Blue tassels

[Ken Rank]

No, he rebuked from the inside, just as I am far more likely to criticise Anglicanism than any other faith tradition. It is what is familiar.

He may have been a Pharisee, Catherineanne. There are hints and then one statement that is fairly interesting... in John 1, for example, John (the Baptist) tells the Pharisees, "there is one among you, whom you do not know...." We have lumped all Pharisees into one pot but the truth is there were two schools of Pharisees in that day. One was known to teach "the letter of the law" and the other was known to teach "the spirit of the law." That is the reason we have this spirit verses letter verbiage in the NT... it was a debate in the first century between the two schools. Paul attended Beit Hillel (school or house of Hillel) and we know this because Gamaliel was Paul's teacher and Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson.

 

[Catherineanne]

He may have been a Pharisee, Catherineanne. There are hints and then one statement that is fairly interesting... in John 1, for example, John (the Baptist) tells the Pharisees, "there is one among you, whom you do not know...." We have lumped all Pharisees into one pot but the truth is there were two schools of Pharisees in that day. One was known to teach "the letter of the law" and the other was known to teach "the spirit of the law." That is the reason we have this spirit verses letter verbiage in the NT... it was a debate in the first century between the two schools. Paul attended Beit Hillel (school or house of Hillel) and we know this because Gamaliel was Paul's teacher and Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson.

You just told me what I already said.

The Lord rebuked from the inside.

 

[Catherineanne]

Tradition simply means "that was has been passed down." In Western Christianity, the word has taken a negative connotation but truly a tradition can be good or bad... and neutral. Here is an example of neutral....

Nope. It means deliver; hand across.

You have assumed the tallit (as we see them today) were around in the first century. You don't have proof, you have read this or have been taught this... it has been passed down to you, but it isn't true. This isn't a bad thing to believe, it isn't harmful, it really makes no difference.... but it isn't true.

For someone who does not assume you are making a huge number of assumptions here.

You have asked me to prove there wasn't one. How can I prove that something didn't exist at the time somebody else is saying they did. You can prove they did, if they did, because you would have evidence but there isn't any... that is why I am saying they came later. Look, you are looking at a people who basically wore robes. And ATTACHED to the robes were a cloak of sorts that they would pull up over their head when praying. The tzitziot (braided fringes see Numbers 15:37-41 ) is what the Jews reference as proof of the historical tallit but those verses are talking about the braided tassels and that they were to have blue. They ASSUME the "4 corners" are the tallit but the "4 corners" are idiomatic just as the earth is said to have 4 corners. The relief from that first century church reveals robes with a belt that has tassels hanging from them and at what we would call corners (above where our modern pockets are on jeans) hung a blue thread in addition to the rest already hanging.

I didn't ask you do to anything.

I commended the Jewish people for their ability to remain faithful to their own traditions. That has nothing whatever to do with you.

 

[Hank77]

Tradition simply means "that was has been passed down." In Western Christianity, the word has taken a negative connotation but truly a tradition can be good or bad... and neutral. Here is an example of neutral....

Yes, not all traditions are bad.

You have assumed the tallit (as we see them today) were around in the first century. You don't have proof, you have read this or have been taught this... it has been passed down to you, but it isn't true. This isn't a bad thing to believe, it isn't harmful, it really makes no difference.... but it isn't true.

What do you mean by 'as we see them today'? A tallit is merely any four cornered garment, with the tzitzit attached at the corners.

You have asked me to prove there wasn't one. How can I prove that something didn't exist at the time somebody else is saying they did. You can prove they did, if they did, because you would have evidence but there isn't any... that is why I am saying they came later. Look, you are looking at a people who basically wore robes. And ATTACHED to the robes were a cloak of sorts that they would pull up over their head when praying. The tzitziot (braided fringes see Numbers 15:37-41 ) is what the Jews reference as proof of the historical tallit but those verses are talking about the braided tassels and that they were to have blue. They ASSUME the "4 corners" are the tallit but the "4 corners" are idiomatic just as the earth is said to have 4 corners. The relief from that first century church reveals robes with a belt that has tassels hanging from them and at what we would call corners (above where our modern pockets are on jeans) hung a blue thread in addition to the rest already hanging.

I think you are mistaken. The scriptures take different forms, from poetic to literal. Because in one place it says 'the four corners of the earth' which is an expression, does not mean the the 'four corners of the garment' is not literal.
All of Deut. 22, is very literal so to take the last verse as anything besides literal would be to take it out of it's context.

