oune or “shadow, reflection” (source: Renck, p. 81), and in Elhomwe as “heart” (source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext).
The Mandarin Chineselínghún (靈魂 / 灵魂), literally “spirit-soul,” is often used for “soul” (along with xīn [心] or “heart”). This is a term that was adopted from Buddhist sources into early Catholic writings and later also by Protestant translators. (Source: Zetzsche 1996, p. 32, see also Clara Ho-yan Chan in this article )
In Chichewa, moyo means both “soul” and “life.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 4:32:
Uma: “All the believers in Yesus, lived in-agreement/united and they were one heart. There was not one who said: ‘This is my own belonging,’ but all that they had they owned together.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “All who trusted in Isa were of one mind and of one liver (lit. went together in liver). Whatever one had, nobody said that that was his alone, but he shared also with (lit. to) his companions.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And the unity of the believers was firm, and they were one in mind and in breath. There was not even one of them who considered his possessions, that he would be the only one to own them, but rather they considered that all of them were one in possessing them.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “All the believers were one in their mind/thoughts. They were not counting their possessions as their own but rather they were sharing with the needy among them.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “For as for all of those believers, their harmony and friendship were really sturdy. Proof was, they didn’t keep things to themselves. They didn’t keep back any of their belongings which was needed by their sibling in believing.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Eastern Highland Otomi: “All the believers lived like one person. They did the same; they thought the same. No one said he had his own money, they shared all they had.”
Lalana Chinantec: “The people who believed the Word of God were all in agreement. They didn’t reserve for themselves all that they had. They regarded all of their things as though they were the things of someone else.” (Source of this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
Translations of the Greek and Ge’ez that are typically translated as “faith” in English (itself deriving from Latin “fides,” meaning “trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence”) and “believe” (from Old English belyfan: “to have faith or confidence in a person”) cover a wide range of approaches.
Bratcher and Nida say this (1961, p. 38) (click or tap here to read more):
“Since belief or faith is so essentially an intimate psychological experience, it is not strange that so many terms denoting faith should be highly figurative and represent an almost unlimited range of emotional ‘centers’ and descriptions of relationships, e.g. ‘steadfast his heart’ (Chol), ‘to arrive on the inside’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘to conform with the heart’ (Uab Meto), ‘to join the word to the body’ (Uduk), ‘to hear in the insides’ (or ‘to hear within one’s self and not let go’ — Nida 1952) (Laka), ‘to make the mind big for something’ (Sapo), ‘to make the heart straight about’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘to cause a word to enter the insides’ (Lacandon), ‘to leave one’s heart with’ (Baniwa), ‘to catch in the mind’ (Ngäbere), ‘that which one leans on’ (Vai), ‘to be strong on’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘to have no doubts’ (San Blas Kuna), ‘to hear and take into the insides’ (Kare), ‘to accept’ (Pamona).”
Following is a list of (back-) translations from other languages (click or tap here to read more):
Limos Kalinga: manuttuwa. Wiens (2013) explains: “It goes back to the word for ‘truth’ which is ‘tuttuwa.’ When used as a verb this term is commonly used to mean ‘believe’ as well as ‘obey.'”
Ngiemboon: “turn one’s back on someone” (and trusting one won’t be taken advantage of) (source: Stephen Anderson in Holzhausen 1991, p. 42)
Mwera uses the same word for “hope” and “faith”: ngulupai (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Yala: ɔtū che or “place heart” (in John 5:24; 5:45; 6:35; 6:47; 12:36; 14:1); other translations include chɛ̄ or “to agree/accept” and chɛ̄ku or “to agree with/accept with/take side with” (source: Linus Otronyi)
Matumbi: niu’bi’lyali or “believe / trust / rely (on)” and imani or “religious faith” (from Arabic īmān [إيما]) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Ebira: “place one’s liver on something” (source: Scholz /Scholz 2015, p. 60)
Barí: a word related to standing in a hammock. Bruce Olson (1972, p. 159f.) tells this story — click or tap here to read more)
One evening, though, Bobby began to ask questions. We were sitting around a fire. The light flickered over him. His face was serious.
‘How can I walk on Jesus’ trail?’ he asked. ‘No Motilone [speakers of Barí] has ever done it. It’s a new thing. There is no other Motilone to tell how to do it.’
I remembered the problems I had had as a boy, how it sometimes appeared impossible to keep on believing in Jesus when my family and friends were so opposed to my commitment. That was what Bobby was going through.
