Durham.
The interpretation of [Greek: akrides] (Matt. iii. 4.) suggested to
[Greek: Boreas] is not new. Isidorus Pelusiota (Epist. i. 132.) says:
"[Greek: hai akrides, hais Ioannes etrepheto, ou zoa eisin, hos
tines oiontai amathos, kantharois apeoikota; me genoito; all'
akremones botanon e phyton]."
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, either adopt or quote the same
interpretation, as may be seen by referring to Suicer, _Thes. Eccl._,
under the word [Greek: Akris].
But in the absence of any direct proof that the word was ever used in
this sense, I do not think it safe to adopt interpretations which
possibly rested only on some tradition.
There is positive proof that locusts were eaten by some people. In Lev.
xi. 22. we have,
"These of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald
locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the
grasshopper after his kind."
In this passage we find [Greek: akrida] used by the LXX. for the Hebrew
[Hebrew: chagab], the last of the four kinds specified. I find in
several commentators whom I have consulted, reference to Bochart's
_Hierozoicon_, ii. 4. 7., but as I have not the book by me, I must be
content with referring your correspondent to it; and if he will look at
the commentaries of Elsner and Kuinoel, and Schleusner's _Lexicon_, he
will find references to so many authors in confirmation of the fact in
question, that I think he will not disagree with me in concluding that
where the balance of learned opinion, as well as of evidence, is so
great in favour of one interpretation, we ought not rashly to take up
another, however intelligent the party may be by whom it was suggested.
I have just looked into Wolfius on the New Testament, and there find a
list of writers who have adopted the interpretations of the Father
above mentioned, and also a host of others who defend the received
explanation. If they should be within the reach of [Greek: Boreas] (as
most of them are not in mine), he will be able to balance their
arguments for himself.
[Hebrew: B.]
L---- Rectory, Somerset.
Perhaps the following may be useful to your correspondent [Greek:
Boreas] on the word [Greek: akrides], St. Matt. iii. 4.
Lev. xi. 22., we have an enumeration of the various kinds of locusts
known to the Jews, viz. the locust proper, the bald locust, beetle,
grasshopper; rendered in the Vulgate respectively, _bruchus_, _attacus_,
_ophiomachus_, _locusta_, the latter by the Septuagint, [Greek:
akrides]. The Hebrew [Hebrew: `arbeh], the locust proper, from [Hebrew:
ravah], to multiply, is used chiefly for the ravaging locust, as Exod.
x. 12., probably a larger kind; while [Hebrew: chagab], which is
translated _grasshopper_ in our version above, Vulg. _locusta_, Sept.
[Greek: akrides], rendered by Fuerstius (_Heb. Conc._) _locusta
gregaria_, is mostly used as implying diminutiveness, as Numbers, xiii.
33., and but once as a devouring insect, 2 Chro. vii. 13. It is
translated indiscriminately, in our version, _locust_ and _grasshopper_;
all these were edible and permitted to the Jews. Singularly enough,
there is one passage in which this word [Hebrew: chagab] is used, viz.
Eccl. xii. 5., in which it is doubted by some whether it may not mean a
vegetable; but this is not the opinion of the best authorities. The
observation of Grotius, by-the-bye, on the place is extremely curious,
differing from all the other commentators.
What we learn from the Old Testament, then is the probability that
[Greek: akrides] meant a smaller kind of locust; and that they were
edible and permitted to the Jews. We have abundant evidence, moreover,
from other quarters, that these locusts were prized as food by
frequenters of the desert. Joh. Leo (_Descript. Africae_, book ix.,
quoted by Drusius, _Crit. Sac._) says:
"Arabiae desertae et Libyae populi locustarum adventum pro felici
habent omine; nam vel elixas, vel ad solem desiccatas, in farinam
tundunt atque edunt."
Again, _Mercurialis, de Morb. Puerorum_, i. 3. ap. eun.:
"Refert Agatharchides, in libro de Mare Rubro, [Greek:
akridophagous], i.e. eos qui vescuntur locustis, corpora habere
maxime extenuata et macilenta."
Fit food, therefore, of the ascetic. Theophylact understood by [Greek:
akrides] a wild herb or fruit; but all the most trustworthy commentators
besides were of opinion that an animal was intended.
The modern Greek interpretation of [Greek: akrides], "the young and
tender shoots of plants," may perhaps be traced in what Balth.
Stolbergius (see his essay on this passage, the most copious of any)
says; maintaining it to be an animal, he adds,--
"Insectum, infirmis pennis alatum, ac proinde altius non evolans,
sic dictum ab uredine locorum quae attingit; quasi loca usta.
Graece, [Greek: akris, para tas akras ton astachyon kai ton phyton
nomesthai]."
The following from _Hieron. adv. Jovinian_, ii. 6., quoted by Drusius,
while it asserts that locusts were esteemed as food in some countries,
will, perhaps, account for the unwillingness of the Greek friend of your
correspondent [Greek: Boreas] to recognise an animal in the [Greek:
akrides] of John the Baptist:
"Apud orientales et Libyae populos, quia per desertum et calidam
eremi vastitatem locustarum nubes reperiuntur, locustis vesci
moris est; hoc verum esse Johannes quoque Baptista probat.
Compelle Phrygem et Ponticum ut locustas comedat, nefas putabit."