The quest for Anchiton

[Anton]

The example of Akheton clearly shows how it can be derived from arabilc "al-qutun". Aramaic keton (arabic kittan) means "flax" or "linen", the word "cotton" is derived from that. So, if I would think that "anchiton" is distorted word, I'd pay attention to "al-qutun" at first.

I don't see offhand why "anchiton" would be derived from any Arabic source. If "chiton" is a Greek word (albeit of Semitic origin), then anything derived from the root "chiton" would be derived from Greek, not from Arabic. And the prefix "al-" is quite characteristic for borrowings from Arabic to be changed into "an-"

All scholars write that Jerome wrote "amianton", not "amiton". So, as that quote belongs exactly to Saint Jerome, I'm inclined to believe them. Amiton is rather one of erroneus words that we saw.

I don't "believe" anything, I prefer to check facts. The last time I blindly believed something was twenty years ago when I trusted a complex formula in a book of a very respected author, which resulted in the need for me to do the design of a Cassegrain antenna for the second time (which was pretty tricky a time-consuming business, because the process was only half automated for us students). When I took time to derive the formula myself and to find the error, that teached me to ever double check all essential points and not blindly take anything printed in a book, albeit a scholarly book, for its face value.

In this case I would prefer to see with my own eyes what Jerome wrote - and, since that appears sadly impossible, to consult possibly earliest representations of his words in later manuscripts, rather than trust "all scholars" in the matter where there is pretty much confusion from the very beginning. If one wishes to discuss a fact, the fact should be established in the first place. Glossa Ordinaria was compilated by scholars, not by illiterate peasants - yet they managed to mess it altogether.

BNF Lat 12155 contains Jerome's Commentary on Ezekiel.

Thx Marco, I will try to locate the respective place in the StGall MS now.

In the fragment that you post, it is most notable that we have the same scribal correction - "lini" to "ligni". And it is clearly another scribe (same as for "quod") - like one wanted to correct what he thought was wrong. And this also misses "isse".

I wonder if it might be that the intention of the author (Jerome) was to say "ligni" in the first instance and "lini" in the second indeed, i.e. to say roughly this: "it is not strange to believe all those miracles, because it is known that there is a kind of wood called "amianton" bearing resemblance to flax...

I leave it without comment how wood can ever bear resemblance to flax, but "habens" is nominative, "simulitudinem" is accusative, and "lini" is genitive - in this way "habens simulitudinem lini" would be "having likeness of flax". Otherwise the "likeness" hangs on its own, without specifying what is this likeness to.

There is however some continuation to this phrase, I'll look at that later.

---

To the point, "xylon asepton" means just "incorruptible wood".
καὶ ποιήσεις θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος ἐκ ξύλων ἀσήπτων· καὶ ποιήσεις αὐτὸ
And thou shalt make the altar of incense of incorruptible wood. (Exodus 30:1 Brenton)
καὶ ποιήσεις σκυτάλας ἐκ ξύλων ἀσήπτων καὶ καταχρυσώσεις αὐτὰς χρυσίῳ.
And thou shalt make the staves of incorruptible wood, and shalt gild them with gold. (Exodus 30:5 Brenton)

Well, wood's corruption is rotting. Greek σήπω = to rot.