Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The Aramaic command survives in several spellings, especially “cumi” and “cum.” The received feminine form suits the girl addressed, while both forms could sound alike in later pronunciation.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Talitha cumi” (ταλιθὰ, κοῦμι), preserving the feminine imperative reflected by the Authorized Version.
Authorized Version
“Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” — Mark 5:41
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
“Talitha cum” (ταλιθα κουμ), with corruptions such as Tabitha caused by memory of Acts 9:40.
Translation or explanation
“Talitha cum” (ταλιθα κουμ), with corruptions such as Tabitha caused by memory of Acts 9:40.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation, the likelihood that the competing form is a scribal correction or emendation. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Mark 5:41
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony
Exact proposition affected
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
Mark does not leave readers to derive doctrine from two Aramaic words. The Tabitha readings show how easily a familiar resurrection name could intrude.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 5:41, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. The Textus Receptus has koumi; many critical witnesses have koum. Here textual criticism serves a modest purpose: preserving the sound Mark chose to remember while letting his own translation govern the meaning.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 5:41 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: Mark does not leave readers to derive doctrine from two Aramaic words. The Tabitha readings show how easily a familiar resurrection name could intrude.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Passage: Mark 5:41 Received reading: “Talitha cumi” (ταλιθὰ, κοῦμι), preserving the feminine imperative reflected by the Authorized Version. The Textus Receptus has koumi; many critical witnesses have koum. Retaining Talitha cumi respects the gendered form received by the Greek church and the exact cadence inherited by the Authorized Version.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A copyist who knew a pronunciation without the final vowel could shorten it; another might conform the expression to a commonly recognized imperative. The reverse addition is possible, but it requires no less grammatical awareness.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus has koumi; many critical witnesses have koum. Retaining Talitha cumi respects the gendered form received by the Greek church and the exact cadence inherited by the Authorized Version.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 5:41. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. The Textus Receptus has koumi; many critical witnesses have koum. Here textual criticism serves a modest purpose: preserving the sound Mark chose to remember while letting his own translation govern the meaning.
Conclusion
Mark’s decision to preserve Semitic speech at moments of intimacy is itself a literary feature. The Gospel likewise records Ephphatha and the cry Eloi, Eloi. In each case an interpretation follows. The pattern suggests remembered sound joined to inspired explanation, not secret sacred syllables. It also means spelling variants should be catalogued without allowing phonetic uncertainty to obscure the stable translated command.
Retaining Talitha cumi respects the gendered form received by the Greek church and the exact cadence inherited by the Authorized Version. The shorter pronunciation remains historically plausible and does not change the miracle. Here textual criticism serves a modest purpose: preserving the sound Mark chose to remember while letting his own translation govern the meaning.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Mark 5:41, the received text reads “Talitha cumi” (ταλιθὰ, κοῦμι), preserving the feminine imperative reflected by the Authorized Version.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” — Mark 5:41”. The assessed critical reading is “Talitha cum” (ταλιθα κουμ), with corruptions such as Tabitha caused by memory of Acts 9:40.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 5:41, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Talitha cumi” (ταλιθὰ, κοῦμι), preserving the feminine imperative reflected by the Authorized Version.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” — Mark 5:41”. The assessed critical form is “Talitha cum” (ταλιθα κουμ), with corruptions such as Tabitha caused by memory of Acts 9:40.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Mark 5:41, the received text reads “Talitha cumi” (ταλιθὰ, κοῦμι), preserving the feminine imperative reflected by the Authorized Version.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” — Mark 5:41”. The assessed critical reading is “Talitha cum” (ταλιθα κουμ), with corruptions such as Tabitha caused by memory of Acts 9:40.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- Digital ECM — Mark 5:41Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 5:41
Received reading: “Talitha cumi” (ταλιθὰ, κοῦμι), preserving the feminine imperative reflected by the Authorized Version.
Principal competing reading: “Talitha cum” (ταλιθα κουμ), with corruptions such as Tabitha caused by memory of Acts 9:40.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” — Mark 5:41
Mark preserves Jesus’ words to Jairus’s daughter in Aramaic and then translates them: “Talitha cumi … Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” The principal variation concerns the last sound. The Textus Receptus has koumi; many critical witnesses have koum. Other copies confuse talitha with Tabitha, the woman Peter raises in Acts 9.
The difference is small enough to vanish in speech. Aramaic dialect and pronunciation could reduce the final vowel of the feminine imperative, while a masculine imperative might also be used without strict reference to sex. Both forms were therefore intelligible to transmitters.
A remembered voice, then an interpretation
The scene’s bilingual shape matters. Mark does not leave readers to derive doctrine from two Aramaic words. He supplies the Greek sense. Every form commands the child to rise, and every form is followed by her immediate response.
The received cumi has grammatical fitness. Jesus is speaking to a girl, and the feminine ending marks that address. A copyist who knew a pronunciation without the final vowel could shorten it; another might conform the expression to a commonly recognized imperative. The reverse addition is possible, but it requires no less grammatical awareness.
“I say unto thee” is part of Mark’s inspired interpretation even though it is not a separate word-for-word item in the Aramaic phrase. Translation often makes an implied relation explicit. Christ is not reciting a charm. His personal command distinguishes his act from magical formulas and from a general wish that life return.
The Tabitha readings show how easily a familiar resurrection name could intrude. Acts 9:40 has Peter say, “Tabitha, arise.” That later echo resembles Mark closely because Peter’s act follows his Lord’s pattern. It should not be allowed to rewrite the earlier scene.
Mark’s decision to preserve Semitic speech at moments of intimacy is itself a literary feature. The Gospel likewise records Ephphatha and the cry Eloi, Eloi. In each case an interpretation follows. The pattern suggests remembered sound joined to inspired explanation, not secret sacred syllables. It also means spelling variants should be catalogued without allowing phonetic uncertainty to obscure the stable translated command.
Retaining Talitha cumi respects the gendered form received by the Greek church and the exact cadence inherited by the Authorized Version. The shorter pronunciation remains historically plausible and does not change the miracle. Here textual criticism serves a modest purpose: preserving the sound Mark chose to remember while letting his own translation govern the meaning.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- Mark 5:35–43; Acts 9:36–42.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2016
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This staging record summarizes the principal variation unit and representative evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, or patristic citation.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Mark 5:41 — Talitha Cumi: The Aramaic Command and Its Greek Transmission,” VAR-2016, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas