Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Potter in MT 26 A translation mistake
#1
Hi,

could the translation potter in Mt 26:6 ("Shimon the potter") be a translation mistake?

I cannot read aramaic, but when I search for "potter" the database doesn't display Mt 26, but when I enter "leper" than I get the expected result.
Reply
#2
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.
Reply
#3
So if it aint potter it means that the Peshitta changed the original term leper to potter or the description for a person who was a potter is being used in this verse.

I would like to hear Shamasha Paul's view on this verse.
Reply
#4
You're not alone. I would like this sorted out authoritatively, as well.
Reply
#5
The difference between leper and leprosy is between a qusshaya and a rukkakha... perhaps this same thing could be applied to jar (graba)?
It's grasping at straws, since it's not found in CAL, and it would appear that graba is better understood a skin vessel rather than an earthen vessel.
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0pcx[/font] (hespa) is used once in 2Corinthians, and would better represent earthen vessel; though it must be said that neither of these roots are derived into potter by CAL.
CAL offers these for potter: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0lwbg[/font] (gabola), [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0rxp[/font] (pahara), [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yqwq[/font] quqaya, as well as the following for Galilean Aramaic: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0rlyp[/font] and [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0rdq[/font].
While we're on the topic of doubting the textual tradition, why not suggest that it should read [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrbdg[/font] - G'dabraya (treasurer), [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrb9[/font] - `Ebraya (Hebrew), [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ybr9[/font] - `Arbaya (Arabian)? <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->
Reply
#6
So Aaron what is your conclusion? In English please,lol
Reply
#7
Oh! The 'potter' reading is on very shaky ground. That is all. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#8
So could it be that we are translating it incorrectly and that the word leper was used as a description for Simon to differentiate between other Simon's.
Reply
#9
So am I correct in saying that the peshitta has seen this as a "potter" for as far back as we know?
Reply
#10
Indeed. Peshitta always has it as potter. I have a Syrian friend who also went into the topic.

The disappointing is caused by too enthousiastic people who go so far to present the Peshitta text as original text and they polish away certain 'strange phrases' which sound strange to our ears.

Let's say, I've seen claims from some Hebrew Messianic people who also read the Talmud. e..g according to one Yeshu must have said: "Let the village bury their death." because of some Talmudic rule and since would have respected traditions he must have said that... (and the backup would be a word which is found in -modern- Aramaic which sounds like the Syriac for 'death', however, again, not in the CAL).

After all, they do more harm than good by making such claims, I think. Somebody who is really honest in translation is e.g. Etheridge. He is not biased by religion (it seems to me).
Reply
#11
distazo Wrote:Indeed. Peshitta always has it as potter. I have a Syrian friend who also went into the topic.

The disappointing is caused by too enthousiastic people who go so far to present the Peshitta text as original text and they polish away certain 'strange phrases' which sound strange to our ears.

Let's say, I've seen claims from some Hebrew Messianic people who also read the Talmud. e..g according to one Yeshu must have said: "Let the village bury their death." because of some Talmudic rule and since would have respected traditions he must have said that... (and the backup would be a word which is found in -modern- Aramaic which sounds like the Syriac for 'death', however, again, not in the CAL).

After all, they do more harm than good by making such claims, I think. Somebody who is really honest in translation is e.g. Etheridge. He is not biased by religion (it seems to me).

I'm not sure what damage is being done.
We have a peshitta tradition handed to us by the COE. On many many occasions we have evidence that this text underlies the greek translations.
This peshitta text gives us some letters and words, here, which appear to say "leper" to our modern 20th century understanding.
However they have an old tradition that these letters mean potter, for reason which to us are unclear.
For me this does not do damage to anything.
After 2000 years we would expect that on occasion there will be things slightly mysterious to our ears.
Reply
#12
If the COE read this as "potter" then how does the SOC read it?
If the SOC reads potter as well, in their tradition then this could be evidence that this reading is very old indeed.
Reply
#13
judge Wrote:
distazo Wrote:]ke the Syriac for 'death', however, again, not in the CAL).

After all, they do more harm than good by making such claims, I think. Somebody who is really honest in translation is e.g. Etheridge. He is not biased by religion (it seems to me).

I'm not sure what damage is being done.
We have a peshitta tradition handed to us bu the COE. On many many occasions we have evidence that this text underlies the greek translations.
This peshitta text gives us some letters and words, here, which appear to say "leper" to our modern 20th century understanding.
However they have an old tradition that these letters mean potter, for reason which to us are unclear.
For me this does not do damage to anything.
After 2000 years we would expect that on occasion there will be things slightly mysterious to our ears.

I think you misunderstood me. I was not talking about the delivered text which would 'damage' but to implausable Peshitta translation claims.

After all, if people get really enthousiastic about the Peshitta text, they would find out that a real syrian speaking person would refute those claims. The Peshitta Primacy opponenents should not feed such claims as it would weaken their credibility.
I am not a Syrian speaking guy, but i found my self ashamed for not veryfying lots of those translation decisions as they had no base or shaky grounds.
Reply
#14
Shlama Akhay,

I'm not sure what the issue here is, but in Aramaic the word Garaba (jar-collector, jar-maker, keeper-of-jars, etc.) is a totally different word than Garba (leper). They are spelled with the same consonants, but the vowels are different and the words are pronounced differently.

Here is the relevant entry from Toma Audo's dictionary: (note: it is a secondary meaning as attested to by Mar Toma Audo below):

[Image: garaba.jpg]

Mar Toma noted (highlighted in blue) that "garba" is "leper" ("(he) who has leprosy in his flesh"). The secondary meaning, highlighted in red, is "garaba" ("he who has jars (garbe)").

I have translated "garaba" (jar-keeper) in Matthew 26:6, not "garba" (leper). See the context around the verse, too.

Additionally, it is not only we who have made this connection. It was also noted by Professor Charles C. Torrey of Yale Univesity (professor of Semitic Languages):

[Image: garaba-torrey.jpg]

We are told in Luke 17:12, that the ten lepers stood a distance from Christ while pleading to be cleansed...and we should make this verse in Matthew 26:6 read that Christ walked into a leper's home, and others were voluntarily present also?

I don't understand why you are making such a big deal about this topic, Akhi Distazo?

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Thank you, Paul.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)