"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"slenon" wrote in
. com:

Lennie Richardson:
I wonder if, given a chance, the Thais would forgo deep fried
locusts
with garlic chili sauce for a daily Big Mac. I know the coronary
artery disease in their country would rise to match ours if they
did.

I suspect that large percentage of them would if such fair was
locally available at an affordable price. On the other hand, I
can
live without any McDonalds product but would miss Mee Krob and
Pad
Thai, and Sing Ha if I lived someplace that did not have a source
of
these comestibles.



My favorite bit of Jewish trivia is the observation that locusts are
kosher!!

I guess the reasoning is that if there are enough locusts around,
there may
not be much else to eat.

Brings to mind John the baptist living on locusts and honey. I read
somewhere, a long long time ago, that what he was actually eating was
the fruit of a variety of locust tree and that the grasshopper thingy
was a result of a rather obvious lexical mix-up. For many years I
thought this made perfect sense, an opinion bolstered by the fact that
carob also goes by the name's "St. John's Bread" and "locust bean",
and that related species of leguminous trees are common in many desert
regions. On the other hand, as you point out, the insect is kosher
and locusts would be handy little packages of protein in an area which
they have recently denuded. However, it eventually occurred to me
that the conflation of locust, the insect, with locust, the tree, only
works in English.....unless the Greek, Latin, Aramaic (or whatever
other language the original references from the New Testament were
written in) cognates happened, by an exceedingly implausible
coincidence, to have precisely the same built in ambiguity. And
so.....

Matthew 3:4

King James: And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a
leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild
honey.

Latin Vulgate: ipse autem Iohannes habebat vestimentum de pilis
camelorum et zonam pelliciam circa lumbos suos esca autem eius erat
lucustae et mel silvestre

And.....

Exodus 10:4

King James: Else, if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to
morrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast:

Latin Vulgate: sin autem resistis et non vis dimittere eum ecce ego
inducam cras lucustam in fines tuos

Clearly, the older Vulgate agrees with KJ that John was eating bugs.

John Gill says:

"...by the "locusts" some have thought are meant a sort of fish called
"crabs", which John found upon the banks of Jordan, and lived upon;
others, that a sort of wild fruit, or the tops of trees and plants he
found in the wilderness and fed on, are designed; but the truth is,
these were a sort of creatures "called locusts", and which by the
ceremonial law were lawful to be eaten, see Lev_11:22. The Misnic
doctors describe such as are fit to be eaten after this manner;

"all that have four feet and four wings, and whose thighs and wings
cover the greatest part of their body, and whose name is ??? "a
locust."''

For it seems they must not only have these marks and signs, but must
be so called, or by a word in any other language which answers to it,
as the commentators on this passage observe; and very frequently do
these writers speak of locusts that are clean, and may be eaten.
Maimonides reckons up "eight" sorts of them, which might be eaten
according to the law. Besides, these were eaten by people of other
nations, particularly the Ethiopians, Parthians, and Lybians. "

Albert Barnes agrees, without making any mention of the vegetative
"locust", and amplifies considerably on who ate them, methods of
preparation, etc. Unfortunately, neither provides any clues as to the
origin of the alternative interpretation.

Wolfgang
and (OBROFF) trout prefer the bugs, too.