25-10-2018, 06:16 PM
,
Exactly so!
That's most interesting, JKP! Where do you quote this from? Was it just a cheap trick to fool illiterate people, or this would pass with learned scholars as well?! And was there any specific name for this "wood" used by those merchants?
But that says nothing of wood! It says "genus fossilis" and, better still (in the margin) - "lapis"
Greek "chiton" is not linen or fabric. It is "clothes". As to "lino simile", I don't think it's worth any serious analysis, because it's too obvious a scripting or/and printing error from "ligno". The context leaves absolutely no place for "lino". Who would think that the altar would be made of fabric??
Not quite, in my opinion. Remember that we don't deal with the Greek original in this case. The original traced so far (let alone the Septuagint which says "asepton", and this obviously is not linguistically connected with "anchiton") is "amiton", and it is what looks like Latin transliteration of a possibly Greek word, the latter being unknown to us. The later occurrences of "a***ton" are also Latin. And even when they are given in Greek in the margin, they are quite probably just re-renderings of the Latin rendering back into Greek.
That is why I mentioned the morphological approach in my earlier post. Here's what I mean. I see no reason to suggest apriori that anchiton is a distorted "antichiton". This is pure speculation, and this only complicates matters, because it introduces the prefix "anti" without it being there. Without compication, let us suppose that the prefix is "a-", which is generically "non-". (In the course of last few days I saw a nice example in one of those books that we discuss of several key Greek words (inportant for theological discourse) which begin with "a-", i.e., "non-". Amianton was one of those. If I see it again, I'll quote it specifically). So, let us separate the "a-" prefix, and we are left with "nchton". This does not look very nice, but remember that we deal with a Latinized rendering. What's essential is that the Greek root in question would begin with "n" in that case. I would prefer "aniketon", as already suggested by somebody in the forum, which would mean "invincible", and then it would transform from "aniketon" through "anicheton" (kappa to hi) and finally into "anchiton" (being somewhat easier to pronounce) in its Latin version.
Quote:Even if we consider the possibility that the appearance of asbestos could lead it to be confused with some sort of wood, there is a problem with assuming that the phrase means the altar was made of asbestos.
Exactly so!
Quote:the most fascinating use of asbestos during the period was as a magical cross sold by traveling merchants. The crosses, cut from asbestos, looked like very old, worn wood and were advertised by merchants as "true crosses" made directly from the wood of the cross upon which Jesus Christ of Nazareth died. To illustrate the magical cross's powers, the merchants would throw the wood into a fire where it would remain undamaged.
That's most interesting, JKP! Where do you quote this from? Was it just a cheap trick to fool illiterate people, or this would pass with learned scholars as well?! And was there any specific name for this "wood" used by those merchants?
Quote:You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But that says nothing of wood! It says "genus fossilis" and, better still (in the margin) - "lapis"
Quote:If "antichiton" must be the two words "anti chiton" is really can mean "instead of linen" " or "as a substitute for flax", then the word combination in Latin "lino simile" is quite close to it.
Greek "chiton" is not linen or fabric. It is "clothes". As to "lino simile", I don't think it's worth any serious analysis, because it's too obvious a scripting or/and printing error from "ligno". The context leaves absolutely no place for "lino". Who would think that the altar would be made of fabric??
Quote:I always thought that "an-" looks oddly in the word. So, it is or distorted or "anchi-" is a root.
Not quite, in my opinion. Remember that we don't deal with the Greek original in this case. The original traced so far (let alone the Septuagint which says "asepton", and this obviously is not linguistically connected with "anchiton") is "amiton", and it is what looks like Latin transliteration of a possibly Greek word, the latter being unknown to us. The later occurrences of "a***ton" are also Latin. And even when they are given in Greek in the margin, they are quite probably just re-renderings of the Latin rendering back into Greek.
That is why I mentioned the morphological approach in my earlier post. Here's what I mean. I see no reason to suggest apriori that anchiton is a distorted "antichiton". This is pure speculation, and this only complicates matters, because it introduces the prefix "anti" without it being there. Without compication, let us suppose that the prefix is "a-", which is generically "non-". (In the course of last few days I saw a nice example in one of those books that we discuss of several key Greek words (inportant for theological discourse) which begin with "a-", i.e., "non-". Amianton was one of those. If I see it again, I'll quote it specifically). So, let us separate the "a-" prefix, and we are left with "nchton". This does not look very nice, but remember that we deal with a Latinized rendering. What's essential is that the Greek root in question would begin with "n" in that case. I would prefer "aniketon", as already suggested by somebody in the forum, which would mean "invincible", and then it would transform from "aniketon" through "anicheton" (kappa to hi) and finally into "anchiton" (being somewhat easier to pronounce) in its Latin version.
I didn't write it, but the Greek word 
)