|
Four of the artifacts are in the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton,
Ohio: the hand phylactery, its made-to-order case, the bowl, and the flow
detector. The case is made of the same material as the flow detector and bowl.
A copy of the lithograph of the head phylactery is on hand. The set was meant
for use when traveling; this is clear from the flow detector, bowl, and the
protective case.22 One does not need to check whether the water is
free-flowing in one's own home, nor does one need to carry around a matching
bowl for washing. One does, however, have to assure that the water for washing
is pure and a stone container is an ideal material for such a purpose.23
Purity would also affect the choice of stone for the two phylacteries.
Whatever else the traveler would be exposed to, stone would ensure that the
ritual set would remain undefiled. The head phylactery probably had a case as
well, but we shall never know.
That the artifacts were found more than 4,000 miles in distance and 400 to 600
years after their manufacture at a site in Ohio is completely irrelevant to an
analysis of the artifacts themselves. Nevertheless, their disposition when
found is relevant and is linked to how they got there. The evidence of "how"
is stark and clear and, incidentally, answers "when." We will now dispose of
this side issue and then be free to concentrate on the artifacts themselves.24
DISPOSITION WHEN FOUND
The town of Newark, Ohio was founded in 1802 on a branch of the Licking River
in one of the areas that had been filled with "great stone works" and Indian
burial mounds covered with loose stone "stacks." The burial mounds were
located 10 miles to the south and east of Newark in an area that had never
been inhabited but had long been dug into and pillaged.
The flow detector was found in June of 1860 about a mile from Newark in a pit
at the edge of the nearby "great stone works." The artifact was encased in a
spherical "clay" ball typical of finds in the Indian mounds.25 The hand
phylactery, nestling in its case, and the water bowl were found in close
proximity to each other in one of many Indian burial mounds on November 1,
1860. Also found were two small objects.26 A branch of the river passed near
by the mound. The burial mounds were under what had been reputed to be a
"stone stack" 40 feet in height. "Reputed" is the key word; the site of the
finds was hardly undisturbed.
The entire area of the "stone stack" and burial mounds had been thoroughly dug
over during the early 1800's in a search for the treasure of the notorious
pirate, Captain Kidd. Then, in 1831-32, after the “pirate treasure hunt” had
already erased evidence of the original state of the site and "stone stack,"
the stones had been removed in their entirety to build the retaining wall
around what is now called “Buckeye Lake.” The "stack" was neither described
before the treasure hunt nor before it was destroyed; neither was the specific
mound where the artifacts were found. Evidence that the site was continuously disturbed comes in 1850 when some
farmers spent part of one day in excavating and turned up a small wooden
"coffin" embedded in the clay about 2-3 feet beneath the surface of one mound.
The wooden coffin was not excavated until July, 1860.27
The hand phylactery and bowl were found in this same mound in November 1860.
Further, in November, when digging around where the "coffin" had been
excavated in July, water seeped in at the head end where it had been. In
digging, the texture of the wet clay has been described as comparable to
"cutting through cheese."28
Thus the site had continuously been disturbed, the soil was easily dug into,
and we know nothing at all about the actual state of the site. In spite of the
mass of evidence to the contrary, the site was (and still is) treated as if it
were in a "virginal" state as left by the Indians 1300 years before.
The head phylactery, with its matching spiraled inscription and black
limestone material, was found in 1867 in the same mound and in the same area
of the mound in which were found the hand phylactery and the bowl.
With the finding of the head phylactery, we are told when and how this set of
late-medieval ritual artifacts found their way to these sites. The head
phylactery was found by David M. Johnson (Banker) and N. Roe Bradner (MD), or
rather skulls and other human bones and remains of "a burning place,"
containing charcoal and ashes, and "other relics" were found
by Johnson in what was a shallow grave twelve to fourteen inches in depth.29
The skulls were encased in clay. The pirate's treasure hunt, 50 to 75 workmen
digging around and carting off the stones, and other numerous disturbances to
the site across at least 60 years were completely ignored. As a result, the
raised "burning place" (composed of rocks and clay and quite necessary to
making any kind of "fireplace" in that soil at any period), skulls, and
skeletal remains of humans were automatically assigned to “Ancient America”
without further ado.
A number of skulls found in the dig were lifted out by banker Johnson and some
of these were later handed to MD Bradner to be packed and shipped to
Philadelphia. One particular "fragile skull," with its damaged condition
"tolerably well preserved," was held together by the wet clay in which it was
found. When Bradner lifted out the clay encased skull to examine it, the now
dried-out clay fell apart, the skull disintegrated, and the head phylactery
was revealed.30
Unlike the other pieces, the head phylactery is damaged. The damage to the
"tolerably well preserved" skull showed that the person had been hit with
force on the back of the head with the traditional "blunt instrument." We know
that the owner was wearing the head phylactery from its disposition when
found: glued in place by the clay to the front of the "fragile" skull. We also
know he was wearing the head phylactery from the condition of the artifact
itself.
Chips of stone are knocked off both the lid and the matching place on the side
of the "box" precisely where they should be if the owner were wearing it and
had been struck from behind with force enough to pitch the person forward and
hit stony ground directly in front of him. We also know that the hand
phylactery was still in its case; therefore, the owner was killed after he
had donned the head phylactery but was probably in the process of purifying
himself before opening the case to don the hand phylactery.
That the skull and other skeletal remains were found in a shallow grave tells
us that the area was no longer an empty wilderness in a climax forest. The
only reason for a body to be hidden is because the area was now populated and
the site regularly visited by local farmers and by people from the already
founded Newark, Ohio -- not to mention treasure hunters.
The flow detector was taken away while the other artifacts were buried with
the deceased owner. We know that the owner had used the flow detector and the
bowl because the head phylactery was on his head and he had, necessarily,
washed before donning the phylactery. Therefore, he had recited the formula
inscribed on the flow detector out loud and drawn attention to himself and
what he was doing in a place he had chosen for privacy while performing the
ritual.
One plausible reason for the removal of the flow detector comes to mind: after
all, people have been killed for a pair of roller skates and the flow detector
is a neat device for checking a water supply. Whatever the reason for carrying
off the flow detector, the killer headed north and east to Newark and finally
threw the item, with its Hebrew writing and evidence of mayhem, into the "bone-pit"
where it acquired its "clay ball" and was found around 25-40 years
later in 1860.
D. Francis Bacon, in 1860, acidly commented on the flow detector: "no stone,
whether novaculite or any thing else (even granite), can be buried in that
soil for so much as half a century without becoming covered by a calcareous
incrustation, . . . or acquiring a ferruginous or other stain from the earth
which encloses it. And yet this Newark Holy Stone comes up from its entombment
of some thousand some hundreds and some odd years as clean and
bright and slick as a new whistle!"31
It is hardly surprising that the stone came up "clean as a new whistle": it
had not been buried there long enough to acquire "a calcareous incrustation."
The evidence is quite clear: the artifacts were indeed stolen from a European
settler, as Fischel surmised, and deposited at these sites earlier in the
nineteenth century
That the head phylactery was bound in place on the owner's head and the hand
phylactery still in its case is relevant to an analysis of the artifacts.
BACKGROUND MATERIAL
WRITING SYSTEMS
We cannot emphasize often enough that a writing system is an integral part of
cultural identity.32 Prior to the first half of the 17th century, everything
on a document had meaning: size, shape, color, format, script, material --
literally everything. All these elements are sub-systems in a culture's
writing system. All of the sub-systems had to be correct for a given class of
document and within a given culture for a document to be accepted as
authentic. We cannot ignore any part of a culture's writing system. To
rephrase this, we must examine the whole elephant, or we are in danger of
coming to conclusions based on a trunk or a tail.
PHYLACTERIES (TEFILLIN):
The word "phylactery" is Greek and means "to guard against evil": in other
words, a protective "amulet." The term is never used in the Masoretic Text
[MT] or Rabbinic discussions and is mentioned only once in the Old Greek [OG]
in Matthew 25:3. Nevertheless, "phylactery" was picked up and became the
standard term of reference.
Phylacteries (tefillin) are square boxes made of black leather and contain the
four Biblical passages (Exodus 13:9, 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 6:18) that relate
to the wearing of a sign [OTT] on the hand, to remind the wearer of the
instructions of the Lord [Torat IHVH], and on the forehead, to keep the words
of the Lord in mind. Since the second century CE, the four verses are written
on one piece of parchment placed in the hand piece. The same four verses are
written on four separate pieces of parchment and placed in four compartments
in the head piece. Referred to as "halacha mosheh misinai" [laws given to
Moses at Sinai], the wearing of phylacteries are derived from these four
verses; however, there were disputes about the order in which the verses
should be placed in the compartments. With the finding of one head piece at Qumran
that still contained its parchments, these disputes, once thought to be
medieval, were shown to date from at least the first century CE.
As far back as 1927, J. Mann maintained that the contents were not always
limited to these four verses.33 He pointed out that a ruling in Mishna
Sanhedrin 11.3 specifically forbids the use of five instead of four verses.
Mann claimed that the forbidden fifth verse was the decalogue itself. In the
late 4th century CE, Jerome mentions that the phylacteries also contained the
decalogue;34 Jerome was considered in error; everyone "knew" that the
decalogue had been forbidden.
Although long assumed to be only used in Samaritan ritual, evidence that the
decalogue was recited daily in the temple along with Deut 6:4-9 and 11:13-21
comes from Mishna Tamid 5:1 and is also indicated in the Nash papyri from
Fayyum (second century BCE). Finds at Qumran show that Mann was correct and so
was Jerome: the decalogue was indeed used in phylacteries during the
second-temple period. As of the second century CE, the practice of reciting
the fifth part (the decalogue) was forbidden, so was its inclusion in the phylacteries.
Mann notes that the argument forbidding the inclusion of the decalogue is an
interpretation that assigns the reciting of the decalogue only to Moses.35 In
current use, the hand piece is donned first; the head piece second. Yet, the
Talmud generally places the head piece first because, unlike the hand piece,
the head one was always visible and permitted a Jew to be recognized as one
under the protection of the name of God. The placing of the hand piece first
seems to date to the Talmudic period and has been assumed to have supplanted
the older order.
The Rabbis held that the general law was figurative and expressed in the
Bible; the application and amplification of these verses were matters of
tradition and inference.36 In addition to the evidence that among diverse
Jewish groups a hand phylactery certainly could have the decalogue written on
it, research has shown that the four Biblical passages may very well have been
meant literally.37
While the specialized terminology of "magic" (divination, protection,
placation, influencing of the supernatural, and so forth) appears throughout
the MT, the terms are clustered in legal materials. The appearance of "magic"
terminology in Exodus 22:18 (22:17 in the English texts) and Deuteronomy
18:10-11 would appear relevant to the discussion of the wearing of the phylacteries.
The custom appears related to the known ancient practice of wearing "magic"
charms and protective amulets inscribed with the name of, or symbol for, a
deity, or inscribed on hand and head denoting clan membership. Arguments on
this subject abound and have since the late 19th century.38 Even the
supporters of the figurative interpretation admit that the language used in the
text is borrowed from known, ancient customs connected with magic charms
and with regard to amulets and incised or tattooed signs in use in the Ancient
Near East. Among the suggestive passages are Gen 4:15; I Kings 20:41; and
Ezekiel 9:4-6.
The four passages contained in the phylacteries themselves are ambiguous.
There is also Isaiah 56:5, with the inexplicable combination of "yad v'shem"
[hand and name] -- unless the association is meant as a literal reference to
the practice of placing a sign upon the hand. There is also the point that,
although worn on the left arm (nearest the heart), the Hebrew name for the
piece is “yad” (hand). Whether protective amulets or not, the wearing of
the phylacteries and their contents are prescribed.
FORMAT:
Everyone is familiar with the "block" format; today we call this format
"justified text." The primary purpose of the block, or justified, format is to
prevent the insertion of words not put there by the author.39
There are, however, other formats; each format had a special purpose. The
"incantation format" was reserved for incantations or charms. The purpose of
this format is to "freeze" the text to ensure that the words are said exactly
as written. Incantation documents are instantly recognizable by the way they
are written: the text is written in a spiral or circling manner.
Many examples of such incantation texts have been found. Incantations texts
appear from Portugal of the 8th century BCE to Babylon in the 8th century CE;
from Etruscan lead tablets to Roman dedications to Juno; from early Greek
inscriptions from Thera to Ionic votive inscriptions to Apollo. They even
appear written in Cretan Linear A. (Figure 4). From the number of texts written
in boustrophedon (writing back and forth like an ox plowing) that appear
at ancient Greek sacred sites, e.g., a wall block from Temple of Apollo
Pythas (7th BCE), sacred laws from Magnesia, grave pillars, and other ritual
inscriptions, we may have to re-assess the purpose of the technique. It
appears to be another way of writing incantations in a "spiral."
Fig. 4: Texts in the Incantation format: (a) Cretan Linear A; (b) Etruscan; (c)
Roman (to Juno); (d) Greek: from Thera; (e) (f) from Athens; (g) Babylonian in
ca, 8th-century CE Aramaic; (h) Portugal, 8th BCE
(click on image for larger view)
An inscription that is written in a spiral or circularly is an incantation
text.
|Page
1|Page 3|Page 4|Page
5|Notes|
Look
for academic tools and books for biblical studies at Dove
Books.
Return to Home Page
Return to Articles and Commentary
|