23-10-2018, 12:40 AM
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:
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.
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.