‘Bobby,’ I said, ‘do you remember my first Festival of the Arrows, the first time I had seen all the Motilones gathered to sing their song?’ The festival was the most important ceremony in the Motilone culture.
He nodded. The fire flared up momentarily and I could see his eyes, staring intently at me.
‘Do you remember that I was afraid to climb in the high hammocks to sing, for fear that the rope would break? And I told you that I would sing only if I could have one foot in the hammock and one foot on the ground?’
‘Yes, Bruchko.’
‘And what did you say to me?’
He laughed. ‘I told you you had to have both feet in the hammock. ‘You have to be suspended,’ I said.’
‘Yes,’ I said. ‘You have to be suspended. That is how it is when you follow Jesus, Bobby. No man can tell you how to walk His trail. Only Jesus can. But to find out you have to tie your hammock strings into Him, and be suspended in God.’
Bobby said nothing. The fire danced in his eyes. Then he stood up and walked off into the darkness.
The next day he came to me. ‘Bruchko,’ he said, ‘I want to tie my hammock strings into Jesus Christ. But how can I? I can’t see Him or touch Him.’
‘You have talked to spirits, haven’t you?’
‘Oh,’ he said. ‘I see now.’
The next day he had a big grin on his face. ‘Bruchko, I’ve tied my hammock strings into Jesus. Now I speak a new language.’
I didn’t understand what he meant. ‘Have you learned some of the Spanish I speak?’
He laughed, a clean, sweet laugh. ‘No, Bruchko, I speak a new language.’
Then I understood. To a Motilone, language is life. If Bobby had a new life, he had a new way of speaking. His speech would be Christ-oriented.
Awabakal: ngurruliko: “to know, to perceive by the ear” (as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch — source: Lake, p. 70) (click or tap here to read more)
“[The missionary translator] Lancelot Threlkeld learned that Awabakal, like many Australian languages, made no distinction between knowing and believing. Of course the distinction only needs to be made where there are rival systems of knowing. The Awabakal language expressed a seamless world. But as the stress on ‘belief’ itself suggests, Christianity has always existed in pluralist settings. Conversion involves deep conviction, not just intellectual assent or understanding. (…) Translating such texts posed a great challenge in Australia. Threlkeld and [his indigenous colleague] Biraban debated the possibilities at length. In the end they opted not to introduce a new term for belief, but to use the Awabakal ngurruliko, meaning ‘to know, to perceive by the ear,’ as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch.”
Language in southern Nigeria: a word based on the idiom “lose feathers.” Randy Groff in Wycliffe Bible Translators 2016, p. 65 explains (click or tap here to read more):
What does losing feathers have to do with faith? [The translator] explained that there is a species of bird in his area that, upon hatching its eggs, loses its feathers. During this molting phase, the mother bird is no longer able to fly away from the nest and look for food for her hungry hatchlings. She has to remain in the nest where she and her babies are completely dependent upon the male bird to bring them food. Without the diligent, dependable work of the male bird, the mother and babies would all die. This scenario was the basis for the word for faith in his language.
Teribe: mär: “pick one thing and one thing only” (source: Andy Keener)
Tiv: na jighjigh: “give trust” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Luba-Katanga: Twi tabilo: “echo” (click or tap here to read more)
“Luba-Katanga word for ‘Faith’ in its New Testament connotation is Twi tabilo. This word means ‘echo,’ and the way in which it came to be adapted to the New Testament meaning gives a very good idea of the way in which the translator goes to work. One day a missionary was on a journey through wild and mountainous country. At midday he called his African porters to halt, and as they lay resting in the shade from the merciless heat of the sun. an African picked up a stone and sent it ricocheting down the mountain-side into the ravine below. After some seconds the hollow silence was broken by a plunging, splashing sound from the depths of the dark river-bed. As the echo died away the African said in a wondering whisper ‘Twi tabilo, listen to it.’ So was a precious word captured for the service of the Gospel in its Luba Christian form. Twi tabilo — ‘faith which is the echo of God’s voice in the depths of human sinful hearts, awakened by God Himself, the answer to his own importunate call.’ The faith that is called into being by the divine initiative, God’s own gift to the responsive heart! (Source: Wilfred Bradnock in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 49ff. )
J.A. van Roy (in The Bible Translator 1972, p. 418ff. ) discusses how a translation of “faith” in a an earlier translation into Venda created difficult perceptions of the concept of faith (click or tap here):
The Venda term u tenda, lutendo. This term corresponds to the terms ho dumela (Southern Sotho), and ku pfumela (Tsonga) that have been used in these translations of the Bible, and means “to assent,” “to agree to a suggestion.” It is important to understand this term in the context of the character of the people who use it.
