Phylacteries and Borders of their Garments (Matt. 23)
In reprimanding the Pharisees, the Savior said: “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments” (Matthew 23:5). What are phylacteries? What are the borders of their garments?
Phylacteries
The Hebrew word for phylactery is tefillin. In the following command, note that the Lord states that Israel is to keep the law before their eyes and heart. As a sign they are to bind the law on their hand and between their eyes.
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; emphasis added)
A tefillin is a literal representation of the Lord’s command to bind the law on the hand and between the eyes. In his excellent book, To Be a Jew, Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin describes what tefillin are:
The tefillin (translated phylacteries) consist of two small black boxes, containing small scrolls of parchment upon which are written four Biblical passages [Exodus 13:1-10; 13:11-16; Deut. 6:4-9; and 11:13-21]. These four passages from the Torah [five books of Moses] all include the commandment to don tefillin as a sign, as a symbol of Jewish faith and devotion. Each of the black boxes comes with leather straps (Hebrew: retzuot) so designed as to enable one to be bound upon the hand and for the other to be worn above the forehead. (p. 145)
Borders of the Garments
The phrase “borders of their garments” as reference to what is called in Hebrew the tallit or prayer shawls. The Lord gave the following commandment to the children of Israel:
37 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:
40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God. (Numbers 15:37-40)
Rabbi Donnin says of this passage:
The commandment in [Numbers 15:37-40] calls for the attachment of fringes (tzitzit) to four-cornered garments as a reminder of all the commandments of the Lord … Garments not possessing four or more corners are not required to have the special fringes. ….
Although in ancient times four-cornered garments or robes were common, the development of clothing not having four corners would have rendered this mitzvah [Heb. for commandment] totally obsolete, with the full sanction of the law. To prevent the total disappearance of a mitzvah that possessed such great symbolic significance (since it serves as a reminder to observe all the commandments), the Sages encouraged the wearing of a specially-made four-cornered garments so as to provide the opportunity to observe and implement this commandment.
Says Maimonides: “Although one is not obligated to buy a garment and wrap himself in it just so as to provide it with fringes, it is not proper for a devout or pious person to exempt himself from observing this precept. He should strive to wear a garment that requires fringes so as to perform this precept. And during times of prayer, one should take special care to do so” (Hil. Tzitzit 3:11)
The tallit, a four-cornered robe with the required tzitzit, has thus become the garment traditionally worn by men during morning prayer services. In English, it is commonly called a “prayer shawl.” (pp. 155-6) Source: BYU Idaho
The Annotated Book of Mormon by David Hocking and Rod Meldrum page 253
Pittsfield’s Hebrew scrolls spark Mormon controversy
When Joseph Merrick, local farmer and innkeeper, purchased a tract of land in west Pittsfield in 1800, he had no expectation that it would prove such fertile ground for growing mystery. Indeed, it was not until 15 years later that a seemingly innocuous piece of refuse found there would go on to arouse the interest of the town’s most prominent citizens, and to serve as a potentially crucial clue in controversy surrounding the origins of the Book of Mormon.
In June of 1815, a boy Merrick had employed to clear a piece of yard presented him with a leather strap found among the debris left by plowing. Merrick at first threw it in a box and paid little attention. Only looking at it later did he realize that there was something inside the strap. He cut it open to find several tightly scrolled pieces of parchment. Each was inscribed with Hebrew characters of some sort. Perplexed, Merrick shared the discovery with some of the most learned men at the First Congregational Church, where he served as a deacon. He didn’t have to try very hard to get their attention. He had only barely mentioned the find when he found himself called on by a number of curious visitors. Rumors of the object quickly reached Elkanah Watson, father of the American Agricultural Society and probably Pittsfield’s most illustrious citizen at the time. Watson wrote in a letter “immediately on hearing of the discovery, I repaired to the house of Mr. Merrick, where I found several clergymen whose curiosity was [also] greatly excited by the strange incident..”
Among those present when Watson arrived was 20-year-old Sylvester Larned, fresh from seminary but already “greatly distinguished for talents and moving eloquence.” Larned, though exceedingly well educated for the times, lacked any knowledge of Hebrew. This required the help of William Allen, son of “Fighting Parson” Thomas Allen, and the minister of First Congregational Church at the time. Allen identified the object as a Jewish phylactery, containing four pieces of parchment inscribed with verses from Deuteronomy and Exodus.
Now that they knew what it was, the question of where it came from became all the more exciting to them. No Jewish family or individual had ever lived at that location, so far as anyone knew. Before Merrick it had been the site of “Fort Hill” or Fort Ashley, a blockhouse built by colonial militia during the French and Indian War. Prior to that the area was called “Indian Hill,” in reference to it being the site of a former Mohican settlement, and it was this earlier occupation that most intrigued the Pittsfield scholars. In their mind, the phylactery fit quite perfectly into a debate that had begun more than a century and a half before. The theory that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel had first been advanced in 1650, with the publication of Thorowgood’s “Jewes in America” and had been a subject of perennial interest in Puritan New England ever since. Watson had already leaped to this conclusion, stating “the artifact must have found its way into this recent wilderness by the agency of some descendants of Israel. this discovery forms another link in the evidence by which our Indians are identified with the ancient Jews.” After his initial inspection, Allen was inclined to agree that the phylactery “furnished proof that our Indians were descendants of the ancient chosen people.” Adding weight to this conclusion was the late testimony of Dr. West of Stockbridge that “an old Indian” had told him that his ancestors had once “been in the possession of a book which they had, not long since, carried with them, but having lost the knowledge of reading it, they buried it with an Indian Chief.”*
Shortly thereafter, Allen sent the artifact to Abiel Holmes, a scholar in Cambridge. There is no record of Holmes’ opinion, only that he delivered the phylactery to the American Antiquarian Society, on Allen’s urging. Nothing much was said or done about the phylactery for several years after that. Most of the parties who had viewed it (and many who hadn’t) believed it to be evidence of the Hebrew origins of Native Americans, but by 1816 or so no one outside of select sectarian circles seemed much interested in proving that point. In the early 1820s, Ethan Smith, a congregational minister in Poultney, Vt., became interested in the Pittsfield phylactery. Though he never actually saw it personally, he described it in his 1823 book “View of the Hebrews: The Lost Tribes of Israel in America.” That same year, a young man in Palmyra, N.Y., announced that he was to receive a set of plates from an angel. The man was Joseph Smith and the plates were said to contain a history of ancient America.
Later, when these plates were being translated, Oliver Cowdery, one of original “Three Witnesses” of Mormonism’s Golden Plates, joined Smith and became the major scribe who assisted in Smith’s translation. Cowdery hailed from Poultney, where he had been a parishioner of Ethan Smith’s congregational flock and quite likely owned a copy of his book. For this reason, nearly two centuries of skeptics and opponents to Mormonism have theorized that Ethan Smith’s ideas, along with certain elements of his style (e.g., his heavy quotation of the Book of Isaiah) may have been one of two major sources of influence on the Book of Mormon (the other being a fictional manuscript by Solomon Spaulding that Smith friend and follower Sidney Rigdon may have provided. It is certain that Joseph Smith did become aware of View of the Hebrews at some point, for he cites it and the artifact found in Pittsfield as supporting evidence of the “Lost Tribes” in America. Furthermore, it is entirely conceivable that Smith could have already have heard of the phylactery prior to 1823.
By then, though, no on was sure where the darned thing was. Isaiah Thomas, the first president of the antiquarian society, told Ethan Smith that he didn’t know where it was, or even where to go about looking. Several historians have made attempt over the years to track its whereabouts after being delivered to the society, coming up with only fragmentary possible scenarios. It may or may not have been returned to Sylvester Larned, who in 1818 expressed disappointment that nothing had come of the find. Larned may or may not in turn have sent it to Elias Boudinot, another interested scholar. Larned died of Yellow Fever two years later in New Orleans, at the age of 25, and there is no sign of the phylactery in Boudinot’s papers, housed at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. I tend to think that the Hebrew inscriptions are still in the hands of the Antiquarians – in fact, one AAS librarian in 1917 said that he seemed to remember seeing the scrolls but not didn’t know where. As such, it is one of hundreds of fascinating, potentially paradigm-shaking artifacts which resides in a Library Limbo, lost, uncataloged or misfiled in one of the country’s major archives or museums.
