Bernard Muller

Yuri wrote:
You mean like there were some eyewitnesses who actually saw this miracle, and reported on it for years to come, reporting the dialogue word-for-word? Just like the Bible says?

But I'm afraid that many people here don't really believe in such miracles...

Well this is not what I wrote on my pages (that is no miracle here).
Here is an extract:

>> Jairus' daughter: Mk5:41a "He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koom!" ..."
And what does happen next?
Mk5:42-43 "Immediately the girl stood up and walked around ... He gave strict orders
[to all the present eyewitnesses: Jesus' three disciples (Peter, John and James) and the child's father & mother (5:37,40)] not to let anyone know about this ..."
Comment:
That does not make any sense: how could the parents hide it?
By arranging for a fake burial and keeping secret the aliveness of their child, for the rest of their days?
An absurd & unrealistic proposition and Jesus could not have said that. This can only indicate that nobody had been telling about any revival, and for good cause. ...

The eyewitness must have told as far as Jesus saying "Talitha koom!" and raising the (inert) body. Then he probably became silent and troubled. "Mark" added the successful ending (Elijah did revive a boy in 1Ki17:22 and Elisha did the same in 2Ki4:32-35!) and the "strict orders not to let anyone know about this" to explain the well noticed silence. <<

A lot more about that on my page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2.shtml

Yuri wrote:
This addition of "I say to you" just seems like a later literary embellishment in Mk. Not much to build on, I'm afraid...

That may look trivial to you, but there is no reason why an Aramaic to Greek translator would add up "I say to you" to his translation of "Talitha, koumi". Certainly, he would not want to demonstrate: I am embellishing everything as I go along, or I do not know what "talitha, koumi" means first hand (that is, I am incompetent).
I am quite sure if I would translate 'little girl, get up' by 'petite fille, je te dis, met toi debout', I would loose my credibility as an accurate translator.

Best regards, Bernard

judge

Thanks ...we have recently looked at this link here but it is really rubbish.
Here is another link.
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

Note the conclusions.
*

The Syriac versions of the New Testament are written in the language that Jesus actually spoke, (only the dialect is different).
*

The extant Syriac manuscripts of the New Testament are very old, at least as old as many ancient manuscripts written in Greek.
*

The sayings of Jesus were spoken in Aramaic. Therefore, the best way to understand them is to read them in Aramaic.

Note that the link I provide does give some references including William Cureton who says the language of the peshitta is virtually identical that spoken by Jesus

rlogan

Yuri - You admonished us regarding citing sufficient scholarly authority. The link you just provided doesn't even have an author noted. Who is the author?

One of the things that bothers me about the discussion there is saying that the oldest Syriac manuscripts are "at least as old as many ancient manuscripts written in Greek"

Scholarship would put a date in there and not fudge. Is it 5th century?

Another thing:

"it also follows that the early apostles and disciples spoke, taught and wrote in Aramaic as well"

The early apostles and disciples were scribes? Who?

It is an attractive hypothesis that if Jesus existed and spoke Aramaic that the first texts would be written in Aramaic. But that is all it is - a hypothesis.

If he didn't exist or if the gosples we have are the result of much later Greek-dominated poitcal forces, then the argument does not hold.

You seem to want feedback. I won't lose sleep over it one way or the other. (Which language the myths were originally written in).

Yuri Kuchinsky

That wasn't me. It was judge who gave than link...

Quote:

One of the things that bothers me about the discussion there is saying that the oldest Syriac manuscripts are "at least as old as many ancient manuscripts written in Greek"

The truth of the matter is that the oldest Syriac manuscripts are as old as our *best Greek MSS* (what the canonical gospels are actually based on).

This is what _I_ say.

Quote:

Scholarship would put a date in there and not fudge. Is it 5th century?

4th and 5th century.

Regards,

Yuri.

spin

judge is clearly correct here.

However, there is a nice paradox from the Greek: why did the Greek only translate such a trivial statement from Syriac, when there were so many others of more importance that could have been given from the Syriac if we indeed had Jesus's original words recorded in that language? The fact that there weren't indicates that the Syriac was not available to the "translators" of the Greek gospels, ie it is secondary and based on the Greek and not vice versa.

The talitha kumi fragment shows us that someone has supplied just these few words (and there are a few other cases of this sort of sourcing) to a writer which gets incorporated into the text.



spin

judge

Hi again ..Yes the link is not the greatest reference but at least it does provide references at the end.
Compared to the Christian seperatist link it is great though.
IIRC the author's name is Steven Ring

all the best

Radcliffe Emerson

Amaleq13

If I remember correctly, aren't all examples of Aramaic in the Greek NT words spoken by Jesus while performing miracles? That suggests to me that the author was treating them like incantations or words of power or something along those magical-thinking lines and he may have felt it was only appropriate to present them in the original language. Or, from a more HJ-centric perspective, the "words of power" were retained in Aramaic by an oral tradition precisely because they were "words of power" spoken by Jesus to enact miracles.

Of course, if I remember incorrectly, and there are other examples that don't conform to the above, forget I said anything.

Amaleq13

I would be interested in reading examples where you find the meaning to be significantly different, if you feel like providing them.

judge

That was a quote from the nlink I provided, not my own view.
As far as I am aware the meaning is not signifigantly different ..but then again I suppose it depends on what is meant by signifigantly.

There are a couple of old threads on the kind of differences we find.

One is that it becomes apparent that Mary's father was named Joseph and that this leads to supposed contradictions in the geneologies in Matthew and Luke.

Another is a slight mistranslation of Romans 5:7, another might be Mark 9:49 about which there is another thread here.
They are not signifigant IMHO.
Other misunderstandings seem to arise by the literal reading oif idiomatic constructions and idioms in Aramaic.

One well known one is when the guy tells Jesus that he needs to bury his father. The mans father is not dead , rather the man wants to care for him until he dies.

There is an Aramaic translation online at www.v-a.com that tries to give a dynamic equivalence translation. Victor Alexander, like George Lamsa before tries to bring ouit idioms from the text thast may escapr modern readers.

Aramaic speakers I have beeen in touch with do however think that Victor goes too far many times

But it is interesting to look at his reading I have found