By Larry Brigden, Senior Editorial Consultant (Linguistics)

Many modern commentators think that the Authorised (King James) Version translation of Acts 26.28, ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian’, is incorrect and claim that ‘the Greek words cannot possibly bear the meaning which is thus put upon them’.¹ Instead they suppose that Agrippa is asking a question, not in earnest, but derisively and sarcastically, as rendered in the English Standard Version (ESV): ‘In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?’ But there are a number of problems with this modern understanding of the verse, and a number of clear and cogent reasons for favouring the translation found in the Authorised (King James) Version.

In the first place, there is no indication in the Greek text that Agrippa is actually asking a question. The original reads very much more like a plain statement, without the punctuation required for a question.² And there is no subjunctive mood in the Greek which the ‘would’ of a conditional question would strictly require, nor any future tense which might possibly also serve the same or similar purpose. The Greek has only the simple present tense and the plain indicative mood corresponding to, ‘thou persuadest me’.

Secondly, how reasonable is it to suppose that Agrippa would ask such a question? Had Paul spent a ‘short time’ persuading Agrippa? Not at all. Paul had gone to some lengths in his explanation of the truth of Christianity (vv. 2–27). And how reasonable is it to suppose that Agrippa would ask such a question derisively and sarcastically? In verse 32 Agrippa appears to speak in earnest in regard to Paul, ‘Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar’. And if Agrippa is in earnest in verse 32, why not also in verse 28?

Thirdly, how is Paul’s reply in the very next verse, ‘And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds’ consistent with a supposed derisive and sarcastic question from Agrippa? Paul is saying that he most earnestly wished that Agrippa, and all those that heard Paul, would go the full length and be as fully persuaded of the truth of Christianity as Paul himself was. This reply of Paul in verse 29 is entirely consistent with the Authorised (King James) Version’s translation of verse 28 as: ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian’. Agrippa says that he is almost at the point of being persuaded, and Paul responds that whether it should be in a little or in much, he earnestly desired that Agrippa and all those who heard Paul should be fully persuaded to become a Christian.

Thus, the Authorised (King James) Version translation of Acts 26.28 is clearly to be preferred, being far closer to the original Greek of the verse than the more modern translations are. It should also be noted that the Authorised (King James) Version translators were by no means alone in thus understanding the verse. It was understood in the same or similar way by the early Church Fathers Chrysostom³ and Cyril of Jerusalem⁴ , by the early English Bible translators (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva) and ‘by some of the best scholars since that time’.⁵

But it may be suspected that the underlying reason modern translators and commentators cannot accept the plain statement in the text, and instead attempt to give an unnatural rendering of the words and a rendering quite unsuitable to the context, is because they do not understand how an effectual work of the Holy Spirit is needed above and beyond mere intellectual conviction.

This looks very much like an example of poor theology engendering a poor translation. The theology of the AV translators, being more orthodox than that of the generality of translators today, enabled them to rightly perceive the meaning of Acts 26.28. There may be an intellectual conviction of the truth, but while it remains unaccompanied by an effectual work of the Holy Spirit it must fall short of salvation.

There are other examples recorded in the New Testament where this same truth is held forth. The rich young ruler most earnestly inquires of Christ how he may ‘inherit eternal life’, being evidently fully persuaded that our Lord will faithfully and infallibly direct him, and yet in the end cannot comply with the direction given him (Luke 18.18–30); Herod heard John the Baptist ‘gladly’ and acknowledged him as a ‘just man and an holy’ (Mark 6.20) and yet in the end had John executed (Mark 6.27). These cases demonstrate the Biblical truth that mere intellectual conviction is not in itself sufficient. There must be an accompanying effectual work of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, John Gill gives the following illuminating and instructive exposition of the meaning of ‘almost’ in Acts 26.28:

An almost Christian is one that has much light and knowledge, but no grace; he may know something of himself and of sin, of its being a violation of the law of God, and of the bad consequences of it, but has not true repentance for it; he may know much of Christ in a speculative way, concerning His person and offices, as the devils themselves do, and of the good things which come by Him, as peace, pardon, righteousness, and salvation; but has no application of these things to himself; he may have a large notional knowledge of the doctrines of the Gospel, but has no experience of the power, sweetness, and comfort of them in his own soul.⁶

This theological truth was evidently clearly understood by the Authorised (King James) Version translators who therefore had no difficulty in translating Acts 26.28 simply and accurately as it stands in the Greek. But the more modern translators and commentators, on the other hand, perhaps lacking a clear understanding of this theological truth, miss the plain meaning of the original Greek words and end up translating the text with a meaning which the original cannot by any means naturally bear.

First published in Quarterly Record 648. Last edited 15 October 2024. 

Endnotes

¹ C. J. Ellicott (ed.), The New Testament Commentary for English Readers, Vol II, (London, Paris, New York: Cassell & Co., 1884), p. 169. See also R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), p. 1055.

² It is true that the original Greek manuscripts did not have any punctuation and that this was added by later editors. Nevertheless, the fact that the editors never added the punctuation required to indicate a question clearly indicates that they never understood it as such.

³ Homily 52 on the Acts of the Apostles.

⁴ Catechetical Lecture XVII.

⁵ R. Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and D. Brown, A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 2, (Hartford, USA: S.S. Scranton & Co., 1878), p. 216. Some of those scholars would include Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, John Gill, and John Calvin.

⁶ J. Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Vol. 2, (London, UK: Matthews and Leigh, 1809), p. 386.