Peshitta Forum

Hi Paul thank you so much for the info.

I have asked this information before but nobody replied to the question. In addition, as far as I could research including my syrian friend who can read the Peshitta, could not find a backup for 'garaba' and the book 'Was the NT really written in Greek' (Raphael Lataster) had it as 'garibo'.

I am glad I make this as a big subject. What did the Bereans do? I want to make sure that my translation does not contain uncertain claims.

Regards

distazo Wrote:Hi Paul thank you so much for the info.

I have asked this information before but nobody replied to the question. In addition, as far as I could research including my syrian friend who can read the Peshitta, could not find a backup for 'garaba' and the book 'Was the NT really written in Greek' (Raphael Lataster) had it as 'garibo'.

I am glad I make this as a big subject. What did the Bereans do? I want to make sure that my translation does not contain uncertain claims.

Regards

Honestly, it could go either way. This was a major issue before vowel points were invented. I can't rule out "leper", either, grammatically either one works fine.

Yet, while both can work, it's the translators job to decide which one makes more sense. The Greek translator decided "leper" made more sense, apparently unaware of the implication of a bunch of people having dinner at a leper's home. Shimon may have been cured of his leprosy, perhaps even by Meshikha, but we have no record of that. And besides, why would his nickname continue that stigma ?

Add in the factor of the lady with the alabaster jar of fine perfume/incense, and you wonder whether or not the proper way to look at Shimon is that he was associated somehow with fancy vessels, perhaps as his job.

Very important, Akhi, notice that this was part of his name. "Shimon Garaba", like "Shimon Keepa". The text does not say, "Shimon, who was a leper", it literally implies that is how he was known, almost as if it's a surname. This is very indicative of how it should be translated.

+Shamasha

Shlama,


there's some additional evidences, i believe, that point to the "jar-maker / vessel-maker" choice of rendering by way of allusion and word-play:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2427">viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2427</a><!-- l -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


there's some additional evidences, i believe, that point to the "jar-maker / vessel-maker" choice of rendering by way of allusion and word-play:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2427">viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2427</a><!-- l -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

That is a beautiful analysis, thanks for sharing that Jeremy!

+Shamasha

Shamsha,

What word is used to signify the alabaster jar? Is it the same word used to describe Simon?

Alan G77 Wrote:Shamsha,

What word is used to signify the alabaster jar? Is it the same word used to describe Simon?

Hi Alan,

That word is "ShTeptha", an expensive vase made from alabaster (typically for ointment).

+Shamasha

distazo Wrote:Again, no dictionary supports this.

Not true. See Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Talmud Babli and Yershalmi and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Title Publishing, 1943 (last two entries on page 263). This indicates that while garba can mean "itchy skin condition" it can also mean "bottle" or "keg." A 1st Century bottle would not be glass, as now, but more likely clay, and thus fashioned by a potter or jar-maker.

Why the rendering "leper" cannot be correct:
1. Leprosy (Hansen's Disease) did not exist in the Ancient Near East in the 1st Century. The Hebrew word usually mistranslated as "leprosy" is tzara'at, a physical manifestation of a spiritual (sin) condition... but that cannot be in view here either (viz. points 2 & 3). A person so afflicted is called in Hebrew a m'tzora, and the Aramaic equivalent is garba.
2. Matthew 26:6 tells us that Yeshua was in the city of Beit-Anyah (Bethany). We know from Torah that the protocol for a person afflicted with tzara'at stipulates that "he must live outside the camp" (Leviticus 13:46) and, thus, Simon would certainly not be able to remain in the city with that condition.
3. Matthew 26:6 also indicates that Yeshua met Simon "at the home of Simon" - another impossibility. Torah dictates that a person afflicted with tzara'at (garba in Aramaic) cannot reside inside his own home even after being declared clean and being permitted to return to the camp until after being clean for 7 consecutive days (Leviticus 14:8). If Simon had tzara'at, he could not have been at his home. A potter (garaba in Aramaic), however, would be under no such restriction.

Hi,

Thank you for your info.

Point 3 is slightly incorrect. Matthew 26:6 does not say that Yeshua met Simon, but it says that Yeshua was in the house of Simon. That makes a big difference. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
If Simon kept the Thora, he would not be in the house, so, it is not impossible that family or relatives could have received Yeshua in that house.

