Thanks Marco,
Yes, I agree about the punctuation. The period sign is somewhat enigmatic in this MS, sometimes used to distinguish one single word. Looks like it is not meant to be the literal period sign.
About the 1844 edition. As I noted above, in the preface they say that they based it on the 1533 printed book which has been collated with four manuscripts. However, it was not collated with four manuscripts at once, but rather with one manuscript at a time. That is to say, one portion of the text was collated with one manuscript, the other portion with another, and so on. And they don't even bother to provide the shelf references to whatever manuscripts they use - for the portion which interests us it was simply a manuscript "found in the public library of Boulogne sur Mer", and there was also another manuscript found in that very library which was used to check another portion of the printed book. This is called "scholarly", but I can but state that this is not a good standard of scholarship.
In the case when there's a complete mess throughout the ages, I would prefer older sources to learn what Bede has really said than newer ones. Of course, one should compare more than one source. But note that in the BNF Latin 5232 it is "amiton" still.
The translation that you made looks more logical to me than what I have thought of the text earlier. Now it is not that "a***ton" is a kind of wood similar to "thymiamantus", or to the tree of paradise, but "a***ton" is in itself the stuff of which the altar is made, being as such a kind of wood or a thing similar to wood. The latter may look promising in respect of asbestos, but then we need to consult the history of asbestos in Europe (and northern Africa perhaps, since St. Jerome was of there) and check whether they could really imagine asbestos to be wood or a thing similar to wood.
Another thought occurring to me is to check early Vulgate manuscripts - if they have it "shittim" or anything else.
I also found a 9th century manuscript of St Jerome's commentaries upon Ezekiel, will check them later.
The enigmatic thing still is that neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint do not touch upon the matter of the wodd burning and not consumed by fire. The Septuagint simply tells of the wood that does not rot. So I wonder whence is this new motif, to begin with.
Yes, I agree about the punctuation. The period sign is somewhat enigmatic in this MS, sometimes used to distinguish one single word. Looks like it is not meant to be the literal period sign.
About the 1844 edition. As I noted above, in the preface they say that they based it on the 1533 printed book which has been collated with four manuscripts. However, it was not collated with four manuscripts at once, but rather with one manuscript at a time. That is to say, one portion of the text was collated with one manuscript, the other portion with another, and so on. And they don't even bother to provide the shelf references to whatever manuscripts they use - for the portion which interests us it was simply a manuscript "found in the public library of Boulogne sur Mer", and there was also another manuscript found in that very library which was used to check another portion of the printed book. This is called "scholarly", but I can but state that this is not a good standard of scholarship.
In the case when there's a complete mess throughout the ages, I would prefer older sources to learn what Bede has really said than newer ones. Of course, one should compare more than one source. But note that in the BNF Latin 5232 it is "amiton" still.
The translation that you made looks more logical to me than what I have thought of the text earlier. Now it is not that "a***ton" is a kind of wood similar to "thymiamantus", or to the tree of paradise, but "a***ton" is in itself the stuff of which the altar is made, being as such a kind of wood or a thing similar to wood. The latter may look promising in respect of asbestos, but then we need to consult the history of asbestos in Europe (and northern Africa perhaps, since St. Jerome was of there) and check whether they could really imagine asbestos to be wood or a thing similar to wood.
Another thought occurring to me is to check early Vulgate manuscripts - if they have it "shittim" or anything else.
I also found a 9th century manuscript of St Jerome's commentaries upon Ezekiel, will check them later.
The enigmatic thing still is that neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint do not touch upon the matter of the wodd burning and not consumed by fire. The Septuagint simply tells of the wood that does not rot. So I wonder whence is this new motif, to begin with.