09-16-2008, 02:03 PM
Shlama Akhi Abudar,
Here are a couple of considerations:
1) If we are talking about a PAIR of earrings, then I think a singular form of QUDESHA (i.e. lacking a syame and other grammatical indicators) is fine. However I think Akhan Paul makes the stronger point about the WAW inclusion on the plural technically. Either way I see no trouble with the reading as Paul and I have it. As you also allude to, a strict singular "earring" could also be intended and could still be just as valuable a reading for our cause. In fact, EARRING could refer to an awl used to mark a person as an indentured servant who loves his master, even as the apostles called themselves servants, (cf. Deuteronomy 15:16-17 and James 1:1).
2) I think it is very clear that the verb in question is TITHLON (hang) and NOT TALON (give). What we have here is one of the best cases for a Greek redactor skipping over an Aramaic letter that exists. They literally did not register the "extra" taw, and I would rather that be the mechanism than assuming the Peshitta mss all have scribal errors.
3) Once we understand the verb as HANG, the meaning for QUDESHA I think becomes very clear. We are not "hanging holiness on dogs"--that makes no sense. But it makes perfect sense that, like the pigs, some kind of jewelry is involved. The point is that people without discernment should not be given precious items they cannot appreciate. (This seems to be echoed in today's politics, only with lipstick still keeping pigs unkosher...).
4) We can further look symbolically at these usages and establish that dogs and pigs represent Jews who went away from Torah and Gentiles respectively. This is not only one of the symbols of the Prodigal Son parable it is mentioned directly by Mar Keefa in the famous, "dog returns to his vomit, a pig after washing returns to the mire". The Tanakh connection to that line, and its imagery, to my mind could not be stronger.
That's my two cents. I think we need to look not just at the pshat of the words but, once that is established, also explore the cultural cross-currents that the text was produced in. If we don't then aspects of the Peshitta--loan words come to mind as a good example--will create confusion for the translator and his or her readership.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Here are a couple of considerations:
1) If we are talking about a PAIR of earrings, then I think a singular form of QUDESHA (i.e. lacking a syame and other grammatical indicators) is fine. However I think Akhan Paul makes the stronger point about the WAW inclusion on the plural technically. Either way I see no trouble with the reading as Paul and I have it. As you also allude to, a strict singular "earring" could also be intended and could still be just as valuable a reading for our cause. In fact, EARRING could refer to an awl used to mark a person as an indentured servant who loves his master, even as the apostles called themselves servants, (cf. Deuteronomy 15:16-17 and James 1:1).
2) I think it is very clear that the verb in question is TITHLON (hang) and NOT TALON (give). What we have here is one of the best cases for a Greek redactor skipping over an Aramaic letter that exists. They literally did not register the "extra" taw, and I would rather that be the mechanism than assuming the Peshitta mss all have scribal errors.
3) Once we understand the verb as HANG, the meaning for QUDESHA I think becomes very clear. We are not "hanging holiness on dogs"--that makes no sense. But it makes perfect sense that, like the pigs, some kind of jewelry is involved. The point is that people without discernment should not be given precious items they cannot appreciate. (This seems to be echoed in today's politics, only with lipstick still keeping pigs unkosher...).
4) We can further look symbolically at these usages and establish that dogs and pigs represent Jews who went away from Torah and Gentiles respectively. This is not only one of the symbols of the Prodigal Son parable it is mentioned directly by Mar Keefa in the famous, "dog returns to his vomit, a pig after washing returns to the mire". The Tanakh connection to that line, and its imagery, to my mind could not be stronger.
That's my two cents. I think we need to look not just at the pshat of the words but, once that is established, also explore the cultural cross-currents that the text was produced in. If we don't then aspects of the Peshitta--loan words come to mind as a good example--will create confusion for the translator and his or her readership.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth