Re: First Names - Elias derived from Helios?

On Aug 15, 5:30 pm, WJhon...@xxxxxxx wrote:
Right, this isn't something I just made up.  Other people believe that  
Elias, Elyas, Helyas have their origin in Helios "the Sun".

By the way I should say that Elias is the *Latin* transliteration from  
Greek.  Of course the Greek alphabet is completely different from the Roman  set
that we use in English.

Also it's known that Helios was actually a given name in ancient  Greek..
My point is that Helios/Helyas/Elias was a name which existed in Greek  
*prior to* the Septuagint.


What happened to the Hebrew Bible part of your argument? The
Septuagint
dates about 200 A.D. and the Hebrew Bible much earlier. In fact there
are
Hebrew manuscripts which date from 400 years earlier. It is known
that
Jesus refers to the Hebrew Bible and quotes extensively from it.
Thus, the
English name is based Biblically not on the Greek text of 200 A.D. but
the
Hebrew Bible which was at least 400 years earlier. The usage of
Biblical
names in England had nothing to do with Greek culture but Judaic-
Christian.

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
_____________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Septuagint
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Septuagint: A column of uncial text from 1 Esdras in the Codex
Vaticanus, the basis of Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's Greek
edition and English translation.
The Septuagint (IPA: /?s?ptu?d??nt/), or simply "LXX", is the Koine
Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the
3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.[1]
It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible
into the Greek language, the lingua franca of the eastern
Mediterranean from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). The
word septuaginta[2] means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a
tradition that seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars translated the
Pentateuch (Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for Ptolemy II Philadelphus,
285–246 BC.[3][4]
The Septuagint includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible. Many
Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional
books. Roman Catholics, however, include some of these books in their
canon while Eastern Orthodox Churches use all the books of the
Septuagint. Anglican lectionaries also use all of the books except
Psalm 151, and the full King James Bible in its Authorized Version
includes these additional books in a separate section labeled
Apocrypha.
The Septuagint was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and
Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.[4] Besides the
Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, Syro-
Hexaplar (but not the Peshitta), Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic
versions of the Old Testament.[5] Of significance for all Christians
and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New
Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers. While Jews have not used the
LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent
scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some
of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on
which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found
texts accord with the LXX version. The oldest surviving codices of LXX
(Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to the fourth century AD.
[4]

http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/mss.htm

The Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947 the discovery of a collection of ancient manuscripts hidden in
caves near Qumran by the Dead Sea in Israel (The Dead Sea Scrolls)
proved a great addition to scholarship on Biblical Texts. These
manuscripts, all in Hebrew, contained the whole of the Old Testament
with the exception of the Book of Esther and date from about 200BCE to
100CE. Previously the oldest Hebrew texts were from the ninth and
tenth centuries and so were unable to correct the Greek versions
reliably. The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that in fact the Hebrew text
had been transmitted with remarkable accuracy from pre-Christian
times. They do not contain any Christian texts, although there are
some interesting parallels to Christian practices such as baptism and
the communal meal. Once again, new, improved translations were made
possible.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm

Hebrew manuscripts
Age
(a) Pre-Massoretic text
The earliest Hebrew manuscript is the Nash papyrus. There are four
fragments, which, when pieced together, give twenty-four lines of a
pre-Massoretic text of the Ten Commandments and the shema (Exodus
20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-19; 6:4-5). The writing is without vowels and
seems palæographically to be not later than the second century. This
is the oldest extant Bible manuscript (see Cook, "A Pre-Massoretic
Biblical Papyrus" in "Proceed. of the Soc. of Bib. Arch.", Jan.,
1903). It agrees at times with the Septuagint against the Massorah.
Another pre- Massoretic text is the Samaritan Pentateuch. The
Samaritan recension is probably pre-exilic; it has come down to us
free from Massoretic influences, is written without vowels and in
Samaritan characters. The earliest Samaritan manuscript extant is that
of Nablûs, which was formerly rated very much earlier than all
Massoretic manuscripts, but is now assigned to the twelfth or
thirteenth century A.D. Here mention should be made of the non-
Massoretic Hebrew manuscripts of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. These
fragments, obtained from a Cairo genizah (a box for wornout or cast-
off manuscripts), belong to the tenth or eleventh century of our ear.
They provide us with more than a half of Ecclesiasticus and duplicate
certain portions of the book. Many scholars deem that the Cairo
fragments prove Hebrew to have been the original language of
Ecclesiasticus (see "Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto recovered of
the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew", Oxford and Cambridge, 1901).
(b) Massoretic text
All other Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are Massoretic (see
MASSORAH), and belong to the tenth century or later. Some of these
manuscripts are dated earlier. Text-critics consider these dates to be
due either to intentional fraud or to uncritical transcription of
dates of older manuscripts. For instance, a codex of the Former and
Latter Prophets, how in the Karaite synagogue of Cairo, is dated A.D.
895; Neubauer assigns it to the eleventh or thirteenth century. The
Cambridge manuscript no. 12, dated A.D. 856, he marks as a thirteenth-
century work; the date A.D. 489, attached to the St. Petersburg
Pentateuch, he rejects as utterly impossible (see Studia Biblica, III,
22). Probably the earliest Massoretic manuscripts are: "Prophetarium
Posteriorum Codex Bablyonicus Petropolitanus", dated A.D. 916; the St.
Petersburg Bible, written by Samuel ben Jacob and dated A.D. 1009; and
"Codex Oriental. 4445" in the British Museum, which Ginsburg
(Introduction, p. 469) assigns to A.D. 820-50. The text critics differ
very widely in the dates they assign to certain Hebrew manuscripts. De
Rossi is included to think that at most nine or ten Massoretic
manuscripts are earlier than the twelfth century (Variæ Lectiones, I,
p. xv).
Number
Kennicott, the first critical student of the Massoretic text, either
examined or had others examine 16 Samaritan manuscripts, some 40
printed texts and 638 Massoretic manuscripts (see "Dissertatio
Generalis in Vetus Testam. Hebraicum", Oxford, 1780). He numbered
these manuscripts in six groups: nos. 1-88, Oxford manuscripts; nos.
89-144, other manuscripts of English-speaking countries; nos. 145-254,
manuscripts of continental Europe; nos. 255-300, printed texts and
various manuscripts; nos. 301-694, manuscripts collated by Brunsius.
De Rossi (Variæ Lectiones Vet. Test.) retained the numeration of
Kennicott and added a list of 479 manuscripts, all his own personal
property, of which unfortunately 17 had already received numbers from
Kennicott. De Rossi later added four supplementary lists of 110, 52,
37, and 76 manuscripts. He brought the number of Massoretic
manuscripts up to 1375. No one has since undertaken so colossal a
critical study of the Hebrew manuscripts. A few of the chief
manuscripts are more exactly collated and compared in the critical
editions of the Massoretic text which were done by S. Baer and Fr.
Delitzsch and by Ginsburg. To the vast number of Hebrew manuscripts
examined by Kennicott and De Rossi must be added some 2000 manuscripts
of the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg, which Firkowitsch collated
at Tschufut-Kale ("Jews' Rock") in the Crimea (see Strack, "Die
biblischen und massoretischen Handschriften zü Tschufut-Kale" in
"Zeits. für luth. Theol. und Kirche", 1875).
Worth
The critical study of this rich assortment of about 3400 Massoretic
rolls and codices is not so promising of important results as it would
at first thought seem to be. The manuscripts are all of quite recent
date, if compared with Greek, Latin, and Syriac codices. They are all
singularly alike. Some few variants are found in copies made for
private use; copies made for public service in the synagogues are so
uniform as to deter the critic from comparing them. All Massoretic
manuscripts bring us back to one editor -- that of a textual tradition
which probably began in the second century and became more and more
minute until every jot and tittle of the text was almost absolutely
fixed and sacred. R. Aqiba seems to have been the head of this Jewish
school of the second century. Unprecedented means were taken to keep
the text fixed. The scholars counted the words and consonants of each
book, the middle word and middle consonants, the peculiarities of
script, etc. Even when such peculiarities were clearly due to error or
to accident, they were perpetuated and interpreted by a mystical
meaning. Broken and inverted letters, consonants that were too small
or too large, dots which were out of place -- all these oddities were
handed down as God-intended. In Gen., ii, 4, bebram ("when they were
created"), all manuscripts have a small Hê. Jewish scholars looked
upon this peculiarity as inspired; they interpreted it: "In the letter
Hê he created them"; and then set themselves to find out what that
meant.This lack of variants in Massoretic manuscripts leaves us
hopeless of reaching back to the original Hebrew text save through the
versions. Kittel in his splendid Hebrew text gives such variants as
the versions suggest.

.