Sorry but that is not true. Tallit is both biblical and historical as continuous from the time of Moshe. What is a middle ages adaptation is the way the knots are made. (And there are 2 or 3 ways of tying them.) I am not saying it aways looked as it does today. But the wearing of the Garment with the Tzitzi was. Even in your post above when Yeshua criticizes those who enlarged their phalactry, look at the word you found for the border, Tzitzi. That is the fringe and the fringe is connected to the Tallit. In ancient times it was called a Mantle, Or vesture as the Mantle of Elijah. Yeshua is wearing Tallit when the woman touhed his Tzitsi and was healed. Did you think the Tzitzi were sewn to his own skin? Certainly not they are connected to the Mantle or cloak or Tallit. Why do you think the Romans cast lots for his outer garment which was woven as a single piece. Tallit is woven of a single piece and was the finest and most expensive part of a Jewish mans clothing. When Peter enters the tomb, the piece that was covering his head was folded neatly in a separate place. This is because a Tallit is what was used to put over the ead during burial. The Tzitzi though not tied with the knots as they are today none the less represented the Torah, as it says in the comandment to wear them so that "when you look upon them you remmber my commandments". Since they represent the commandments they are not tossed aside like the common burial cloth that was wrapped arond his body, but is treated with respect and folded neatly in a separate place.
Someone already answered your arguments earlier on this thread on page five, and honestly, I couldn’t have done a better job myself.
Post# 48
Contra:
Charles has done a fair job answering you. Hegg has done a fair job answering you. The scriptures speak of mantles, tzitzis, burial garments, priestly robes, street attire and all the rest-
From an earlier post by Charles:
Mantle — (1.) Heb. ˒addereth, a large over-garment. This word is used of Elijah’s mantle (1 Kings 19:13, 19; 2 Kings 2:8, 13, etc.), which was probably a sheepskin.
It appears to have been his only garment, a strip of skin or leather binding it to his loins.
Was it a sheepskin tallit then?
Charles then speculated:
[FONT="]"In Johns Gospel Peter arrives at the Tomb and goes inside and he sees the linen burial cloth laying in a pile and folded nicely in a separate place he sees the "Napkin" that had been wrapped around his head. What Napkin, a dinner napkin? I don't think so. "[/FONT]
Lets examine the burial garment argument:
John 20:7 And2532 the napkin4676, that3739 was2258 [5713] about1909 his846 head2776, not3756 lying2749 [5740] with3326 the linen clothes3608, but235 wrapped together1794 [5772] in1519 a place5117 by itself1520 5565.
G4676
σουδάριον
soudarion
Thayer Definition:
1) a handkerchief
2) a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of Latin origin
What a eisegetical stretch that one is. Was it a Latin style tallit? When was the last time that you saw someone use a tallit to clean their nose and wipe their face?
Let's examine the "robe" argument:
Revelation 7
13 And one of the elders answered, saying to me, These, the ones having been clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where did they come?
14 And I said to him, Sir, you know. And he said to me, These are those coming out of the great tribulation; and they washed their robes and whitened them in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Because of this they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His sanctuary. And He sitting on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.
Are you saying that these were tallits also?
G4749
στολή
stolē
Thayer Definition:
1) an equipment
2) an equipment in clothes, clothing
2a) spec. a loose outer garment for men extending to the feet, worn by kings, priests, and persons of rank
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4724
Citing in TDNT: 7:687, 1088
In the end, all of your and Charles suppositions are unfounded. It is clever speculation, as are the majority of the Hebrew roots teachings, but upon close examination it all becomes obvious conjecture driven by a theological need. If the Scriptures don't say it, then the next move in the "Hebraic mindset" is to reinterpret or "idiomize" to get them to say it:
Charles:
There might be a translation error here but when Yeshua prayed for the dead girl and raised her to life he said, "Tallitha Kumi" which could be "You under the Tallit Arise" "Tallit Ha Kumi" The Oral tradition that founded the Gospels may have distorted these Hebraic/Aramaic words over time.
So much for God's promise to keep His Word for all generations. (shakes head)
Post #47
Contra stated:
OK...so far we have tried to show you from scripture, history, and tradition that shawls were commonplace. You refuse to accept any of the above or even consider them.
Charles has done a fair job answering you. Hegg has done a fair job answering you. The scriptures speak of mantles, tzitzis, burial garments, priestly robes, street attire and all the rest- all pointing to the fact that Jews, as well as just about everybody else int he region, wore shawls.
Let’s use you and Charles system of reasoning on another passage:
Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean2931 thing , and all our righteousnesses6666 are as filthy5708 rags899; and we all do fade5034 [8799] [8676] 1101 [8686] as a leaf5929; and our iniquities5771, like the wind7307, have taken us away5375 [8799].
H899
בּגד
beged
BDB Definition:
1) treachery, deceit
2) (CLBL) garment, clothing (used indiscriminately)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H898
Same Word by TWOT Number: 198a
Using you eisegetical method of finding a text and then forcing a meaning, then the “rag” described in the above passage could be a tallit also, as well as any carpet or piece of cloth.
Definition of Eisegesis
Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. People who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. They set off with the up-front goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. Stated another way, they engage in what the Bible refers to as "private interpretation".
Why do you kick against the pricks? Why is it so important to prove that he did not wear Tzitzi? If he had not worn them don't you think the Pharisees who challenged them for not washing their hands before eating, a rabbinical law, would not have also accused them of breaking the Torah law by not wearing Tzitzi?
I already agreed that He wore tsitsit in an earlier post. That was never contested by me, because it is Scriptural.
You quest to remove the Jewishness and the law from Messiah is futile. If he did not keep th elaw, then he was a sinner and could not be the sinless sacrifice that we need. The law said to waer Tzitzi with a cor of blue. He did or he was considered a sinner for he was violating the law, and sin is the breaking of the law. Why accuse Messiah of being a sinner? This is what the non-believing Jews do.
Please stop the straw man arguments and false accusations Charles. I agreed with the OP that there is no Scriptural proof that He wore a tallit, and I have now supplied many passages to prove that. There is Scriptural proof that He did wear Tsitsit, and that was never contested by me.
Upvote
0