The Voynich Ninja

This is a branch from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread, just to make the latter more lightweight, since it's apparently overloaded with different subjects by now.

This one is about "anchiton". Below is the quick summary for the start of this new thread, why anchiton is important.

The second line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia, after a cross, begins with a word, one of the readings of which is "anchiton". There have been other readings as well, such as "michiton", "nichiton", "michi con" and others - those could be consulted in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread. This new thread presupposes that the reading is "anchiton" and leads a branch of investigation in the light of that hypothesis.

The question is immediately there what this "anchiton" might be, and how it might relate to the no less mysterious "oladabas", and some other tentative readings in the line such as "carcere" or "portas". If "anchiton" is found elsewhere - and the more so, in the context of some "portas" and so on (most preferably with "oladabas"!) then we could draw conclusions not only about the meaning of the respective piece of marginalia, but, more broadly, about the cultural context of the creation of the VMS (since it is quite probable that these marginalia were put down by one of the VMS scribes).

Unfortunately, for a long period of time, noone could suggest what is "anchiton" (if anything), let alone throw any sufficient light upon "oladabas". For now, it is sufficient to say that "oladabas" is still in the dark, but there has been some progress with "anchiton" in the recent years.

First of all, Searcher found the mention of "anchiton" in comments to the Bible by Nicolas de Lyra, as printed in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in 1549. This Lyra was a Frenchman living in XIII - XIV centuries, and he was a great authority upon the Bible, with his comments widely referred to in the Western world for centuries to come.

In fact, the messy layout of the book makes it difficult to decide whether the comment of interest is by de Lyra or from Glossa Ordinaria, but anyway its comment to Exodus 27 runs as this:

Quote:Nec mirum hoc de sanctuario et interioribus templi et altaris et thymiamatis credere, cuius etiam anchiton ligni genus vel ligno simile, quanto plus arserit tanto mundius inveniatur.

A translation would be welcome, but with the help of Google I understand that this refers to "anchiton" as a kind of wood that cannot be destroyed by fire, only emerges from fire cleaner than it was.

Exodus 27:1 in itself is about making the altar of the "shittim" wood:

Quote:And thou shalt make an altar of shittim wood...

As VViews pointed out, the "thymiamatis" of the biblical comment and the "shittim" (or "setim") of the Bible are the same thing, something of Acacia species. The point being that this wood is resistant to fire (which makes it a natural material to make an altar of). It remains unclear though, why thymiamatis is called "anchiton" or is compared to some "anchiton" (not sure which of the two, my Latin is not sufficient) here.

---

I'll continue my post shortly, meanwhile I'm locking the thread so as not to mess it with the future discussion.

Thx for your patience

Consulting Exodus, one would find that not only the altar was made of shittim wood, but also certain elements of the tabernacle:

Quote:And thou shalt make boards for the tabernacle of shittim wood standing up

(26:15)

Quote:And thou shalt make bars of shittim wood...

(26:26)

These are just a couple of examples. Quite a number of things in Exodus 25-28 are made from shittim wood.

The word "Shittim" is plural for "Shittah", in Hebrew meaning the Acacia tree, and, more specifically (due to the recent advances in botany), the Vachellia.

Modern English Bible texts (what's quoted above is King James's) even do not bother about "shittim", they say "acacia".

I checked if acacia wood does not burn indeed, and was disappointed - not only it does, but it produces much heat as compared with wood of other sorts and is valued for that. It is indeed curious (as recently noted to me by David in private), why acacia (or be't vachellia) would be picked up by the author of Exodus as something that allegedly does not burn.

There seemingly is no place for a translation error, because Exodus is originally in Hebrew and "shittim" is a Hebrew word as noted above. For sure, ancient Hebrews knew how to call the wood. "Shittim" is also used as the name of a historical place in the Old Testament, and its name roughly means "meadow of acacias" as Wikipedia suggests, it's modern Abil-ez-Zeit in Jordan.

This contradiction is only too evident for not to have been discussed in thousands of years of theology, I guess there must be an explanation to this.

Interestingly, I read in the Internet that resin of Acacia Catechu, growing in India, is used to embrocate altars. I was not able to find any serious confirmations to that. But contextually, it is worth bearing in mind, because Latin "cero" ("cere" is one of the readings of a word in f116v) means "to wax". For another fact, arabic gum is no other than acacia resin.

More to follow.

Next we come to various theorists on Bible who all would build upon earlier works, e.g. de Lyra and Glossa Ordinaria.

