A17642:81
The commentaries of M. John Calvin upon the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully translated…The commentaries of M. Iohn Caluin vpon the Actes of the Apostles, faithfully translated…
The commentaries of M. John Calvin upon the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully translated out of Latin into English for the great profit of our country-men, by Christopher Fetherstone student in divinityThe commentaries of M. Iohn Caluin vpon the Actes of the Apostles, faithfully translated out of Latine into English for the great profite of our countrie-men, by Christopher Fetherstone student in diuinitie
Londini: printed by Thomas Dawson, 1585
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Secondly, it should have been an absurd thing to have spoken after this among them, that the field which was bought with the money that was given to betray Christ, was called of the Hebrews in their own mother tongue Acheldima. But whereas some do answer that Peter spoke this unto the Galileans, whose speech did disagree with the Jewish tongue, it is but vain and frivolous. In very deed they did somewhat disagree in pronunciation: yet not so much, but that they did well understand one another: like as do those of Paris and the men of Roan.
Secondly, it should haue been an absurd thing to haue spoken after this among them, that the field which was bought with the money that was giuen to betray Christe, was called of the Hebrewes in their owne mother tongue Acheldima. But whereas some doe answere that Peter spoke this vnto the Galileans, whose speech did disagree with the Iewish tongue, it is but vaine and friuolous. In very deede they did somewhat disagree in pronunciation: yet not so much, but that they did well vnderstand one another: like as doe those of Paris and the men of Roan.
Furthermore how could this be a fit word for Jerusalem, where Peter made his sermon? To what end should he interpret in Greek among the Hebrews, their own mother tongue? Therefore doth Luke of himself put in this sentence concerning the death of Judas, least Peter his words might seem strange through ignorance of that history.
Furthermore howe coulde this bee a fit worde for Ierusalem, where Peter made his sermon? To what end should hee interprete in Greeke among the Hebrewes, their owne mother tongue? Therefore doth Luke of himself put in this sentence concerning the death of Iudas, least Peter his woordes might seeme straunge through ignoraunce of that historie.
He possessed a field. This word hath a double signification, which in my opinion doth rather signify in this place to possess, than to get yet bee it skilleth little whether way we read it, I leave it indifferent.