Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Maxperson]

It's a little box that contains important writings to the lich. Getting everything correct is not a requirement of appropriation. In fact, it misses that bad appropriation makes such mistakes all the time.

Arcane sigils. Not important writings.

Except that the most commonly-used version is still referencing the Tefillin.

And THIS is where the appropriation is happening. The word is Tefillin. Not phylactery. If you want to fight the appropriation fight, start campaigning to remove the definition in phylactery that refers to anything Jewish. The English speakers have appropriated our word and renamed it.

It's not happening in D&D which doesn't use that definition. And as I pointed out, Jews don't use phylactery. They use Tefillin.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Arcane sigils. Not important writings.

The idea that an exact copy is needed is an unnecessarily high bar. The reference was already made. It doesn't need to be perfect to know what it is. If a game uses a holy cross without having Jesus Christ in the setting, that doesn't automatically mean it isn't aping Christian imagery.

And THIS is where the appropriation is happening. The word is Tefillin. Not phylactery. If you want to fight the appropriation fight, start campaigning to remove the definition in phylactery that refers to anything Jewish. The English speakers have appropriated our word and renamed it.

It's not happening in D&D which doesn't use that definition. And as I pointed out, Jews don't use phylactery. They use Tefillin.

I've already talked about this. Phylactery is not the word the Jewish people use, but it is what non-Hebrew speakers would likely use, especially in writings. It's the same as synagogue, which is not a Jewish word but almost exclusively refers to Jewish temples now. If you want to flood the zone, find new material. Don't just retread stuff we've already talked about.

 

[Maxperson]

The idea that an exact copy is needed is an unnecessarily high bar. The reference was already made. It doesn't need to be perfect to know what it is. If a game uses a holy cross without having Jesus Christ in the setting, that doesn't automatically mean it isn't aping Christian imagery.

I'd settle for close. It's not close.

I've already talked about this. Phylactery is not the word the Jewish people use, but it is what non-Hebrew speakers would likely use, especially in writings.

So it's an appropriation of our word. This is the fight you should be engaging in.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'd settle for close. It's not close.

It's close enough that multiple articles, people, and even Paizo recognize it as such. That you personally don't recognize it doesn't stop other people from seeing it.

So it's an appropriation of our word. This is the fight you should be engaging in.

It's closer to a translation of your word, but if you want to call it an appropriation, fine. What's to fight?

Not all appropriation is necessarily bad. I've said this multiple times and you don't seem to get that. Are you against using the word synagogue as well? Probably not. This whole line of argumentation comes off as a bad-faith distraction.

 

[Irlo]

Deleted.

 

[Cadence]

Arcane sigils. Not important writings.

And THIS is where the appropriation is happening. The word is Tefillin. Not phylactery. If you want to fight the appropriation fight, start campaigning to remove the definition in phylactery that refers to anything Jewish. The English speakers have appropriated our word and renamed it.

It's not happening in D&D which doesn't use that definition. And as I pointed out, Jews don't use phylactery. They use Tefillin.

As has been noted above several times, phylactery has seemingly had tefillin as it's primary definition in English since it was first used in the language 500+ years ago. That's a bit of history to overturn - but why not try if it annoys? I'm curious what the different kinds of changing it or push back would come from the various groups that translate the bible.

Anyway, this turned up googling it https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/Phylacteries(HTR).pdf and some argue it wasn't meant to mean that at all, while others seemingly used it with that meaning as far back as the second century.

 

[Maxperson]

It's closer to a translation of your word, but if you want to call it an appropriation, fine. What's to fight?

It's a misappropriation of our word. And it's NOT an appropriate translation at all. Phylactery means protective device or amulet. A Tefillin isn't either of those things. Fight the good fight and get the Tefflin removed from the phylactery definition.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's a misappropriation of our word. And it's NOT an appropriate translation at all. Phylactery means protective device or amulet. A Tefillin isn't either of those things. Fight the good fight and get the Tefflin removed from the phylactery definition.

Synagogue means "a place of assembly". Is it a misappropriation as well?

 

[Maxperson]

As has been noted above several times, phylactery has seemingly had tefillin as it's primary definition in English since it was first used in the language 500+ years ago.

Then it's about time for that misappropriation to end.

I'm curious what the different kinds of changing it or push back would come from the various groups that translate the bible.

Anyway, this turned up googling it https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/Phylacteries(HTR).pdf and some argue it wasn't meant to mean that at all.

See, this supports my position. Rather than engage in an act of appropriation by Paizo in removing the word phylactery, they should step up and fight it by acknowledging that the Tefillin is not a phylactery.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Then it's about time for that misappropriation to end.

See, this supports my position. Rather than engage in an act of appropriation by Paizo in removing the word phylactery, they should step up and fight it by acknowledging that the Tefillin is not a phylactery.

Or just stop calling it a phylactery, since continuing to call it a phylactery but saying not a Tefillin not only doesn't change the reference, but continues promoting the word.

Seriously, we've gone from "Phylactery is not an appropriation" to "We need to change the dictionary definition of phylactery, that's the real problem". If there were a better example of how D&D players are just fundamentally opposed to even minor change, I couldn't think of one.

 

[Cadence]

See, this supports my position. Rather than engage in an act of appropriation by Paizo in removing the word phylactery, they should step up and fight it by acknowledging that the Tefillin is not a phylactery.

Well, the folks quoted on the first page... the rest of the paper then goes on to give evidence going the other way going back to the 2nd century. There's also a discussion of the relationship of both tefillin and phylactery to qemiin/qamia starting on page 49.

 

[Maxperson]

Or just stop calling it a phylactery, since continuing to call it a phylactery but saying not a Tefillin not only doesn't change the reference, but continues promoting the word.

Ceasing to use the word doesn't keep the word from having an incorrect and definition about a misappropriated term. You have to get the definition changed.

Seriously, we've gone from "Phylactery is not an appropriation" to "We need to change the dictionary definition of phylactery, that's the real problem". If there were a better example of how D&D players are just fundamentally opposed to even minor change, I couldn't think of a better example.

We've recognized the true issue here. That you would laugh at a cultural misappropriation like that speaks volume. You've already in your posts demonstrated that you think you know our culture better than we do. Now you're laughing at a misappropriation

Edit: and abusing the laugh button by laughing at a post not intended to be humorous is a violation of forum rules. I WILL report the next violation.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Ceasing to use the word doesn't keep the word from having an incorrect and definition about a misappropriated term. You have to get the definition changed.

I mean, ceasing to use the word stops the word from being mistakenly used. In fact, given that the word is already wrapped up in the misappropriation, it would be wrong not to change it, as it would carry on the history of the misappropriation.

Also, synagogue: misappropriation or no?

We've recognized the true issue here. That you would laugh at a cultural misappropriation like that speaks volume. You've already in your posts demonstrated that you think you know our culture better than we do. Now you're laughing at a misappropriation

Synagogue: misappropriation? Yes or no.

Edit: and abusing the laugh button by laughing at a post not intended to be humorous is a violation of forum rules. I WILL report the next violation.

I mean, I do find it incredibly humorous that people are more willing to challenge Merriam-Webster than let Paizo change something.

Edit: Also, if you're going to report something, report it. Don't threaten it.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, the folks quoted on the first page... the rest of the paper then goes on to give evidence going the other way going back to the 2nd century. There's also a discussion of the relationship of both tefillin and phylactery to qemiin/qamia starting on page 49.

That argument starts off with the assumption that, "Jesus must have used some term translatable as phylacteria." and continues it's questionable proof with, "In rabbinic sources Tefillin are often mentioned side by side with quemi-in." If they meant the same thing, they wouldn't have been mentioned side by side, but would be used interchangeably. They were used side by side, because the protective amulets were often used in a similar location on the body to the Tefillin, not because they were the same.

That proof is flawed.

 

[Cadence]

Then it's about time for that misappropriation to end.

See, this supports my position. Rather than engage in an act of appropriation by Paizo in removing the word phylactery, they should step up and fight it by acknowledging that the Tefillin is not a phylactery.

And now I need to stop googling things and get to work! Anyway, here's one on the the origin of Tefillin. The Origins of Tefillin - TheTorah.com and I put two quotes below. (The author has an article in the Journal of Jewish Studies in 2008 that seems to have a relevant title that I don't have e-access too)

The connection between tefillin and amulets calls for investigation, not least because both objects were worn on the body, and are frequently juxtaposed in early rabbinic sources.[10] In the first known use of the Hebrew word tefillah (singular of tefillin) to refer to a physical object, it refers to (silver) amulets.[11] In addition, early Christian sources characterize tefillin as phylakteria, a Greek word for protective amulets. Some of these sources (the Gospel of Matthew 23:5 and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 46:5) predate the Mishnah, which contains the first mention of the word tefillin as referring to our ritual. There is also a well-established connection between recited verses and ancient amulets,[12] so that the presence in tefillin of verses recited by Jews as part of the Shema prayer is also suggestive.

The archaeological evidence, together with consideration of various biblical passages and even of halakhah, suggests that tefillin were originally practiced as a length-of-days amulet. While we cannot be sure when this began, the ritual – in a form fairly similar to the one known today – already existed during the late Second Temple period, which witnessed the Jewish encounter with Hellenistic culture.[20] While the practice was uniquely Jewish, being grounded in interpretation of the Torah, it clearly parallels the practices of other cultures.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, ceasing to use the word stops the word from being mistakenly used. In fact, given that the word is already wrapped up in the misappropriation, it would be wrong not to change it, as it would carry on the history of the misappropriation.

Others will still misuse it.

Also, synagogue: misappropriation or no?

Jews actually do use synagogue.

Edit: Also, if you're going to report something, report it. Don't threaten it.

No. You don't get to tell me what to do. I try to settle things myself first. A philosophy that I've had since childhood and won't change for you. It's the right thing to do. I have let you know what you did wrong and the next time I will report it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That argument starts off with the assumption that, "Jesus must have used some term translatable as phylacteria." and continues it's questionable proof with, "In rabbinic sources Tefillin are often mentioned side by side with quemi-in." If they meant the same thing, they wouldn't have been mentioned side by side, but would be used interchangeably. They were used side by side, because the protective amulets were often used in a similar location on the body to the Tefillin, not because they were the same.

That proof is flawed.

I dunno, I feel like a major scholar in the field of Judaic/Hebrew studies is probably more reliable than you on the topic.

Others will still misuse it.

Then why leave any trace? The argument you are making doesn't cut out a path to leaving a usage of it behind. You're not closing the door on using the word, you're burning the whole house down. You don't get to keep the furniture when you do that.

Jews actually do use synagogue.

Jews have used phylactery, too. That paper you were dismissing was written by a Jew, you know. That doesn't necessarily stop from it being a misappropriation, either.

So, I take it that your objection to Greek translations of Hebrew words starts and ends with ones that I can find in a Monster Manual?

I know we're into reducto ad absurdum, I'm just seeing how absurdum you are willing to go.

No. You don't get to tell me what to do. I try to settle things myself first. A philosophy that I've had since childhood and won't change for you. It's the right thing to do. I have let you know what you did wrong and the next time I will report it.

If you say something funny, I will laugh at it. I can't help it. And this argument about word modern definition of phylactery being the real problem is absolutely hilarious to me.

 

[Maxperson]

I can't help it. And this argument about word modern definition of phylactery being the real problem is absolutely hilarious to me.

Or we can just accept that the D&D/Paizo usage isn't a problem at all and just move on.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Or we can just accept that the D&D/Paizo usage isn't a problem at all and just move on.

I mean, Paizo is okay with changing it. Seems like maybe you should just concede that it's problematic.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

And now I need to stop googling things and get to work! Anyway, here's one on the the origin of Tefillin. The Origins of Tefillin - TheTorah.com and I put two quotes below. (The author has an article in the Journal of Jewish Studies in 2008 that seems to have a relevant title that I don't have e-access too)

Oh hey, look! It's this guy again that I mentioned back on page 23.

It's almost like he's some kind of authority or something.