Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-02-2013, 07:12 PM

I wanted to make some comments about the interesting verse Matthew 23:5.

http://bible.cc/matthew/23-5.htm
"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments."

The term phylacteries is called tplyhwn in the Peshitta and the "tassels" are called tkltᵓ. The terms used in the Greek NT are φυλακτήρια and κράσπεδα, where the latter are generic tassels and unrelated to the Hebrew word for sky blue (tekhelet) which the Peshitta has as tkltᵓ. Interestingly the term in the Greek for the blue thread (κλῶσμα ὑακίνθινον ) used in Numbers 15:38 is not used in Matthew here, whereas in the Peshitta the same word tkltᵓ is used in both places.

Some would argue that the Peshitta of Matthew 23:5 suggests a more original term close to the Hebrew than the Greek and is a good example to argue for "Aramaic Primacy".

However, this does not address the question in this case of why the Greek would not have employed "blue string" and relied on the generic term. Furthermore, the word tklt only means "blue" with no reference to a "string" anyway as is found in the term in the Peshitta OT. And if there was no Aramaic term for tefillin one has to wonder what the authors were trying to convey to readers both in Aramaic and in Greek where gentiles wouldn't have the foggiest idea about the significance of the items involved OR the significance of the story involving those items, regardless of the terms used.

On the matter of the aphorism itself, what does it mean from a Jewish point of view? There is no special significance to lengthening the blue string among the white strings as a sign of piety, nor is making the head phylactery larger a sign of piety, especially when many pious people long ago would wear the tefillin of the hand AND the head all day long, so they would have wanted to produce smaller ones that were easier to wear.

Duvduv · 02-03-2013, 04:18 PM

MM, you should have some interesting comments to make about this subject of Matthew 23:5 as well.

As I read up on the emergence of anti-Rome sects in Europe 500 years ago and thereafter I find it rather amazing how so many philosophers and theologians were able to come up with so many creative ideas out of the NT texts, not only ignoring the various contradictions and confusion, but also managing all the cut and paste material. I mean, here you had Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Know, Wesley, and so many others working with this material and producing the basis for all the different Christian Protestant sects.

mountainman · 02-03-2013, 06:02 PM

From the Jewish Encyclopaedia on PHYLACTERIES ("tefillin")

Quote:

Name and Origin. —Historical View:

The only instance of the name "phylacteries" in Biblical times occurs in the New Testament (Matt. xxiii. 5), whence it has passed into the languages of Europe. In rabbinical literature it is not found even as a foreign word. The Septuagint renders "ṭoṭafot" (A. V. and R. V. "frontlets"; Ex. xiii. 16 and Deut. vi. 8) by ἀσαλευτόν (= "something immovable"); nor do Aquila and Symmachus use the word "phylacteries." The Targumim (Jonathan, Onḳelos) and the Peshiṭta use "tefillin" (Ex. xiii. 9, 16; xxviii. 37; Deut. vi. 8, xxviii. 10; Ezek. xxiv. 23; Cant. viii. 1) or "ṭoṭafot" (II Sam. i. 10; Ezek. xxiv. 17 et seq.).

The terms "tefillah," "tefillin" only are found in Talmudic literature, although the word "ṭoṭafah" was still current, being used with the meaning of "frontlet" (Shab. vi. 1). The conclusions in regard to the tefillin which are based on its current name "phylacteries," therefore, lack historical basis, since this name was not used in truly Jewish circles.

...[trimmed]....

Epoch of Introduction.

It is not known whether this command was carried out in the earliest time, and if so, in what manner. But from the relatively large number of regulations referring to the phylacteries—some of them connected with the names of the first tannaim—and also from the fact that among the fifty-five "Sinaitic commands" ("halakah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai") eight refer to the tefillin alone and seven to the tefillin and the Torah together, it follows that they were used as early as the time of the Soferim—the fourth, or at least the third, century B.C.

The earliest explicit reference to them that has been preserved—namely, in the Letter of Aristeas (verse 159; see Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," ii. 18)—speaks of them as an old institution.

My first comment would be to point out that there is a tremendous amout of legendary authority attached to this "Letter of Aristeas" that is preserved in Josephus and the substance of which is again repeated by Eusebius [H.E. Chapter XXXII. The Distinguished Ecclesiastics Of Our Day, and Which of Them Survived Until the Destruction of the Churches]... by a figure called Anatolius the Christian Bishop.

BEWARE: There are Two Anatolii:

(1) Anatolius of Alexandria (the Platonist) and

(2) Anatolius the Christian Bishop

In his book about Arius, Rowan Williams points out that "The suggestion that Anatolius, Iamblichus' teacher, is to identified with the Christian Bishop Anatolius of Laodicaea ... is a conjecture regarded very skeptically indeed by several well qualified judges." p.262

Of course the Letter of Aristeas is also used in order to assert that the Hebrew Bible was translated to the Greek LXX in the epoch BCE, an assertion which has very little evidence aside from palaeographical claims associated with a very few number of Greek papyri.

Duvduv · 02-03-2013, 07:31 PM

And what do you make specifically about the Matthew issue in the Greek and Peshitta?

Duvduv · 02-04-2013, 10:07 AM

I am not an expert in the field of the debate over Aramaic primacy, but presumably the argument against it would have an explanation of the contrast between the Greek and Peshitta versions of this verse, especially with regard to the threads and blue color (since presumably Aramaic had no way of explaining the meaning of tefillin as Greek did with the word phylactery).

Interestingly enough, the fact that the verse only mentions enlarging the HEAD phylactery in relation to these Pharisees and not the ARM phylactery (both of which are the same size) might be because the head phylactery is exposed easily even when covered partially by the tallith, whereas the arm phylactery is to remain covered by one's sleeve.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no significance to having the threads at a length longer than the standard, including the blue one when it was used.

Duvduv · 02-07-2013, 11:14 AM

I have been discussing this subject off the Forum, and since it is said that the Vulgate and English translations worked from the Hebrew rather than the Greek (the Hebrew words in the Torah tefillin and techelet), then it can be argued in fact that the Peshitta author of Matthew preferred working from the Hebrew (tefilin/techelet) rather than the Greek, which means it is not a necessary proof of Aramaic primacy.

In either case, of course, the average gentile reader would have no appreciation of the logium of 23:5 because he would not know the significance of having a larger or smaller phylactery/string/blue but would simply assume that if Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for the size of the objects it MUST BE that they were wrong. The logium could have just as easily mentioned the prayer shawl or their beards or whatever and made the very same point.

Plus, one would wonder why the author in the peshitta would have preferred referring back to the single blue string in each of the four corners among the other white strings when the biblical commandment for tzitzit does not ascribe any greater significance for the blue strings than for the white ones. Why would a sign of arrogance be the length blue string rather than longer strings of both white and blue?

In that case, WHY would the original author of Matthew have specifically bothered to use the case of the (head) phylactery and blue string (or all tzitzit strings) to lambaste the Pharisees, even if among some Jews in his neighborhood the ordinary Jews used smaller tefillin and shorter tzitzit than did the educated Pharisees?? There are minimum valid sizes for both objects, but until modern times the raw materials for both were not so available to easiiy produce larger tefillin, and I doubt there would have been any significance to a set of strings an inch or two longer than others.

So the only possibility i can think of is that the logium was used among Jews in general when discussing and measuring personal character traits and the author of GMatt just picked it up when writing the verses.

02-02-2013, 07:12 PM	#1
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Thoughts about Matthew 23:5 I wanted to make some comments about the interesting verse Matthew 23:5. http://bible.cc/matthew/23-5.htm "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments." The term phylacteries is called tplyhwn in the Peshitta and the "tassels" are called tkltᵓ. The terms used in the Greek NT are φυλακτήρια and κράσπεδα, where the latter are generic tassels and unrelated to the Hebrew word for sky blue (tekhelet) which the Peshitta has as tkltᵓ. Interestingly the term in the Greek for the blue thread (κλῶσμα ὑακίνθινον ) used in Numbers 15:38 is not used in Matthew here, whereas in the Peshitta the same word tkltᵓ is used in both places. Some would argue that the Peshitta of Matthew 23:5 suggests a more original term close to the Hebrew than the Greek and is a good example to argue for "Aramaic Primacy". However, this does not address the question in this case of why the Greek would not have employed "blue string" and relied on the generic term. Furthermore, the word tklt only means "blue" with no reference to a "string" anyway as is found in the term in the Peshitta OT. And if there was no Aramaic term for tefillin one has to wonder what the authors were trying to convey to readers both in Aramaic and in Greek where gentiles wouldn't have the foggiest idea about the significance of the items involved OR the significance of the story involving those items, regardless of the terms used. On the matter of the aphorism itself, what does it mean from a Jewish point of view? There is no special significance to lengthening the blue string among the white strings as a sign of piety, nor is making the head phylactery larger a sign of piety, especially when many pious people long ago would wear the tefillin of the hand AND the head all day long, so they would have wanted to produce smaller ones that were easier to wear.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2013, 04:18 PM	#2
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	MM, you should have some interesting comments to make about this subject of Matthew 23:5 as well. As I read up on the emergence of anti-Rome sects in Europe 500 years ago and thereafter I find it rather amazing how so many philosophers and theologians were able to come up with so many creative ideas out of the NT texts, not only ignoring the various contradictions and confusion, but also managing all the cut and paste material. I mean, here you had Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Know, Wesley, and so many others working with this material and producing the basis for all the different Christian Protestant sects.

02-03-2013, 07:31 PM	#4
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And what do you make specifically about the Matthew issue in the Greek and Peshitta?

02-04-2013, 10:07 AM	#5
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I am not an expert in the field of the debate over Aramaic primacy, but presumably the argument against it would have an explanation of the contrast between the Greek and Peshitta versions of this verse, especially with regard to the threads and blue color (since presumably Aramaic had no way of explaining the meaning of tefillin as Greek did with the word phylactery). Interestingly enough, the fact that the verse only mentions enlarging the HEAD phylactery in relation to these Pharisees and not the ARM phylactery (both of which are the same size) might be because the head phylactery is exposed easily even when covered partially by the tallith, whereas the arm phylactery is to remain covered by one's sleeve. On the other hand, there is absolutely no significance to having the threads at a length longer than the standard, including the blue one when it was used.

02-07-2013, 11:14 AM	#6
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I have been discussing this subject off the Forum, and since it is said that the Vulgate and English translations worked from the Hebrew rather than the Greek (the Hebrew words in the Torah tefillin and techelet), then it can be argued in fact that the Peshitta author of Matthew preferred working from the Hebrew (tefilin/techelet) rather than the Greek, which means it is not a necessary proof of Aramaic primacy. In either case, of course, the average gentile reader would have no appreciation of the logium of 23:5 because he would not know the significance of having a larger or smaller phylactery/string/blue but would simply assume that if Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for the size of the objects it MUST BE that they were wrong. The logium could have just as easily mentioned the prayer shawl or their beards or whatever and made the very same point. Plus, one would wonder why the author in the peshitta would have preferred referring back to the single blue string in each of the four corners among the other white strings when the biblical commandment for tzitzit does not ascribe any greater significance for the blue strings than for the white ones. Why would a sign of arrogance be the length blue string rather than longer strings of both white and blue? In that case, WHY would the original author of Matthew have specifically bothered to use the case of the (head) phylactery and blue string (or all tzitzit strings) to lambaste the Pharisees, even if among some Jews in his neighborhood the ordinary Jews used smaller tefillin and shorter tzitzit than did the educated Pharisees?? There are minimum valid sizes for both objects, but until modern times the raw materials for both were not so available to easiiy produce larger tefillin, and I doubt there would have been any significance to a set of strings an inch or two longer than others. So the only possibility i can think of is that the logium was used among Jews in general when discussing and measuring personal character traits and the author of GMatt just picked it up when writing the verses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.