What relevance does the Pittsfield discovery have today, anyway? Scientific knowledge has advanced, well, let’s say slightly, since the early 1800s, at least to a point where belief in Native American groups as descendants of lost Israelite tribes can be effectively dismissed. On the other hand, scholarly opinion over the past decade has increasingly shifted toward the concept of the Americas being an occasional stopping point of many different world groups prior to Columbus. In 1924, some lead artifacts, mostly crosses and swords, with Hebrew and early Latin inscriptions were dug up in Tucson, Ariz. The inscriptions told of a group of Romanized Jews who left the Empire and whose ship (apparently) came to shore in the Gulf of Mexico, from which point they followed the Colorado River inland, establishing a briefly flourishing colony. Of course, questions were raised about the authenticity of the artifacts and, like the Pittsfield phylactery, the “Tucson Crosses” went missing for many years before finally showing up on display at the University of Arizona campus in 2003.
For those who prefer to get somewhat cleaner shave out of old Ockham’s razor, an alternate explanation was offered by William Allen, some time after the object left his care, though no one paid much attention. Allen noted that the strap was found in a place where wood chips and dirt had been collecting for years, and he was unable to find out whether it had come from the old earth beneath or from among the recent debris. He did learn that Merrick had employed British and German prisoners during the War of 1812, one of whom could have dropped it there. For my contribution, I’d append that it could have been lost there even earlier. The entire county was suddenly inundated with Hessian deserters following Burgoyne’s defeat at Saratoga in 1777 – some of whom never left – and any one of whom could have been the owner of the 18th-century equivalent of a scriptural fanny pack.
Of course, modern forensics could probably provide snappy answers to almost all of the questions surrounding the legendary scripts, if one could only put one’s finger on the troublesome strip. “Or,” as Charles Fort more eloquently put it, “there could be a real science, if there were really anything to be scientific about.” Full Article here. http://mysterious-hills.blogspot.com/2006/03/pittsfields-hebrew-scrolls-spark.html
Ancient Hebrew in North America
There is so much Hebrew influence as shown in the chart below, that has been found in North America. Most artifacts are called hoaxes by the intellectuals because is doesn’t fit with their theory. Most of these intellectuals still believe the New World was peopled on land via the Bering Strait. We haven’t found even one Hebrew item in the Mesoamerica area. An amazing number of ancient Hebrew items are all over the United States.
According to Wikipedia under Bering Strait it says, “The Strait has been the subject of the scientific hypothesis that humans migrated from Asia to North America across a land bridge known as Beringia when lower ocean levels – perhaps a result of glaciers locking up vast amounts of water – exposed a wide stretch of the sea floor, both at the present strait and in the shallow sea north and south of it. This view of how Paleo-Indians entered America has been the dominant one for several decades and continues to be the most accepted one. Numerous successful crossings without the use of a boat have also been recorded since at least the early 20th century.”
Most common sense people just don’t believe the Bering Strait theory any more. We believe North America was peopled by ocean voyages from the Old World by the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephites and others from Asia and Africa voyaged to South and Central America.
(* Note from above) In 1837, Elder Parley P. Pratt, one of the early defenders of the church, wrote a work entitled, “A Voice of Warning,” which has been published in many different editions in Europe and America. In the edition of 1885, published at Lamoni, Iowa, page 82, there is a quotation from Mr. Boudinot, which reads as follows:
Mr. Boudinot in his able work, remarks concerning their language: “Their language in its roots, idiom, and particular construction, appears to have the whole genius of the Hebrew; and what is very remarkable, and well worthy of serious attention, has most of the peculiarities of the language, especially those in which it differs from most other languages. There is a tradition related by an aged Indian of the Stockbridge Tribe, that their fathers were once in possession of a ‘Sacred Book’ which was handed down from generation to generation, and at last hid in the earth, since which time they have been under the feet of their enemies. But those oracles were to be restored to them again, and then they would triumph over their enemies and regain their. ancient country, together with their rights and privileges.”
Rabbi Yoni Birnbaum shows us how to put on your Tefillin correctly.