The way in which the Venda use this term reveals much about the priority of interpersonal relationships among them. They place a much higher priority on responding in the way they think they are expected to respond than on telling the truth. Smooth interpersonal relationships, especially with a dominant individual or group, take precedence over everything else.
It is therefore regarded as bad form to refuse directly when asked for something one does not in fact intend to give. The correct way is to agree, u tenda, and then forget about it or find some excuse for not keeping to the agreement. Thus u tenda does not necessarily convey the information that one means what one says. One can tenda verbally while heartily disagreeing with the statement made or having no intention whatsoever to carry out what one has just promised to do. This is not regarded as dishonesty, but is a matter of politeness.
The term u sokou tenda, “to consent reluctantly,” is often used for expressing the fatalistic attitude of the Venda in the face of misfortune or force which he is unable to resist.
The form lutendo was introduced by missionaries to express “faith.”
According to the rules of derivations and their meanings in the lu-class, it should mean “the habit of readily consenting to everything.” But since it is a coined word which does not have a clearly defined set of meanings in everyday speech, it has acquired in church language a meaning of “steadfastness in the Christian life.” Una lutendo means something like “he is steadfast in the face of persecution.” It is quite clear that the term u tenda has no element of “trust” in it. (…)
In “The Christian Minister” of July 1969 we find the following statement about faith by Albert N. Martin: “We must never forget that one of the great issues which the Reformers brought into focus was that faith was something more than an ‘assensus,’ a mere nodding of the head to the body of truth presented by the church as ‘the faith.’ The Reformers set forth the biblical concept that faith was ‘fiducia.’ They made plain that saving faith involved trust, commitment, a trust and commitment involving the whole man with the truth which was believed and with the Christ who was the focus of that truth. The time has come when we need to spell this out clearly in categorical statements so that people will realize that a mere nodding of assent to the doctrines that they are exposed to is not the essence of saving faith. They need to be brought to the understanding that saving faith involves the commitment of the whole man to the whole Christ, as Prophet, Priest and King as he is set forth in the gospel.”
We quote at length from this article because what Martin says of the current concept of faith in the Church is even to a greater extent true of the Venda Church, and because the terms used for communicating that concept in the Venda Bible cannot be expected to communicate anything more than “a mere nodding of assent”. I have during many years of evangelistic work hardly ever come across a Venda who, when confronted with the gospel, would not say, Ndi khou tenda, “I admit the truth of what you say.” What they really mean when saying this amounts to, “I believe that God exists, and I have no objection to the fact that he exists. I suppose that the rest of what you are talking about is also true.” They would often add, Ndi sa tendi hani-hani? “Just imagine my not believing such an obvious fact!” To the experienced evangelist this is a clear indication that his message is rejected in so far as it has been understood at all! To get a negative answer, one would have to press on for a promise that the “convert” will attend the baptism class and come to church on Sundays, and even then he will most probably just tenda in order to get rid of the evangelist, whether he intends to come or not. Isn’t that what u tenda means? So when an inexperienced and gullible white man ventures out on an evangelistic campaign with great enthusiasm, and with great rejoicing returns with a list of hundreds of names of persons who “believed”, he should not afterwards blame the Venda when only one tenth of those who were supposed to be converts actually turn up for baptismal instruction.
Moreover, it is not surprising at all that one often comes across church members of many years’ standing who do not have any assurance of their salvation or even realise that it is possible to have that assurance. They are vhatendi, “consenters.” They have consented to a new way of life, to abandoning (some of) the old customs. Lutendo means to them at most some steadfastness in that new way of life.
The concept of faith in religion is strange to Africa. It is an essential part of a religion of revelation such as Christianity or Islam, but not of a naturalistic religion such as Venda religion, in which not faith and belief are important, but ritual, and not so much the content of the word as the power of it.
The terms employed in the Venda Bible for this vital Christian concept have done nothing to effect a change in the approach of the Venda to religion.
