Acts 4:13
Context4:13 When they saw the boldness 1 of Peter and John, and discovered 2 that they were uneducated 3 and ordinary 4 men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus.
Acts 13:41
Context13:41 ‘Look, you scoffers; be amazed and perish! 5
For I am doing a work in your days,
a work you would never believe, even if someone tells you.’” 6
Acts 24:10
Context24:10 When the governor gestured for him to speak, Paul replied, “Because I know 7 that you have been a judge over this nation for many years, I confidently make my defense. 8
Acts 24:14
Context24:14 But I confess this to you, that I worship 9 the God of our ancestors 10 according to the Way (which they call a sect), believing everything that is according to the law 11 and that is written in the prophets.


[4:13] 2 tn Or “and found out.”
[4:13] 3 sn Uneducated does not mean “illiterate,” that is, unable to read or write. Among Jews in NT times there was almost universal literacy, especially as the result of widespread synagogue schools. The term refers to the fact that Peter and John had no formal rabbinic training and thus, in the view of their accusers, were not qualified to expound the law or teach publicly. The objection is like Acts 2:7.
[4:13] 4 tn For the translation of ἰδιῶται (idiwtai) as “ordinary men” see L&N 27.26.
[13:41] 6 sn A quotation from Hab 1:5. The irony in the phrase even if someone tells you, of course, is that Paul has now told them. So the call in the warning is to believe or else face the peril of being scoffers whom God will judge. The parallel from Habakkuk is that the nation failed to see how Babylon’s rising to power meant perilous judgment for Israel.
[24:10] 9 tn Grk “knowing.” The participle ἐπιστάμενος (epistamenos) has been translated as a causal adverbial participle.
[24:10] 10 sn “Because…defense.” Paul also paid an indirect compliment to the governor, implying that he would be fair in his judgment.
[24:14] 14 tn Or “forefathers”; Grk “fathers.”
[24:14] 15 sn That is, the law of Moses. Paul was claiming that he legitimately worshiped the God of Israel. He was arguing that this amounted to a religious dispute rather than a political one, so that the Roman authorities need not concern themselves with it.