Leper or jar maker?

Jul 1, 2009
676
40
Sydney
✟16,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Liberals
Hi guys,

In Matthew 26 we find a situation that is difficult to explain, Jesus and others apparently sit with a leper named Simon. We all know that this could not be as a leper did not live inside the city but was to dwell outside whilst his/her skin was infected as the Torah law commanded.

In the Aramaic the word for leper is Garba and the word for jar maker or potter or clay maker is garaba. So the Pesh itta text reads Simon the jar maker or potter and this makes sense as he was anointed with a costly jar of perfume in the same verse. Seems as though the translator got it wrong.

Let's discuss!
 
Jul 1, 2009
676
40
Sydney
✟16,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Liberals
Perhaps he was the leper who was cleansed in Matthew 8:2 and that is why they refer to him as "the leper".

I thought that also but I read that it was not acceptable to call someone am leper if they were cleansed (need to find the reference).

I do not believe that the word was leper because it is too close to the word jar maker and could easily have been mistranslated by the Greek scribe.
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Simon the potter would fit in nicely with the circumstantial evidence, that of the alabaster jar. Of course the flipside of the argument would be perplexing how such an error could be made since jar and potter is used in the same sentence. If the same word is used twice in the verse (and the word potter is used and translated correctly elsewhere), then the argument is weakened. How could the scribe make such an obvious error?

Other arguments that can be made is even though the house belongs to Simon the Leper he does not reside there. Its customary to attribute the house to the man even if he was absent, the story evolves around the woman. Also leprosy was a name given to other illnesses as well. In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the beggar had skin lesions sounds like leprosy but in the context that the beggar had contact with a rich noble its highly unlikely.

Another argument is that the Father Pappias says the sayings of Christ were written in hebrew by Matthew then translated. In hebrew the word potter and leper are different.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 1, 2009
676
40
Sydney
✟16,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Liberals
Buz, have a read of this.


Shlama,

A while back I was doing some investigation concerning the anointing of Yeshuwa, as He is the "Anointed One," and the only place where He is literally anointed in Scripture is recorded in the following four accounts:

Matthew 26:6-7
Mark 14:3
Luke 7:37-38
John 12:3

These are all parallel accounts of when He was anointed with nard in the house of Shemuwn the potter while reclining. This seems to be a very literal fulfillment of a passage from Shir HaShirim (The Song of Songs), which reads:

1:12
While the king is at his table, my nard gives its fragrance.

the events are exactly parallel, and interestingly, the Peshitta AN"K translation of the above verse contains six words, and the accounts in the previous four passages use 3 of those exact same terms the Peshitta AN"K uses. This should alert the reader that something is going on here.

at any rate, i want to focus on one of the above NT passages, as it seems to contain some further interesting material:

Mark 14:3
And when He was in Beyth-Anya, in the house of Shemuwn the potter, while he reclined, a woman came, concerning which there was a tapered container of perfume of choice nard, of a great price, and she opened it and poured it upon the head of Yeshuwa.

the Peshitta preserves some interesting aspects worth mentioning:

1). This specific passage doesn't mention it, but we know that He was in the house of a Preeysha (Pharisee = "Separated One/Distinct One") So this is the house where Yeshuwa would be "separated/distinct" from everyone else -- His anointing.

2). The Pharisee's name is SHEMUWN (Simon = Hear), which is interesting, because a word for "oil" in Hebrew/Aramaic is SHEMEN. The reader is being called to "hear" what the text is telling us about His "oil" of anointing.

3). Shemuwn the man is called in the Peshitta GRABA, a "potter." This seems to be a sonic allusion to the oil / pot-container aspect. Furthermore, this particular reading reconciles a legal difficulty that is present in the Greek text, since the Greek texts call Shemuwn a "leper," and according to B'midbar (Numbers) 5:2-3, a leper is not allowed to live inside the camp. Legally, he must relocate outside the city walls. Therefore, Shemuwn, according to the Greek text, is a Pharisee in blatant violation of the Law, and Yeshuwa not only has no issue with this, but also doesn't ever offer to heal him...so what's going on in the Greek? The Aramaic reconciles the problem in the Greek if we read the term as GRABA = "potter" instead of GARBA = "leper." The same letters exist, just the pronunciation is different, and it becomes apparent very quickly that a misunderstanding took place during translation into Greek for the "potter" to become the "leper." This understanding also makes sense that Maryam has a pottery vessel of perfume in the house of a potter.

