Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, everyone,

Many people are familiar with the story of the Strange Exorcist in Mark.

(Mk 9:38 RSV) John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." (39) But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work (dunamin) in my name will be able soon after (takhu) to speak evil of me."

So let's now look carefully at these words of Jesus, as they are found in the canonical Greek version, because their meaning seems highly problematic. The main problem is in the last part, with the exact meaning of the Greek word /takhu/.

"no one ... will be able soon after (takhu) to speak evil of me"

The English translations are badly divided on this issue. On the one hand, RSV and a few others translate it as a temporal adverb, i.e. as "soon after", "soon", "quickly", etc.

Yet, on the other hand, KJV, and a few others, translate this word as "lightly", or "readily", which tends to complicate the meaning of this phrase even more.

(Mk 9:39 KJV) "no man ... can lightly (takhu) speak evil of me"

So it seems like nobody can figure out just what this whole phrase is supposed to mean.

But is it possible that this word /takhu/ was a late addition to the text of Mk? Well, this is exactly how it looks to me! After all, if we remove it, the whole phrase will become crystal clear.

And this is exactly what we find in the ancient Aramaic Sinaiticus version of Mark. Here's my literal translation from the Aramaic, based on Burkitt's 1904 translation,

(Mk 9:39 Aramaic) "Do not forbid him; for there is no one who does something in my name, and can speak evil of me."

And here's the original Aramaic,

lo t'kolwnyhy
layt gyr anash
dabad medem b'shemy
w'mashikyh d'namar aly d'bysh

In addition to the Aramaic Mark, this same shorter and simpler version is also found in quite a few other ancient manuscripts (although you will not find any of these variants listed in Aland's Synopsis, the standard reference volume of today's Textual Critics). The support for the Aramaic is found in the Old Latin manuscripts, and in the ancient Armenian and Georgian manuscripts. And there are even some important early Greek manuscripts that also contain the shorter version.

In fact, this is _obviously_ a more original text! So why is Aland's Synopsis neglecting to mention all these important variants? Is it merely the incompetence, or something else?

And now we can consider the second difficulty in this saying of Jesus, as associated with the Greek word /dunamin/. RSV translates it as "mighty work", while KJV translates it as "miracle". But, literally, according to Strong's Concordance, /dunamin/ most often means "power". Thus, this expression is also somewhat problematic.

In any case, as we can see above, the Aramaic Mark leaves this part quite vague. One can surmise that, in the earliest version of Mark, this phrase would have read something like this,

"Do not forbid him; for there is no one who does good deeds in my name..."

And this is very similar to what we find in the Magdalene Gospel, the mysterious medieval manuscript that I have now translated. I happen to believe that this is the earliest Christian gospel that we now possess.

(MG 63:30) "For no one, he said, who did miracles in his name will ever be able to speak ill of him."

As we can see, just like the Aramaic Mark, the Magdalene Gospel also contains this verse in its very simple form; the qualifying words "soon after" are lacking. This is just one of the hundreds of textual parallels between the ancient Aramaic gospels and the Magdalene Gospel.

To sum up, it looks like our standard canonical Greek version is quite corrupt in this passage. Various explanations may be found as to why an ecclesiastical Greek editor added up this /takhu/ there, but it unquestionably complicated the meaning of this verse.

So how can anyone say that the ancient Aramaic gospels depend on the Greek text? It's quite clear that they preserve the more original text of the Christian gospels. Unfortunately, hardly any of today's biblical professionals have even laid their eyes on them.

It sure looks like these folks are really in love with their false image of "Jesus the Greek". This is what I call the Big Aramaic Cover-up.

Happy New Year, everybody!

Yuri.

Geoff Hudson

Yuri, I am unnerved by the new format.

If the Aramaic was more original than the Greek, this does not preclude the possiblity that the Aramaic version was not edited in Aramaic. In fact, if the original was Aramaic, then it seems very likely to me that the first phases of editing would have been in that language by Aramaic speakers with vested interests in changes. This is my version of Mk.9.38-41. What do you make of the sentence "I will tell you the truth"?

Geoff

[] – Proposed editor’s changes.
{} – Proposed original text.

(38)"Teacher," said [John] {James}, "we saw a man driving out demons in [your name] {the Spirit} and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

(39)"Do not stop him," [Jesus] {John} said. "No-one who does a [miracle] {sign or good deed} in [my name] {the Spirit} can [in the next moment] say anything bad about [me] {the Spirit}, (40)for whoever is not against [us] {the Spirit} is for [us] {the Spirit}. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives [you] {someone} a cup of water in [my name] {the Spirit} because [you belong] {he belongs} to [Christ] {the Spirit} will certainly not lose his reward.

