Torah Apologetics
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
    • Apologetics & Daily Life
    • History & Culture
    • Language & Word Studies
  • Resources
    • Logos 9 Review
    • Logos 10 Review
    • NEW Logos Review
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
    • Apologetics & Daily Life
    • History & Culture
    • Language & Word Studies
  • Resources
    • Logos 9 Review
    • Logos 10 Review
    • NEW Logos Review
  • Contact
  • Donate

Was Paul a Tallit-Maker?

3/3/2016

22 Comments

 
Over the past several decades, particularly within Messianic and Messianic-adjacent congregations, a persistent assertion has emerged regarding the Apostle Paul (Rav Sha'ul). Contrary to traditional interpretations found in most biblical translations, which identify Paul's occupation as a "tent-maker," proponents of this alternative view claim he was instead a "tallit-maker" - a craftsman who produced prayer shawls. This claim has gained such widespread acceptance in certain communities that it is rarely subjected to critical examination. Yet a fundamental question remains: what motivates this interpretative shift? Does attributing this specific occupation to Paul somehow authenticate his Jewish identity or enhance his apostolic authority? What hermeneutical advantage do we gain by promoting this understanding? These questions warrant careful consideration as we examine the textual and historical evidence.
Picture
The Claim and Its Textual Support
Advocates of the "tallit-maker" interpretation often reference Exodus 33:7-10 as foundational support:
"Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp. And it came about, whenever Moses went out to the tent, that all the people would arise and stand, each at the entrance of his tent, and gaze after Moses until he entered the tent. Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the Lord would speak with Moses. When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship, each at the entrance of his tent." (NASB95)

Proponents suggest that the phrase "at the doorway of his tent" (rendered as "entrance" in some translations) actually signifies "wearing his tallit." They argue that since the tallit is conceptualized in rabbinic tradition as a personal sanctuary or doorway, the passage describes individuals standing with their tallitot draped over them. Various websites and commentaries, such as the now-defunct ngabo.org*, have explicitly stated: "The word Tallit in Hebrew means a small tent, a Tabernacle or a dwelling place in the presence of God, which also was given a name as a prayer shawl in English. The scripture in Acts 18:3 talks about Apostle Paul being a tent maker, which simply meant that he was making tallits (prayer shawls)."

*(Note: this site was up and running when this article was originally written in 2016, but as of a prior rewrite in January of 2022, it was no longer active. It may be accessible in the Internet archive, but I am not certain.)

Lexical Analysis
Before evaluating this claim, we must establish what a tallit actually is. In its essence, a tallit is merely a "four-cornered garment" designed to accommodate tzitziyot (tassels/fringes). It is crucial to note that Scripture never commands the wearing of a tallit specifically; rather, it mandates the wearing of tzitziyot (Numbers 15:37-41, Deuteronomy 22:12). The tallit evolved as a practical solution for displaying these ritual fringes and thereby fulfilling the biblical commandment.

Examining the Greek Terminology
The pivotal term used to describe Paul's occupation is the Greek word σκηνοποιός (skēnopoios), which appears exclusively in Acts 18:3. This compound noun derives from two Greek elements: the noun σκηνή (skēnē), meaning "tabernacle, booth, tent, dwelling," and the verb ποιέω (poieō), meaning "to make, do, manufacture." Significantly, in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the word translated as "tent" in Exodus 33:8 is precisely this same term, skēnē.

Thus, skēnopoios literally means "a maker of skēnē." It is noteworthy that prior to the resurgence of Messianic Judaism in the mid-1980s, virtually no scholarly source questioned that skēnē referred to an actual tent. Despite extensive research, I have been unable to locate a single reputable lexicon or dictionary that offers "tallit" as a possible definition for the Greek skēnē. This absence is telling, especially considering the comprehensive nature of many modern Greek lexical resources such as BDAG, Liddell-Scott-Jones, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon [2].

Etymology of "Tallit"
The assertion that "tallit" means "little tent" appears to be etymologically unfounded. Contrary to some claims, tallit is not a Hebrew word but an Aramaic term derived from the root טלל (talal), which means "to shade, to cover" [3]. The term does have a range of meanings, and is used variously in the Talmud to describe a large piece of fabric like a sheet. It can describe an outer garment (Shabbat 147a; Menachot 41a), and it is also found in Shabbat 138a where it refers to a prohibition against stretching out a large sheet to create a tent-like canopy. This, in full disclosure, is the only reference I can locate to relate the tallit to tents. However, this tent-like canopy made from a large sheet is not intended to be worn as a garment. In each of these uses, the Aramaic word talit refers generically to a sheet. In some passages it is questioned whether the sheet, when worn as a garment, requires tsitsiyot or not, while in others, the question is raised as to whether or not it qualifies - when stretched across poles - as a tent. 

In all of this, I can see how someone could have come across these references and then put the ideas together. However, this does not a doctrine make. 

The Development of the Tallit
Historical evidence strongly indicates that the prayer shawl (tallit) as it exists today did not exist in Paul's era. While Jews of that period certainly wore outer garments bearing tzitziyot in compliance with the Torah, the specialized prayer garment known as the tallit "began to take on the form known today beginning around 1,000 CE" [1]. This development occurred nearly a millennium after Paul's lifetime.

To provide a more nuanced historical perspective, Lupia does acknowledge that a primitive form of the tallit began to emerge toward the end of the first century CE. However, this was initially just a standardized garment designed to display the required tzitziyot, similar to the Bedouin abayya. The evolution of this garment into the ritual "prayer shawl" recognized today was a gradual process that culminated around 1,000 CE, well beyond the Apostolic age [1]. Hoffman further confirms this developmental timeline, noting that the specific rituals and blessings associated with the tallit were not standardized until the Geonic period (7th-11th centuries CE) [4].

Logical Inconsistencies
The claim that Paul manufactured tallitot presents several logical problems when examined against the historical and economic realities of the first century CE:
  1. Commercial Viability: Acts 18:3 indicates that Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila shared this profession as their livelihood. For this to be economically viable, there would need to be sufficient demand for their product. Manufacturing tallitot exclusively for Jewish customers, especially in the Diaspora where Hellenistic influence was pronounced and observance of mitzvot more lax, would represent an extremely limited market.
  2. Ritual Requirements: Since the specific form of the tallit was not yet standardized or ritually required in the first century, there is no historical basis to assume that every observant Jew would have needed one, further constraining potential sales.
  3. Diaspora Context: Paul frequently traveled throughout the Gentile world where Jewish populations varied considerably. The feasibility of sustaining a business exclusively producing Jewish ritual items in predominantly Gentile cities seems unreasonable.
  4. Material Considerations: Traditional tent-making involved working with robust materials suitable for outdoor use and durability. This aligns with what we know of Paul's physical capabilities and labor-intensive work ethic (1 Corinthians 4:12, 1 Thessalonians 2:9).

Early Translations and Interpretations
The Latin Vulgate

The Latin Vulgate renders Acts 18:3 as: "et quia eiusdem erat artis manebat apud eos et operabatur erat autem scenofactoriae artis." This translates to: "And because he was of the same trade, he remained with them and wrought. (Now they were tentmakers by trade.)"

The Latin text employs "scenofactoriae," essentially a Latinized version of the Greek "skēnopoios" (sceno-factory). While this direct borrowing doesn't provide independent confirmation, it demonstrates that early Latin translators understood the term to refer to tent-making rather than the production of ritual garments.

The Syriac Aramaic Peshitta
The Peshitta, an ancient Syriac translation, reads in Acts 18:3: ומֵטֻל דּבַר אוּמָנוּתהוּן הוָא שׁרָא לֵה לוָתהוּן ופָלַח הוָא עַמהוּן בֻּאומָנוּתהוּן דֵּין לָולָרֵא הוַו
This translates to: "And because he was a son of their art, he dwelt with them and wrought with them: but in their art they were tentmakers."

Interestingly, George Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta renders this as: "And because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them: for they were saddle makers by trade."

This unexpected translation stems from Lamsa's attempt to capture the precise meaning of the Syriac term לָולָרֵא (lawlarei). According to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, this word denotes "a maker of rough cloth" [5]. J. Payne Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary expands this definition to "a maker of rough cloth for tents, or horsecloths" [6]. William Jennings' Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament suggests a possible Latin origin: "Latinism [...], perhaps corrupt from aulaerii, or from lorarii. A saddle- or harness-maker does not make curtains or tent-cloth. Latin lorum with sense saddle, housing, trappings" [7].

These Latin derivatives (related to "lorum") primarily refer to leather products such as "straps, thongs, flogs." Notably, this lexical field has no connection to the fine fabrics traditionally used for tallitot.

It is particularly significant that the Peshitta, being a Syriac text with Aramaic roots, does not use the term "tallit-maker" despite "tallit" itself being an Aramaic word. Had Paul's occupation involved manufacturing tallitot, the Peshitta translators—intimately familiar with Aramaic terminology—would have been uniquely positioned to make this identification. Their failure to do so strongly suggests that they understood Paul's craft to involve heavier materials used for actual tents rather than ritual garments.

Additionally, Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament renders the term using a form of אֹהֶל (ohel), the standard Hebrew word for "tent," further supporting the traditional understanding [8].

Conclusion
Based on comprehensive lexical, historical, and logical analysis, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional understanding that Paul was indeed a maker of tents, not tallitot. This occupation aligns with the harsh realities of first-century itinerant ministry, where practical skills in crafting durable shelters would have provided Paul with a reliable means of self-support during his missionary journeys.

The tallit, as conceptualized in modern Judaism, represents a later ritual development that did not exist in its current form during the Apostolic era, and certainly not during the time of Moses. While the desire to emphasize the Jewish context of the New Testament is commendable, we must guard against anachronistic interpretations that project later religious developments onto the biblical text.

Sound exegesis must be prioritized over eisegesis (reading our own preferences into Scripture). The persistent advocacy for questionable interpretations without substantial evidence undermines the credibility of Messianic scholarship and distracts from the genuine Jewish elements present in the New Testament.

Shalom.

​Updated 4/19/2025.

​[1] Lupia, John N. The Ancient Jewish Shroud At Turin. Regina Caeli Press, 2010.
[2] Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
[3] Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature. New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004.
[4] Hoffman, Lawrence A. The Tallit: History and Customs of a Jewish Prayer Shawl. Jewish Theological Seminary, 1999.
[5] Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2009.
[6] Smith, J. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903.
[7] Jennings, William. Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926.
[8] Delitzsch, Franz. Hebrew New Testament. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1877.
22 Comments
klaudiabae
7/7/2016 09:34:34 pm

Thank you so much!

Reply
J. A. Brown link
7/8/2016 09:15:59 am

Thank YOU for taking the time to read through it. Feel free to share.

Shalom.

Reply
Jason Thompson
9/28/2020 09:18:17 pm

Bro J.A. Brown I live in Jasper, AL. I such a desire to follow Torah. The scales are off my eyes and I was wondering if you could help me on my journey? I want to follow Gods laws and festivals and need direction please. My family thinks I’m crazy but I know this is the will of God is to follow His commandments!!!!

Glenn Reed
9/1/2017 09:32:26 am

Thanks for this insight and clarification.

Reply
Linda R Lamb link
2/7/2020 07:21:10 pm

this was a very interesting read ! I also believe Priscilla wrote the book of Hebrews anciate feedback on thisd if asked in those days, Paul would have graciously given the words of the Book of Hebrews to her. Would appreciate feedback on this

Reply
Daniel Trujillo link
1/6/2021 04:22:58 pm

I believe your spot on I can't see why the Apostle would be making prayer shawls I know in Corinthians he talks about the women covering their head for prayer but he said the men shouldn't cover their heads God bless you

Reply
Shoni
11/18/2016 10:00:25 pm

Well, all I can say, is that when I wear a my prayer shawl, I sense God's presence in a greater measure, and because of this I believe it is special to God.
Presence permiates cloth. Perhaps this is why many were healed as Paul passed by them. Having on his tallit, after spending countless hours in prayer God's presence would remain in the fibres of his garments - thus God's healing power to touch those he passed etc.

Reply
Jonathan A Brown
12/1/2016 05:10:01 pm

Shoni,

None of this negates the personal significance of a Tallit. It is simply to clarify that the Tallit did not exist in Paul's day, and indeed, was not the career Paul practiced.

As to your statement about Paul wearing one, I must disagree since, as mentioned, there is no indication that the Tallit existed for another few hundred years after Paul. It may be significant to his tsitsiyot, as with Yeshua's, but the Tallit was not yet an official and formal garment.

Shalom b'Mashiach

Reply
Gavriel ben David link
1/25/2017 11:09:00 pm

Your article has no grounds for truth since in Matthew 9:20 a wwoman with an issue of blood touched the hem of Yeshu's garment. I guess tizzit did not exist then either. What was his tzizit attached to?

You also make a claim that the oral torah Mishnah did not exist until 300 A.D. Well that is incorrect also. Dan Bahat Former District Archaeologist of Jerusalem and current professor at Bar-Llan University and St. Michael's College at University of Toronto, Dr. Dan Bahat talks about his renowned archaeological career.Dan has discovered a copy of the Mishnah Sanhedrin from 200 B.C

Some of the most anti -Jewish people are Jews, just ask Isaiah the prophet. Jews would be are greatest enemies.

J. A. Brown link
1/26/2017 10:47:29 am

Gavriel,

To address your initial claim, I will first state that you make a bold statement. You say there is no ground for truth in the article, yet when I provided support and sources for the point I made, you provided nothing. Simply claiming it is incorrect does not change the facts, even though you are biased towards the belief this article addresses. Your comment is fueled by emotion and bias, and lacks logic.

Now, to the point. I never once said tsitsiyot did not exist at the time. Rather, had you taken the time to actually read through the article, you would find that I specifically stated the opposite. A quote from above: "They wore outer garments, yes, and those garments bore their tsitsiyot. But the tallit as a prayer shawl that one wears like a tent 'began to take on the form known today beginning around 1,000 CE.'" Please read through the article in its entirety before making comments that prove you didn't take the time to consider the information presented.

Next, Matthew 9:20. It does not say she grabbed His shawl, or His tallit, or anything of that sort. It says she grabbed His κρασπεδον in Greek. Kraspedon specifically means tassel, or fringe. It is a word used EXCLUSIVELY for tsitsit. This is proof Yeshua wore tsitsiyot; it is not proof, in any way, the He wore a tallit. Please be consistent.

You pose the simple question, and I suppose it is a fair one: to what were tsitsiyot attached at the time? This was also answered in the article, though I'll state it again here. Tsitsiyot consisted of blue cords that were tied into the dangling strings of woven garments. At the time, garments were made on a loom (that's why we have references in the Torah to the warp and woof in places like Lev. 13:58). Since garments were woven on a loom, they ended up having all the threads dangling at the bottom. Now today, and even in many old societies, these strands would be sewn into the garment at the hem. However, back then, it was common to simply tie the strands together, forming tassels that would keep the garment from unraveling. The command for tsitsiyot is to attach a blue cord to the tassels on the four corners.

So to what were tsitsiyot attached back then? To the garments themselves; every garment. The tallit became a mechanism later for attaching tsitsiyot in a more convenient way than having to put them on any garment you may wear out for the day.

As for the Mishnah, I believe you may be referring to a different article, as I didn't state that here in this writing. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the Mishnah was not written until the late 2nd cent. CE. I have never made the claim that parts of it did not, or could not have existed prior to this, but the simple fact is that Judah HaNasi compiled the Mishnah himself, and he died in the early 3rd Century CE. For your claim about Dr. Bahat's findings on the matter, I cannot really comment, as I've never heard him make that claim, and you provided no source for the information. Even so, it could indeed be possible that parts of Tractate Sanhedrin existed that early, since it was one of the oldest and most important tractates. Though as I said, I have seen no evidence or proof of this at all.

As for your last comment, I can only hope you're not attempting to infer that my comments are "anti-Jewish." No doubt some Jews are anti-Jewish, just as some Italians are anti-Italian. None of this negates the evidence shown above, giving proof that Paul did not make tallits; rather, he made tents.

For future reference, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to engage in mutual discourse, and actually take the time to read the articles thoroughly before commenting.

Shalom b'Mashiach,

J. A. Brown

Mark Dean
10/14/2017 03:10:20 pm

Absolutely stellar article! I am blessed to teach high-schoolers the Hebrew Roots of Western Christianity! You really did you do your homework, your premises are true therefore rendering your conclusion airtight! Good job! As to the response to Mr. BenDavid, well done. You went on the defense in an inoffensive way. Great use of logic, critical thinking and debate! Very well answered in a very Messiah-like way! Thank you for this article. I am looking forward to many more from you! Gratefully grafted in,
Mark

Reply
Dawn Wolfe
7/10/2024 03:12:51 am

I am only reading all of this several years after they were made. I would only like to urge caution to Gavriel on becoming so offended with the things that don’t match up with his knowledge and understanding. I don’t think Yeshua would have been so offended by this article at all! He wouldn’t take offense on anything but I don’t feel any malice or disrespect towards Jewish people at all. He has references to back his findings that are there so people can see for themselves and make their own decisions. As a woman who has studied the Torah every day for the past decade I did find that there is no mention of a talit (prayer shawl) being a requirement in the garment, only the tzitzit is a command and it only says that the tzitzit must be worn at all times in public. That they are clearly visible and that they hang from the corners of the garment. I have always just known that when the word speaks about the issue of blood woman struggling to just touch the hem, that it was talking about His tzitzit. They would trail on the ground a few inches behind the garment. I was understanding that the woman was not able to get up from the ground. This was a complete act of faith for her. She could not kneel, crouch or stand. She would have had to pull herself up His body which (as scripture makes clear) was not how she did it. She was desperate to just get to His tzitzit!
While I have not read the article about the Mishnah you’re speaking of, Mr Brown made clear what he meant. The Mishnah , as you said, is the oral Torah. This is what was passed down to the children to make sure it was not lost. That it was adhered to. They could not write it down then for many reasons that I’m sure you can go to Rabbi google on. Mr Brown said that it is not believed to have been written down until the time period that he quoted. I can believe this because I have been taught in my lifetime. Many times, that Mishnah is the oral Torah that was very exactly memorized and spoken so that nothing was changed or left out. The eternal life of all of the children of Israel and hope of their redemption happening after the messiah had come depended upon their memory and covering all of the law. It was not written down until the children were in their land, the temple built, and the people were ready to not have to be so strict with their recall. This caused a lot of falling away, exiled, enslaved, remembered and then redeemed and ready to do it right this time! Torah was written down and then it was only heard on the Sabbath read by a Cohen. The people got lazy and sinful and forgot God. It was almost lost several times but there was always someone who would find a scroll and then someone who could Interpret it (usually a prophet, one notable time it was a woman prophetess. So anyway. I think you should have been quicker to go to Yahweh and The Ruach haKodesh for understanding first before taking offense at the article right away and being so angry that you after you saw whatever it was that tipped you off, you didn’t even finish the article you just proceeded to protest and accuse without letting the Ruach guide you on the truth and what you should do. Believe it or not, He doesn’t need a person to correct what is wrong in whatever article. This man has not been ranting about anything or trying to prove anything wrong. He just posted something he had learned in his studies. If the Ruach needed him corrected, then The Ruach does very well at correction and bringing the false into the light. And I can personally attest to the fact that He knows how to discipline and I know for a fact that He would not bother with discipline if you were not His and if He didn’t love us enough to keep us from harm that leads to death! I appreciate that Gavriel was upset at what he perceived as an attack on the Jewish people. I know personally, the realities of anti semitasm. And the feeling of going from someone of no interest to the most hated and also pitied person in the room because someone in authority asked for you to share your heritage, where you come from, your family etc. You get up and you tell it because it’s who you are and there is no shame for now. It’s very easy to become outraged in front of people who don’t know you, don’t know where you are, and you don’t feel the anonymous instant hate. However, I do know that Abba tells us not to respond to hate with hate. Respond with love. Don’t repay evil for evil. I don’t think He wants us to just stand idely by if others are harming us (unless you are speaking the good news and truth we show the goodness and mercy of our Savior.) but I know that taking offense will divide you from the body. Offense is meant to split apart and bring dissension. Divisiveness is what Yahweh hates the most. We are all united and there is no one above another in the body of Yeshua

Reply
Jessica Lee
7/18/2019 12:22:29 pm

I have the question of how would Shaun have carried all those supplies around with him? If this was his trade and he traveled so much how could he drag all the tools and animal skins and such everywhere he went?

Reply
Dr. Al Huba
11/5/2019 09:04:06 am

How, as a tent maker, could Paul carry all the animal skins and tools around with him? Much the same way that a roofer does not carry shingles with him.Tools are minimal and shingles or cloth is purchased locally.

Reply
louis arias
3/4/2020 08:32:48 am

Paul was Jewish and probably as good with the Tanakh as he was in business. He only had to carry around his work instruments, needed, scissors, and American Express so he could buy the skins locally and wouldn't have to shlep them all over. Shalom

Louis Arias
3/4/2020 08:28:05 am

Thank you, dear.brother, for this well researched article. It has blessed me and, I pray, it has blessed the one who hung for us, in our place, on a tree. The enemy uses distraction to get us off the path that blesses Yeshua, and then us, by focusing on nonsense. Self (Pride) is one its (not his but its) favorite tactics. Hermeneutics, research and word study have their place but so does evangelism, intercession and charity. Paul, Aquila, Priscilla were not hirelings but individuals that took the Word of God from the worldly to the eternal. Thanks for your article. Baruch haba b'ahem adonai

Reply
Robin link
9/1/2020 07:23:07 pm

Yes, I thank you too. I was taught by vendyl Jones, Torah scholar and archaeologist, that Paul made prayer shawls. I'm glad to learn that he actually was a tentmaker..

Reply
Dawn Wolfe
7/10/2024 03:53:38 am

The “educated”ones who do this don’t like the idea of real human relatable and most importantly uneducated men just would not have been acceptable religious leaders. Paul,being the only very well educated and considered the top of the line in what a Pharisee should be! Is the favorite one that the Torah scholars will try to make into someone who would not actually make tents it would be something mistranslated to demean him. He would have been making the more holy talit! Here we’ll justify this thinking like this……. Then you get this stuff. Torah scholar doesn’t mean knows better than anyone. It just means they paid for the pedigrees and have the knowledge to speak in educated words and reason better than regular people and they can tell you the truth! The thing is that if they studied to show themselves approved, they would know that Abba says that he will use the simple, uneducated and those who would not have the knowledge that they do, to confound the wise. He equips us with His Spirit and He said that He was all we would need for a teacher. We no longer have to take whatever we’re taught and accept it. We can learn from the source. When He uses someone, they know what they are talking about, they speak how He speaks and they do not need to prove their education to fulfill His Work or Word. The one’s with “education” degrees are not the ones I am drawn by. Anyone can know worldly knowledge if they pay enough or blessed with intellect. But only the ones who truly belong to Him, will open their mouth and The Ruach haKodesh comes out. If you’re His sheep, you’ll know His voice no matter what vessel He is using to say it.

Anon
4/12/2020 12:06:50 pm

Switch to Print View - 6 posts
monkeyweather
8,223
Member
Mar 17, 2006#1
I just found out from a rabbi, well versed in Hebrew and the culture of Paul's day and the rules the Pharisees were bound by, that though Paul was described as a tent-maker, what he made were called "little tents". That was the nickname given to tallit. Prayer shawls. It was the only thing that Pharisees were ALLOWED to make.

I had always pictured Paul making big ole tents



Here is what a tallit looks like:







And here is what the tallit means - everything on it has a meaning. Jesus would have worn one

This is a very good article on why these are worn, what htey mean, and what is told of these garments in scripture, from the Jews for Jesus website:



The Origin and Significance of the Tallit and Tzitzit



Originally the tallit was a four-cornered outer garment to which were attached the fringes, or tzitzit. Though the wearing of the tallit has its basis in Old Testament Scripture, the word itself is not found in the Bible. The tzitzit (tassels), however, are:



Again the LORD spoke to Moses saying, "Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners.



"And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the LORD and do them…and be holy for your God" Numbers 15:37-40



You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself Deuteronomy 22:12



The real significance of the tallit is not in the garment itself, but in the fringes. In modern terms, it might be likened to a sweatshirt or stadium jacket, where the importance lies not in the actual piece of clothing, but in the slogan or school emblem it carries.



Like many objects of Old Testament times, fringed garments were also found in non-Hebrew cultures such as Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Midianite. The fringes of the other nations probably were worn as decorations or amulets to keep away evil spirits. But, as with many other Old Testament laws, God took the already known and gave it a new significance for Israel. The tassels or fringes were to remind Israel of His commandments.



Along with the primary purpose of the tzitzit based on the Pentateuch, we find another, later meaning. In ancient times, tassels were part of the hem of a garment, and the hem symbolized the wearer's authority. When David spared Saul's life in the cave at En Gedi, he cut off the comer of Saul's robe, symbolically demonstrating that the king's authority would be cut off. This is seen in Saul's response:



And now I know indeed that you shall surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in your hand 1 Samuel 24:20).



Tassels added to the hem were not worn by commoners, but by the nobility or royalty.1 The second significance of the tzitzit, then, is that they showed the wearer to be more than a commoner. He was a noble, or a royal personage.



Not just the presence of the tzitzit but their colors also carried meaning. The color was white, but among the white cords on each tassel there was to be one blue strand. This color combination was part of the trappings of royalty, as were the colors blue and purple:



…Who were clothed in purple, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men…of Assyria… Ezekiel 23:6-7



There were white and blue linen curtains fastened with cords of fine linen and purple on silver rods and marble pillars; and…couches…of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of alabaster, turquoise, and white and black marble Esther 1:6



Now Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, with a great crown of gold and a garment of fine linen and purple… Esther 8:15a



Blue was also used in settings where God's kingship was proclaimed. Blue was to cover the ark (and other tabernacle objects) whenever they were moved, and blue was also used with the curtains of the tabernacle where God dwelt "enthroned" between the cherubim (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chronicles 13:6; Psalm 80: 1; 99: 1; Isaiah 37:16).



Then they shall put on it a covering of badger skins, and spread over that a cloth entirely of blue; and they shall insert its poles Numbers 4:6



You shall make a veil woven of blue and purple and scarlet yarn, and fine linen thread. It shall be woven with an artistic design of cherubim Exodus 26:31



You shall make a screen for the door of the tabernacle, woven of blue and purple and scarlet yam, and fine linen thread, made by a weaver Exodus 26:36



The third significance of the tzitzit, therefore, was in their colors. They spoke of royalty and kingship. Even today we talk of "royal blue" and "royal purple" from the custom of Roman emperors who wore purple mantles.



If the color symbolized royalty, the fabric of the fringed garment stood for priestly holines

Reply
J. A. Brown link
9/29/2020 02:58:13 pm

It is generally preferable to enter a discussion on material, to have familiarized oneself with said material. Your pasted quotes make claims they cannot support, and ignore the evidence in what I presented.

Yeshua wore tsitsiyot, without a doubt. But He did not wear a tallit, as they did not yet exist.

Reply
Debbie
3/13/2024 12:43:58 pm

How would Paul, or Priscilla carry around a loom big enough to make tent sides or roof, also where would they put all of the yarn and dyes needed to do this? The only think that would make sense is a back loom and linen thread. The undergarment worn by all males with tzitzits would be the easiest for them to make.

Reply
Jonathan Brown link
3/17/2024 04:26:52 pm

Hi Debbie.

That's a great question, but perhaps it is, itself, being blown a bit out of proportion. Paul likely worked with materials at a client location, be it for private individuals or for a merchant, that provided the materials he needed in terms of cloth and/or skins if working with leather. Paul needed only to carry his tools, not an entire loom. There are many tradesmen who had many parts in this. Just as Paul did not need to harvest the flax to make linen, nor skin the animals to make leather, so too he need not carry an entire loom and its implements with him. It could be that he was predominantly skilled at sewing, whether sewing materials together, or sewing rings for attaching poles, or other needs.

The simple answer is, we do not know exactly what materials he worked with, because Scripture doesn't tell us. What we do know, is that tallitot were not yet standardized. We also know that Paul spent the majority of his missions among non-Jewish populations, who would not have economic demand for garments upon which to affix tsitsiyot. When Scripture tells us he was a maker of tents, we know his trade invovled tents; not a Rabbinically-standard garment that would not come about for a few hundred years.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Jonathan Andrew Brown

    Archives

    July 2022
    May 2022
    June 2020
    March 2019
    July 2017
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Home

About

Articles

Resources

Contact

​Donate

Copyright © 2020 Torah Apologetics