Duction of the phylacteries

We have now to inquire at what period of Jewish history the literal interpretation of the four passages in ques. tion took its rise. A stroug presumption against a date in the Exile, or even early in the post- exilic period, is furnished by the fact that the phylacteries are unknown to the Samaritan com munity (see Klein, loc. cit. 686f.; Hamburger, Realencycl. d. Judenthums, ii. 1065). The Aramaic form of the name ¢éphillin points unmistakably in the same direction. An evident terminus a quo, however, is supplied by the figurative passages from Proverbs just cited. These are admitte echoes of the Deuteronomic teaching (see Driver, LOT® 396), and it is incredible that a Jewish writer would have so expressed himself, if the literal interpretation of Dt 6° ete. already held the field. Now the passages in question are all contained in the later section of the book (Pr 1-9), which, if the earlier section (10 ff.) date from the late Persian period, can hardly be carlier than B.c. 300. Even half a cent later, c. 250 B.C.,— the provisional date generally accepted for the beginnings of the Alexandrian translation (LXX), —the figurative interpretation was still accepted, at least in Egypt. This we see from the LXX rendering of the crucial n5pw (καὶ ἀφάψεις αὐτὰ els σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρός σου, καὶ ἔσται ἀσάλευτον ape ὀφθαλμῶν cov, Dt 68) as something ‘immovably fixed’ (ἀσάλευτον ; + ef. Ac 2741, He 1238) before one’s eyes, the unchanging subject of one’s thoughts. The terminus ad quem is suggested by the famous letter of the pseudo-Aristeas, who repre- sents himself as having been instructed by Eleazar, the then high priest at Jerusalem, in the institu- tions of Moses. The latter, says Eleazar, in addition to ‘the token of remembrance on our garments (see FRINGES) and the texts (τὰ λόγια) on doors and gates, commanded us expressly to bind the sign on the hands also’ (καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χειρῶν τὸ σημεῖον mep7ip0ac—Hody, ‘ Aristez Historia,’ in De Bibliorum Textibus, p. xviii; Kautzsch, Pseud- epigraphen, ‘Der Brief ἃ. Aristeas,’ ν. 159), an un- mistakable reference to the hand-phylactery, but to that only.t Unfortunately the date of Aristeas is still sub judice. For various reasons we decline to accept the early date, c. 200 B.c., advocated by Schiirer (HJP τι. iii. 310), and incline to a date early in the Ist cent. B.c. (cf. Wendland in Kautzsch, op. cit.). We thus obtain a period of one hundred and fifty years (B.C. 250-100), to which the intro- duction of the phylacteries may confidently be ascribed. Now it is more than a coincidence that this is the period which witnessed the growth of that more strict and literal observance of the requirements of the Torah, which is associated with the rise to power and influence of the sect of the HASIDZANS (wh. see) and of their successors, the Pharisees. The latter, we know, acquired great influence under John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135-105), Toy in the International Critical Comm. says c. 250 8.6. (‘ Proverbs,’ Introd. xxx); so, too, Wildeboer in Marti’s Hand- comm, t For this term and the variant σάλευτον (of which Philo gives an ingenious explanation, Opp. ii. 358), as also for the render- ings of the later Greek versions, see Field, Origenis Hexapla, at Ex 1316 and Dt 68. } Have we here an indication that the head-phylactery was of later introduction than the hand-phylactery? The female diviners of Ezekiel’s day were in the habit of binding amulets (n)nd3, EV ‘pillows,’ but understood in the former sense by Ephraem Syrus, and the anonymous ‘ Hebrew’ who rendered the word by φυλακτήρια, see ap. Field’s Hexapla, in loc.) on their wrists, a practice which Hitzig regarded as the precursor of the phylacteries (see the comm. on Ezk 1318#-, and art. KERCHIEF). The late W. R. Smith seems to have shared this view (Jour. of Philology, xiii. 286). PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS imposing upon the people their views regarding sacrifice, prayer, and worship generally (Jos. Ant. XVIII. i. 3), and it may well be that among the observances which the Pharisees then introduced (see ἐδ. XIII. xvi. 2), and which were successively abrogated by Hyrcanus and reintroduced by Alexandra (B.C. 78), the practice of ‘laying the téphillin’ had a place. Our conclusion, then, is that the introduction of the phylacteries may with certainty be assigned to the period between B.C. 250 and 100, and conjecturally to the generation embraced by the reigns of Simon the Hasmonzan and his son John Hyrcanus, viz. B.C. 140-105. iv. THE PHYLACTERIES IN THE EARLY CEN- TURIES A.D.—By the NT writers, as by Josephus (Ant. Iv. viii. 3) and .by their contemporaries enerally, the phylacteries, like the use of the héma‘ (yoy) in the cay prayers (Schiirer, HJP Il. ii. 77, 84f.),—for both practices doubtless had their rise in the same period and in the same circles,—were regarded as dating from the days of Moses. The practice was, of course, regarded as having scriptural authority, but even the details of the construction of the phylacteries were ascribed to a special revelation to Moses (techni- cally ‘yop ayo> azdz, for which see Hamburger, Fealencycl. 