Deu 22:11 `Thou dost not put on a mixed cloth, wool and linen together.
Deu 22:12 `Fringes thou dost make to thee on the four skirts (corners) of thy covering with which thou dost cover thyself .

You mention first century reliefs of Jews with belts and fringe which could very well be a valid point. I did a search and couldn't find a relief, that is not to say they don't exist, did you mean to say paintings?
Could you give me an idea of how to search or where to find it? Thanks again.

 

[Ken Rank]

What do you mean by 'as we see them today'? A tallit is merely any four cornered garment, with the tzitzit attached at the corners.

There are two kinds of tallit... a shirt that resembles a tee shirt that has a cut on the sides so as to give the appearance of 4 corners from which the tzitziot are hung (tallit chatan) and a tallit prayer shawl that is simply a rectangular piece of material that is draped over the shoulders and pulled up over the head by Jews during prayer. This has 4 corners and Jews also tie off tzitziot from there as well. Both of these are post 1st century... the prayer shawl as we see it today is probably 3rd to 4th century... the prayer shawl in the day of messiah was attached to the robe. Around the waste was a belt that had fringes... and at what would be the corners there was a blue thread attached to the fringes. That is how messiah would have dressed and worn them in that day. Hence the woman with the issue of blood reaching up to the hem of his garment was not to his prayer shawl nor to his tallit chatan but to the fringed belt at his waist that included the blue threads.

I think you are mistaken. The scriptures take different forms, from poetic to literal. Because in one place it says 'the four corners of the earth' which is an expression, does not mean the the 'four corners of the garment' is not literal.

Perhaps, and then all you have to do Hank is provide "time period evidence" of what you are saying is correct. The problem is, you can't. You can find modern scholars making a claim about the time period... but there is no "time period" source to back your position. The tallit as we see them today (in both forms) are not from the 1st century but rather from later.

You mention first century reliefs of Jews with belts and fringe which could very well be a valid point. I did a search and couldn't find a relief, that is not to say they don't exist, did you mean to say paintings?
Could you give me an idea of how to search or where to find it? Thanks again.

They are paintings and I think from Dura-Europos (it has been a couple of years since I saw this) but I haven't had time to find that one link. I have a call to a friend who I know has the link... will post ASAP.

 

[Ken Rank]

Nope.

Nope? What kind of beginning is that? "Nope! You're an idiot Mr. Rank, and here is where you need to be taught...."

It means deliver; hand across.

paradosis
Thayer Definition:
1) giving up, giving over
1a) the act of giving up
1b) the surrender of cities
2) a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.

>> The idea is "giving over" to the NEXT GENERATION. So, CONTEXTUALLY, it is "that which is handed down to the next generation."

I didn't ask you do to anything.

OK, and I won't bother to address you again.

I commended the Jewish people for their ability to remain faithful to their own traditions. That has nothing whatever to do with you.

If you say so... I am fairly certain I am capable, through prayer, of determining what is and is not for me. Thanks though.

 

[Ken Rank]

@Hank77 here ya go. This is from Duro-Europus... a 2nd to 3rd century synagogue in Syria. This is not the Christian depiction I remember and will find that... but this does show what they would have worn. Thus is from 1800 years ago... much closer to the time in question. Notice the cloak is attached to the robe like I said... it is not a separate garment like the tallit (prayer shawl) or tallit chatan we see today.
View media item 55745

 

[Hank77]

@Hank77 here ya go. This is from Duro-Europus... a 2nd to 3rd century synagogue in Syria. This is not the Christian depiction I remember and will find that... but this does show what they would have worn. Thus is from 1800 years ago... much closer to the time in question. Notice the cloak is attached to the robe like I said... it is not a separate garment like the tallit (prayer shawl) or tallit chatan we see today.
View media item 55745

Thanks a bunch. I found another one also on wikimedia, that is clearer. It appears to shows the tzitzit.
Category:Dura-Europos synagogue painting - Wikimedia Commons

 

[Ken Rank]

That archaeological find is an amazing one. The artwork was so well preserved considering it's dating.

 

[Hank77]

There are two kinds of tallit... a shirt that resembles a tee shirt that has a cut on the sides so as to give the appearance of 4 corners from which the tzitziot are hung (tallit chatan) and a tallit prayer shawl that is simply a rectangular piece of material that is draped over the shoulders and pulled up over the head by Jews during prayer. This has 4 corners and Jews also tie off tzitziot from there as well. Both of these are post 1st century... the prayer shawl as we see it today is probably 3rd to 4th century.

OK. I wanted to make sure we were on the same page. I agree that neither the prayer shawl or the shirt are what they were wearing.

and at what would be the corners there was a blue thread attached to the fringes. That is how messiah would have dressed and worn them in that day. Hence the woman with the issue of blood reaching up to the hem of his garment was not to his prayer shawl nor to his tallit chatan but to the fringed belt at his waist that included the blue threads.

The belt is what I have not seen any proof of.

Perhaps, and then all you have to do Hank is provide "time period evidence" of what you are saying is correct. The problem is, you can't. You can find modern scholars making a claim about the time period... but there is no "time period" source to back your position. The tallit as we see them today (in both forms) are not from the 1st century but rather from later.

Huh? What I posted here had nothing to do with a time period. It was about claiming that the scripture of the tzitzit attached to the four corners was not literal.
Scripture plainly points to it be literally four corners of a garment, not the same usage as 'four corners of the world', which is obviously an expression and not literal.

They are paintings and I think from Dura-Europos (it has been a couple of years since I saw this) but I haven't had time to find that one link. I have a call to a friend who I know has the link... will post ASAP.

Again thank you very much.

 

[Ken Rank]

The belt is what I have not seen any proof of.

Go through those pics on Wiki... you'll see the belt but it isn't easy, it is part of the cloak which is part of the robe. It is easier to see in some and not others... my point is only that it was basically a one piece robe that had the belt and cloak sewn into it.

Huh? What I posted here had nothing to do with a time period. It was about claiming that the scripture of the tzitzit attached to the four corners was not literal.
Scripture plainly points to it be literally four corners of a garment, not the same usage as 'four corners of the world', which is obviously and expression and not literal.

Again thank you very much.

Here is my point... the Jews have had a garment with 4 corners for about 1700 +/- years now. So, that is part of the Jewish culture and is information accepted as historical fact by Christians who haven't questioned it. So when we are born, we are born with that being a cultural fact and something we have no reason to question. But seeing the outfits of that time period do not provide 4 literal corners and other uses of that phrase are idiomatic (4 corners of the earth) then it is less likely we are looking for a literal 4 cornered garment. The point of the tzitziot was a reminder of God's word and walking in righteousness... the weight isn't on the exact spot God desired them.

 

[Hank77]

Go through those pics on Wiki... you'll see the belt but it isn't easy, it is part of the cloak which is part of the robe. It is easier to see in some and not others... my point is only that it was basically a one piece robe that had the belt and cloak sewn into it.

I don't see a belt in any of the picture. You are assuming that the robe was sewn to the undergarment.

But seeing the outfits of that time period do not provide 4 literal corners and other uses of that phrase are idiomatic (4 corners of the earth) then it is less likely we are looking for a literal 4 cornered garment. The point of the tzitziot was a reminder of God's word and walking in righteousness... the weight isn't on the exact spot God desired them.

I specifically gave you scripture from Deut. that proves it was a literal statue. God isn't going to tell them all these literal things to do and then the last one in the section is not literal.

Deu 22:10 `Thou dost not plow with an ox and with an ass together.
Deu 22:11 `Thou dost not put on a mixed cloth, wool and linen together.
Deu 22:12 `Fringes thou dost make to thee on the four skirts of thy covering with which thou dost cover thyself .

By the 1st century the Midrash and the Talmud, the Oral law, had been written by the Pharisees. So what they were doing then does not always agree with God's statues to Moses. Such as hand washing was never given to Moses in Torah.

The point of the tzitziot was a reminder of God's word and walking in righteousness... the weight isn't on the exact spot God desired them.

I agree.

 

[Ken Rank]

I don't see a belt in any of the picture. You are assuming that the robe was sewn to the undergarment.

I specifically gave you scripture from Deut. that proves it was a literal statue. God isn't going to tell them all these literal things to do and then the last one in the section is not literal.
By the 1st century the Midrash and the Talmud, the Oral law, had been written by the Pharisees. So what they were doing then does not always agree with God's statues to Moses. Such as hand washing was never given to Moses in Torah.

I agree.

OK