EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
<<< WARNING: This thread will challenge your preconceived and accepted beliefs of the history of the early Church. If you are not prepared to investigate the references given before commenting, then please stop and move on to a different thread. >>>
An ancient manuscript exists written in Greek which contains a complete list of the titles of accepted books of the Old Testament. Each title also includes a transliteration of how it was pronounced at that time in the language used in the Holy Land. The base Hebrew form of the titles is very evident. But what is shocking and unexpected is that the language transliterated is actually very clearly Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic are very closely related.
But that's not all. There is another manuscript with the same information. A list in Greek of all the Old Testament books with each having a transliteration of the Aramaic form of the title. Each list comes from a different source and has a different history of where it came from. But they are both very clearly based on the same original list.
One list is found in EPIPHANIUS' TREATISE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES written circa 315-403 AD.
(https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc11.pdf
Edited by JAMES ELMER DEAN, 1935)
The other list is found in a manuscript discovered in Jerusalem. It is in the manuscript now numbered 54 in the Greek Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem, fol. 76.
The manuscript is dated 6564 of the Greeks = A.D. 1056. It was published by Bryennios in the 1800's.
(A HEBREW-ARAMAIC LIST OF BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK TRANSCRIPTION
Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., VoL I, PL 2, October 1950)
These are also both discussed in "The Aramaic Period of the Nascent Christian Church" by C. C. Torrey.
The orange bar shows where the list occurs in this manuscript page. It's found in "The Apostolic Fathers. Part 1. Clement of Rome. J. B. Lightfoot. 1890. p 474
There was scholarly investigation in the 1950's. But I have not come across anything more recent. And I certainly have not heard this discussed outside academic circles before. Some important forgotten evidence of the history of the early church.
The scholar discussion focused on why would Greek churches need to be sent a bulletin containing a list of how to pronounce the Old Testament book titles in Aramaic? At what point was the early church in Jerusalem sending out documents to Greek Christians needing to know this important information? In their expert opinions, the scholars date the original list to the second half of the first century. And it can not have been much later than 70 AD since the entire relationship between Christians and Jews changed after that point.
How do we know both lists present the titles in Aramaic? Here is the list from Epiphanius translated into English - including the transliterated portion.
bereshlth, which is called the Genesis of the world,
elesimoth, which is called the Exodus of the Israelites.
awajeqrd, which is transferred (into Greek as) Leviticus,
awaddajber, which is transferred (into Greek as) Numbers,
elle devarejm, which is Deuteronomy.
dishu , which is Joshua.
dijjov, which is Job.
dishovlejm, which is Judges,
deruth, which is Ruth.
sfertelejm, which is the Psalms.
dvarjamin, which is I Paraleipomena.
dvarjamin, which is II Paraleipomena.
deshamuel,which is I Kingdoms.
dadudh shameul, which is II Kingdoms.
demalakhejm, which is III Kingdoms.
demalakhejm, which is IV Kingdoms,
demealoth,which is Proverbs.
deqoheleth, which is Ecclesiastes.
shirath shirin, which is the Song of Songs.
dathresar,which is the Twelve Prophets.
deshaja, which is that of the prophet Isaiah,
deremja, which is that of the prophet Jeremiah,
dehezqiel, which is that of the prophet Ezekiel.
dedanjel, which is that of the prophet Daniel,
dezra, which is I Ezra.
dezra, which is II Ezra,
dester, which is Esther
Notice all the "d" prefixes. This is a specifically Aramaic relative pronoun. This does not occur in Hebrew. It means "which is".
Two manuscripts which include the same information from unrelated sources. This is evidence of quite a different history of the early church than is commonly accepted. A history that is still not appreciated. And even this modern scholarship seems to have been forgotten over the past decades.
An ancient manuscript exists written in Greek which contains a complete list of the titles of accepted books of the Old Testament. Each title also includes a transliteration of how it was pronounced at that time in the language used in the Holy Land. The base Hebrew form of the titles is very evident. But what is shocking and unexpected is that the language transliterated is actually very clearly Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic are very closely related.
But that's not all. There is another manuscript with the same information. A list in Greek of all the Old Testament books with each having a transliteration of the Aramaic form of the title. Each list comes from a different source and has a different history of where it came from. But they are both very clearly based on the same original list.
One list is found in EPIPHANIUS' TREATISE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES written circa 315-403 AD.
(https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc11.pdf
Edited by JAMES ELMER DEAN, 1935)
The other list is found in a manuscript discovered in Jerusalem. It is in the manuscript now numbered 54 in the Greek Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem, fol. 76.
The manuscript is dated 6564 of the Greeks = A.D. 1056. It was published by Bryennios in the 1800's.
(A HEBREW-ARAMAIC LIST OF BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK TRANSCRIPTION
Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., VoL I, PL 2, October 1950)
These are also both discussed in "The Aramaic Period of the Nascent Christian Church" by C. C. Torrey.
The orange bar shows where the list occurs in this manuscript page. It's found in "The Apostolic Fathers. Part 1. Clement of Rome. J. B. Lightfoot. 1890. p 474
There was scholarly investigation in the 1950's. But I have not come across anything more recent. And I certainly have not heard this discussed outside academic circles before. Some important forgotten evidence of the history of the early church.
The scholar discussion focused on why would Greek churches need to be sent a bulletin containing a list of how to pronounce the Old Testament book titles in Aramaic? At what point was the early church in Jerusalem sending out documents to Greek Christians needing to know this important information? In their expert opinions, the scholars date the original list to the second half of the first century. And it can not have been much later than 70 AD since the entire relationship between Christians and Jews changed after that point.
How do we know both lists present the titles in Aramaic? Here is the list from Epiphanius translated into English - including the transliterated portion.
bereshlth, which is called the Genesis of the world,
elesimoth, which is called the Exodus of the Israelites.
awajeqrd, which is transferred (into Greek as) Leviticus,
awaddajber, which is transferred (into Greek as) Numbers,
elle devarejm, which is Deuteronomy.
dishu , which is Joshua.
dijjov, which is Job.
dishovlejm, which is Judges,
deruth, which is Ruth.
sfertelejm, which is the Psalms.
dvarjamin, which is I Paraleipomena.
dvarjamin, which is II Paraleipomena.
deshamuel,which is I Kingdoms.
dadudh shameul, which is II Kingdoms.
demalakhejm, which is III Kingdoms.
demalakhejm, which is IV Kingdoms,
demealoth,which is Proverbs.
deqoheleth, which is Ecclesiastes.
shirath shirin, which is the Song of Songs.
dathresar,which is the Twelve Prophets.
deshaja, which is that of the prophet Isaiah,
deremja, which is that of the prophet Jeremiah,
dehezqiel, which is that of the prophet Ezekiel.
dedanjel, which is that of the prophet Daniel,
dezra, which is I Ezra.
dezra, which is II Ezra,
dester, which is Esther
Notice all the "d" prefixes. This is a specifically Aramaic relative pronoun. This does not occur in Hebrew. It means "which is".
Two manuscripts which include the same information from unrelated sources. This is evidence of quite a different history of the early church than is commonly accepted. A history that is still not appreciated. And even this modern scholarship seems to have been forgotten over the past decades.
