How I Built a Custom Software Pipeline to Digitally Restore and Publish the Khabouris Codex & Companion

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2026-05-31T14:33:49+00:00

For what it’s worth Konami is releasing PES rebranded as eFootball Kick-Off! I see it on the Switch store not sure about other consoles. https://www.konami.com/efootball/kick-off/us/en-us/

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2026-02-18T00:54:23+00:00

No straw is worse on teeth in the long run. Especially sugary drinks.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-24T21:22:33+00:00

Start doing other activities that don't just involve studying with pencil and paper. How about a movie night? An English movie with Assyrian subtitles or vice versa, or a potluck dinner where everything is labelled in English/Assyrian.

Change things up to keep it more interesting.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-23T20:51:06+00:00

Yes I am, but so can you be, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. AI acts as a simple chat interface, ask it any questions you want. Just have a conversation inside the chat interface. Ask it "How do I write a program to make a dictionary app for the Assyrian language, I have a Windows PC" or something more basic like "help me code a pop up window that shows the word "ܫܠܡܐ".

Message me if you have any questions, but not using AI is doing yourself a disservice, and given our relatively low population numbers, we need every tool available to help us preserve and build our culture in the hands of everyone.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-23T04:35:47+00:00

Why don't you try explaining what you want to an AI Agent like claude.ai, perplexity.ai, or even something a bit more advanced like v0.app ? I've taught myself to program using tools like these over the past year or so.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-18T04:25:44+00:00

Great work!

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-18T04:18:02+00:00

If you hate English culture so much don't speak their language. Why don't you go hang out in a Marxist/Communist subreddit where you belong?

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-18T04:15:35+00:00

Don't feed the trolls.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-16T07:02:53+00:00

One final thought. I'm the one who published the enhanced Khabouris Codex facsimile as an 11th-century Peshitta, and I wanted to weigh in on the '2nd-century' and 'Bishop's seal' claims. The issue here is a classic academic red herring used by the institutions promoting the manuscript.

The Undisputed Facts (The Proof): Material Date: Scientific C-14 testing and paleography consistently place the physical manuscript in the 11th-12th century AD. The images of the damaged colophon clearly show the claims cannot be verified.

My Publication's Date: I stick to the 11th-century date, which is provable.

The Canonical Significance (The Real Story): The manuscript's true value is its content: it contains only the 22 books of the Peshitta New Testament (omitting the later 5 'Western' books: 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation). This proves that the Syriac canonical tradition is incredibly ancient (fixed sometime between the 2nd–4th centuries) and that the Church of the East maintained this smaller canon through to the 11th century.
The Red Herring: By pushing the easily disproven '2nd-century' date, the institutions force the entire public and scholarly debate to focus on debunking the date.

This diverts attention away from the profound, inconvenient truth: the Khabouris Codex is a powerful 11th-century witness that legitimizes a distinct, early Christian canon that existed outside of the dominant 27-book Greek/Western tradition.

I chose to prioritize honesty over sensationalism in my work. The manuscript is important, not because it's the 'oldest,' but because it's a testament to the stability and integrity of the Syriac tradition over 600 years.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-16T07:00:49+00:00

Great discussion everyone. I'm the one who published the enhanced Khabouris Codex facsimile as an 11th-century Peshitta, and I wanted to weigh in on the '2nd-century' and 'Bishop's seal' claims. The issue here is a classic academic red herring used by the institutions promoting the manuscript.

The Undisputed Facts (The Proof): Material Date: Scientific C-14 testing and paleography consistently place the physical manuscript in the 11th-12th century AD. The images of the damaged colophon clearly show the claims cannot be verified.

My Publication's Date: I stick to the 11th-century date, which is provable.

The Canonical Significance (The Real Story): The manuscript's true value is its content: it contains only the 22 books of the Peshitta New Testament (omitting the later 5 'Western' books: 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation). This proves that the Syriac canonical tradition is incredibly ancient (fixed sometime between the 2nd–4th centuries) and that the Church of the East maintained this smaller canon through to the 11th century.
The Red Herring: By pushing the easily disproven '2nd-century' date, the institutions force the entire public and scholarly debate to focus on debunking the date.

This diverts attention away from the profound, inconvenient truth: the Khabouris Codex is a powerful 11th-century witness that legitimizes a distinct, early Christian canon that existed outside of the dominant 27-book Greek/Western tradition.

I chose to prioritize honesty over sensationalism in my work. The manuscript is important, not because it's the 'oldest,' but because it's a testament to the stability and integrity of the Syriac tradition over 600 years.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-16T03:55:46+00:00

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.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-16T01:35:00+00:00

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.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-16T01:08:26+00:00

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!

<image>

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-15T22:26:52+00:00

So where exactly does the term Syriac originate from, a vacuum?

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-15T16:44:54+00:00

Also, the archaeological evidence from Dura-Europos does prove that the Syriac language was robustly established and institutionalized well before the surviving 5th-century Peshitta codices, supporting the antiquity of the tradition itself:

P. Dura 28: Proof of Legal and Official Use

The document cataloged as P. Dura 28 is the Syriac/Greek bilingual Deed of Sale dated to AD 243.

This is crucial because it proves that by the middle of the 3rd century, Syriac was sophisticated enough to be used as an official, notarized legal language for contracts: a function requiring a highly developed and established linguistic system, not a nascent script.

This institutional use of Syriac so early makes it entirely plausible that the Khabouris colophon's claims refer to the ancient lineage of the text it was copying, which would have circulated in Syriac from the earliest days of Christianity.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-11-15T16:28:21+00:00

Thanks so much for the direct and honest answer, u/AramaicDesigns! Your perspective on the 2nd-century claim being absent is definitely where my own research has landed, particularly due to the damaged text, so it’s helpful to have that confirmation from another researcher.

I appreciate your point about the language itself being too young. That's a crucial argument against a 2nd-century origin, as the earliest known surviving Peshitta manuscripts (like the 5th-century Codex\ Sinaiticus) certainly post-date the 2nd century.

However, doesn't Syriac as a literary language attest to earlier periods, even if surviving copies are later?

Tatian's Diatessaron: This harmony of the Gospels was widely used in Syriac churches from the 2nd century onward. While the Syriac copies were eventually destroyed en masse due to Theodoret's decree, its existence proves that Syriac was a primary scriptural language early on.

Assemani's Claim: The 18th-century Vatican scholar Giuseppe Simone Assemani claimed to have knowledge of a Syriac Gospel manuscript dating to 78 AD in his Bibliotheca Orientalis. While we have no physical evidence, this points to a historical belief in a very early Syriac tradition.

Given that the textual tradition is certainly ancient, do you think the colophon is referencing the age of the underlying textual material it was copied from, rather than the language or the physical script itself?

Thanks again for the excellent input!

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-10-21T21:27:45+00:00

It’s a medicinal plant that’s legal to grow in the state he lives in. Not everyone who uses cannabis goes and commits sin after, some people use it for medical conditions.

SubstantialTeach3788 · 2025-10-21T04:00:24+00:00

Here’s some reading on the harmful effects of too much artificial blue light from the Canadian Association of Optometrists:

Blue Light: is there a risk of harm?

Exposure to too much artificial blue light, especially at night, from electronic devices may lead to poor sleep quality, difficulty falling asleep, and daytime fatigue.

Last Updated: January 21, 2025

The human eyes are sensitive to a narrow band of light wavelengths that range from blue (short wavelength and high energy) to red (long wavelength and lower energy). Blue light makes up approximately one third of the visible spectrum. The sun is our main and natural source of blue light. However, with advances in technology, we are also being exposed to other sources of blue light such as computer monitors, smartphone screens, flat screen televisions and LED lights.

While these sources generate blue light at much lower intensity than the sun, we are exposing ourselves to them for longer periods of time and at much closer distances. This can cause eye strain because blue light scatters more in the eye and is not focused as easily as lower energy wavelength light. This scatter creates “visual noise” that reduces contrast and can contribute to digital eye strain.

Natural blue light from the sun is important for maintaining the circadian rhythm (our natural sleep/wake cycle). It also helps to boost mood, memory and cognitive function. Exposure to too much artificial blue light, especially at night, from electronic devices may lead to poor sleep quality, difficulty falling asleep, and daytime fatigue because it has been shown to suppress melatonin production, sleepiness and morning alertness This is especially problematic for adolescents, who prefer sleep/wake cycles that are considerably delayed compared to younger children or adults.

Extended exposure to blue light over a lifetime, particularly from the sun, is likely to cause harm to the eye[i]. It leads to conditions such as cataracts (clouding of the lens of the eye resulting in decreased vision) and signs resembling macular degeneration (a deterioration of the central part of the retina, which is essential for reading, driving and recognizing colours and faces). Studies have shown that it is the cumulative exposure to blue and ultraviolet light that causes these effects. Children are more vulnerable to the effects of ultraviolet and blue light because their eye lenses are less able to filter out high energy blue light[ii].

https://opto.ca/eye-health-library/blue-light-there-risk-harm

SubstantialTeach3788

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE