Simon the Potter / the leper a hoax?

[Stephen Silver]

Hi All,

What about the "Simun the potter" translation? (Matthew 26:6)
Because if we translate 'potter' the obvious reply by critics would be: "If he were a potter, the Aramaic would have been
"phry (pahhar) "

(of clay).

However, the consonants are GRBA (without vowels). GARBA would be a jar, not a pot of clay.
So would GARBA not be a jar-merchant? (which is quite different to a potter)

According to G.G. Bauscher

* ?Garba? can mean ?Leper? or ?Pot?. It can also
mean, ?One who makes pots?, even as ?Bsama? in
the next verse can mean ?Ointment? or ?Maker of
ointment?. I am grateful for Paul Younan pointing this
out in his interlinear of Matthew. There can be no
doubt that Shimeon was not a leper with The
Messiah in his house as a dinner guest. This is
probably another case where the Greek translator
misconstrued the Aramaic original. All Greek texts
have ?Leprou?, from ?Lepros?- ?A Leper?.

Now this explanation should be covered by dictionaries, not? Please who has more clafification on this?

Shlama:
The materials available to make a clay vessel were the same for a pot, or a jar. Glass was in it's infancy and the common ways to hold liquids were fired clay or hollowed out stone-ware. So, GRBA, can mean "leper" but in this passage, contextually Shimon, being a Jew and Torah observant was a clay or stone vessel-maker. A leper was not allowed to enter into the House of the LORD but stayed in a colony outside of any holy district.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->