05-09-2013, 08:23 AM
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.