It is a pity that not only in the Venda translation has this been the case, but in all the other Southern Bantu languages. In the Nguni languages the term ukukholwa, “to believe a fact,” has been used for pisteuo, and ukholo, the deverbative of ukukholwa, for pistis. In some of the older Protestant translations in Zulu, but not in the new translation, the term ithemba, “trust”, has been used.
Some languages, including Santali, have two terms — like English (see above) — to differentiate a noun from a verb form. Biswạs is used for “faith,” whereas pạtiạu for “believe.” R.M. Macphail (in The Bible Translator 1961, p. 36ff. ) explains this choice: “While there is little difference between the meaning and use of the two in everyday Santali, in which any word may be used as a verb, we felt that in this way we enriched the translation while making a useful distinction, roughly corresponding to that between ‘faith’ and ‘to believe’ in English.”
Likewise, in Noongar, koort-karni or “heart truth” is used for the noun (“faith”) and djinang-karni or “see true” for the verb (“believe”) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
The word translated group is used in the book of Acts in two senses: (1) a crowd or a large group of persons, (2) a religious community, whether Jewish or Christian. Here it is used in the specific sense of the entire Christian community. The phrase the group of believers is equivalent in many languages to “all the believers.” This does not specifically introduce the idea of “the community,” but by the use of “all” and their joint activity, the component of community is implied.
One in mind and heart is literally “one in heart and soul.” In Jewish thought “heart” was the center of intellectual activity, and “soul” the seat of the will. Taken together they are inclusive of the total inner being of the person. The expression one in mind and heart may be expressed verbally as “they thought the same things and they wanted the same things.” When, however, the idiomatic formula can be preserved it is preferable, for example, “they were just like one person in their mind and heart” or “they had only one mind and heart.”
They all shared with one another everything they had seems to be the meaning of the literal statement “they had all things in common.” The context suggests that the believers continued to possess their own personal belongings (see v. 32b), and that even when someone sold a piece of property the money remained his own (see 5.4). See also the earlier discussion at 2.44.
The first clause of verse 32b must frequently be expressed as direct discourse, for example, “No one said, What I own belongs just to me” or “No one said, All I have is just for me.”
The adversative element between the two clauses of verse 32b is strong and therefore the introduction of a conjunction such as but is important.
In some languages it is not possible to use the plural they. Rather, one must use a singular to identify the fact that each individual on his own initiative shared, for example, “each person shared with each other person anything which he had.”
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 believers shared what they owned with one another
In this section, the believers were united, and they were sharing what they had with each other. Some believers even sold their land or a house to give the money to other believers. The apostles were powerfully telling others about Jesus. And God was greatly helping all of them.
Luke told the story of Barnabas as an example. Barnabas sold a field and brought the money to the apostles so that they could give it to other believers who needed it.
Here are some other possible headings for this section:
The believers shared their possessions -or-
The believers held their possessions in common
Paragraph 4:32–35
4:32a
The multitude of believers: This phrase in Greek is literally “the number/crowd of the ones having-believed.” Here the word “number/crowd” refers to the group of believers as a whole. At that time all of the believers were probably in Jerusalem. Here are some other ways to translate this phrase:
The whole group of believers (New Jerusalem Bible) -or-
the full number of those who believed (English Standard Version)
one in heart and soul: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as soul, as a phrase together with the word heart, indicates that the believers were united in their whole being: motives, feelings, desire, and thought.
In some languages different words are used for this meaning. For example:
one in liver/stomach and ⌊one in⌋ thinking/spirit -or-
one in their mind/thoughts -or-
lived in-agreement/united and they were one heart
4:32b
No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own: This clause means that no one was saying, “These things are mine and I will not share.” Here are some other ways to translate this clause:
no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own (English Standard Version) -or-
They were not counting their possessions as their own -or-
There was not one who said: “This is my own belonging,”
No one: Here this phrase refers to none of the believers. For example:
None of them (Good News Translation)
4:32c
but: 4:32b says that the believers did not keep their things for themselves only. 4:32c says that they shared everything. The Greek indicates contrast between those two things. But people in some languages will not see them as contrasting. For example:
32bThey didn’t keep back any of their belongings 32cwhich was needed by their sibling in believing. -or-
32bNo one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, 32cthat is, they shared everything they had.
they shared everything they owned: This clause indicates that the believers shared all their things with other believers. Here are some other ways to translate this clause:
they all shared with one another everything they had (Good News Translation) -or-
all their things were in a place where anyone could use them
The meaning is similar to “had everything in common” in 2:44.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.