Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

For 1e and 2e, yes. It changed 21 years ago and hasn't been an appropriated term since then.

No, you see, it continues to be an appropriated term as long as you are still using that term. You don't suddenly shift definitions without changing the term itself, because the cultural momentum you've created continues on.

And again, 3.5E clearly used it (and that is clearly an opinion shared others and not just me), so not 21 years ago.

So it seems clear to the non-Jew that it's talking about a Tefillin, and the two Jews telling you that it isn't are wrong?

No, I was saying because you are Jewish you can only see it as an intentional difference, when I as a non-Jew can see someone just making that mistake because they have no clue about why that part of it is there. That's what appropriation is about: taking things. You don't necessarily take all of it, or understand what you are taking, hence why you get mistakes like that.

there is one more than dictionary definition. Tefillin just comes up first.

Wrong. The 3.5 definition provided different types of phylacteries. This keeps with a) Merriam-Webster tracing back to the Greek definition included amulets, teflllin, safeguards and guarded places and b) some dictionaries include these additional definitions as a second or third meaning

I mean, the 3.5 definition clearly starts off with mock-tefillin and then moves onto something more generalized. I don't think that's because they were using the archaic definition of the word, but rather because up until then there was a lot of variance in what a phylactery was because, well, they were trying to not invalidate years of muddled ideas of what it was. Like, @Maxperson is not wrong when he says there is an actual description of a phylactery in the DMG... but it's also clear that phylacteries have been much, much more varied than that over the years. D&D isn't exactly consistent in its fiction.

If there's anything I would point to as support for this, it's that everywhere I look up this topic on seems to think that 3E was the edition that made phylacteries more like tefillin, which I think gives us a better view of how it was actually perceived.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I was saying because you are Jewish you can only see it as an intentional difference, when I as a non-Jew can see someone just making that mistake because they have no clue about why that part of it is there. That's what appropriation is about: taking things. You don't necessarily take all of it, or understand what you are taking, hence why you get mistakes like that.

You know this is really offensive, right? You're arguing that you know our culture better than we do and as an outsider are correcting our mistakes about our culture. That we can't see how they are really appropriating something from out culture, because we're Jewish.

 

[Greg K]

No, I was saying because you are Jewish you can only see it as an intentional difference, when I as a non-Jew can see someone just making that mistake because they have no clue about why that part of it is there. That's what appropriation is about: taking things. You don't necessarily take all of it, or understand what you are taking, hence why you get mistakes like that.

I mean, the 3.5 definition clearly starts off with mock-tefillin and then moves onto something more generalized. I don't think that's because they were using the archaic definition of the word, but rather because up until then there was a lot of variance in what a phylactery was because, well, they were trying to not invalidate years of muddled ideas of what it was. Like, @Maxperson is not wrong when he says there is an actual description of a phylactery in the DMG... but it's also clear that phylacteries have been much, much more varied than that over the years. D&D isn't exactly consistent in its fiction.

Or, maybe, you are making an assumption. In 3.5, they clearly knew that phylactery were not limited to the first dictionary entry regarding tefillin. Therefore, it is just as likely that they knew of other amulets, safeguards, etc including the boxes and metal boxes with prayers on paper or miniature Qu'ran worn during Medeival times around the Mediterannean. A quick search of amulets on Wikipedia includes discussion of these boxes.

 

[Greg K]

I mean, the 3.5 definition clearly starts off with mock-tefillin

Or perhaps you and others are making an asumption based on ignorance regarding similar items used around the Mediterranean- some of which used metal boxes (edit: and would fall under alternate definitions of phylactery)

 

[Maxperson]

Or, maybe, you are making an assumption. In 3.5, they clearly knew that phylactery were not limited to the first dictionary entry regarding tefillin. Therefore, it is just as likely that they knew of other amulets, safeguards, etc including the boxes and metal boxes with prayers on paper or miniature Qu'ran worn during Medeival times around the Mediterannean. A quick search of amulets on Wikipedia includes discussion of these boxes.

It's not even prayers. The 3.5 box has arcane runes inscribed on the parchment.

 

[Greg K]

It's not even prayers. The 3.5 box has arcane runes inscribed on the parchment.

and it also mentions nothing about it being worn either. plus, putting something in a metal box as a safeguard and hiding the box makes sense.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You know this is really offensive, right? You're arguing that you know our culture better than we do and as an outsider are correcting our mistakes about our culture. That we can't see how they are really appropriating something from out culture, because we're Jewish.

No, I'm arguing that you know your culture so well that you see these differences as intentional, that no one could mistake it as a tefillin because it's so different.

What I'm saying is that these are mistakes, or changes to better fit the subject because they are ones I might make without knowing any better. I'm not arguing I know more about Judaism than you, I'm saying that in knowing less, I can see how this is just a poor adaptation. And that seems to be pretty consistent online, given that there are multiple articles that reference it as such.

Look, if you think I'm making light of your religion, report me to a mod. But I'm pretty confident that I'm not, and I think we both know it.

Or, maybe, you are making an assumption. In 3.5, they clearly knew that phylactery were not limited to the first dictionary entry regarding tefillin. Therefore, it is just as likely that they knew of other amulets, safeguards, etc including the boxes and metal boxes with prayers on paper or miniature Qu'ran worn during Medeival times around the Mediterannean. A quick search of amulets on Wikipedia includes discussion of these boxes.

Or perhaps you and others are making an asumption based on ignorance regarding similar items used around the Mediterranean- some of which used metal boxes (edit: and would fall under alternate definitions of phylactery)

But they called it a phylactery. They clearly knew what one was and we can clearly see the references in-built into the 3E one. And if you believe @Maxperson, the first two editions were direct references.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not the only one who sees these. I mean, @ReshiIRE already linked to one person of Jewish faith who clearly saw it as such as well. Trying to look at what they got wrong misses that they latched onto big things and changed what they thought didn't matter or didn't fit their vision. I think this whole thing is trying to deny the obvious: that back in the 80's and 90's we really didn't care about how we adapted cultural references and that we often did so without actually knowing what we were doing. This is why items like these should be examined and possibly changed.

It's not even prayers. The 3.5 box has arcane runes inscribed on the parchment.

and it also mentions nothing about it being worn either

I mean, yeah, they adapted it so it'd be more fantastical. And yes, they don't wear it because the whole point of it is to hide it (which goes against all the definitions given that things like charms and talismans are meant to also be worn...).

 

[Greg K]

The fact of the matter is that I'm not the only one who sees these. I mean, @ReshiIRE already linked to one person of Jewish faith who clearly saw it as such as well.

And, the person in question may just be ignorant that boxes (edit: and other wearable containers) with prayers or religious text were used by non-Jewish people in the Mediterranean and also that a phylactery has other meanings which resulted in them forming a faulty assumption.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And, the person in question may just be ignorant that boxes with prayers or religious text were used by non-Jewish people in the Mediterranean and also that a phylactery has other meanings which resulted in them forming a fault assumption.

Edit: Misread the quote. One moment, please.

Okay, no, I think you are completely off-base here. Yes, there are other practices similar to that of a tefillin. However, I think that argument falls apart given that the item is called a phylactery, a direct reference to the religious item. I think the assumption is well-founded, and relies less on using second and third definitions as well as having it be a reference to other religious practices without any contextual evidence to support it.

Look, if you want to ask them their expertise in that area, you can. I haven't done that to either of you because I don't feel comfortable doing it and I don't think I really need to. But I don't think it's a good look.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I'm arguing that you know your culture so well that you see these differences as intentional, that no one could mistake it as a tefillin because it's so different.

What I'm saying is that these are mistakes, or changes to better fit the subject because they are ones I might make without knowing any better. I'm not arguing I know more about Judaism than you, I'm saying that in knowing less, I can see how this is just a poor adaptation. And that seems to be pretty consistent online, given that there are multiple articles that reference it as such.

If it were only the box and couldn't be anything else, I'd probably agree with you. The fact that they changed it so that a phylactery can be literally anything is what makes you wrong about this. A ring(or shoe, or pitchfork, or glass bottle, or...) that has no paper, no box and no arm wrap cannot have been intended to be a Tefillin and was simply a mistake on their part.

Look, if you think I'm making light of your religion, report me to a mod. But I'm pretty confident that I'm not, and I think we both know it.

I don't think it's deliberate, and I'm not going to report it, but you do come off in a way that I don't think you intend.