23-10-2018, 09:30 PM
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.
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.