2nd Suppl. p. 162 ff.). The following details, gleaned from the Mishna,—which may be taken as authoritative for the century ending A.D. 135, although in its present form of somewhat later date,—may be given as illustrating the prac- tice of orthodox Jewish circles in NT times, and as showing, when compared with the details already given in § i., how little change has been introduced since the lst cent. A.D. In the Mishna, then, we find the same terms applied to the phy- lacteries as at the present day, ¢éphilla shel ré’sh and ¢. shel ydadh (for the latter also, more correctly, yy oy "Ἢ ‘téphilla of the arm,’—Mikw. x. 3, 4). The interial was the same (Kel. xxiii. 1); the shape square, not round (Megil. iv. 8). The head- phylactery, sometimes spoken of as the phylactery par excellence (Kel. xviii. 8, etc.),was already divided into four compartments (Kel. id.), but not more (Sanhed. xi. 3), each with its parchment slip (Shabb. viii. 3; ef. Justin Martyr, the first Christian writer outside the NT to refer to the phylacteries by name, Dial. c. Tryphone, 46, ed. Otto}, ii. 148, φυλακτήριον ἐν ὑμέσι λεπτοτάτοις γεγραμμένων χαρακ- τήρων τινῶν) containing in all probability the same passages as in modern times. Thus the third of the passages in question (Dt 6*) is expressly described as ‘ the smallest section (Ajop 7¥78) in the téphillin, which is, Hear, O Israel’ (Sanhed. viii.3). The writing had to be in the square Hebrew char- acter (πη οὶ, lit. Assyrian, t.e. Syrian or Aramzan). Women, slaves, and minors (07) were exempt from the obligation of wearing the phylacteries (Berakoth, iii. 3), also all males in the presence of their dead (ἐδ. iii. 1), and on Sabbaths and festi- vals, the latter as greater ‘signs’ rendering super- fluous the observance of the lesser sign of the phylacteries. When not in use the phylacteries were kept in a case (ΡῈ, θήκη, Shabb. vi. 2). From various indications it may be inferred that they were worn during the whole day, the justification for which was found in a mistaken interpretation of Ex 13% There the Hebrews are enjoined to keep the feast of Unleavened Cakes rpm: opin, i.e. not from day to day, every day, but—as the phrase elsewhere signifies and as the context requires— from year to year (so correctly Onkelos; also Aquila ἀπὸ χρόνου els χρόνον). The Jews, however, referring the command to the phylacteries (v.°), Jerome (Comment. in Matth. ad 235) was evidently mis- taken in thinking that the orthodox phylacteries contained the Decalogue. He seems to have confused them with similar ευλαπτήρια used exclusively as amulets (see below). PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS 878 interpret the words as enjoining their use ‘from day to day.’ This interpretation is most clearly expressed in the Targum (pseudo-)Jonathan to Ex 13", After the direction that the hand-phylactery shall lie on the upper part of the left arm, and the head-phylactery in the middle of the upper part of the forehead, we read: ‘Thou shalt ob- serve this commandment of the phylacteries in the appointed time, on working days but not on Sabbaths and feast days, and in the day time not in the night time’ (ap. Walton’s Polyglot, vol. iv.). The later limitation of their use to the time of the cae prayers was no doubt due to the same causes as brought about a similar curtailment in the wearing of the zizith (see FRINGES in vol. ii. 69). It is difficult to say with certainty to what extent this habitual wearing of the phylacteries revailed among the ΤΟΥΣ people as a whole. hat it was the invariable practice of the Pharisees and of the scribes, who belonged almost exclusively to that sect, we may take for granted. On the other hand, the balance of probability is against its adoption by the Sadducees, who may possibly be referred to in the Mishna sentence (Sanhed. xi. 3) as saying, ‘there is no such thing as téphillin (pan Ts).” Certainly the Karaite Jews, who claim to be the religious successors of the Sadducees, maintain the figurative interpretation of the in- junctions in Ex and Dt (Hamburger, op. cit. ii. 1204; Klein, doc. cit. 688). The great mass of the people also,—é ὄχλος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον (Jn 73), —engrossed in the hard routine of daily toil, paid no heed to this enactment of the scribes (with Jn 79 cf. Talm. Bab. Berakoth, 47): ‘Who is an ‘am-ha’arez? R. Jehoshua says: Every one who does not lay the ¢éphillin’ [mn nx Ὅν $3}). Hence we may infer that neither our Lord nor His dis- ciples followed, in this respect, the lead of the Pharisees (cf. Jn 7°). In His denunciation of the latter (πλατύνουσι yap τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν, Mt 23°) our Lord is generally understood to refer to the ostentatious breadth of the straps (niyysq Yad. iii. 3, etc.) by which the phylacteries were firmly secured on head and arm, as is expressly stated by the earliest Syriac translators (see loc. cit. in the codices of Lewis (Sinaiticus] and Cureton: ‘for they make broad the straps of their ¢éphillin [xpy pran)).’ It is probable, however, that this in- crease in the width of the straps was accompanied by a corresponding increase in the size of the phy- lacteries proper, and that both are included in the denunciation. In addition to the Talmud (Mishna and Gemara), we have in the Targums ample evidence of the Jewish belief in the antiquity of the phylacteries, resulting in several cases in amusing anachronisms. Thus Saul’s bracelet or armlet (2S 110) is converted into ‘the phylactery (xpey!e) which was upon his arm.’ The turbans (1x8) of Ezekiel and his fellow- exiles are changed to phylacteries (Targ. Ezk 247-3), while Mordecai is represented as recog- nizable as a Jew by his phylacteries (Targ. Est 8"). While we believe that the introduction of the hylacteries was not due to a superstitious belief in their magical virtues as ‘ appurtenances to make rayer more powerful’ (so W. R. Smith, Jour. of Ail. xiii. 286, and others), but, as we have shown above, to a mistaken obedience to the letter on the part of over-zealous students of the Torah, it cannot be denied that by the rank and file of the people—from whom, no doubt, the name φυλακτήρια proceeded—and even by some of the more educated, the phylacteries were regarded as possessing magical properties. This appears from the repeated mention, in the Mishna, of the ¢épAillin alongside of the kémia’ (yop), which was an amulet also This is a preferable rendering to ‘ bracelet,’ which is pased on the precarious etymology referred to above (§ ii.) 574 PHYLARCH written on parchment by a professional exorcist (see Shabd. vi. 2), and worn on the person, from the rendering of Ca 8 in the Targum, and from various references in the Midrash and Gemara (for which see Klein, 679f.; Hamburger, art. ‘Tephillin’). On the other hand, the Talmud abounds in ex- travagant ener. of the religious value of the phylacteries.t In the Middle Ages, from the 8th, = especially from the 10th cent. (Hamburger), they were less esteemed; and, in some parts at least, the practice almost became extinct (see Rodkinssohn, προ aden, Ursprung u. Entwickelung d. Phylacterien-Ritus, 1883 (Hebrew), to be used with caution, cf. REJ vi. 288). The fact that several Jewish scholars of note, beginning with Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam, 1080-c. 1150), in their commentaries maintained the figurative interpreta- tion of the cardinal passages, no doubt contributed to the growing disuse of the phylacteries. A return to the earlier practice, however, was gradually effected, and their use is now universal among the orthodox Jews, both of the Polish and Spanish rites. At the age of thirteen years and a day the Jewish boy attains his religious majority, becomes responsible for his actions, and a ‘ Bar-Mizvah’ (m2 12, for the history and significance of which see Liw, Die Lebensalter tn d. 7ιϊια. Literatur, 210 ff.). ne the duties and privileges of the Bar- Mizvah not the least important is that of ‘laying’ the téphillin, LireraTurs.—The commentaries, esp. Dillmann, Ryssel, Exodus, etc.; Dillmann, Driver on Deuteronomy; Kalisch, Exodus (special dissertation, pp. 223-227). The numerous minute Rabbinical prescriptions will be found in the authorita- tive works of Maimonides (Yad Ha-hazaka Hilkoth Tephillin) and co Caro (Shulhan ‘Aruk). Extensive excerpts from Maimonides in Ugolinus, Thes. Antiquitatum Sacrarum, xxi., containing treatise ‘de Phylacteriis Hebrworum.’ Of the older discussions the most valuable are those by Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, pp. 170-185; Spencer, de Legibus Hebraworum, etc., Cambridge, 1727, lib. iv. capp. 1-7 (‘de natura et origine Phy- lacteriorum’); Bodenschatz, Kirchliche Verfassung der heutigen Juden, iv. 14-19 (with illustrations). Lightfoot, oettgen, and similar works on Mt 235, M. Margoliouth, The Fundamental Principles of Mod. Judaism, pp. 1-49. Of the articles in Bible Dictionaries puters the most important are those by Delitzsch in Riehm’s Handwérterbuch, etc. (art. ‘Denkzettel*), by Gins- burg in Kitto-Alexander’s Biblical Cyclopedia (art. ‘ Phylac- tery’), both illustrated, and by Hamburger, Realency ie ἃ. Bibel u. Talmud, vol. ii (art. ‘Tephillin’). The only critical investigation of the subject hitherto has been by Klein, ‘Die Totaphoth nach Bibel u. Tradition,’ in the Jahrbiicher fiir pro- test. Theologie, 1881, pp. 666-689 (useful collection of material, but critically and exegetically weak). The varying usage of the Middle Ages is given by Rodkinasohn, mio aban, Ursprung τ. Entwickelung deg Phylacterien-Ritus bei den Juden (in Hebrew), 1883 [ποῦ seen]. A short exposition of modern Jewish teaching in Friedlander, The Jewish Religion, 331-338, A. R. 5. KENNEDY.