Journal of Biblical
Literature 21 (1902) 1-47.
Public Domain.
The Ephod.
DR. THEODORE C. FOOTE.
1.
INTRODUCTION.
THE
popular notion of the Hebrew ephodh
is that of a long flow-
ing
garment, and is drawn in part, no doubt, from the descrip-
tion
in Ex. 28 and 39, but also very largely from pictorial Bibles,
representing
a high priest in a long robe, and from sacred prints of
little
Samuel in a neat white tunic not unlike the surplice of a modern
choir
boy.
Learned commentators have set forth
many widely divergent views
concerning
the ephod, which fall roughly into two classes. The first
class
presents a view, based upon Ex. 28 and 39, that the ephod was
a
garment, and never anything else.1 This is the opinion of all the
old
commentators.
were
two kinds of ephods: one, used solely by the high priest, which
is
the kind now generally referred to; the other, of linen, used by
minor
priests and worn also by the Levites and even by laymen, when
engaged
in a sacred rite.”
The same view is emphatically stated
by Thenius.2 The ephod
is
nowhere (not even in Hos. 3:4) anything else than a shoulder gar-
ment,
as is shown also by the fact that all the Versions, in all passages
where
the word occurs (with the single exception of the unimportant
Arabic
translation of Jud. 8:27), either put the name itself, or garment
mantle
and the like.
1 This view is advanced
by ancient writers such as Josephus and Jerome, in
the
Middle Ages by Rashi, and since then by Bertheau, Braunius, Cassell, Dill-
mann,
Duff, Gesenius-Buhl, Keil, Kohler, Konig, Lotz, Maimonides, McClintock
and
Strong, Meyer, Riehm, J. Robertson, Thenius, and Zeller.
2 "Die Bucher
Samuels" (in the Kgf. exeg. Handb.),
2d ed.,
new
ed. by Lohr.
2 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
An English view to the same effect
is given in a recent book3, by
Professor
Robertson, of
says:
"Whatever was made, was a thing of magnificence, and implied
costly
surroundings; but it is not, by all this, proved that ephod
means
an image. It may have been merely a coat of extraordinary
magnificence,
so heavy that it could stand alone, as we say; it may
have
been placed upon an image; but it was an ephod, and an
ephod,
so far as the usage of the language tells us, was a coat or
covering."
The second class of views concerning
the ephod would make it
in
some places an image and in others a garment.4 The citations
are
given somewhat at length because they are the most authoritative
and
recent critical opinions.
Benzinger says5 that
Yahweh was very commonly represented by a
bull,
but almost more frequently the idol was what is called an ephod.
It
appears as the proper object of worship in the celebrated sanctua-
ries
of Dan (Jud. 1 and 18), Ophra (Jud. 8:27),
Nob (1 Sa. 21:10; 23:6).
Of
course it represented Yahweh. About its form we know nothing.
From
the name ephod ‘covering, garment,’
it may be concluded that
it
had a kernel of wood, clay, or cheap metal, and over it a mantle
of
gold or silver, often of great value. Its special significance lies in
this,
that it was inseparably connected with the sacred lot. The
management
of the ephod was, therefore, the affair of the priest; at
any
rate the ephod needed a servant and, as a rule, a house also. It
was
the means whereby one inquired of God. It is remarkable that
the
official garment of the priests is likewise called ephod--more
exactly
ephodh badh, the ‘linen ephod,’ 1 Sa.
2:18 and elsewhere, to
distinguish
it from the former. It is not a bad idea of Smend's that
perhaps
the image was originally clothed in an ephodh
badh; cf. the
custom
among the old Arabs of putting on garments and swords
(Wellhausen,
Skizzen, III. 99).6 The expression nose
ephodh, as the
name
of the priest, which was afterwards referred to the linen coat,
3 Early Religion of
4 Variosly modified, this
view is advanced by Alizon, Benzinger, Budde,
De
Wette, Driver, Eichhorn, Gescnius, Gramberg, Hengstenberg, Kautzsch, Kittel,
Kuenen,
Marti, Maybaum, J. D. Michaelis, Montefiore, Moore, Nowack, Reuss,
H.
Schultz, Smend, W. R. Smith, Stade, Studer, Vatke, and Wellhausen. Duhm
thinks
a 'mask,' Sellin a 'quiver'; cf. below, p. 4.
