Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 1:19
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
19. And it was known ] Rather, became known. The fate of Judas, if he died there, and the way in which the purchase money was obtained, caused the name to be changed from “the Potter’s Field” to “the Field of Blood,” all people recognizing the fitness of the new name.
is called ] The use of expressions like this in the present tense shews that we are dealing with documents written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
in their proper tongue ] i.e. in the language spoken by the Jews in Jerusalem, which was Aramaic. The addition of these words and the explanation of the name Akeldama point to this passage as an insertion made by St Luke for the information of Theophilus, who, as his name indicates, was probably of Greek origin, and, it may be, unacquainted with the vernacular speech of Palestine. There could have been no need for St Peter to make such an explanation to the one hundred and twenty who listened to his address. Nor, indeed, is it probable that the name “Field of Blood” became of such common use within the time between the Crucifixion and the election of Matthias, as to make it possible for St Peter to have used the words.
For a similar insertion of a significant name introduced into a compiled narrative before the time at which the name was actually given, cp. 1Sa 4:1, where Eben-ezer is spoken of, though the circumstances in which the name originated are not mentioned till 1Sa 7:12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
It was known … – , Mat 27:8. The scene in the temple; the acts of the priests in purchasing the field, etc., would make it known; and the name of the field would preserve the memory of the guilt of Judas.
Their proper tongue – The language spoken by the Jews the Syro-Chaldaic.
Aceldama – This is composed of two Syro-Chaldaic words, and means literally, the field of blood.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. It was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem] The repentance of Judas, his dying testimony in behalf of our Lord’s innocence, and his tragical death, were publicly known, as was also the transaction about the purchase of the field, and hence arose the name by which at was publicly known. These circumstances must have lessened the credit of the chief priests, and have prepared the public mind to receive the Gospel of the kingdom, when preached to them after the day of pentecost.
That field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama] This proper tongue was not the Hebrew; that had long ceased to be the proper tongue in Palestine: it was a sort of Chaldaio-Syriac which was commonly spoken. The word in the Syriac version is [Syriac] chacal-demo, and literally signifies the field of blood; because it was bought by the price of the life or blood of the Lord Jesus.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Their proper tongue; the Syriac language then in use after the Babylonish captivity.
The field of blood; as bought with the price of Christs blood, and sprinkled with his own blood.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15-26. in those daysofexpectant prayer, and probably towards the close of them, when thenature of their future work began more clearly to dawn upon them, andthe Holy Ghost, already “breathed” on the Eleven (Joh20:22), was stirring in Peter, who was to be the leading spiritof the infant community (Mt16:19).
the number . . . about anhundred and twentyMany, therefore, of the “five hundredbrethren” who saw their risen Lord “at once” (1Co15:6), must have remained in Galilee.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem,…. As that he betrayed Jesus of Nazareth into the hands of the chief priests, for thirty pieces of silver; that this was the reward of his iniquity; and that with this a field was purchased for the burying of strangers in; and that he died in such a miserable way: there was scarce an inhabitant in Jerusalem but knew all this,
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue; or “in their own dialect”, the “Jerusalem dialect”, Which was now Chaldee, or Syriac; and such is the word that follows, “Aceldama; that is to say, the field of blood”: because it was bought with the price of Christ’s blood: and if, as some say, Judas hanged him self here, or was thrown headlong here by Satan, and that this was the place where his bowels gushed out; then it may be likewise so called, because it was sprinkled with his blood. It is called in the Alexandrian copy “Acheldamach”; and often by Jerom p “Acheldemach”, but very wrongly; for not “Demach”, but “Dema”, in the Syriac and Chaldee dialect, signifies “blood”; which Peter calls the dialect of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, being now spoken by them, in distinction from the Galilean dialect used by him; which, it is plain, was different from the Jerusalem dialect by what is said, Mr 14:70. This field, as it is reported by some, was by the appointment of the Empress Helena compassed about with four walls, in the manner of a tower, upon the top of which are seven distinct doors, like windows, by which the dead bodies of Christians are let down into it; and that it is fifty feet wide, and seventy two long: it stands not far from the valley of Himom, and is upon the south side of Mount Zion, where, as Jerom says q, it was showed in his time. Masius r affirms, there was a very high mountain near Jerusalem, called Mount Aceldema, from the adjacent field, which was bought with the price of Christ’s blood, to bury strangers in.
p Comment. in Psal. 108. fol. 73. D. & de locis Hebraicis, fol. 89. C. & 95. H. & de Nominibus Hebraicis, fol. 105. H. q De locis Hebraicis, ib. r Comment. in Josuam, p. 283.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Language (). Not a dialect of the Greek, but a different language, the Aramaic. So also in Acts 2:6; Acts 21:40. is from , to converse, to speak between two ().
Akeldama (H). This Aramaic word Peter explains as “the field of blood.” Two traditions are preserved: one in Mt 27:7 which explains that the priests purchased this potter’s field with the money which Judas flung down as the price of the blood of Jesus. The other in Acts describes it as the field of blood because Judas poured out his blood there. Hackett and Knowling argue that both views can be true. “The ill-omened name could be used with a double emphasis” (Hackett).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Aceldama. Or, more properly, Akeldamach. The word is Aramaic, the language then spoken in Palestine.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And it was known,” (kai gnoston egeneto) “And it became known,” or it became common knowledge, could not be concealed, even from men, much less from the all-knowing God, Rom 14:11-12. “Be sure your sins will find you out,” Num 32:23.
2) “Unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem,” (pasai tois katoikousin lerousalem) “To all those who were common inhabitants (in) Jerusalem; bad news or news of bad things spread like prairie fires in a windstorm, even in life, and shall be “brought up again” at the judgement, Ecc 12:13-14.
3) “Insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue,” (hoste klethenai to chorion ekeino te idia dialekto auton) “So that the field came to be (is) called in their own language,” not only till that day of Luke’s writing, but also even until this century, it is identified as the field that memorializes a traitor, and treachery of religious nature, Gal 6:7-8.
4) “Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.” (akeldamach tout’ estin chorion haimatos) “Aceldama, this is (exists as) The field of blood;- of blood-money, even to travelers who go there after these many centuries. The low value of human life is here memorialized, together with the high cost of such low and base standard of conduct, to sell human life for money- -for the greed of a moment; It is a matter that shall surely be brought into judgement, Ecc 11:9; Mat 12:36; Rom 2:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(19) In their proper tongue.Literally, in their own dialect. The word is used frequently in the Acts (Act. 2:6; Act. 2:8; Act. 21:40), but not elsewhere in the New Testament.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Known unto all A bold appeal to public notoriety, indicating the full confidence of the writer in the public truth of the narrative. The crucifixion of Jesus, we infer, was no obscure event, but had made a wide and solemn impression on the minds of the people of Jerusalem.
In their proper tongue The Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic. This was probably the very dialect in which Peter was speaking. He could not, therefore, have called it “ their proper tongue,” for it was his own, nor would the name have needed translation. The words are, therefore, Luke’s, and intended for more distant readers. (See note above on 18, 19.)
Aceldama field of blood As bought with the price of Jesus’ blood.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood).”
The result of this vivid and seemingly ominous death was that the name of the place where it happened became known to the locals as Akeldama, ‘the field of blood’. It would not take long for such a story to get around at festival time and for such a name to be given. The incident had clearly caused great horror, and as it would be seen as defiling the land at Passover time, it would be necessary for warning to be given of it that the field might be avoided.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 1:19. And it was known, &c. Aringhius mentions a funeral inscription dug up in the Via Nomentana, by which it appears that the fate of Judas became a proverbial form of cursing. See his Roma Subterran. p. 436. The best critics seem universally to read this verse in a parenthesis, considering it not as the words of St. Peter, but of the historian. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, that the potter’s field was the place where Judas hanged himself; and that it was not only bought with the money for which Judas had sold his Master, but stained also with the traitor’s blood. See on Mat 27:7-8.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 1:19 . Not even these words are to be considered, with the above-mentioned expositors (also Schleierm. Einl. p. 372), as an inserted remark of Luke, but as part of the speech of Peter. For all that they contain belongs essentially to the complete description of the curse of the action of Judas: forms with and , Act 1:18 , one continuously flowing representation, and . is more suitable to rhetorical language than to that of simple narration. But [105] and . . are two explanations inserted by Luke, the distinction between which and Peter’s own words might be trusted to the reader; for it is self-evident (in opposition to Lange and older commentators) that Peter spoke not Greek but Aramaic .
.] namely, what is stated in Act 1:18 .
] so that , in consequence of the acquisition of that field and of this bloody death of Judas becoming thus generally known. According to our passage, the name “field of blood” ( , comp. Mat 27:8 ) was occasioned by the fact that Judas, with whose wages of iniquity the field was acquired, perished in a manner so bloody (according to others: on the field itself; see on Act 1:18 ). The passage in Matthew, l.c. , gives another and more probable reason for the name. But it is by no means improbable that the name soon after the death of Judas became assigned, first of all, in popular use, to the field purchased for the public destination of being a (Aeschin. i. 99; Mat 28:7 ); hence Peter might even now quote this name in accordance with the design of his speech.
] (in the N. T. only in Acts), a mode of speaking , may express as well the more general idea of language , as the narrower one of dialect . [106] In both senses it is often used by Polybius, Plutarch, etc. In the older Greek it is colloquium (Plat. Symp. p. 203 A, Theaet. p. 146 B), pronuntiatio (Dem. 982. 18), sermo (Arist. Poet. 22). In all the passages of Acts it is dialect , and that, excepting at Act 2:6 ; Act 2:8 , the Aramaic , although it has this meaning not in itself, but from its more precise definition by the context.
[105] : of the dwellers of Jerusalem (who spoke the Aramaic dialect), spoken from the standpoint of Luke and Theophilus, “quorum alter Graece scriberet alter legeret,” Erasmus.
[106] Valckenaer well observes on the distinction between these two ideas: “Habent omnes dialecti aliquid inter se commune; habent enim omnes eandem linguam matrem, sed dialectum efficit, quod habent singulae peculiare sibi.” The Greeks also employ in both senses (see also Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21, p. 404, Pott).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Ver. 19. In their proper tongue ] i.e. In the Syriac tongue; for the Jews in the Babylonish captivity lost their language.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19. ] It is principally from this verse that it has been inferred that the two Act 1:18-19 are inserted by Luke . But it is impossible to separate it from Act 1:18 ; and I am disposed to regard both as belonging to Peter’s speech, but freely Grcized by Luke, inserting into the speech itself the explanations [ ] . ., and . ., as if the speech had been spoken in Greek originally. This is much more natural, than to parenthesize these clauses; it is, in fact, what must be more or less done by all who report in a language different from that actually used by the speaker. The words and idioms of another tongue contain allusions and national peculiarities which never could have been in the mind of one speaking in a different language; but the ear tolerates these, or easily separates them, if critically exercised.
] See Luk 24:18 .
] in Mat 27:8 , the name ‘the field of blood’ is referred to the fact of its having been bought with the price of blood : here, to the fact of Judas having there met with a signal and bloody death . On the whole, I believe the result to which I have above inclined will be found the best to suit the phnomena of the two passages, viz. that, with regard to the purchase of the field , the more circumstantial account in Matthew is to be adopted; with regard to the death of Judas , the more circumstantial account of Luke. The clue which joins these has been lost to us : and in this, only those will find any stumbling-block, whose faith in the veracity of the Evangelists is very weak indeed.
] . The field originally belonged to a potter, and was probably a piece of land which had been exhausted of its clay fit for his purposes, and so was useless. Jerome relates that it was still shewn on the S. side of Mount Sion ( , but by mistake, Eusebius), in which neighbourhood there is even now a bed of white clay (see Winer, Realw., art. ‘Blutacker’).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 1:19 . .: the words have been taken to support the view that we have here a parenthesis containing the notice of St. Luke, but if St. Peter was speaking rhetorically he might easily express himself so. But many critics, who refuse to see in the whole of the two verses any parenthetical remarks of the historian, adopt the view that and are explanations introduced by St. Luke, who could trust to his Gentile readers to distinguish between his words and those of St. Peter (Wendt, Holtzmann, Zckler, Nsgen, Jngst. Matthias). : only in Acts in the N.T., where it is used six times in all parts; it may mean dialect or language, but here it is used in the latter sense (R.V.) to distinguish Aramaic from Greek ( cf. its use in Polybius). , i.e. , the dwellers of Jerusalem, who spoke Aramaic unless the whole expression is used rhetorically, it would seem that it contains the words, not of St. Peter, who himself spoke Aramaic, but of the author (see Blass, in loco ). : the Aramaic of the Field of Blood would be , and it is possible that the may be added to represent in some way the guttural [108] , just as = , cf. Blass, in loco , and Grammatik des N. G. , p. 13. W.H [109] (so Blass) read (and , Tisch. and Treg.); see also on the word Winer-Schmiedel, pp. 60 and 63. A new derivation has been proposed by Klostermann, Probleme in Aposteltexte , p. 6 ff., which has gained considerable attention ( cf. Holtzmann, Wendt, Felten, Zckler, in loco ), viz. : = , so that the word = , cf. Mat 27:8 . This is the derivation preferred by Wendt, and it is very tempting, but see also Enc. Bibl. , I., 32, 1899, sub v.
[108] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[109] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.
It is true that the two accounts in St. Matthew and St. Luke give two reasons for the name Field of Blood . But why should there not be two reasons? If the traitor in the agony of his remorse rushed from the Temple into the valley of Hinnom, and across the valley to “the potter’s field” of Jeremiah, the old name of the potter’s field might easily become changed in the popular language into that of “field of blood,” whilst the reason given by St. Matthew for the name might still hold good, since the blood-money, which by a fiction of law was still considered to belong to Judas, was employed for the purchase of the accursed spot as a burial ground for strangers. See Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah , ii., 574, 575. Whatever may be alleged as to the growth of popular fancy and tradition in the later account in Acts of the death of Judas, it cannot be said to contrast unfavourably with the details given by Papias, Fragment , 18, which Blass describes as “insulsissima et fdissima”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
known. Greek. gnostos. Compare App-132. This word occurs fifteen times, ten times in Acts. unto = to.
proper = own. Greek. idios.
tongue = dialect. Greek. dialektos. Only in Acts: here; Act 2:6, Act 2:8; Act 21:40; Act 22:2; Act 26:14. Aceldama. See App-94.:3 and 161.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19.] It is principally from this verse that it has been inferred that the two Act 1:18-19 are inserted by Luke. But it is impossible to separate it from Act 1:18; and I am disposed to regard both as belonging to Peters speech, but freely Grcized by Luke, inserting into the speech itself the explanations [] . ., and . ., as if the speech had been spoken in Greek originally. This is much more natural, than to parenthesize these clauses; it is, in fact, what must be more or less done by all who report in a language different from that actually used by the speaker. The words and idioms of another tongue contain allusions and national peculiarities which never could have been in the mind of one speaking in a different language; but the ear tolerates these, or easily separates them, if critically exercised.
] See Luk 24:18.
] in Mat 27:8, the name the field of blood is referred to the fact of its having been bought with the price of blood: here, to the fact of Judas having there met with a signal and bloody death. On the whole, I believe the result to which I have above inclined will be found the best to suit the phnomena of the two passages,-viz. that, with regard to the purchase of the field, the more circumstantial account in Matthew is to be adopted; with regard to the death of Judas, the more circumstantial account of Luke. The clue which joins these has been lost to us: and in this, only those will find any stumbling-block, whose faith in the veracity of the Evangelists is very weak indeed.
] . The field originally belonged to a potter, and was probably a piece of land which had been exhausted of its clay fit for his purposes, and so was useless. Jerome relates that it was still shewn on the S. side of Mount Sion ( , but by mistake, Eusebius), in which neighbourhood there is even now a bed of white clay (see Winer, Realw., art. Blutacker).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 1:19. , it became known) namely, that which is mentioned in the beginning of Act 1:18.- , in their own idiom [tongue]) This and the subsequent interpretation of it, This is the field of blood, Luke has added to the speech of Peter for the information of Theophilus, and the reader who does not understand Hebrew.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
it: Act 2:22, Mat 28:15
Aceldama: 2Sa 2:16, *marg.
Reciprocal: 2Sa 18:18 – Absalom’s place 2Sa 20:10 – and shed 2Ch 20:26 – the name Zec 11:13 – Cast Mat 27:5 – and departed Mat 27:8 – that Luk 14:30 – General 1Ti 3:16 – received
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
There is nothing strange in the general knowledge of the affair of Judas. The suicide of a man prominently associated with Jesus could not escape the attention of the people. And the setting aside of a piece of land that ordinarily was discarded, would naturally bring forth many inquiries, and that in turn would suggest the title given to the place. Field of blood. Judas did not actually shed the blood of Jesus, neither did the crucifixion directly shed it. The law of capital punishment in Gen 9:6 says, “He that sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Nobody would think this is restricted to cases where the veins of another were literally opened and the blood poured out, either in the act of murder or the punishment for it. Were that the case, a murderer could escape the penalty by merely using some other method of slaying his victim besides bloodletting. The origin of the term is in the declaration of God that the blood is the life (Gen 9:4). From this truth the term “bloodshed” came to mean any act of violence that would cause one to lose his life. Judas caused Jesus to lose his life by violence, and hence he was properly charged with bloodshed.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
19. The next statement, (19) “And it was known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, so that that field is called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood,” is undoubtedly a parenthesis by Luke. Peter was addressing the very people in whose proper tongue the place was called Aceldama, and would not, of course, translate it to them. Hence, we can not attribute these words to him. But Luke was writing in Greek, and felt called upon to translate Hebrew words which he might use into Greek, and the fact that this is done here prove the words to be his.