What we learn from the Old Testament, then is the probability that ἀκρίδες 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. Africæ, book ix., quoted by Drusius, Crit. Sac.) says:
"Arabiæ desertæ et Libyæ 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, ἀκριδοφάγους, i.e. eos qui vescuntur locustis, corpora habere maxime extenuata et macilenta."
Fit food, therefore, of the ascetic. Theophylact understood by ἀκρίδες 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 ἀκρίδες, "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 quæ attingit; quasi loca usta. Græcè, ἀκρὶς, παρὰ τὰς ἄκρας τῶν ἀσταχύων καὶ τῶν φυτῶν νόμεσθαι."
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 Βορέας to recognise an animal in the ἀκρίδες of John the Baptist:
"Apud orientales et Libyæ 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."
H. C. K.