Notes:
v.(38) James was changed to John? Power was not in a “name”, but in the Spirit.
v.(39) and (40) John was changed to Jesus. The context is all important. It seems to be that of an individual who believes in and obeys the Spirit but is not in John’s group. If he does a good deed for someone (anyone) because the Spirit tells him, however small, such as giving a cup of water, he will be rewarded. The main question is not whether or not a person is for or against John’s group, but is a person for the Spirit? The phrase "in the next moment” is not critical to the text, but if it is removed, the text is timeless.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Geoff,

That's an interesting theory you have, but is there any actual evidence to back it up?

Happy New Year to you!

Yuri.

BTW, for anyone who might be interested, a sort of a discussion of my thesis has now started at the soc.history.ancient newsgroup in Usenet. My old pal Jeffrey B. Gibson is there, with his usual vituperations, equivocations, and irrelevancies. Here's a link to
soc.history.ancient in Google.

Geoff Hudson

Yuri,

This is probably basic for you.

Jack Kilmon appears to try to establish the meanings of Greek text of the gospels by looking at Aramaic equivalents. Perhaps he is also one who thinks that the Aramiac could be more original. Here are two of his posts to the Qumran Origins site on Yahoo. I have also seen some of his posts on Orion and Jesus Mysteries.

THE CONJUNCTION KAI (AND)

A LINE OF THE LORD’S PRAYER


I find the words “your name” = “shmak” possibly meaning “the vibrational energy that gave you life” very interesting, as “shmak” could then be equivalent, in function at least, to the Sprit of God. The line of the prayer would then read:

Our Father in heaven, holy is your Spirit.

Geoff

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Geoff,

My acquaintance with Jack Kilmon goes back quite a few years, and I'm well aware of his position on these things. In my view, he's quite confused. He talks big, but he never delivers.

Yes, he and a few others claim to be looking for the Aramaic equivalents of various Greek words and expressions. But this is like looking for a black cat in a giant black room without any light. Such efforts have been going on for more than 100 years, and so far no conclusive results.

Meanwhile, Jack Kilmon and his ilk stoutly refuse to consider the value of the _existing_ Semitic gospel texts! It sounds weird, but that's the truth!

For example, as I've learned recently, it seems like Kilmon doesn't know hardly anything about the Old Syriac Aramaic texts. Recently, he's made some pretty basic mistakes trying to translate even a few simple sentences, and then admitted his unfamiliarity with this dialect. And he has kept bad-mouthing the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for many years now, completely ignoring its massive links with the ancient Aramaic gospels.

So his faults are all very typical for mainstream NT scholarship (although he isn't a professional NT scholar himself). These guys just keep spouting a lot of preconceived ideas, while constantly demonstrating plenty of ignorance about this whole subject matter.

All these other things you mentioned in your post (such as THE CONJUNCTION KAI/AND) can all fall under the category of "maybes". So this is what these guys have been doing. Meanwhile, there are a lot of things that are plain and obvious that these guys wouldn't even consider.

Best regards,

Yuri.

Geoff Hudson

Yuri,

If as Jack Kilmon says, “Aramaic is a language that has several meanings for one word, as does Hebrew”, the possibilities of having differing translations are increased. If so, how does one arrive at a “correct” translation? Is context then an important factor in the translation?

Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew which would seem to indicate that this was the preferred language of the writers. Do you think there might have been a particular first century group or community who would have preferred Aramaic as a written language?

I understand that after the Hebrew scriptures were read in synagogues, they were translated orally into Aramaic.

Geoff

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

So far, the main point that I've been trying to make in this discussion is that the Aramaic text of Mk 9:39 is more original than the canonical Greek version. And I think this is quite self-evident, since there's so much textual support for this view.

But, of course, we can also go even beyond this, and ask, Was there a version of this saying of Jesus that was even earlier than the Aramaic version? And, in my view, the answer would be in the positive. Indeed, I think that the Magdalene Gospel preserves this text in its earliest shape.

So now, let us compare these three versions of Mk 9:39 side by side.

(Mk 9:39 Greek RSV) But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work (DUNAMIN) in my name will be able soon after (TAXU) to speak evil of me."

(Mk 9:39 Aramaic) But he says to them, "Do not forbid him; for there is no one who does something in my name, and can speak evil of me."

(MG 63:19) And Jesus commanded them that they should not hinder him. For no one, he said, who did miracles in his name will ever be able to speak ill of him.

So what we observe here is that, in the Magdalene Gospel's version of this saying, Jesus fully endorses the actions of this unaffiliated Exorcist. And this is very important, since this seems like an indication that this Magdalene text had been composed at the time when the movement was far less exclusivist, and more open to outsiders. It would only be logical that, later on, as the early Christian movement grew, and gradually became more institutionalised, there would have been more concern about the proper lines of authority -- about obedience to the bishops.

In the Aramaic version, on the other hand, the endorsement of the Strange Exorcist is somewhat less enthusiastic. What we observe is that the crucial word "ever", as found in the Magdalene Gospel, is missing in our extant Old Syriac MSS.

And, finally, in our canonical Greek version of this text, the endorsement of the Strange Exorcist by Jesus appears highly qualified. And so, this highly problematic word TAXU is added up. As a result, the meaning of the whole verse becomes rather obscure, and presents a problem for translators.

Thus, we can see that the meaning of the Magdalene Gospel's version of this verse is almost diametrically opposed to what we find in the Greek text, while the Aramaic version seems half-way between MG and the Greek.


"MIRACLES" OR "POWER"?

Now, we can also examine the first part of this saying of Jesus, because this will tend to confirm the above reasoning.

The Magdalene Gospel uses the word "miracles" there, which sounds very simple and natural, and entirely suitable to its context; Jesus fully endorses the "miracles" as performed by this unaffiliated Exorcist. And one can easily see how, in later times, this version would have raised eyebrows of Church leaders -- because of their concern about fighting various heresies of the second century and later, of which there were great many including the charismatic ones.

So, in light of the above, it appears like an editor of the Old Syriac version may have replaced the word "miracles" with a very tame and inoffensive word "something" (Aramaic /medem/).

On the other hand, the Greek version uses the expression DUNAMIS (singular), which might mean "a mighty work", or "a miracle", but most often means "power". The peculiarities here are, Why was this particular word used, and why was it used in the singular? Both features seem quite uncomfortable and strained. One can surmise that these features were likewise used as a way to cast some doubt on the possibility that any unaffiliated Exorcists could do anything good.

Thus, it seems like the word "miracles", as found in the Magdalene Gospel, is the most natural for its context, and fits very well with the second part of this saying, where Jesus fully endorses the actions of the Strange Exorcist.

So these are the main reasons that I see for the priority of the Magdalene version of this saying over all others.

And also, I have now discovered some further textual support for all this. This support comes from the Aramaic versions of Lk 9:49 (parallel to Mk 9:38). Now, it turns out that the Aramaic Luke MSS actually contain two additional close parallels with the Magdalene text! Both of them have already been noted by the famous biblical scholar Dr. Daniel Plooij (in his textual commentary to the Liege Diatessaron). These two textual parallels also have wide support in some other ancient MSS, including the Old Latin. I can supply more details later.

Thus, it looks like there's now even further evidence supporting the view that the Magdalene Gospel's version of this saying of Jesus goes back to the very early age of the Christian movement -- to the time when the movement seems to have been less exclusivist, more optimistic in spirit, and less concerned about "the proper lines of authority".

Part 3 of this article coming up soon.

Best regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Sure it's an important factor, Geoff. But this subject is too technical and too complex. Translation theory is not something that I would like to get into now. I suppose, in all such cases, the most important factor would be, Just how good is the translator who's doing the translating?

Quote:

Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew which would seem to indicate that this was the preferred language of the writers. Do you think there might have been a particular first century group or community who would have preferred Aramaic as a written language?

AFAIK, most 1c Palestinian inscriptions are in Aramaic.

Quote:

I understand that after the Hebrew scriptures were read in synagogues, they were translated orally into Aramaic. Geoff

This is possible, but hard to ascertain.

In general, the balance of Aramaic vs. Hebrew in 1c Palestine is a long standing bone of contention among scholars. But I think most agree that both Aramaic and Hebrew were spoken in 1c Palestine, although Aramaic probably more than Hebrew.

Regards,

Yuri.

Geoff Hudson

I am not sayiing that you are wrong about the timings of your particular texts, but I would postulate there were even earlier Aramaic texts that were rapidly destroyed once an "acceptable" version had been produced in keeping with the required doctrine.

If I regard Jesus (imo John) as an avant garde prophet in a 1c Jewish environment, then much of what the prophet did could be described as "signs" that were remarkable, not "miracles" - a word which is probably a later editorial gloss. Given the Jewish purity regulations, actions involving association with those generally considered unclean or impure could simply be regarded as signs. I find "sign" a much more natural one to use of a Jewish prophet, instead of "miracles". It occurs much more frequently in the OT than the word miracle.

Geoff

Yuri Kuchinsky

Sure, Geoff, I can go along with that.

Quote:

If I regard Jesus (imo John) as an avant garde prophet in a 1c Jewish environment, then much of what the prophet did could be described as "signs" that were remarkable, not "miracles" - a word which is probably a later editorial gloss. Given the Jewish purity regulations, actions involving association with those generally considered unclean or impure could simply be regarded as signs. I find "sign" a much more natural one to use of a Jewish prophet, instead of "miracles". It occurs much more frequently in the OT than the word miracle. Geoff

I will not comment on your theory that Jesus is John. It's a little too "far out there" for my taste.

As to "miracles" vs "signs", this question is really too difficult and complex to deal with now. I will just say that IMHO "miracles" was the most simple and natural early locution, and "signs" was a later literary embellishment based on the OT.

Just keep in mind that miracles seems to have been the biggest selling point of the early Christian missionaries. This was the word that the simple peasants could easily understand. Unlike "signs".

Regards,

Yuri.