02-08-2013, 07:52 PM
Akhan rmanlow,
Not only is Mr. Young's assessment of "Talitha" correct, but also consider the verb "qum(-i)". The feminine singular imperative "-i" is suppressed in speech in Aramaic ("qum" instead of "qumi"), but not in Hebrew (Classical or Mishnaic. See Jeremiah 46:16, Psalm 7:6, for the Hebrew of the imperative form of "qum.")
That's why the earliest Greek manuscripts have simply "qum" in Mark 5:46, but later manuscripts have the fully spelled out "qum-i". The later scribes wanted to be accurate with the transliteration, not the vocalization.
This phrase can only be Aramaic, not any kind of Hebrew (classical or Mishnaic.) Because of the Aramaic Emphatic (definitive) form for "Talitha", and because of the state of the imperative verb "qum(i)" (and evidence for vocalization.)
+Shamasha
Not only is Mr. Young's assessment of "Talitha" correct, but also consider the verb "qum(-i)". The feminine singular imperative "-i" is suppressed in speech in Aramaic ("qum" instead of "qumi"), but not in Hebrew (Classical or Mishnaic. See Jeremiah 46:16, Psalm 7:6, for the Hebrew of the imperative form of "qum.")
That's why the earliest Greek manuscripts have simply "qum" in Mark 5:46, but later manuscripts have the fully spelled out "qum-i". The later scribes wanted to be accurate with the transliteration, not the vocalization.
This phrase can only be Aramaic, not any kind of Hebrew (classical or Mishnaic.) Because of the Aramaic Emphatic (definitive) form for "Talitha", and because of the state of the imperative verb "qum(i)" (and evidence for vocalization.)
+Shamasha