(Vol. iv., p. 255.) The Romaic version of Matt. iv. 4. is almost verbally taken from the Greek, "ἡ δὲ τροφὴ αὐτοῦ ἦν ἀκρίδες καὶ μέλι ἄγριον." In Mark i. 6., the expression is ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας. The only other place in the New Testament were the word ἀκρὶς is found, is in Rev. ix. 3. 7., where it plainly means a locust. In the Septuagint version the word is commonly used for the Hebrew אַרְבֶּה, locust, of the meaning of which there is no dispute; as in Exodus, x. 4. 12, 13, 14.; Deut. xxviii. 38.; Joel, i. 4., ii. 25.; Ps. cv. 34., &c. In other places the word ἀκρὶς in the Septuagint corresponds to חָגַב, in the Hebrew, as in Numb. xiii. 33.; Is. xl. 22.; and that this was a species of locust which was eatable, appears from Lev. xi. 21, 22.: "Yet there may ye eat of every _flying_ creeping thing that goeth upon all fours, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even those of them ye may eat, the locust (אֶת הָאַרְבֶּה, τὸν βροῦχον) after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper (אֶת הֶחָגַב, τὴν ἀκρίδα) after his kind." That locusts were eaten in the East is plain from Pliny, who in xi. 29. relates this of the Parthians; and in vi. 30. of the Ethiopians, among whom was a tribe called the Acridophagi, from their use of the ἀκρὶς for food. There seems, then, no reason to suppose that in Matt. iv. 4., Mark i. 6., the word ἀκρίδες should be taken to mean anything but locusts. It was, however, a very ancient opinion that the word ἀκρίδες here means ἀκρόδρυα, or ἄκρα δρύων, or ἀκρέμονες, or ἀκρίσματα, the ends of the branches of trees; although the word ἀκρίδες is never used in this sense by pure Greek writers. T. C. Durham. The interpretation of ἀκρίδες (Matt. iii. 4.) suggested to Βορέας is not new. Isidorus Pelusiota (Epist. i. 132.) says: "αἱ ἀκρίδες, αἷς Ἰωάννης ἐτρέφετο, οὐ ζῶά εἰσιν, ὥς τινες οἴονται ἀμαθῶς, κανθάροις ἀπεοίκοτἀπεοικότα· μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλ' ἀκρέμονες βοτανῶν ἢ φυτῶν." Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, either adopt or quote the same interpretation, as may be seen by referring to Suicer, _Thes. Eccl._, under the word Ἀκρίς. 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."