Interesting grammatical error in today's Gospel reading

[DaveBj]

In Mark 5:41 from today’s Gospel reading, Jesus was quoted as saying in Aramaic to the little girl, “Talitha, koum (qum).” (Actually, the textual evidence is split; the Majority Text and the so-called Textus Receptus has “koumi (quumi)”, and the “eclectic text,” based on the more ancient texts, has “koum.”

The NEB, on which the Mass readings are based, obviously used “qum.” The RSV-CE and the NKJV (the only other two translations that I checked) both have “quumi.” Which is right, and why?

In Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic the verb for “to stand up/arise” is “qaam,” a hollow verb, and the imperatives in all three languages are “qum” for masculine and “quumi” for the feminine. So “Talitha, qum” is like saying, “Little girl, get up, boy!”

So how did the error get into the most ancient manuscripts? I have no idea. I am curious why the scholars who put together the NEB didn’t correct an obvious (well, obvious to someone who knows the languages, as they should) grammatical error.

DaveBj

 

[centurionguard]

Personally I like this version of today’s Gospel from Mark the best taken from Douay Rheims

5:21

And when Jesus had passed again in the ship over the strait, a great multitude assembled together unto him, and he was nigh unto the sea.
5:22

And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue named Jairus: and seeing him, falleth down at his feet.
5:23

And he besought him much, saying: My daughter is at the point of death, come, lay thy hand upon her, that she may be safe, and may live.
5:24

And he went with him, and a great multitude followed him, and they thronged him.
5:25

And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years,
5:26

And had suffered many things from many physicians; and had spent all that she had, and was nothing the better, but rather worse,
5:27

When she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind him, and touched his garment.
5:28

For she said: If I shall touch but his garment, I shall be whole.
5:29

And forthwith the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the evil.
5:30

And immediately Jesus knowing in himself the virtue that had proceeded from him, turning to the multitude, said: Who hath touched my garments?
5:31

And his disciples said to him: Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou who hath touched me?
5:32

And he looked about to see her who had done this.
5:33

But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
5:34

And he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole: go in peace, and be thou whole of thy disease.
5:35

While he was yet speaking, some come from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying: Thy daughter is dead: why dost thou trouble the master any further?
5:36

But Jesus having heard the word that was spoken, saith to the ruler of the synagogue: Fear not, only believe.
5:37

And he admitted not any man to follow him, but Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.
5:38

And they cone to the house of the ruler of the synagogue; and he seeth a tumult, and people weeping and wailing much.
5:39

And going in, he saith to them Why make you this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.
5:40

And they laughed him to scorn. But he having put them all out, taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying.
5:41

And taking the damsel by the hand, he saith to her: Talitha cumi, which is, being interpreted: Damsel (I say to thee) arise.
5:42

And immediately the damsel rose up, and walked: and she was twelve years old: and they were astonished with a great astonishment.
5:43

And he charged them strictly that no man should know it: and commanded that something should be given her to eat.

 

[DaveBj]

Personally I like this version of today’s Gospel from Mark the best taken from Douay Rheims

Yeah, that reads nicely, and has the correct Aramaic as well. But then I was raised on the KJV, and I still like the older English

DaveBj

 

[NoelFitz]

In Mark 5:41 from today’s Gospel reading, Jesus was quoted as saying in Aramaic to the little girl, “Talitha, koum (qum).” (Actually, the textual evidence is split; the Majority Text and the so-called Textus Receptus has “koumi (quumi)”, and the “eclectic text,” based on the more ancient texts, has “koum.”

The NEB, on which the Mass readings are based, obviously used “qum.” The RSV-CE and the NKJV (the only other two translations that I checked) both have “quumi.” Which is right, and why?

In Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic the verb for “to stand up/arise” is “qaam,” a hollow verb, and the imperatives in all three languages are “qum” for masculine and “quumi” for the feminine. So “Talitha, qum” is like saying, “Little girl, get up, boy!”

So how did the error get into the most ancient manuscripts? I have no idea. I am curious why the scholars who put together the NEB didn’t correct an obvious (well, obvious to someone who knows the languages, as they should) grammatical error.

DaveBj

DaveBj

You raise a very tricky question.

I have tried to resolve it by using Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the GNT (2nd Ed).

The UBS (4th Ed revised) has ταλιθα κουμ. It seems TABIQA (without KOUM) in several texts Is due to “scribal confusion”. The difference between KOUM and KOUMI reflects gender differences, “the final i of the feminine imperative falling away after the stressed penult.”

Does this resolve the problem for you?

The Anchor Bible Dictionary has:

TALITHA CUMI. The Aramaic phrase, transliterated into Greek (talitha koumi), used by Jesus when he healed Jairus’ daughter. This provides evidence for an Aramaic basis to the language of Jesus, because (1) it is a full sentence, and (2) talitha is from the Aramaic form of ṭalyâ (“lamb,” “youth”) and koumi reflects the feminine singular imperative form qûmî from the verb qwm. It occurs only in Mark’s gospel, furnished with an explanation in Greek, to korasion, soi legō, egeire (“Girl, I say to you, get up!”). Here, however, the words soi legō (“I say to you”) have no equivalent in the presumed Aramaic. There is a parallel of substance in Luke 8:54 which lacks those words, but which uses hē pais (“child”) instead of to korasion. Both could easily reflect the same Aramaic original. However, Mark and Luke alike express the vocative here by using the definite article, and in this coincide with the use of the Aramaic emphatic state in the word talitha (Aram ṭlyt˒), whereas in the similar cases in Luke 7:14b and John 11:43b the vocative itself is used.
It seems strange that anyone should have addressed an unconscious (or dead) person as “girl” and not by her own name. The context is thoroughly Jewish, the girl’s father has a Jewish name (Jairus = Ya˒ir), and he is a synagogue ruler. If his name is given, why not that of his daughter? Further, the Greek mss and the versions have problems in Mark 5:41. The best attested reading is Talitha koum, but at first sight that seems to make the verb masculine (qwm) instead of feminine (qwmy). The other three sets of readings all look like attempts to make sense of the matter by seeing in talitha (or in their equivalents for it) a proper name. Thus all make both subject and verb explicitly feminine. The problems could be solved if (1) talitha could be documented as a proper name and not just an Aram word meaning “girl,” and (2) if in the spoken language the final yod in feminine form qwmy were silent as in the corresponding Syriac. In Acts 9:40 and John 11:43b the person being “raised from the dead” is addressed by name: since Thaleththi (= Talitha) has been attested in an epitaph of the 1st century a.d. from Tiberias in Galilee, Talitha cum(i) should possibly be read as “Talitha, stand up!”
The view that talitha cumi is a foreign word, part of the magician’s mystique, is ingenious but fails to take account of the Jewish and indeed Aramaic nature of the whole setting of the story.
David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 6:309.

 

[DaveBj]

DaveBj

You raise a very tricky question.

I have tried to resolve it by using Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the GNT (2nd Ed).

The UBS (4th Ed revised) has ταλιθα κουμ. It seems TABIQA (without KOUM) in several texts Is due to “scribal confusion”. The difference between KOUM and KOUMI reflects gender differences, "the final i of the feminine imperative falling away after the stressed penult."

So Metzger is saying that talitha is stressed on the second syllable, and because of that, the terminal -i of the imperative is dropped? That would explain it, if that is a characteristic of the Aramaic.

My expertise is in Arabic, and in that language the imperative’s terminal yaa’ would not be dropped, expecially after the person is named.

The quote from the Anchor Bible was useful, too. Thanks for posting.

DaveBj

 

[COPLAND_3]

St. Jerome said, “Talitha cumi,” which is interpreted, ‘Girl, I say to you arise.’ If He said , ‘Talitha cum,’ the translation would be ‘Girl arise’; but because He said ‘Talitha cumi,’ the Aramaic and Hebrew phrase means ‘Girl, rise up for Me.’ Cumi means, in other words, ‘I say to you arise.’ See what mystery there is in the Aramaic and Hebrew language?

 

[Edward_Pothier]

The original poster of this thread twice refers to the NEB. At the risk of being pedantic, I wish to point out that the NAB (New American Bible), not the NEB (New English Bible), is the basis of the Mass scripture readings in the USA. There are sometimes some changes in the Vatican approved Lectionary readings from the “regular” NAB translation, but it is still very strongly NAB-based.

Edward Pothier

 

[DaveBj]

The original poster of this thread twice refers to the NEB. At the risk of being pedantic, I wish to point out that the NAB (New American Bible), not the NEB (New English Bible), is the basis of the Mass scripture readings in the USA. There are sometimes some changes in the Vatican approved Lectionary readings from the “regular” NAB translation, but it is still very strongly NAB-based.

Edward Pothier

You are correct. My error. Once again I failed to doublecheck facts before posting.

DaveBj

 

[DaveBj]

St. Jerome said, “Talitha cumi,” which is interpreted, ‘Girl, I say to you arise.’ If He said , ‘Talitha cum,’ the translation would be ‘Girl arise’; but because He said ‘Talitha cumi,’ the Aramaic and Hebrew phrase means ‘Girl, rise up for Me.’ Cumi means, in other words, ‘I say to you arise.’ See what mystery there is in the Aramaic and Hebrew language?

I think you are confusing the -i ending that means “my, to/for me” (gism-i/jism-i, “my body”) and the -i ending that is a feminizer for verbal imperatives (cum “get up,” addressed to a male; cum-i = “get up,” addressed to a female. Both of these are true in all three of the Semitic languages.

The phrase “I say unto thee” is a translator’s addition that is not in the two-word Aramaic phrase.

DaveBj

 

[COPLAND_3]

I think you are confusing the -i ending that means “my, to/for me” (gism-i/jism-i, “my body”) and the -i ending that is a feminizer for verbal imperatives (cum “get up,” addressed to a male; cum-i = “get up,” addressed to a female. Both of these are true in all three of the Semitic languages.

The phrase “I say unto thee” is a translator’s addition that is not in the two-word Aramaic phrase.

DaveBj

I just gave what St. Jerome said, not what I thought about it. The reason I quoted him is because Jerome understood the phrase through the eyes of antiquity instead of through the eyes of a modern day Aramaic grammar book. In the same way, I read Greek, but I like to consult the Greek Fathers of the Church when I am interested in the context of a passage because they have an understanding of the language that even the finest Greek scholars today don’t quite have because it was the language they spoke in ancient times. Jerome was an expert in Hebrew and Aramaic, which is why I cited him.

 

[patrick457]

As mentioned, qūm (“to rise”, “to get up”, “to stand”) was originally ‘qūmī’ in the feminine singular imperative. However, it would seem that in speech the final -ī was dropped so that the imperative did not distinguish between masculine and feminine genders - the originally masculine qūm is used indiscriminately for both male or female (just like we do everyday in street language, a number of “correct” grammar are usually ignored).

So, from a linguistic POV, talitha koum may reflect actual - and “incorrect” - street pronunciation, while the talitha koumi of Codex Alexandrinus, the Majority Text and the Latin Vulgate is a tidied-up, more gramatically correct version.

In modern-day approximation:

• Ţlīthā qūm - “Kid (fem.), get up (imperative, originally masc. but can include fem. as well)”
• Ţlīthā qūmī - “*Kid (fem.), get up *(fem. imperative)”