Re: First Names - Elias derived from Helios?
Tony Hoskins
----------------
From: George Baloglou <balo...@oswego.oswego.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 04:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Greek transliteration conventions
On Thu, 11 May 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
To clarify matters a bit, this alphabet is used on soc.culture.greek
by myself and ... no one else, essentially :-) It is funny to see it
here, shortly before exiting b-greek for the summer (in Greece) ...
Most Greeks or people familiar with the Greek alphabet can read it
rather easily, although a friend of mine complains about "n" and "c";
its use and people's reactions to it raise interesting issues that
do not quite belong here. I would rather mention here a question
currently debated on soc.culture.greek ("Greek surnames") as follows:
Is the Greek name "Helias" *simply* the Greek version of "Eliahu" or
it derives from "helios" = "sun"? It is interesting, by the way, that
all "St. Elias" chapels in Greece are built on top of a hill--perhaps
"illuminating" the nearby plains, as someone pointed out on scg?
On my part, I notice (LS) that "Heliades" = "Son of Sun" used to be
a family name in Rhodes (nowadays it simply means "Son of Helias" as
a Greek surname), while (BAG) "eli" means "my God" in Hebrew (and
"Eliahu" = "Son of God", perhaps?); could the sun be to the Greeks
what God was to the Hebrews, at least linguistically so? Or is this
similarity a coincidence?
A netter from Iceland (named Helias ...) did mention a passage from
the New Testament where the prophet is indeed addressed as "Helias",
raising the obvious question of whether the introduction of "Helias"
into Greek is indeed a Christian deed.
George Baloglou
--------------------
WJho...@aol.com
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.
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-Volkswagen-Jetta-2009/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00030000000007 )
Tony Hoskins
dedicated to St. Michael the Archangel were often placed on hill or
mountaintops - more convenient for angels descending to earth from
Heaven!
T.
Tony Hoskins
*prior to* the Septuagint."
Only, perhaps, as I understand it. The dead certainty of the
Helios/Elias ID is not yet clear to me.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Mississ...@gmail.com
"eli" (god) and Greek "helios" (sun) are almost certainly NOT
linguistically related. For one thing, Hebrew is a Semitic language,
not at all related to Greek, which is Indo-European. The only real
connection between the concepts of sun and god are that the sun was
worshipped as a god by ancient Greeks (something common to many
cultures). The Hebrew god El/Adonai/Yahweh was not particularly
associated with the sun, at least no more than he was associated with
anything else. Linguistic coincidences are very common, and a source
of much overenthusiastic excitement in amateur linguists.
Theophoric names (names incorporating the name of a god, intended to
honor said god) were extremely common among ancient Greeks. Demetrios
(Demeter), Diogenes (Zeus), Apollodoros (Apollo), etc. Being given the
name of the god itself seems to have been less common than a compound
name, but not entirely unknown, as for example Dionysos of Syracuse
(named, obviously, for the god Dionysos). I checked the Lexicon of
Greek Personal Names and didn't find many instances of names honoring
the god Helios, but the Prosography of the Byzantine World lists 25
Eliases, all dating from the Byzantine period 642-1261. There were no
Helioses.
Prosography of the Byzantine World: http://www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/
Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/
WJho...@aol.com
only that it's possible, and that the possibility has been discussed by people
more expert than I in that area. So the assumption that Elias must have been
created *from* the Hebrew form and not have a seperate previous existence
isn't dead certain.
My point is this is muddy, not clear.
As far as "dropping the H" this is a known issue in Latin see the EB (1911)
entry on "H"
_http://books.google.com/books?id=GFAEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA780&lpg=PA780&dq=latin+dro
pping+the+H&source=web&ots=2HD1G7cTsP&sig=HQ1Eq8gvcPGzp-TiaI7rVLqkcyI&hl=en&sa
=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=GFAEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA780&lpg=PA780&dq=latin+dropping+the+H&source=web&ots=2HD1G7cTsP&s
ig=HQ1Eq8gvcPGzp-TiaI7rVLqkcyI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result)
So you would get the transformation of Helyas into Elyas pretty readily.
And since they weren't too picky about their vowels you can find Helios and
Helyas interchangeably.
letiTi...@gmail.com
> 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.
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/15/2008 8:35:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
letiTi...@gmail.com writes:
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.>>
---------------------
Except Bret "scion of Charlemagne", the little problem that the name in the
Hebrew is not Elias at all. Elias being only a sound-alike attempt to
present the name, using the alphabet in-front-of-you.
When you change a name from a Hebrew presentation to a Latin one, you cannot
use the Hebrew characters, you must use the Roman alphabet. There is no
exact equivalent in the Roman alphabet for the sound of the Hebrew so they made
a close fit.
So "Elias" did not exist in the Hebrew bible. The connection *to* Elias was
only made *when* the Septuagint was translated, not before. But the name
itself existed before. It just wasn't necessarily then equated to the Hebrew
name. We don't know that it was or wasn't before, but we know that it was
afterward.
letiTi...@gmail.com
> In a message dated 8/15/2008 8:35:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
>
> 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.>>
>
> ---------------------
>
> Except Bret "scion of Charlemagne", the little problem that the name in the
> Hebrew is not Elias at all. Elias being only a sound-alike attempt to
> present the name, using the alphabet in-front-of-you.
>
> When you change a name from a Hebrew presentation to a Latin one, you cannot
> use the Hebrew characters, you must use the Roman alphabet. There is no
> exact equivalent in the Roman alphabet for the sound of the Hebrew so they made
> a close fit.
>
> So "Elias" did not exist in the Hebrew bible. The connection *to* Elias was
> only made *when* the Septuagint was translated, not before. But the name
> itself existed before. It just wasn't necessarily then equated to the Hebrew
> name. We don't know that it was or wasn't before, but we know that it was
> afterward.
>
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-08/1218733301
From: "Glen Yearsley" <year...@rogers.com>
Subject: First names
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:01:41 -0400
Hello to the list;
Does anyone know if the name ELIAS is a full name or a shortened
version of
something else?
Thanks
Glen A. Yearsley
From: "Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski"
<leli...@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: First names
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:36:40 -0700
References: <FF80AA274C82421797C649F703642473@glen2>
In-Reply-To: <FF80AA274C82421797C649F703642473@glen2>
It's the Greek-into-English form of the Hebrew-into-English Biblical
name Elijah.Richard H.B. Carruthers, a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski, M.A.,
Oxon.
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
Subject: Re: First names
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:10:56 -0700
The given name "Elias":
"The Greek form of Elijah (Matthew 11:14; 16:14, etc.), which the
Revised Version has uniformly adopted in the New Testament. (see
ELIJAH.)"
http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/e/elias.htm
By the way, in 18th and 19th century American genealogy, I have
observed occasional records confounding "Elias" and "Elisha".
Excuse the list, Will, but...
What part of the above discussion about the origins of a Hebrew Bible
originating 400 years before 200 A.D. do you not understand?
Where in God's creation did this *name* originate as an original text,
or do you still have trouble understanding the meaning of "original
text"
and not secondary resources?
Tony Hoskins
version of something else?"
I thought this at least was clear by now.
Elias is a "full", stand-alone name, a Latin/Greek variant of the
Hebrew name Elijah, and **possibly** independently, in certain instances
and settings, a variant of the Greek Helios.
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/16/2008 7:35:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
letiTi...@gmail.com writes:
What part of the above discussion about the origins of a Hebrew Bible
originating 400 years before 200 A.D. do you not understand?
Where in God's creation did this *name* originate as an original text,
or do you still have trouble understanding the meaning of "original
text"
and not secondary resources?>>
------------------------------------------------------
The true "Greek" form is not easy for me to write because it does not use
the alphabet with which we are familiar. I'm sure you know this. But the
first thing I notice googling for "Elias Helyas" is that there are many people
who equate the names Elias and Helyas. This is not my invention Bret.
You can find the name Elias in Plutarch . I would wonder if someone
suggested that Plutarch had been reading the Septuagint in order to pick up this
name.
The name Helias is commonly used in Euripides to refer to the sun god, at
least in English transliteration. The name although perhaps used for the
Hebrew Elijah, was not *created* at the time it was first used, that's the issue
Bret.
Even though it might be *used* for Elijah, that does not mean that that
usage created the name firstly.
letiTi...@gmail.com
> Hebrew Elijah, was not *created* at the time it was first used, that's the issue
> usage created the name firstly.
You need to know that the modern Bibles, based on the ancient Hebrew
Bible,
came about in quite a series of translations. In fact, there were two
Greek
Bibles, along the way that figure in all this, and you apparently do
not know that.