In the book You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by one Fransisco Ortiz, 1549, the following passage is given (folio 44):

Quote:Qui enim verbo aut exemplo peccatores convertit, quasi dens Christi est, quo illius atteritur cibus. At veri servi Dei si transeunt per ignem & aquam, immo tanquam aurum puriores redduntur in fornace tribulationis. Ideo comparantur lignis sethin, ex quibus in exodo iussit deus fieri altare, illa enim ut dicit Lira, erant incremabilia, quod requirebatur, quia ignis semper erat in altari. Ideo Hieronymus ait, Altaris ligna, quae de lignis paradisi sunt, non cremantur igne vicino: sed puriora redduntur. Nec mirum hoc credere, cum etiam anchiton ligni genus vel ligno simile, quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius inveniatur. Haec Hieronymus: & habentur in glosa ordínaria. Et haec sat sit de ornamento pallii, dixísse obiter, cuius si anima non obliviscatur, utique nec Christi obliviscetur.

In another book of 1591, by a certain Dominicus Banjes, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the book must have been selling well, because there is also the 1602 edition), we find this (p. 352-353):

Quote:Elementum ignis poterat ornari sicut caetera elementa: & tamen non ornatur vel distinguitur in aliquo praedictorum dierum, ergo non sufficiunt illi septem dies. Probatur maior: quoniam multa sunt corpora mixta quae in igne conservari possunt, ut narrat Augustin, libro 1, de mirabilibus sacrae scripturae capit. 16 & Diu.Hieronym. super Ezechielem capit.41, esse naturam cuiusdam virgulti coloris linei, qualis (inquit Augustin) erat rubus, de quo dicitur Exodi capit. 3, quod dum arderet non comburebatur, imo quanto plus ardebat, purior erat. Hoc ipsum docent Beda, & glossa ordinaria Exodi 27 in illud; sùbter arulam, & Lyra in principio illius capitis. Et de huiusmodi lignis, quae, ex sententia Hieronymi putantur esse de lignis paradisi, censetur esse constructum altare holocausti, ne à vicino igne eius structura concremaretur. Imo dicunt esse aliud genus ligni, quod dicitur Anchiton: quod quidem quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius evadit. Quotidiana etiam experientia docet aurum igne non consumi, sed potius purificari. Salamandra etiam non solum ab igne non leditur, sed etiam ipsum extinguit, sicut docet Nazianzenus. Et Pierius libro 16. capit. de  Salamandra titulo Amoris constantia, citat autores multos dicentes ésse in rerum natura bestiolam quandam paulò maioré grandi musca, quam alii Pyraslim, alii Pyraustam, alii Flamidem, alii Nitedulam, Graeci Lampridem vocaverunt: quæ in medio igne nata, per ignem salit & inambulat, quod in Cypro insula tradunt videri in fornacibus aeräriis, ubi Calchites lapis diebus pluribus concrematur. Et illud maxime admirandum, quod cum primum volatu paululum a flammis abscesserit, emoritur. Ergo cum huiusmodi animalia possint in igne vivere, & ipsum ornare: oportebat, ut dies peculiaris huic ornatui designaretur.

A translation of this would also be welcome, but we see that this author is more elaborate and tells us that not all things are consumed by fire. He mentions Exodus 3 where a bush is burning not consumed by fire, and also mentions salamander and some fly of Cyprus.

Both authors refer to the tabernacle and altar of Exodus, the second author being more specific in his references which would enable us to consult those (if still preserved). It appears that St.Gerome probably faced the same difficulty of how would acacia not burn, so he waved it away by declaring "shittim" to be the tree of Paradise instead. The original source should be checked, of course, to validate this.

However, when coming to anchiton, it is not clear where the reference is made to any exact source or not (imo dicunt). It appears though as anchiton is not shittim, but another tree (aliud genus ligni), mentioned only by way of comparison.

There are however examples, as Searcher finds out in a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of sources where in the same context the stuff is called not "anchiton" but "amianton". To these we will turn next.

In the 1520 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. it is "amianton" (p.15).

Another book found by Searcher of the year 1601 is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by some Ludovic Ystella.

Here's what's written there on page 190:

Quote:A Zabach, quod est sacrificare et mactare, derivatur Mizbeach, ideſt, altare; quod scilicet in eo victimae Domino maĉtarentur: & licet non solum holocausta, sed hostiae pacificae, & quæ pro peccato erant, in hoc altari Déo offerrentur, à principaliori tamen nomen accepit; unde altare holocaustorum ubique dictum est, cuius capacitas ex quadra figura, quinque cubitorum secundum longitudinem & latitudinem, concava describitur, lignorum capax, & ignis, & superpositorum holocaustorüm; altitudo vero triú cubitorum erat : igitur ad modum quadratæ arcæ, sundo & operculo carentis, superficiemque terrae pro fundo habebat. De lignis autem setim de quibus saepe dictum est, in desertis Arabiæ fuisse, nec oportet miracula multiplicare, sed intus aereis laminis incrustatum puto ; licet enim solum in textu dicatur: Et operies illud aere: undique intelligendum existimo, intus, & extra; ne igni obnoxium, consumeretur. Scio, Bedam sic scribere: Si quem movet iuxta literam, quomodo ligna altaris tanto igne vicino incombusta permanere potuerint, accipiat Beati Hieronymi de hac questione responsum: Altaris, inquit, ligna,quæ de lignis paradisi sunt, non cremantur igne vicino, sed puriora redduntur : nec mirum hoc de sanctuario, & interioris templi, et altari thymiamatis credere, cum etiam amianton, quod ligni genus, vel ligni habens similitudinem, quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius invéniatur: haćtenus Beda . Caeterum multa patres recensendo, non definiendo dixisse, qui eorum scripta curiose perlegerit, saepe inveniet.

By the use of Hebrew terms we see that this author is familiar with the Hebrew text, or at least he is writing after someone who was. A translation of this is also welcome, because this seems to introduce some particulars of the wood from the Arabian desert and of how it's used. The Latin of this author is especially Google-unfriendly, but I think he touches upon the subject of how the wood can be preserved in fire, resorts to St. Gerome's "explanation", and, if I'm not mistaken, he is a bit in confusion about these confusing writings of "multa patres".

As far as I understand, "amianton" is not considered here as another kind of tree, but rather as the same kind of tree as thymiamatis. I'm not sure though if he means that the tree of paradise and thymiamatis/amianton are one and the same tree or not.

This author refers to St. Bede, however I was not able to locate any mention of either "amianton" or "anchiton" in the modern publication of Bede that Seacher referred to. Older sources, of course, need to be consulted. Note that amianton is additionally spelled in Greek in the margin.

Searcher suggests that "anchiton" is just a later distortion of "amianton", however I don't see it that simple. One reason why I think so is that "amianton" per se does not appear very solid.

Look at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Luigi Lippomano, 1550 (also a Searcher's find). On page 273 we find the same quote from Bede, but here the wood is called "amiantor", and the more so, it is spelled in Greek, not in Latin. Coupled with the observation of the previous quotation, this would probably mean that St. Bede used the Greek word as well. Lippomano was a serious and renowned author (in this book he works both with the Hebrew original and the Septuagint). The question remains, of course, with which manuscript of Bede he did work - different sources may have had different readings.

The specific shape of the Greek "nu" in the end of a word may be easily confused with "ro", as can be seen from the index of St.Gerome first above mentioned in this post. That book has additional indices of Greek and Hebrew terms in the end. "amianton" in Greek spelling is featured on p. 332 and one may estimate how close it is to "amiantor".

All in all, we have some references by now, and I think it is better to proceed, with those references at hand, to older sources not available at Google books but elsewhere - not in the modern print form, but in the ancient form of manuscript - checking the earliest versions possible.

The following questions can be posed:

1. Why is it that anchiton/amianton/amiantor is introduced at all? Why it is needed in addition to shittim? Where does it come from, to begin with? Hardly from the Hebrew source, which is fine with shittim. Hardly from Vulgate, because St Gerome translated Exodus from Hebrew. Is it from Septuagint then, or from some early Christian source in Greek? This should be checked.

2. is there a particular line of sources that would use anchiton instead of amianton/r? Why Glossa Ordinaria has it as "anchiton"?


But all that is just one branch of anchitonology. The other major field onto which anchiton comes out is the legend of "Alexander's Gate". As becomes to a legend, it takes Alexander to do things he never did in places where he never was, praying to gods he's never known. This came in play when I found a book about that and Koen kindly translated its essential portions from Dutch. Later I examined a newer and more detailed book about that. I'll try to continue about that tomorrow.

Quote:It is indeed curious (as recently noted to me by David in private), why acacia (or be't vachellia) would be picked up by the author of Exodus as something that allegedly does not burn.

To this I received an interesting comment from Wladimir that the harder is the wood, the higher is its temperature of ignition. Acacia wood is hard, thence it would be hard to ignite (though when ignited it burns very well).

I'm short of time today, so I unlock the thread, for it's already been locked too long.

For now, what I thought to be a reference to a manuscript, turns out to be the earliest preserved printed version of Glossa Ordinaria, of 1481. It quotes Bede with "anchiton".

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

But this edition post-dates the VMS of course.

I hope to post later in the day.

Anton wrote:

Quote:This author refers to St. Bede, however I was not able to locate any mention of either "amianton" or "anchiton" in the modern publication of Bede that Seacher referred to. Older sources, of course, need to be consulted. Note that amianton is additionally spelled in Greek in the margin

.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=2451]

Anton wrote:

Quote:Searcher suggests that "anchiton" is just a later distortion of "amianton", however I don't see it that simple. One reason why I think so is that "amianton" per se does not appear very solid

I excuse for that I was not exact in expression of my thought in my post about words "anchiton" and "amianton", when I used word "incorrect". Actually my thought was not that the word "anchiton" is incorrect or distorted from the word "amianton". It would be more accurate to say "another" word, that is, Nicholas de Lyra, apparently, intentionally changed the word "amianton" to "anchiton" , although, he learned Hebrew and sought to reproduce texts as literally as he could, studying both Greek and Hebrew texts. In the same time, the Hebrew texts had the word "shettim" for this substance (wood, etc.). Why he uses the word "anchiton" and from which sources, it is not clear. Perhaps, it is just from the legend about Alexander, but, maybe, there are another texts, not available to us, which contain this word. 

