PHYLACTERY
Matt, xxiii, 5 only they are called <pvXaKTr)pm, either because they tended to promote observance of the law (del pi'np>)v tYfii' rov Btov, Just. Mart, Dial. c. Tryph. p. 205, for which reason Luther happily renders the word by DenkzetteV), or from the use of them as amu- lets (Lat. prcebia, Gr. -xtpiaTrTa, Grotius ad Matt, xxiii, 5). $>v\aKT>]piov is the ordinary Greek word for an am- ulet (Plutarch, ii, 378, B, where 0iA. = the Roman bulla), and is used apparently with this meaning by a Greek translator (Ezek. xiii, 18) for n'ir.03, cushions (Rosen- muller, Schol. ad loc. i; Schleusner, Lex. in N. T.). Jerome (on Matt, xxiii, 5) says they were thus used in his day by the Babylonians, Persians, and Indians, and condemns certain Christian "muliereula-" for similarly using the Gospels ("parvula evangelia," fitfiXta fiixpA, Chrys.) as iripidppara. especially the Procem. to St. John (comp. Chrysost. Horn, in Matt 73). The Koran and other sacred books are applied to the same purpose to this day (Hottinger, Hist. Orient, i, 8, p. 301 ; De nu- minis Orient, xvii sq. ; " The most esteemed of all Che- gabs is a Mfishaf, or copy of the Koran," Lane, Mod. Egypt, i, 338). Scaliger even supposes that phylacter- ies were designed to supersede those amulets, the use of which had been already learned by the Israelites in Egypt. See Amulet. There was a spurious book called Phylact. Angelorum, where pope Gelasius evi- dently understood the word to mean "amulets," for he remarks that Phylacteria ought rather to be ascribed to devils. In this sense they were expressly forbidden by pope Gregory ( " Si quis . . . phylacteriis usus fuerit, anathema sit," Sixt. Senensis, Bibl. Sand. p. 92; comp. Can. 3G, Concil. Laod.).
The expression " they make broad their phylacteries" (wXarvvovai tu <pv\. aurwv, Matt, xxiii, 5) refers not so much to the phylactery itself, which seems to have been of a prescribed breadth, as to the case (nsiSp) in which the parchment was kept, which the Pharisees (among their other pretentious customs, Mark vii, 3, 4 ; Luke v, 33, etc.) made as conspicuous as they could (Eeland, Antiq.u, 9, 15). Misled probably by the term irXarvvovai, and by the mention of the ri3",3, or fiinge (Numb, xv, 38, Sept. tcXuer/ia iaidvBivov iiri ra Kpda- TrtSa tHjv TTTepvyiiov) in connection with them, Epi- phanius says that they were TrXdrsa aii/iaTa iroptpvpaq, like the Roman laticlave, or the stripes on a Dalmatic cloak (rd et G>)para ri)c iroptyvpac, (pi>XaK~>)pta etwSaaiv ol )']Kpil3it)^tvoL fiETOvdpateiv, c. Hcer. i, 33; Sixt. Sen. I. a). He says that these purple stripes were worn by the Pharisees with fringes, and four pomegranates, that no one might touch them, and hence he derives their name (Reland, Antiq. ii, 9, 15). But that this is an error is clearly shown by Scaliger (Elench. Trihcer. viii, 66 sq.). It is said that the Pharisees wore them always, whereas the common people only used them at prayers, because they were considered to be even holier than the Y*'£, or golden plate, on the priest's tiara (Exod. xxviii, 36), since that had the sacred name once engraved, but in each of the Tephillin the tetragrammaton recurred twenty-three times (Carpzov, App. Critic. 19G). Again the Pharisees wore the tephillah above the elbow, but the Sadducees on the palm of the hand (Goodwyn, I. a). The modern Jews only wear them at morning prayers, and sometimes at noon (Leo of Modena, /. a). In our Lord's time they were worn by all Jews, except the Karaites, women, and slaves. Boys, when (at the age of thirteen years and a day) they become ni3£ "03 (sons of the commandments), were bound to wear them (Baba Berac. fol. 22, 1, in Glossa), and therefore they may have been used even by our Lord, as he merely discountenanced their abuse. The suggestion was made by Scaliger (I. a), and led to a somewhat idle contro- versy. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. ad Matt, xxiii, 5) and Otho (Lex. Rab. p. G5G) agree with Scaliger, but Carp- zov (I. a) and others strongly deny it, from a belief that the entire use of phylacteries arose from an error.
PHYLLOBOLIA
178
PHYSICIAN
The rabbins even declared that < ;<><I wore them, arguing from Isa. Ixii, 8; Dent, xxxiii, 2; Isa. xlix, 16. Per- haps this was a pious fraud to inculcate ilieir use; or it may have had some mystic meaning (Zohar, pt ii, fol. 2; Carpzov, /. c.)j but the rabbins disapproved the ap- plication of them to charm wounds or to lull children to sleep (Id, Leg. 263; Maimonides, De IdoL ii). II. • who wore them was supposed to prolong his days (Isa. xx.wiii. 16), but he who did not was doomed to per- dition, since he thereby broke eight affirmative precepts (Maimonides, TephU. iv. 26). We have a specimen of this style of interpretation in the curious literalism of Kimchi's comment on Psa. i. 2. Starting the objection thai ii is impossible to meditate in God's law day and night, because of sleep, domestic cares, etc., he answers thai for the fulfilment of the text it is sufficient to wear tephillin! In spite of these considerations, Justin i Dial. <: Tryph. 1. c. ). Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and many modems (Baumgarten, Coram, i, 479; Winer. s. v. Phylact.), prefer the literal meaning. It rests, there- fore, with them to account for the entire absence of all allusion to phylacteries in the O.T. The passages in Proverbs (ul sup.) contain no such reference, and in Ezek. xxiv. 17. 1KB means not a phylactery (as Jarchi says i. bul a turban (Gesen. Tltesaur. p. 1089).— Smith. •1. Literature.— Besides the authors already quoted (Sixt. Senensis, Reland, Lightfoot, Schbttgen, Carpzov, Hottinger, Goodwyn, RosenmUller, etc.), see the follow- ing, to whom theyrefer: Surenhusius, Mishna ad Tract. Berachoth, p. 8, 9; Beck, De Judeeorum ligamentis pre- cativis, and De usu Phylact. (1679); Basil age, Hist, des Juifs, V, \ii. 12 sq.; Braunius, Di Vest. Sacerd, p.7 sq.; Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. p. 17o sq.; Maimonides, Tad Ha- cask. p. 2, :'-: Ugolino, De Phylacter, Hebraeoi: in The- saur. torn, xxi; Townley, Reasons for tin Laws of Mo- ses, p. 350; Bodenschatz, Gottesdienstl. Verfassung d. Juden, iv. 15 sq.; Gropp, l>< Phylact. (Leips. 1708); ot ho. Lex. Rabbin, p. 756; Wagenseil, Sota, c. ii. p. 397 sq.; Spencer, D< Leg.Hebr.IV,'} \ii: Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Jud ii, 223 sq.; the Derech ha-Chayim (Vienna, 1859), p.L'l sq.; Iloclimuth. in Ben Chananya,p.2lb; and the monographs cited by Vblbeding, Index Programmatum, p. 130. Sec Frontlet.