5 Hebraische Archaologie, 1894, p. 382 f.
6 Wellhausen, l.c., says
it is not necessary to suppose that garments and
swords
were put on images; they may have been put on stones or trees.
FOOTS: THE EPHOD. 3
meant
originally nothing else than the bearer of the image (I Sa. 14:3, LXX).7
Professor Moore of Harvard in his Commentary on Judges, New
clearly
an idol of some kind," adding in a footnote, "It would be
more
exact to say, an agalma; in using the
word idol here and below,
I
do not wish to be understood to assume that it was iconic. All that
can
with certainty be gathered from then, [the passages where ephod
occurs
in judges and Samuel] is that it was a portable object which
was
employed or manipulated by the priest in consulting the oracle.
In
the Priests' Law-book, the ephod is a
part of the ceremonial dress
of
the high priest, to which the oracle-pouch containing Urim and
Thummim
is attached; but, while it is probable that the oracle of
the
high priest is a survival of the ancient priestly oracle by the
ephod, it is impossible to
explain the references to the ephod
in Judges
and
Samuel by the descriptions in P." More recently,8
7 It may be as well to
introduce here some consideration of the ephod
badh
which,
in the above extract, is supposed to mean ‘linen
ephod.' The word db,
‘linen,’
has no etymology, although it has been proposed to regard it as an error
for
dk,
connected with kad the Sumerian prototype
of the Assyrian kitu, which
may
have meant ‘linen.’ The most serious objection to the rendering ‘linen’
however,
is found in Ex. 39:28 (see below, p. 11) where it is stated that the ysenk;mi
db, supposed to mean ‘linen breeches,’ were made
of ww,
a material which may
mean
‘muslin’ or ‘linen.’ The LXX omits db, though Theodotion, restores
it
transliterated,
thus showing that the word was not understood. The Targum
rendering
is the same as that of our English versions. It seems clear that db did
not
mean the material of the garment, and was misunderstood by the time the
Versions
were made. Professor Haupt has suggested that the db
dvpx is equiva-
lent
to peri<zwman mori<ou, subligaculum
membri; db, a ‘member’ of the body,
as
in Job 18:13b, is identical with db, a ‘part,’ cf. pars (virilis). In Ex. 25:13ff.
1
Ki. 8:7; Num. 4;6, MyDiBa means ‘poles’ (Latin asser) just as fallo<j
may be
connected
with palus. The fallo<j was originally a piece
of fig or olive wood.
The
expression in Ex. 28:42, db ysnkm, rendered ‘linen breeches,’ is probably
to
be
understood as a ‘covering of the nakedness,’ i.e. ‘kilts’ (see Note A). The
two
phrases which follow, viz.: hvr;f,
rWb tys.kal ‘to
cover the flesh of naked-
ness,
and vyhy Myikarey dfv MyntmAm ‘they shall reach from the loins even to
the
thighs,'
seem to be explanatory glosses. Josephus,
Antiquities, iii. 7. l, calls it
the
dia<zwma peri> ta> ai]doi?a, and Philo peri<zwma
ei]j ai]doi<wn skephn.
The
mikhnese badh, if this interpretation
of db
be correct, will not be ‘breeches’ (cf.
Pesh.
xmyvrp=
peri<zwma), but like the Sotch kilt, a very shirt skirt such as is
seen
in representations on Egyptian and Babylonian monuments. (For an
extended
examination of the passages with db, see Note D.) We must then
understand
ephodh badh to be ephodh partis (virilis).
8 Cheyne-Black's Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii.,
"Ephod."
4 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
gests
that the ephod may have been a loincloth; but adheres to his
former
distinction between the ephod garment
and ephod-idol.
Professor Marti, of
"Not
with the same certainty can the origin of the ephod be deter-
mined.
It is certain, however, that it also signifies an image of a
god.
But where we now find it in the O.T. in this sense, it must
be
taken as an image of Yahweh (in Ophra, where Gideon sets it up,
Jud.
8:26, 27, in Dan, Jud. 18:18ff, also before in 17:5ff and in Nob,
1
Sa. 21:10; 23:6ff). It could, therefore,
owe its origin only to a subse-
quent
period. This, however, is not probable. Here also it is
much
easier to assume that the old custom of making images of
gods,
as the Teraphim at any rate testifies to, was transferred to
Yahweh.
