Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Hussar]

"Horcrux" would risk being more offensive to contemporary audiences, as it is now associated with an author who has negative views toward the trans-community.


Edit: Regarding Apostle names as demon/devil lords-

Maybe it's just me, but "Paul, Lord of Hell" and "James the Defiler" conjure a very different image.

Currently, many of the devil/demon lords are named after fallen angels: Dagon, Moloch, Belial, and etc.

Heh. I think the larger risk would be for any RPG publisher to get sued into oblivion if they tried to appropriate something that is so clearly J. K. Rowlings IP.

Funny how WotC got pilloried for their portmanteau's in 4e as a money grab to bolster their IP, but, apparently, it's okay to do so if you really like the word?

 

[Argyle King]

Heh. I think the larger risk would be for any RPG publisher to get sued into oblivion if they tried to appropriate something that is so clearly J. K. Rowlings IP.

Funny how WotC got pilloried for their portmanteau's in 4e as a money grab to bolster their IP, but, apparently, it's okay to do so if you really like the word?

I'm not familiar with the 4E issue you've mentioned, so I don't have a comment pertaining to that.

You have a good point about the Rowling IP and legal issues.

 

[Greg K]

Again, I have to ask.

Your arguement is that it is ok to appropriate Jewish cultural language because other groups are appropriating the word Holocaust? That if we allow one word to be appropriated, regardless of any meaning changes - after all, a phylactery, even in any dictionary definition, isn't a sofa - which a Lich's Phylactery certainly can be - it doesn't have to be an amulet at all - we must allow all words to be appropriated?

Strawman. I have not claimed such.

With regards to phylactery, I have already posted various definitions including Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com along with noting that Tefillin became the first definition for phylactery in the 14th century. I have also posted Merriam-Websters tracing of the words origin and how that relates to Dictionary.coms second definition entry regarding early Christian usage and as a safeguard for protection as part of the third along with amulet and charms (so yes, if the sofa is being used to house and safeguad the soul it might well fall under a phylactery (third definition in dictionary.com which traces the use of phylactery to Latin and Greek origins of the word which included safeguard and the latter also a guarded place

Beyond the dictionary definition, look at what someone else posted regarding what Jewish scholars have said about the usage of phylactery and Tefillin. Phylactery is not our word. It does not appear in our texts. Tefillin is the word that reappears with the exception of one mention is made of the Greek word from which phylactery is derived. A Tefellin is a Tefellin except when applying another culture's term whether it be the Middle English terms filtaterie Philacterie or either the Roman or Greek. In otherwords, as I have stated before, Tefillin can be categorized under phylactery when applying another culture's terms, but not all phylactery are Tefillin.

Finally, as I have written previously, worn boxes with religious texts or prayers are not unique to Judaism. They were also found in the Islamic world around the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages as were prayers wrapped in triangular folded paper.

As for the holocaust, it is irrelevant to the discussion (although you are the one that brought it in). Holocaust is not the appropriation of a Hebrew word. It is a Middle English word derived from Latin from Greek, and, thus, in the English language before the Jewish genocide known as the Holocaust. It was also used by Churchill circa 1920 to describe the Armenian genocide. As for the Jewish people, according to Encyclopedia Britanica, we didn't even like the use of the word Holocaust (which only a few writers used) to describe what happened which is we, initially, chose two other words (one of which is Sho'ah or Shoah )and the other being term used for the destruction of the First Temple). The term Holocaust became more commonly after WWII in English speaking countries, but was not standardized to refer to European Jewish genocide until the 1970s.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There are some big differences. First, calling the genocide of non-Jews a Sho'ah would be wrong as they are not Jewish. Sho'ah is a Hebrew world. That would be an example of appropriation.

I believe Sho'ah actually gets used in non-English Europe more (and as you note down below, "Holocaust" is largely used by the English-speaking public), so I'm not sure it's as different as you think.

Holocaust as a term for genocide is not different. The term holocaust had been used to describe the pogroms against Russian Jews, but was used by Churchill to describe the Armenian genoicide more than a decade before it was ever applied towards the genocide of Jews, Romany, certain Slavs and others at the hands of the Nazis.

Yes, and in those instances it's likely that they used "holocaust" as a description of literal destruction rather than actually referencing the genocide, especially in regards to the Armenian Genocide with tragedies like Smyrna. This is part of the problem: the term "holocaust" is generally adjacent to these things, but it's not until after WW2 that it becomes an actual byword for one.

The original Jewish terms used by Jews were Ola and and Sho'ah. Holocaust was introduced later by a few writers, but most Jews continued ot use Sho'ah, because a) most Jews did not like the religious connotation of the term Holocaust; and b) Sho'ah focused upon the Jewish people involved. (Encyclopedia Britanica).

According to the website for the Museum of Tolerance. After WWII, the word "holocaust" became a more specific-used term in English speaking countries and, not until the 1970s did become the standardized English word for "systemized annhilation of European Jews". (emphasis mine).

It was the standard word before then: you can see it in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and other publications that are English-translations. The word "holocaust" was the go-to translation after the war, though they are right that it was in the 1970's that it truly took root as proper noun "the Holocaust". This is why I caution talking about using it as a reference to "genocide": it probably wasn't until these translations started to take root in America that the term developed to actually describe a genocide itself and not a byproduct of it.

I can think of a few reasons why that might be such as resistance to officialy recognize the genocide of the Armenians and resistance by some against others using the term holocaust despite prior uses.

Beyond my quibbles with about "prior usage", Armenian Genocide denial is terrible and I'm glad our government has finally recognized it.

Btw, type it in as "Armenian Holocaust" with quotes, although as soon as typed it in without quotes, the first two things that appeared in my nav bar listing were the Armenian Holocaust (movie) and Armenian Holocaust.

I mean, it only comes up in reference to the book when I do that. And I think that book also goes towards the idea that it was used for genocide previously; the book came out in the mid-80's, right around the time where the idea of a Capital-H "Holocaust" would be starting up.

 

[Hussar]

Ummm nope. I didn’t bring up Holocaust. This my confusion as to why you are going on about it.

 

[Greg K]

Yes, and in those instances it's likely that they used "holocaust" as a description of literal destruction rather than actually referencing the genocide, especially in regards to the Armenian Genocide with tragedies like Smyrna. This is part of the problem: the term "holocaust" is generally adjacent to these things, but it's not until after WW2 that it becomes an actual byword for one

Churchill actualy referenced the slaughter of Armenians including women and children in his usage.

 

[Greg K]

Ummm nope. I didn’t bring up Holocaust. This my confusion as to why you are going on about it.

Then my apologies and I was responding to someone else and you caught my intital response. However, my listing various usages was in response to you saying that it nobody was using the term holocaust toward other genocides (or were you referring to another term not being used?).

 

[Justice and Rule]

As for the holocaust, it is irrelevant to the discussion (although you are the one that brought it in). Holocaust is not the appropriation of a Hebrew word.

Ummm nope. I didn’t bring up Holocaust. This my confusion as to why you are going on about it.

Actually, @Sepulchrave II brought it up as a comparison point for someone saying that "Phylactery is a Greek word", then you took it from there and here we are.

Churchill actualy referenced the slaughter of Armenians including women and children in his usage.

Yes, because thousands of people were slaughtered in a giant conflagration. It's referring to the destruction and death as a result of the fire, describing the nature of the event.

 

[Greg K]

Actually, @Sepulchrave II brought it up as a comparison point for someone saying that "Phylactery is a Greek word", then you took it from there and here we are.

Well, partially how we got here The other part is as follows

Greg K said:
/snip. Native American, Rwanda (half-million to a million murdered), and Armenian (600k-1million+) are in my opinon examples of genocides that could be labeled holocausts.

and then Hussar wrote: And yet, no one does.
I followed up with a list of examples of both Armenians and various Native American groups using the term holocaust to describe the genocide of their own peoples to show that people do- which led to more argument (in the scholarly terminology) on the matter.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Actually, @Sepulchrave II brought it up as a comparison point for someone saying that "Phylactery is a Greek word", then you took it from there and here we are.

Yes. That may have been ill-advised, given what a hot potato the word is. My broader point is that the cultural spheres have a long, overlapping history which persists to this day and it's not always easy to disentangle them. Words have been appropriated, rejected, and reappropriated; myths have been interwoven and philosophies intermixed.

These syncretisms go back a long way, prior to Alexander's conquests. Biblical stories such as Og of Bashan show Mycenaean influence; Samson shares many features with Hercules and suggests a common Mesopotamian precursor, if not outright appropriation of the Greek myth; the figure of Japheth (one of Noah's sons) may be an incorporation of Iapetus, and Noah's nakedness before his sons may be a retelling of an older myth which involves a Uranian castration. It's no coincidence that the biblical tribe of Dan is implicated geographically in many of these stories and it seems entirely likely that they, like the Philistines, were a Mycenaean culture but one which was admitted into a growing Samarian polity; biblically, the Danites are cast as descendants of Bilhah - one of Jacob's "handmaidens" - suggesting a diminished status; one of adoption.

The incorporation of Sophia (wisdom) literature demonstrates deep Platonic influence on nascent Judaism, and it's quite impossible to disentangle "pagan" "Christian" "Jewish" and "Gnostic" traditions until quite late; emergent strands of thought can be isolated, but really, each of these terms are retrojections. Each of these traditions, in a sense, helped define the others as they emerged, as certain ideas and practices were adopted or held in contradistinction in order to establish various cultic or ethnic identities.