In response to Wilhelm Schmitt's article, an article in which he seemed to claim some knowledge of the Hebrew language and in which he at times incorrectly threw around a smattering of Hebrew words, I gave very good linguistic and idiomatic proof that the word yotser (which the author of Matthew translated as "potter" when misdirecting New Testament readers to Jeremiah in reference to a misquoted verse that actually appears in Zechariah 11:12-13) really means "treasurer." In this article, I will reaffirm my reasons for claiming this, and I will give Biblical references to an ecclesiastic "treasury." I will also apologize profusely to Mr. Schmitt for assuming that he possessed a Strong's concordance. Instead, I will humbly suggest that his source is some other document that uses the KJV as its source and that although in his initial article, he presented himself as knowledgeable in Hebrew, he doesn't seem to be at all knowledgeable in it.
For example, Schmitt says: "Also, it is common practice to give Hebrew words not in the inflection found in the text, but in their root form. This makes it easier to locate them in the lexicons."
Yes, but shadah is not the "root form" of sadeh (field). Root forms are listed in 3rd-person singular past tense for ease of search in a dictionary. It is the simplest form, usually consisting of just the root. Sadeh is not a verb, so it has no 3rd-person "root" form. Also, it is the letter sin and not shin at the beginning of the word (they may look the same, but are not interchangeable). If anything, shadah would mean "her breast" (shad, [breast] plus the heh ending which signifies 3rd-person female possessive).
In the previous article I pointed out that yotser (translated "potter") could very well have been conjugated from otsar (treasury) instead of yatsar (to form or shape). I spelled out in detail the logical linguistic reasoning that would lead one knowledgeable of Hebrew consonantal and vowel shifts to believe that yotser means "treasurer" and not "potter." I said that nowhere in the Bible is the function of potter mentioned in connection to the temple institution, nor is the need for such a function obvious, but I did claim that the temple or any institution religious or otherwise by necessity needs a treasurer. The Old Testament itself mentions ecclesiastical treasurers (Joshua 6:24, "to the treasury of the house of the Lord," Joshua 6:19, Nehemiah 13:13, and elsewhere), but as far as I can see, nowhere in the administratively exhaustive theocratic Old Testament is the temple-potter duty mentioned. Maybe Wilhelm can give us good reasons for believing that this institution did exist, that is, reason other than some drivel that adds up to "it exists because I believe it exists."
And even if it did exist, apart from trying to justify Matthew's alleged "prophecy-fulfillment" claim, a "treasurer" translation fits into the context much more accurately than a "potter." If Zechariah had meant "potter," then his mention of the potter begs an explanation of why he gave the money to a potter. But the fact that the prophet gave money to the treasury of the temple makes sense in and of itself without any further explanation. If Zechariah gave money to the potter... why? What was his reason? What did this temple-potter do with the money? Isaiah and Jeremiah bring up potters (which is probably why Matthew made his Jeremiah mistake), and these verses draw analogies ("We are the clay, and thou the potter," Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 18 compares Israel to clay in a potter's hand). But according to Schmitt's interpretation, Zechariah just inserted the word "potter" into the sentence without any obvious intention and did not elaborate at all. On the other hand, the scenario of an indignant religious man giving unwanted money to the temple treasury makes perfect logical sense and begs no question. It fits the context perfectly.
If you ask why they used yotser instead of otsar (treasury) or otser (treasurer), there is a simple and very possible explanation: The Hebrew letter yod, or y, appears and disappears in various places even in modern Hebrew. It often displaces the letter which was originally there. Example: nasa (to travel) in the future is yisa (will travel). The yod has replaced the nun, but the three-letter root of the word is still nun-samekh-ayin. The yod is not part of the root, the nun is still part of the root. The same has happened in Zechariah with the root alef-tsadi-reysh. In conjugating the noun, the yod has replaced the alef, but the root is still alef-tsadi-reysh otsar (treasury). The letter yod can also disappear, but still be understood as part of the root. Consider Yehoshua (Joshua or "God saves/will save"); the Yeho- YHW is god's name. The root "to save" is yod-shin-ayin, but the yod is missing. This is because yod appears and disappears in Hebrew, sometimes misplacing the original letter that was there. This letter switching does not occur with the root consonant at the middle of the word or at the end (except at times for either a heh or tav). Nor can this be done with all consonants at the beginning of a word, but alef appears as the first letter in otser, and alef is one of the prefix letters, which appear and disappear in various Hebrew conjugations, as is yod! Whether Zechariah's use of yotser instead of otser is because of linguistic dialectic variation in Hebrew prevalent at the time or because of a spelling mistake, I cannot say, but his meaning is clearly obvious by context, and his Hebrew linguistic precedent for so doing is clear. (By the way, the Masoretic text has many Hebrew spelling mistakes, while the KJV and other translations have none! The Masoretic is not a perfect document.)
So the simple and common word for "potter" in Hebrew is yotser. However, if one is acquainted with the Hebrew spelling variances which is at its most idiosyncratic in Biblical Hebrew, and if one is familiar with the root and prefix/suffix systems of the language and consonantal and vowel shifts in Hebrew, one would then have to be quick to admit that it is very possible, and I would say probable and likely, that the word translated "potter" in Zechariah actually meant "treasurer," especially in the context in which the word appears. Apart from a desire of some scholars to keep the Christian interpretation intact, there is no reason to believe that this is not the case. In addition, for any scholar or translator not to list the very real possibility that this may be the case is dishonest. I can definitely see and appreciate why a simple reading of the text may lead one to believe that the word "potter" is intended, but I'll bet few Christians would be willing to even admit the validity of the other interpretation, which is linguistically defendable as well as much more probable and consistent with the text, albeit idiomatic.
By the way, Zechariah makes no reference to a potter's field.
Matthew 27:9-10, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet saying, `And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.'"
Zechariah 11:12-14, "And I said to them, `If it is good in your eyes, give me my wages and if not, refrain.' And they weighed out my wages thirty-silver. And YHWH said to me, `Throw to the treasurer the mightiness of the value of which I was valued by them.' And I took the thirty-silver and I threw it to the House of The Lord, to the Treasurer" (Hebrew Masoretic text direct translation).
In Mr. Schmitt's scathing rebuttal, one thing is conspicuous by its absence: He did not respond to any of the above points that I made. He also did not adequately explain the obvious error in Matthew which misdirects readers to Jeremiah, where no such verse even remotely exists, instead of to Zechariah, where the misquoted verse exists. Instead he claimed that Matthew was in fact not attempting to refer the readers to a prophecy "fulfillment" in the book of Jeremiah (which sort of exists in Zechariah) but rather to a spoken (but not written, mind you) prophecy. So what kind of prophecy was it? How were people to know about it so that it could be a fulfillment? Was Jeremiah's prophetic voice hanging in the air for hundreds of years as some sort of nebulous and auditory divine flatulence so that the gospel writer could point to it as a "prophecy" which was fulfilled in Jesus? Wilhelm Schmitt is really convoluting logic here just to desperately grasp onto the point he was trying to make. If Matthew, in an eternal book is citing prophecy fulfillment by quoting a source, then that prophecy would have to exist somewhere so that it could indeed be found and considered prophecy fulfillment. Since all of mankind's salvation supposedly depends on a clear understanding of who Jesus was, wouldn't Jeremiah have written down this most important prophecy in the book bearing his name? He mentions many trivialities, but leaves out this important "prophecy."
Also, Schmitt indignantly "rebuked" me for claiming that he had culled his justification for insisting that the term means "potter" and not "treasurer" from Strong's. Schmitt claims that he does not even own a Strong's concordance. Well, I must apologize! Perhaps I was mistaken, and he in fact did not glean his understanding from Strong's, even though every fundamentalist Christian I have ever known does own a Strong's. I myself have a Strong's, because as far as finding words goes, it's the best source around. The dictionary definitions in the back may at times be incorrect (they rarely, if ever stray from the KJV, even if the KJV is incorrect), but the word guide in the front is very useful. But, okay, Schmitt says he does not own a Strong's. Fine, I concede, admit my error, and sincerely apologize. I would also advise him to buy a Strong's.