And there were two Greek languages involved, as well, and you
apparently do not
know that either. But above all this is the question which concerns
us all as
medieval genealogy scholars: this name *E----* however you spell it
along
the way had its beginning in an ancient Hebrew text called the Hebrew
Bible,
and parents who named their children *E----* were referencing a name
from
their British Bibles. They were honoring their child with a name from
their
religious heritage, and that certainly was the Old Testament of the
British Bibles
of their days, and it was not in honor of some Greek God. Period.
WJho...@aol.com
letiTi...@gmail.com writes:
this name *E----* however you spell it
along the way had its beginning in an ancient Hebrew text called the Hebrew
Bible, and parents who named their children *E----* were referencing a name
from their British Bibles. >>>
---------------------------------
I think you've managed to miss the point.
The question was where does Elias come from, not where does "Elijah" or
"Elihu" or any other name come from.
So the answer depends heavily on the history and orthography of "Elias" not
anything else.
Elias does not exist in ancient Hebrew, so what ancient Hebrew has to say
has nothing to do with the answer.
Elias does however as it's orthographic counterpart Helyas, Helias, Helios
(and using the Greek alphabet) exist in ancient Greek or at least in Classical
Greek.
The only reason "Elijah" became something else in Greek is because they
didn't have the alphabet to represent all the Hebrew sounds, so they made the
closest "fit".
At the time of Christ however, they were speaking Aramaic and koine Greek,
so once again ancient Hebrew had nothing to do with their use of "Elias" to
refer to Elijah or anyone else for that matter.
Will Johnson
letiTi...@gmail.com
> In a message dated 8/16/2008 8:40:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
>
> this name *E----* however you spell it
> along the way had its beginning in an ancient Hebrew text called the Hebrew
> Bible, and parents who named their children *E----* were referencing a name
> from their British Bibles. >>>
> ---------------------------------
>
> I think you've managed to miss the point.
> The question was where does Elias come from, not where does "Elijah" or
> "Elihu" or any other name come from.
>
> So the answer depends heavily on the history and orthography of "Elias" not
> anything else.
> Elias does not exist in ancient Hebrew, so what ancient Hebrew has to say
> has nothing to do with the answer.
>
> Elias does however as it's orthographic counterpart Helyas, Helias, Helios
> (and using the Greek alphabet) exist in ancient Greek or at least in Classical
> Greek.
>
> The only reason "Elijah" became something else in Greek is because they
> didn't have the alphabet to represent all the Hebrew sounds, so they made the
> closest "fit".
>
> At the time of Christ however, they were speaking Aramaic and koine Greek,
> so once again ancient Hebrew had nothing to do with their use of "Elias" to
> refer to Elijah or anyone else for that matter.
>
Your ignorance on these matters is so legendary, it behooves the list
archives
to speak for itself! To reiterate:
You need to know that the modern Bibles, based on the ancient Hebrew
Bible,
came about in quite a series of translations. In fact, there were
two
Greek
Bibles, along the way that figure in all this, and you apparently do
not know that.
And there were two Greek languages involved, as well, and you
apparently do not
know that either. But above all this is the question which concerns
us all as
medieval genealogy scholars: this name *E----* however you spell it
along
the way had its beginning in an ancient Hebrew text called the Hebrew
Bible,
and parents who named their children *E----* were referencing a name
from
lostc...@yahoo.com
> I won't pass judgment on the Elias/Helios issue, but Hebrew
> "eli" (god) and Greek "helios" (sun) are almost certainly NOT
> linguistically related. For one thing, Hebrew is a Semitic language,
> not at all related to Greek, which is Indo-European. The only real
> connection between the concepts of sun and god are that the sun was
> worshipped as a god by ancient Greeks (something common to many
> cultures). The Hebrew god El/Adonai/Yahweh was not particularly
> associated with the sun, at least no more than he was associated with
> anything else. Linguistic coincidences are very common, and a source
> of much overenthusiastic excitement in amateur linguists.
>
Although not an argument against your point (which I would not be
qualified to make), it may be well to remember that these ancient
cultures were in long-term contact with one another. Even cultures
with unrelated languages borrowed words (& concepts) from each other;
or were, at the very least, knowledgeable about one another's
language. What are the dates of the earliest known uses of the Hebrew
& Greek words? How far back would you have to go in order to be sure
that neither language had been influenced by contact with the other? -
Bronwen
lostc...@yahoo.com
wrote:
THIS, from a poster who uses Wikipedia as a reference. Jeez.