vii. 3 ; xiii. I6-18 ; xiv. 9-11 ; xvi. 2 ; xix. 20 ; XX. 4). The Moslems, Nusaitieh and Bedawin Arabs, to the present day, either tie, or have tattooed, on their hands and foreheads, select pas sages of the Koran. Sir Stamford Raffles pre sented to his cousin, the Rev. Dr. Raffles, a small circular copy of the Koran, the size of half a crown, which a prince of Djocjocarta, in the isle of Java, were on his arm, and which was taken from him when he lay slain on the ground. This remarkable copy of the Koran, which is smaller than an ordi nary phylactery, is now in the possession of T.
Stamford Raffles, Esq., the son of the late Dr. Raffles. It was therefore natural that the Mosaic law, which forbids tattooing (Lev. xix. 28), should appropriate, for the service of the Most High, the innocent and generally prevailing custom, which the lawgiver could not eradicate, of wearing orna ments and tokens, with inscriptions declaring that they belonged to Jehovah, and that the Lord is their Redeemer (Thomson, The Land and the Book, ed. London, pp. 67, 98). This universal custom would of itself be sufficient argument for taking the injunction in its literal sense, even if we had not the support of the ancient versions and the unde viating practice of the synagogue ; and be it re membered, that even the Sadducees, who rejected tradition, and adhered to the simple meaning of the law, also wore phylacteries. As to the phrase /29 ro9 917 nnm, Prov. iii. 3, etc., which is quently quoted in support of the spiritual meaning, it must be observed that it too is to be taken lite rally, inasmuch as t-6 does not denote the external front of the breast, but the tablet which the ancients wore on their hearts. It is the same as op:n, which so frequently occurs in the Illishna (comp. Zelini, xxiv. 7), and which the Greeks called and the Romans Pugillares. This tablet, when made of wood, was called n19 (Is. xxx. S ; Habak. ii. 2) ; when of metal, was termed (Is. viii. i), and when it was of stone it was denominated nzN. The argument of Spencer, that because the Septua gint renders rratnt. by daciNevra, and not G/ovXarc riipta, therefore this version did not understand it literally, inter eos (qui legem illam sensu tantum metaphorico exponendam censuerunt) LXX. cum primis notandi veliunt, qui quod in Moisi est nitt= ipsi non InNarriipla sed cludXeitra trans. tulerunt' (de Leg. Hebravr. ritual., L. iv. c. 2), ignores the fact that OtAarriipta is a term which obtained at a much later period as an equivalent for Josephus, too, who like all the ancient and modern Jews takes the injunction literally, does not render tY0 by OuNaKT•pLa (Antiy.
iv. 8. 13). The fact is, that in very early days there was no fixed and technical term for those frontlets. Hence Herzfeld (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 223) has rightly pointed out that the phylacteries are meant in 2 Kings xi. 12, where the high-priest is said to have put upon Joash ' the crown and the rim ;, and Duschak stun die Tradition, p. 85) supposes that the Tephillin are meant by ;run 11Y (Is. viii. 16). The in junction about the phylacteries was so generally observed among the Jews after the Babylonish captivity, that the writers of them found it a most lucrative business. Hence we are told that twenty-four fast days were ordained by the Great Synagogue, in order that the writers of the scrolls of the law, the phylacteries, and the mezuzas, might not grow rich, inasmuch as they were not allowed to write them on these days' (Pesachini, 5o b). In harmony with the design of the phylacteries, Mai mouides beautifully propounds their utility, when he remarks : the sacred influence of the phylac teries is very great ; for as long as one wears them on his head and arm he is obliged to be meek, God-fearing, must not suffer himself to be carried away by laughter or idle talk, nor indulge in evil thoughts ; but must turn his attention to the words of truth and uprightness.' The blunder which has been propagated by the learned Spencer, and which is repeated by Winer (Biblisches Realworter buch, s. v. Phylakterion), Dean Alford (on Matt. xxiii. 5), and others, based upon a misunderstand ing of the Chaldee paraphrase of the Song of Songs viii. 3, has led Mr. Farrar (in Smith's Dic tionary of the Bible) to make the positive but erroneous assertion—` that phylacteries were used as amulets is certain, and was very natural.' Now a careful perusal of the said passage in the Chaldee paraphrase will show that it was not the phylacteries but the Mezuzas which were used as charms. The whole passage is given in English in the article M EZUZA.
4. Literature. —Maimonides, lad Ha-Chezaka, Hilchoth Tephillin, sections i.-iv., vol. i. p. 84-92, ed. Amsterdam r702 ; Spencer, De Leg. Il•braor. ritual., lib. iv. c. 1-7, p. 1201-1232, ed. Cantabri gioe 1727 ; Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. p. 223, seq., Nordhausen 1837 ; Jewish Ritual entitled Derech Ha-Chajim, Vienna 1859, p. seg. ; Hochmuth in Pen Chananja, vol, i. p. 215, etc., Szegedin 1858.—C. D. G.