However, I will insist that his source is faulty and shows a lack of knowledge in Hebrew, or perhaps instead, a lack of initiative to stray from accepted Christian reading. Many English Bibles and translations--even Jewish ones--use the KJV as a source document. Here is an example. A common Jewish English Bible translated Genesis 1:28 as "replenish" (as does the KJV), which signifies "to fill again," even though the prefix re- is a feature of Latin languages (and English is influenced by Latin) but not of Hebrew. The Hebrew reads "fill," not "replenish." Not only is the prefix re- not in the Hebrew text, it is not even a Hebraic feature! This leads me to logically surmise that this Jewish translation was based on the KJV which was probably based on the Latin Vulgate. The NIV, at times the most scholarly of Christian bibles, (I say "at times," because the NIV keeps 'alma as "virgin" and yotser as "potter," as do other popular Christian mistranslations. Zondervan knows on which side its bread is buttered) and other recent translations have corrected the error. You may think that this is a minor point, until you realize that there are Christians who have a vague doctrine of a pre-adamic race of men, angels, demons, etc. just based on that simple KJV "replenish" mistranslation! So mistranslations can obviously lead people astray.
I know nothing about Dr. Ginsberg, and I have no way to test his knowledge of Hebrew or his intentions for publishing an English translation of the Masoretic. I don't know who his "target market" was. If his target market was Christians, then he had a vested interest in keeping his translation in line with the accepted Christian reading, and since yotser does mean "potter," though from context most probably not in this instance, then he had some linguistic reason or excuse as well as monetary motivation for keeping the reading in line with Christian dogma. I'll tell you one thing. If I was publishing a book and my targeted market was Christians (a huge market), I would base my translation on the KJV and Christian dogma. It would be financially detrimental not to. Most Christians that I have met will chose a questionable "scholarly" document that reinforces their argument over a truly scholarly document that contradicts their adopted interpretation. Did Mr. Ginsberg mention at all the possibility that "treasurer" might be a possible translation? If he didn't, then he was not being very scholarly. I know that I am not the only Hebrew speaker who has noticed this probable interpretation.
I must admit an error. In part 6 of my letter (which turned out to be the previous article), I pointed out that beit ha... is a very common form for a house of public use. This is true. beit ha-knesset (house of the assembly) is "synagogue," beit ha-sefer (house of the book) is "school," beit ha-shimush (house of the use) or beit ha-kise (house of the chair) both mean bathroom, beit ha-noar (house of youth) is a youth club, and beit ha-taklit (house of the record) is a chain of record stores in Israel. I incorrectly mentioned beit ha-yotser in the context of Zechariah as being "house of the treasurer," but in fact beit ha-yotser does not appear at all in Zechariah, but rather in Jeremiah 18. What appears in Zechariah 12:13 is beit YHWH el ha-yotser, which means "the house of YHWH to the treasurer."
Beit ha-yotser does not appear in Zechariah at all. Instead, it appears in Jeremiah 18:3. I suppose I made the same mistake that Matthew made when misdirecting the faithful to Jeremiah, where it does indeed mean "house of the potter." But the Jeremiah verse is even further removed from Matthew than the Zechariah verse is and bears no resemblance to Matthew's verse. It is obvious that Matthew made the same mistake I made and misdirected readers to Jeremiah when he meant to direct reader to Zechariah, which Matthew very liberally paraphrases but with some major mistranslations and misrepresentations. So I was wrong in stating that beit ha-yotser appears in Zechariah. It doesn't.
But I was right, because as I detailed above, there is good linguistic and Biblical precedent to conclude that yotser in Zechariah can and does mean "treasurer." Furthermore, the beit- Hebrew structure does indeed appear in Zechariah 11:13 as a house of public use: "And I threw it to the house of the LORD, to the treasurer." House of the LORD in Hebrew is beit YHWH, which is the same compound structure (semikhut in Hebrew) as the beit ha-yotser. It signifies a house of public use, which clearly points to the fact that what is spoken of here was the temple, which probably does not include a potter but definitely does include a treasurer. (For biblical references, see above.) The reason that ha or the does not appear in the text is because YHWH is a proper name, and just as in English, Hebrew proper names do not carry the definite article the (ha prefix). So what is spoken about, and what I originally meant to imply, is that "the house of the Lord" is the temple, which by biblical precedent includes a treasury but for lack of Biblical precedent, and for lack of any obvious purpose includes no such function as "temple potter." Matthew, as I did, made a mistake and cross referenced readers to the wrong verse. I gave good linguistic reasons to conclude that yotser in this case means "treasurer" and not "potter."
As to my alleged "assertions to plagiarism," Mr. Schmitt has yet to prove that he knows Hebrew at all. Yet he incorrectly threw around Hebrew words as if he were an expert. So where is he getting his information?
(Yoel Wasserman, P. O. Box 998 Aspen, CO 81612; e-mail core@rof.net)
