10-21-2011, 10:54 AM
Hi,
It for 100% certainty means leper, not potter. There is no dictionary backup for the translation of 'potter' here.
( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searching/englishfull.html">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searching/englishfull.html</a><!-- m --> enter 'potter')
However, some say that it was mistaken by a Greek translator because of the 3 root letters without vocalisation, which also could mean potter. (And the same mistake would ahve been made when they added vocalisation on the Estrangelo script of the NT).
Again, no dictionary supports this. I have no objection against reinterpreting the meaning, however, it is at least honest to display this in the translation using a footnote, that iti is an interpolation of the translator, to make it 'potter'.
There is a 'potter' (the field of the potter) in the Bible, for which a quite diffent aramaic word is used.
In addition, some have said that a leper could not live in his own house. It was against the law. And that it was illegal to call somebody a 'leper' who would be declared healed according to law.
It is not written however, that the leper Simon was in the house, at that moment. So, it is not breaking the OT-law per-se.
It for 100% certainty means leper, not potter. There is no dictionary backup for the translation of 'potter' here.
( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searching/englishfull.html">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searching/englishfull.html</a><!-- m --> enter 'potter')
However, some say that it was mistaken by a Greek translator because of the 3 root letters without vocalisation, which also could mean potter. (And the same mistake would ahve been made when they added vocalisation on the Estrangelo script of the NT).
Again, no dictionary supports this. I have no objection against reinterpreting the meaning, however, it is at least honest to display this in the translation using a footnote, that iti is an interpolation of the translator, to make it 'potter'.
There is a 'potter' (the field of the potter) in the Bible, for which a quite diffent aramaic word is used.
In addition, some have said that a leper could not live in his own house. It was against the law. And that it was illegal to call somebody a 'leper' who would be declared healed according to law.
It is not written however, that the leper Simon was in the house, at that moment. So, it is not breaking the OT-law per-se.