Therefore we have to discuss here the sacred object called
the
ephod.
“The name ephod points to the fact
that, earlier, these images had
an
overlaying of silver or gold (cf. Jud. 8:21; 17:4f), and that even
molten
images were found (cf. Ex. 32, I Ki.
12:28).”
Professor Sellin, of
torah, says: “Perhaps they were bound together in a bundle
(cf.
1
Sa. 25:29), at any rate carried in or at the ephod. This must have
been
either a covering over the arrows, just as the bow and arrows
of
a warrior were put in a covering (Hab. 3:9; Zech. 9:13), or more
probably
a girdle or band on which was carried the quiver with the
arrows
(cf. rOzxe),
and in the course of time the name of the band
came
to signify the entire oracle instrument. dvpx never signifies an
image
of a god, no matter how much this is maintained as certain;
not
even Jud. 8:26f. (cf. Konig, Hauptprobleme,
p. 62). Rather is
this
signification excluded by Jud. 17:4f; 18:14, 20; Hos. 3:4 (cf. also
Ez.
21:27; molten image, ephod, and teraphim are three separate
things.
Nor is that meaning possible in 1 Sa. 14:18, for one man did
not
carry the image before his people; more likely a wagon was
used.
On the other hand, the word in these passages, and also in
1
Sa. 23:6; 30:7 can as little signify the simple priestly garment, which,
precisely
to distinguish it from that ephod, was called ephodh badh
(1
Sa. 2:18; 22:18; 2 Sa. 6:14). Now ephodh is certainly a covering of
metal
or with metal woven into it (Is. 30:22; Ex. 28:8; 39:5). It seems
to
me to follow as a certainty from 1 Sa. 14:3, 18, 41 of LXX, 30:7, that
9
Die Geschichte der israslitischen
Religion, Strassburg, 1897, pp. 29 and
101.
10 Beitrage zur israzlitischen und judischen Religionsgeschichte,
II.,
p. 115 ff.
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 5
ephodh has this meaning, and
was, therefore, either a covering over
the
Urim, or, better, a band on which the
priest carried it."11
Professor Kautzsch12
explains ephod as 'covering,' especially the
linen
shoulder garment of the priest. In the Textbibel
it is always
retained
wherever it signifies an image of Yahweh used for oracular
purposes,
overlaid with precious metal or perhaps more correctly a
shoulder
garment.
Professor Budde says:13 “It is true that ephod signifies also a
priestly
garment, but only with the addition badh
(1 Sa. 2:18; 2 Sa. 6:14
1
Chr. 15:27). Both significations are later combined in the ephod of
the
high priest in the source P, the shoulder garment into which the
oracle
of the Urim and Thummim was inserted. The old ephod of
our
passage and those referred to, must somehow have represented
the
Deity, and also have been at a later time repudiated. The
gold
formed the covering of a kernel of another material; but
whether
the word ephod is to be derived from a root signifying to
draw over, cover, according to Is. 30:22,
remains very questionable."
For convenience of reference the
description of the ephod as
found
in the Priests' Code is here given, being condensed from
Ex.
28 and 39.
Ex. 39:2: “Moses made the ephod14 of gold Blue, and purple, and
scarlet,
and fine twined linen. They beat the gold into thin sheets
and
cut it into wires, to work it: in the blue, in the purple, in the
scarlet
and in the fine twined linen the work of
the skilled weaver.
They made shoulder pieces
for the ephod; joining together: the ephod
was jointed together at
the two ends. The skilfully woven piece that
was upon it, to gird it
on with, was of the same piece and similar
workmanship. And he made the ornament (breastplate), the work
of
the skilled weaver, like the work of the
ephod. The ornament was
square and double, being
a span in length and breadth. They bound
the ornament by its rings, to the rings of the ephod with a lacing of
blue
to keep it in place on the skilfully
woven piece of the ephod that
it might not be loosed
front the ephod."
Ex. 28:30: "Thou shall put
in the ornament of
judgment the Urim and Thmmim that they may
be upon Aaron's heart." Ex. 39:22 "Moses
made the robe of the
11 Dr. Sellin's view does
not exactly fit either of the two classes.
12 Textbibel des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Erklarung der Fremdworter,
s.v.
" Ephod."
13 Richter,
14 The italicized parts,
read consecutively, will give as clear an idea of this
ephod
as can be gotten from such a confusing description.
6 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
ephod
of woven work, all of blue, and the hole of the robe in the
middle
of it. They made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates
of
blue, etc."
It must not be forgotten that the
above account, taken from the
book
of Exodus, is several centuries later than the latest pre-exilic
mention
of the ephod; and to attempt to make it a starting-point
in
an investigation of the ancient ephod, would be like trying to
understand
Gutenberg's first attempt at printing by starting with an
intricate
description of the latest cylinder press. If one is con-
strained
to question the later composition of the Priests' Code, the
following
investigation may help him to see that this is not an arbi-
trary,
but rather art unavoidable, conclusion.
The graphic account which follows
presents the ephod in quite as
interesting
if not so picturesque an aspect, and leads one to inquire
what
the ephod actually was.
In 2 Sa. 6:14ff is the story15
of the bringing up of the
house
of Obed-Edom, to the tent16 made for it at
had
not only succeeded Saul on the throne of
married
his daughter Michal, 1 Sa. 18:27, who held a prominent posi-
tion
among his many wives. The procession in which the
borne,
moved along with pomp and ceremony. David danced before
the
sacred palladium with great enthusiasm, being girded with an
ephod. All the Israelitish
nation assisted in bringing up the
Yahweh
with shouting and the sound of trumpets. As the
entered
the city the women lined the way. David danced with great
spirit,
and Michal, looking out from the palace, saw him and became
exceedingly
angry.
The
exhausted
by the long festivity, returned to his palace to greet his
family.
So far overcome by her feelings that she forgot all other
15 Taken from the document J,
probably not later than 850 B.C.
16 The distinctive name for the
Tabernacle is NKAw;mi, ‘dwelling,’ though it was
very
commonly described as dfvm lhxo, ‘Tent of Meeting.’ David evidently
knew
nothing of the Tabernacle of the Priests' Code, Ex. 26 and 35, but impro-
vises
a tent for the reception of the
shows
that the ‘Tent of Meeting,’ dfvm lhxo was at
Chronicler,
but it is inconceivable that David could have known of such a
divinely
ordained and venerable Tent, made especially for the
have
improvised another. The consciousness of its unfitness leads David to plan
the
building of a temple. It may be noted, also, in connection with the above
narrative,
that, if our explanation of ephod be
correct, David could not have
known
of Ex. 20:25, forbidding indecent exposure during sacred rites.
FOOTS: THE EPHOD. 7
considerations,
Michal went out to Meet her royal spouse and said,
“How
glorious was the king of
to-day
in the sight of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the
shameless
fellows!” David said to Michal, “I will
dance17 before
Yahweh!
Blessed be Yahweh, who chose me in preference to thy
father
and all his kin, to appoint me prince over the people of
Yahweh! Therefore I shall play before Yahweh. And even if I
should
uncover myself still more and be contemptible in thine eyes,
I
am sure that the girls you allude to will respect my royal dignity'."18
The
story closes with the statement: "And Michal the daughter of
Saul
never had another child." Orthodox commentators attribute
the
curse of barrenness to divine retribution.
It is more natural,
however,
to suppose that David was so disgusted with Michal that
he
ceased visiting her, which was social death to the member of
harem.
Michal's jealousy would evidently not have been aroused
if
the ephod had been, as is commonly supposed, a long flowing
garment.
It is more likely that David was divested of his clothing,
as
was, on certain occasions (e.g. 1 Sa. 19:24) customary among
Semitic
peoples [see Note B], and was gilded with the ephod, as if
an
apron, or as Professor Haupt has suggested, a loincloth.
RESUME.--The principal views
regarding the ephod are as follows:
(I)
It was always a garment worn by a priest; (2) it was always a
garment,
whether on priest or idol; (3) it was a garment and also
an
idol; (I) it was a garment and a quiver or quiver belt. The only
description
given in the O.T. shows that the ephod was something
depending
front the shoulders to the waist, and put on over a long
robe.
But this entirely fails to satisfy the narrative in 2 Sa. 6.
17 The Received Test is
evidently corrupt. After the words hvhy ynpl, the
LXX
has hvhy jvrbv dq.erxE. The
phrase lxrWy lf seems like an explanatory
gloss. For ytl.oqan;y, ‘I will be vile,’ the LXX reads kai>
a]pokalufqh<somai=
ytylegnv, ‘I will uncover myself,’ thus making
clear an otherwise confused state-
ment.
The Masoretic text shows signs of having been tampered with
is
an indefinite expression not corresponding to txzm dvf. The LXX reading
jyinayfb, ‘in thine eyes,’ for 'in my eyes,'
brings out the antithesis which lies
between
Michal's feeling and that of the handmaids. Driver strangely neglects
the
LXX on this passage; cf. Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel,
p.
210. The Hebrew text restored would then read: jUrbv
dq.eraxE hvhy ynpl
[
LxrWy lf ] hvhy Mf lf dygn ytx tyocal vtyb lKmv
j`ybxmE yb rHb rwx hvhy
rwx tvhmAxEh Mfv j`yinayfb lpw ytyyhv
txzm dvf ytylegnv :hvhy ynpl yTqFWv
:hdbeKAxi Mm.f T;rmx
18 Literally: "And I
shall play before Yahweh. And I shall uncover myself
more
than this and I shall become contemptible in thine eyes. but with the
handmaids
which you spoke of, with them, let me be honored."
8 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
2. WHAT WAS
THE EPHOD?
The ephod is mentioned in seventeen
different passages in the
Old
Testament, and the word, with slight variation in form, occurs
fifty
times. In studying the different passages, we must not overlook
the
fact that the O.T. is not a homogeneous whole. If, therefore,
we
wish to ascertain the original idea of the ephod, we must treat
the
passages in chronological order. They cover a period of about
400
years, approximately from 800 B.C. to 400 B.C., while the actual
time
between Gideon's ephod, Jud. 8:27, and the latest mention of
the
ephod may have been well on to 1000 years. There was time
for
development; and it is possible that the post-exilic ephod was
quite
different from that of ancient
More than half of all the places
where the word ephod occurs
belong
to the priestly sections of Exodus and Leviticus, which are
known
to be not older, in their present shape,
than 500 B.C. The
historical
books are not the work of a single writer, but are com-
posed
of several strata. The oldest stratum, or what is called the
Judaic
document, was compiled not later than 800 B.C., and to this
document
we must assign most of the passages from Judges and
Samuel
in which the ephod is mentioned. For convenience of
reference,
the pre-exilic passages are here given.
(1)
Jud. 8:27 lk vnzyv (D)
hrp;fAb vryfb vtvx gcee.yv dvpxel Nvfd;gi vtvx Wfyv (J)
Mw vyrHx lxrWy "Gideon, made an ephod of it [the gold and
raiment],
and put it in his city Ophra, and all
LXX, ei]j efwd. Alia
exempl. efoud.
Procopius in Catena Niceph. T.
II.,
p. 180:
Efoud, mantei?on h@ ei@dwlon. ]A, e]pe<nduma. V, Fecitque ex eo
Gedeon ephod. Pesh.,
xrpvf dbfv.
(2)
Jud. 17:5, Myprtv dvqx Wfyv Myhlx tyb vl hkym
wyxhv (J),
"Micah had
a private chapel, and he made an ephod and
teraphim." LXX, efwd
kai>
qerafin. Syro-Hex., et alia exempl., efoud; 'A, e]pwmi<da;
S, e@nduma
i[eratiko<n; ]A, morfw<mata; S, ei@dwla. V, Qui aediculam
quoyue in ea
Deo separavit, et fecit ephod et teraphim,
id est, vestem sacerdotalem, et
idola (O.L. et penates). Pesh., xsyrp
tdp dbfv.
(3)
Jud. 18:14: Myprtv dvpx hlxh MyTbAb wy yk Mtfdyh, (J), "Do you know
that there are, in these houses, an ephod
and teraphim?" LXX, efwd
(al. ex. efoud) kai>
qefrafin. V,
Nostis quod in domibus istis sit ephod,
et
teraphim?
Pesh., xsyrpv xtdpv.
(4)
Jud. 18:17, Myprtho txv dvqxeh txv, "And the ephod
and the teraphim."
Perhaps a later addition, cf.
SBOT., Judges,
p. 621.