Quote from the Wikipedia page "Nicholas of Lira" :

Quote:The textual basis was so important that he urged that errors be corrected with reference to Hebrew texts, an early glimmer of techniques of textual criticism, though Nicholas recognized the authoritative value of the Church's Tradition:
"I protest that I do not intend to assert or determine anything that has not been manifestly determined by Sacred Scripture or by the authority of the Church... Wherefore I submit all I have said or shall say to the correction of Holy Mother Church and of all learned men..." (Second Prologue to Postillae).
Nicholas utilized all sources available to him, fully mastered Hebrew and drew copiously from Rashi and other rabbinic commentaries, the Pugio Fidei of Raymond Martini and of course the commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas. 

P.S.
It is pretty possible that this word is taken by Nicholas from Thomas Aquinas, I tried, but couldn't find such.  Maybe, someone will be luckier to find it.

Thanks for that reference. The preface says that the text is the collation of the Basle (sic) printed text with four manuscripts. I guess they mean the Basel edition of "De Tabernaculo" of 1533. So first of all we can consult that, if available, and check what word is used there. The place of interest (which is in the second book of "De Tabernaculo") has been collated with a "manuscript found in the public library of Boulogne sur Mer" - this description is unfortunately very generic and does not allow us to trace it.

What I'd suggest (beyond checking the 1533 edition), is to check possibly earliest manuscript versions of "De Tabernaculo". If they systematically feature "amianton", that's one thing. If they feature "anchiton" istead, that's quite another. The question will then be, where Bede took that from.  It's worthwile checking what word does the Septuagint use to designate "shittim". If it uses "anchiton" or "amianton", that would be the simplest solution of course.

What I must say is that "amianton" is a far more common word than "anchiton", it was early used to designate asbestos and, if I'm not mistaken, it is used in the New Testament (needs check). If the latter is correct, then it is incomprehensible that any learned bible scholar would use "amianton" instead of "anchiton", and vice versa. It would also be very strange that anyone would use the word "amianton" to designate the wood, while knowing that it is asbestos. This could be done only be way of blind copy of what "multa patres" wrote. As David informed me, "amiantos" is asbestos in Spanish still.

It is extremely unlikely that "anchiton" was borrowed into Glossa Ord. or into any later commentator such as de Lyra, through the way of Alexander's legend. The reason for that is that the word form "anchiton" is met with only once (as far as I have read) in the texts of those legend, this only occurrence being in a text in Hebrew, and, moreover, this very Hebrew text containing also another word form (don't remeber it offhand). I'll post more about that later.

I would also suggest that when comparing different word forms (this would be applicable to the Alexander's legend stuff in paticular), we must take Greek morphology into consideration. I will also post about that later.

I will add some more confusion to it. 
Never thought that one word in the same quotes and with the same meaning can be so... incalculable and different. We saw that portion of variants in connection to the"Historia de praeliis". And I have a little more. So, now I am not ready to say whether anchiton is correct word with unknown meaning or just incorrect (distorted) word of unknown origin.
I found a few quite surprising variants of this enigmatic word that must stand for a name of some substance similar to wood. I really don't understand now where mistakes and where a correct transcription are.
1. I begin with the most quaint: "cum Amaco ligni genus" (probably, Amacus or Amacum in nominative).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
2. The next - Anthicon. It is interesting that it is used in the commentary by Peter Cellensis in the same quote of Saint Hieronimus. Unfortunately, it is unavailable for reading (at least, for me), but Google shows a fragment of the Zeitschrift fur deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur:
Jahrhundert nimmt der Stiftshüttenkommentar des Petrus Cellensis († 1183)* die Frage nach dem Altarholz, das nicht ... ein neues nicht brennendes Holz geworden: est etiam anthicon ligni genus vel ligno simile, quod quanto plus arserit, ...
and an image of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in German.
As I understand, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem (or some of the other famous Cyrils of the Byzantine tradition) is mentioned above.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This book You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. contains  a chapter named De anthiarum generibus. It is about some Anthia, as I understand, a kind of fish with a thorn. It is also mentioned as Anthicon. Maybe, this name's etymology is connected to thorns.
And, finally, one more commentary on Hieronimus - with Anthiton this time:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. where it is compared to the wood Laix, described by Pliny.

Funny!