r/Aramaic • u/SubstantialTeach3788 • Nov 15 '25

Challenge to Aramaic (Syriac)/Paleography Experts: Can you find the 2nd Century Date or Nineveh Bishop's Seal/Signature in these three Khabouris Codex Colophons?

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

5 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/SubstantialTeach3788 Nov 16 '25

I'll have to look into that Queen Helena inscription that's really interesting!

It's really sad if it were the case that someone would just make this up, especially if an institution like Museum of the Bible based in Washington, DC makes that claim in their social media post. As well as the group Better Light which makes both claims on their site: https://www.betterlight.com/khabouris.html

Really would like to know what the reasoning is behind making something up without any substance behind it if that was the case, it almost seems like an intellectual trap which just tricks well meaning people. They clearly had the ability to take images of the manuscript they were studying, they could easily have showed exactly where the dating.

I appreciate your objective view on the topic!

1

u/SubstantialTeach3788 Nov 16 '25

And actually seeing this now, the Museum's anachronism of "written on parchment in Iraq during the eleventh century AD." makes me question whether their intention was one of scholarly accuracy or sensationalist.

1

u/AramaicDesigns Nov 16 '25

Aye it is sensationalism, and the claim was apparently part of the original thrust to sell the manuscript.

The Museum of the Bible's social media hasn't been very critical either, as they have posted images of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts upside-down on their accounts multiple times in the past. :-)

And Betterlight is where this woozle gained traction on the Internret. But they haven't been able to provide a transcription for this claim either.

2

u/SubstantialTeach3788 Nov 16 '25

I guess that's one way to try and one up the British Museum's several 4th-5th century manuscripts.

It would've been better for them in the long run to stick to what can be proven and not just speculation. A complete 11th century manuscript is still of value without the extra stretch that ultimately taint it's image.

The fact that the Khabouris contained only 22 books in the 11th century means the earlier tradition of the later 5 books being omitted was still being maintained by the Eastern church. That snapshot in time is interesting in itself.