3). The Peshitta preserves a very clever wordplay by the author, as well. Maryam uses only the "choice" nard, which is, in Aramaic, REESHAYA, and proceeds to anoint His "head," being REESHEH. So the effect is such that Maryam takes "nard of the head" and anoints His "head." OR, one could go the other route, and say that Maryam takes "the best nard" and anoints the "Best" one there! In contrast, the Greek terms are polytelous = choice, and kephales = head. there is no wordplay occurring the Greek, but the Peshitta preserves a succinct reading that is loaded with further depth of meaning.

It is interesting that a passage concerning the anointing of the Messiah would yield these gems of value!
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,407
5,026
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟435,270.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hi guys,

In Matthew 26 we find a situation that is difficult to explain, Jesus and others apparently sit with a leper named Simon. We all know that this could not be as a leper did not live inside the city but was to dwell outside whilst his/her skin was infected as the Torah law commanded.

In the Aramaic the word for leper is Garba and the word for jar maker or potter or clay maker is garaba. So the Pesh itta text reads Simon the jar maker or potter and this makes sense as he was anointed with a costly jar of perfume in the same verse. Seems as though the translator got it wrong.

Let's discuss!
Hi CW,
I am a major foreign language and culture guy around here and I can tell you that there could be a hundred things you don't know about the text that could justify the translation. There could be circumstances the writer doesn't write about - or that were lost - that would explain how what you think couldn't be actually could be.

That's why we rely on Holy Tradition to clarify things for us and preserve the important teachings, and why we don't go on text alone with our own wisdom.

Unless you're in an Orthodox seminary it's dangerous business trying to analyze Scripture and come up witth your own ideas - on second thought, it's dangerous even then.

I think knowledge of ancient Hebrew is great, but if you're not running your reading by Tradition, you could go off in any direction at all - and a great many people have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua G.
Upvote 0
Jul 1, 2009
676
40
Sydney
✟16,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Liberals
Hi CW,
I am a major foreign language and culture guy around here and I can tell you that there could be a hundred things you don't know about the text that could justify the translation. There could be circumstances the writer doesn't write about - or that were lost - that would explain how what you think couldn't be actually could be.

That's why we rely on Holy Tradition to clarify things for us and preserve the important teachings, and why we don't go on text alone with our own wisdom.

Unless you're in an Orthodox seminary it's dangerous business trying to analyze Scripture and come up witth your own ideas - on second thought, it's dangerous even then.

I think knowledge of ancient Hebrew is great, but if you're not running your reading by Tradition, you could go off in any direction at all - and a great many people have.

Hi dear brother,

I one thousand percent agree with you and it has been the Assyrian churches interpretation of the verse I have referred to for 1900 years. Although we are condemned according to the council of Ephesus, our teachings and forefathers are almost identical to the EO.

We aren't Protestant brother, our view of scripture is exactly the same as yours with exception to the Pesh itta which we affirm was the original and not the Greek.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,407
5,026
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟435,270.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hi dear brother,

I one thousand percent agree with you and it has been the Assyrian churches interpretation of the verse I have referred to for 1900 years. Although we are condemned according to the council of Ephesus, our teachings and forefathers are almost identical to the EO.

We aren't Protestant brother, our view of scripture is exactly the same as yours with exception to the Pesh itta which we affirm was the original and not the Greek.

OK. But that would make your versions irrelevant to us. Since we DO affirm the Greek texts, that makes texts like the Pesh Itta irrelevant. There's nothing for us to discuss. Might as well ask us to take the Gospel of Judas seriously. Ancient texts that were rejected were rejected for good reasons. We can't discuss things on equal terms. If you want a debate you can offer it in St Justin's, our sub-forum for disagreements.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 1, 2009
676
40
Sydney
✟16,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Liberals
OK. But that would make your versions irrelevant to us. Since we DO affirm the Greek texts, that makes texts like the Pesh Itta irrelevant. There's nothing for us to discuss. Might as well ask us to take the Gospel of Judas seriously. Ancient texts that were rejected were rejected for good reasons. We can't discuss things on equal terms. If you want a debate you can offer it in St Justin's, our sub-forum for disagreements.

You seem to have completely missed the point i am trying to make. I was discussing with you guys a disputable passage that has caused muslims, jews and atheists to ask questions, I was not trying to persuade you to believe Aramaic Primacy.

To label the Peshi tta as irrelevant is a misguided and ignorant statement, and to compare it to the Gospel of Judas is lunacy. The Orthdox study Bible (which I use) is a New King James version based on greek texts but is not translated accurately, so according to your logic it too, should be deemed irrelevant. The Peshi tta at best is the original gospel and at worst it is a translation from the Holy greek text used to disciple nations, how then is it an irrelevant piece of text? Did Mar Aprem Raba (St Ephraim) and Mar Isaac (both ACOE Saints) not use the Holy Pesh itta?

