08-31-2011, 05:58 AM
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
Now this explanation should be covered by dictionaries, not? Please who has more clafification on this?
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
Quote:* ?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?