I also have a question: How do you know that Leprosy did not exist in the 1st century?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy</a><!-- m -->

distazo Wrote:Point 3 is slightly incorrect. Matthew 26:6 does not say that Yeshua met Simon, but it says that Yeshua was in the house of Simon. That makes a big difference. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
If Simon kept the Thora, he would not be in the house, so, it is not impossible that family or relatives could have received Yeshua in that house.

Simon absolutely was there. In the parallel account given by Luke (7:36-50), Yeshua addresses Simon in the vocative. There is no reason to infer that Yeshua was addressing him in absentia. Of course, there is no problem with him being there, since he did not have tzara'at or leprosy or anything else that would have prohibited his presence.

distazo Wrote:I also have a question: How do you know that Leprosy did not exist in the 1st century?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy</a><!-- m -->

The Greeks had two different words for these skin afflictions: lepra (a common Greek adjective meaning "rough, scaly" or even as indicating a wanted felon) was used for tzara'at, and elephantiasis was used for Hanson's Disease leprosy.[1, 2] The translators of the KJV crossed the two and left us with 400 years of false teaching. The two are widely recognized by sources far more authoritative than wikipedia as being unrelated conditions, including the leading scholarly lexical works. Holladay gives the gloss "skin disease (not leprosy, leucodermia & related diseases) 2K 5:3; similar appearance on garment Lv 13:47, leather 14:55, wall 14:44."[3]

There are significant differences between tzara'at and leprosy both in terms of symptoms and of treatment protocols.[4] Rabbi Bernie Fox observes, "Leprosy should be treated on a medical basis. Tzara?at can only be alleviated through the repentance of the afflicted individual."[5] Leprosy is a disease that affects humans, but tzara'at can afflict linens (Leviticus 13:47) and even the walls of a home (Leviticus 14:44).

The treatment for tzara'at is to go to a cohen (Levite or priest) and repent of your sins, while leprosy would be cared for by a physician.[2] Leviticus 14 describes three offerings required of the m'tzora (a person with tzara'at): a sin offering when afflicted (vv. 3-8), a guilt offering (vv. 10-12a), and finally a a thanksgiving/wave offering after being cleansed (v. 12b). These offerings serve to remove the affliction of tzara'at. Tzara'at is much closer in appearance, according to Scripture, to vitiligo than to leprosy, except that tzara'at differs from both in involving "basar chai" (living flesh).[6]

---
[1] Bauer, Danker, Arndt, & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd Edition; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 592.
[2] <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Cohen_Tzaraat.htm">www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Cohen_Tzaraat.htm</a><!-- w -->
[3] Holladay Consice Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (p. 310); other reliable sources include Complete Jewish Bible glossary, p. 1597; Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; et al.
[4] <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~gdb0/simcha/tzaraat.htm">http://www.lehigh.edu/~gdb0/simcha/tzaraat.htm</a><!-- m -->
[5] <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ou.org/torah/article/the_implications_of_stinginess">www.ou.org/torah/article/the_implications_of_stinginess</a><!-- w -->
[6] <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://penei.org/concepts-leprosy.shtml">http://penei.org/concepts-leprosy.shtml</a><!-- m -->

Well,

The Peshitt(a)/(o) is not 'The Greeks' and it uses 'garba' which simply means 'a leper'. The KJV should not be included here, when we talk about the Peshitto/Peshitta, I guess, don't you agree?
In addition, when Jesus healed them, he said e.g. this in Matthew 8:4 'go and show yourself to the priest, as Mushe has commanded'...

Also Matthew 20:30 shows that the sick men, where having leprosy, they were keeping distance as was in the command.

So, the argumentation, that Leprosy was not there, does not seem very strong to me.

Secondly, that Luke 7 would be a parralel is not strong either.
a LOT of people were named Simon. This is Simon the Pharisee, and it is probably in the city Nain from Galilea, not in Judea, in the city Beth-Anya where Simon the 'leper' lived.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblehub.com/luke/7-37.htm">http://biblehub.com/luke/7-37.htm</a><!-- m -->

Distazo:

I already covered the difference between Hansen's Disease (leprosy) and tzara'at, and no modern scholar of merit equates the two. An unqualified assertion of "not strong" does not tenably counter the scholarly testimonies I and others in this thread have provided, neither does an assertion reliant solely upon a "source" universally attested to be unreliable and non-authoritative (Wikipedia).

distazo Wrote:Secondly, that Luke 7 would be a parralel is not strong either.
a LOT of people were named Simon. This is Simon the Pharisee, and it is probably in the city Nain from Galilea, not in Judea, in the city Beth-Anya where Simon the 'leper' lived.

Re: the pronouncement quoted above, it is well and long established that Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 7:36-50, and John 12:1-8 all report the same event, as presented in Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels with Alternative Readings from the Manuscripts and Noncanonical Parallels (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992), Sections 83 & 232; agreeing with the synopses of Albert Huck (1892) and Hans Lietzmann (1936). There is no indication that Luke's account of Yeshua's anointing is a different occasion in a different place. John makes it clear that the location is Beit-Anya/Bethany (John 12:1), all four accounts of the event agree on the woman bringing an alabaster container of nard (Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:37; John 12:3), and Luke agrees with John 12 on the details of the anointing (Luke 7:38 || John 12:3). John 12:1-8 is listed as paralleling Matthew 26:6-13 not only in Throckmorton, Huck, and Lietzmann, but also in Thomas & Gundry, Dwight Pentecost, A. T. Robertson, Harold Hoehner, etc. Thus, John and Luke being parallel, and John being universally recognized as parallel to Matthew and Mark; it follows that all four testimonies recount the same event.

Dear professor,

I think a child can see these stories have some things in common, but they are not parallels and you don't need to quote those 'authoritative sources', as it simply does not convince at all.
I already told that Simon was not a unique name; maybe 10% of men in Israel were named Simon!
Both stories are at a different place, in Judea and Galilea and in a different chronological setting.
One woman anoints his head, the other his feet.
Maybe you are trying to convince that Luke was a bad historian? Of course not.

If the synoptic gospels lots share a story, they differ just in a few words different or left out sentences, but -not- like this. So, this pattern should be expected here, but is not appliable.

So, I just disagree with you and I leave it with that.

What's your real interest with the Peshitta anyway?

distazo Wrote:Dear [..]
Both stories are at a different place, in Judea and Galilea and in a different chronological setting.
[..]

I think the story in Luke is the same event as described with more detail by John .. would you like to explain why you think it was in Galilea and that the chronological setting is different ?

Jerzy

enarxe Wrote:

distazo Wrote:Dear [..]
Both stories are at a different place, in Judea and Galilea and in a different chronological setting.
[..]

I think the story in Luke is the same event as described with more detail by John .. would you like to explain why you think it was in Galilea and that the chronological setting is different ?

Jerzy

These are two events. The one, 6 days before YEshu was crusified is in
Matthew 26:6-13
Mark 13:3-9
and John 12:1-8. THis is all in Yihud (Judea)

But Luke 7:36-50 is not 6 days before his death. Consider this,

1) Luke wrote in chronological order
2) The setting is in vs 1 Yeshu went to Kpar-Nachum. This is in Glalil (Galilea)
Vs 11 to a city named Nain
Vs 36 he visited a seperatist, named Shimeun. This was _not_ Shimeun the leper, this was a different person.
Remember, maybe 10% of the Jewish man were named Shime-un. This is not quite suprising.

I wonder how you see that these events are the same <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

"1) Luke wrote in chronological order"

This is your assumption. "Orderly account" does not necessarily mean chronological. There are counterexamples to this assumption in Luke's story (John baptizing Jesus after being imprisoned?). Luke's style (which I really love) in his Gospel is at places "train of thought" or theme rather than chronology. The text does not force chronology in this part of chapter 7, rather an insertion story related to the predeceeding sentences (my view of course, I'm not trying to force it on you, and I will not say "how can you not see it").

Both versions (Luke's feast being the same or a separate account of anointing) are possible (no contradiction), the version that it is the same account is simpler.

Yes, I have read your earlier statement about Shimun being a popular name, before writing what I think. Stating it twice or "reminding" does not make it a stronger argument.

With peace,
Jerzy