Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[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.