I often come here and talk to these guys, should you not wish to participate on this thread then don't, I know it is an EO forum but it is also public and I am sure that I would be welcomed here by many of my EO brethren.

In Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,407
5,026
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟435,270.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You seem to have completely missed the point i am trying to make. I was discussing with you guys a disputable passage that has caused muslims, jews and atheists to ask questions, I was not trying to persuade you to believe Aramaic Primacy.

To label the Peshi tta as irrelevant is a misguided and ignorant statement, and to compare it to the Gospel of Judas is lunacy. The Orthdox study Bible (which I use) is a New King James version based on greek texts but is not translated accurately, so according to your logic it too, should be deemed irrelevant. The Peshi tta at best is the original gospel and at worst it is a translation from the Holy greek text used to disciple nations, how then is it an irrelevant piece of text? Did Mar Aprem Raba (St Ephraim) and Mar Isaac (both ACOE Saints) not use the Holy Pesh itta?

I often come here and talk to these guys, should you not wish to participate on this thread then don't, I know it is an EO forum but it is also public and I am sure that I would be welcomed here by many of my EO brethren.

In Christ.

Hi CW,
This particular sub-forum (TAW) is public in the sense that the public is welcome to come and learn about Eastern Orthodoxy, in the same manner that they are welcome to come to an Orthodox Church and learn about the faith there. In the main forum you can ask about Orthodox points of view on any subject under the sun; you can explore the faith itself in depth in our St Basil's sub-forum, or you can challenge it in St Justin's. This is not a place where anybody can talk about whatever they want on their own terms. The terms here are those of Eastern Orthodoxy; thus, St Justin's is the only place you can fairly defend your own views.

What we don't want is discussions of non-Eastern Orthodox understandings with non-EO defending them - essentially debate, which belongs in St Justin's - in the main sub-forum of TAW.

Now the fact with the Peshitta is that EO does NOT recognize it as the definitive text which we draw our understandings of Scripture from. Like it or not, it is outside the EO, and so you're basically asking us to discuss truth from non-EO premises which we don't accept in the first place.

We are aware of the problems with translations, and so do not rely on one translation alone, not even the NKJV.

Although we are condemned according to the council of Ephesus, our teachings and forefathers are almost identical to the EO.

This cannot be true. If your Church really only accepts the first 2 Ecumenical Councils, and is essentially Nestorian, then the theology must be vary enormously. The ancients understood that correct understanding - Orthodoxy depended on getting the theology right; thus we must return to those ancient struggles in which the tradition you embrace was rejected, and see why it was rejected. We can do that, but it has to be in St Justin's. Not here.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 1, 2009
676
40
Sydney
✟16,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Liberals
And again ill try to explain to you that I am not here to discuss theology and theological differences. I don't know what you are reading from my post but obviously you are having difficulty comprehending my point.

It's also obvious that you don't understand ACOE doctrine but that is not something I wish to discuss.

I'm not arguing but rather we are adults discussing the Christian faith in the peace of the Spirit, so I won't reply to your posts unless it has to do with Matthew 26 and its reading regarding a leper.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,407
5,026
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟435,270.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And again ill try to explain to you that I am not here to discuss theology and theological differences. I don't know what you are reading from my post but obviously you are having difficulty comprehending my point.

It's also obvious that you don't understand ACOE doctrine but that is not something I wish to discuss.

I'm not arguing but rather we are adults discussing the Christian faith in the peace of the Spirit, so I won't reply to your posts unless it has to do with Matthew 26 and its reading regarding a leper.

Said the guest to his hosts.

The Christian faith is Orthodox.

We don't hold your text as authoritative for us.
You are definitely here to discuss theology and theological differences, and you have something that you think proves the truth of the Peshitta text over the truth of the Orthodox Church.

You are mistaken in thinking this a forum for anyone to talk about anything at all. This is not GT and won't be, at least as long as I'm here. If I understand correctly, you are Nestorian, and here you can ask us about Orthodox teachings of the passages without reference to your own texts, but you can't tell us we have to read your text and accept your understandings, since we don't recognize the authority by which you do it.

Please forgive any seeming offense; none is intended. But you ARE coming onto an Orthodox forum and then insisting on texts and interpretations which are not Orthodox. Let's talk about where we differ before we assume that we do not and try to discuss anything together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tapi
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums