Debate ensues after Metropolitan Museum of Art labels tefillin as Egyptian amulet
Listed as an “amulet” with Egyptian origins, a set of tefillin at the Met Museum is sparking debate online. Image by metmuseum.org
(JTA) — The first time the Metropolitan Museum of Art tweeted a picture that appeared unmistakably to Jewish followers to be a ritual object used in Jewish prayer with the label “amulet,” a single follower responded with a correction.
“That is not an Amulet it is a Jewish tefillin,” wrote an account from a New York City rug gallery.
The object, which the Met says it acquired in 1962, is listed as part of the museum’s Islamic Art Department as a sixth-century amulet from Egypt. It is dated at A.D. 500–1000.
But a photo of the piece in the collection looks unmistakably like one piece of tefillin, the leather boxes and straps used in prayer by observant Jews. A shin, the Hebrew letter on the portion of tefillin that goes on the head, can be seen in the picture.
That was in November 2019. The second, third, fourth and fifth times the Islamic art collection shared the image, no one responded at all.
But over the weekend the image became the subject of an explosion of interest on Twitter after multiple accounts with many Jewish followers picked up on the item in the museum’s holdings and requested corrections.
Today in mislabeled #museum pieces…@metmuseum, you’ve mislabeled Jewish phylacteries called tefillin as an amulet and stored it in the Department of Islamic Art. Link to the piece here- https://t.co/GXwY0quK3z #JewishHistory #Judaica #Judaism #Tefillin pic.twitter.com/hRT2SjcDWW
— (((Caitlin Hollander))) (@effortlesslycat) July 24, 2020
One of the first to post it, a Jewish genealogist named Caitlin Hollander, offered a correction and tagged people who might be able to work with the Met to revise the museum’s description.
Other people who shared the image were less constructive in their criticism. And after the account @StopAntiSemites amplified the issue, criticism of the labeling included charges that the museum’s categorization was offensive to Jews.
The museum, which is currently closed because of the coronavirus pandemic, did not respond publicly over the weekend.
Since this is an extremely rare instance of my academic work being relevant, a few thoughts on why this is a silly accusation: https://t.co/fmoDWm6XKm
— Raphael Magarik (@RaffiMagarik) July 26, 2020
But Raphael Magarik, a English professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago whose studies have included the understanding of tefillin by non-Jews, posted a thread Sunday explaining that while the object pictured is likely mislabeled, there are historical arguments for the label.
“There’s no reason not to call tefillin an amulet,” Magarik wrote. “Lexically, the Greek term now commonly used to refer to them (‘phylactery’) originally meant just that, and had a long history of usage in that sense before referring to the specific Jewish items.” He added that while tefillin have been invoked in anti-Semitic discourse in the past, the Met’s labeling more likely reflects how museums catalog objects.
He also added one more point:
Yes but i am always envious of those academics who get to say, “as a specialist on this highly topical problem…” and finally, it’s the non-Jewish reception of phylacteries.
— Raphael Magarik (@RaffiMagarik) July 26, 2020
The post Twitter debate ensues after Metropolitan Museum of Art labels tefillin as Egyptian amulet appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse..
Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