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 9
(5)
Jud. 18:18, Myprth txv dvpxeh lsp tx vhqyv (J), "They took the
image,
the ephod, and the teraphim." LXX, kai>
e@labon to> glupto>n kai> to>19
efwd [alia, efoud] kai>
to> qerafin.
V, Tulerunt igitur qui intra rerant,
sculptile, ephod, et idola.
(6)
Jud. 18:20 lsph txv Myprth txv dvqxeh tx Hqyv (J), "He took the
ephod, the teraphim, and the graven
image." LXX, to> efwd [alia,
efoud] kai>
to> qerafin kai> to> glupto<n. V, et tulit
ephod et idola, ac
sculptile.
(7)
1 Sa. 2:18, db dvpxe rUgH rfn hvhy ynep tx trewm
lxvmwv (E2),
"Samuel
ministered before Yahweh, a child, girded
with an ephodh badh." LXX,
kai> Samouhl h#n
leitourgw?n e]nw<pion Kuri<ou paida<rion periezwsme<non efoud
bad [alia exempt., bar 2)]. ‘A, e]pe<nduma
e]cai<reton. S, efoud linou?n.
q, efwd bar. V, puer,
accinctus ephod lineo. Pesh., xcvbd xtdp.
(8)
i Sa. 2:28, ynApl dvpxe txWl (RD), 'To
bear an ephod before Me." LXX,
kai> ai@ren
efoud [alia, e]nw<pion
e]mou?]. V,
portabat ephod.
(9)
1 Sa. 14:3, dvpxe
xWen . . . hy.HixE (J) “Ahijah bearing an ephod." LXX,
ai@rwn efoud. ]A, fe<rwn e]pedu<thn. V, portabat
ephod.
(10)
1 Sa. 14:18f Jsx
‘w
rmxyv . .(dvpxe), hwyGha
hy.HixEl lvxw rmxyv21 (J)
jdy, Saul said to Ahijah,
Bring hither the ephod, for he bore the ephod
at that time among the Israelites. . . . And
Saul said, Withdraw thy
hands." LXX, prosa<gage
to> efoud; o!ti au]to>j h#ren to>
efoud [alia
exempl,
o!ti h#n h[ kibwto>j tou? qeou?] e]n
t^? h[me<r% e]kei<n^ e]nw<pion Israhl .
. . . kai> ei#pe Saoul
pro>j to>n i[ere<a, Suna<gage ta>j xei?ra<j sou. V, Applica
arcam Dei ... et ait Saul ad sacerdotem: Contrahe manum tuam.
19 kai>
to> efwd
probably indicates that dvpxeh lsp, which means the image
of
the
ephod, is a copyist's error, representing an original text dvpxh
txv lsph.
This
text is given in Field's Hexapla,
with vHqlA for
vHqyv.
20 Hieronymi Opp., T. vi., p. 903: Et vestitus, inquit, erat Samuel
EPHOD BAD,
id
est, indumento lineo; bad enim linum appellatur, uncle et BADDIM lina
di-
cuntur.
Pro quo Hebraico Latinoque sermone male quidam legunt EI'HOD BAR;
siquidem
BAR aut filius appellatur aut frumenti manipulus, aut electus, aut ou#loj
id est, crispus.
21 The Received Text reads: hyh
yk Myhlxh NvrxE hwyGha hy.HxEl lvxw rmxyv
:lxrWy ynbv xvhh Mvyb Myhlxh NvrxE.. For “xh NvrxE hwyGha must be read, with
LXX,
dvpxeh hwyGh not only because the
but
because the instrument of divination was not the
v.
3 takes pains to tell us Ahijah had with him. hwyGha is the regular
expression
used
with the ephod (cf. 23:9; 30:7). As to lxrWy ynbv . . .
Myhlxh NvrxE hyh yk
Driver
remarks (cf. Notes on Samuel, 1890,
p. 84): lxrWy ynbv is untranslatable,
v never having the force of a preposition such as
Mf,
so as to be capable of being
a
predicate with hyh. We must
read, with LXX, xvhh Mvyb dvpxeh xWen xvh yk
lxrWy ynpl. It is certainly better to suppose ynbv to be corrupted from ynpl
than
that ynpl
has fallen out, leaving ynbv. Driver (loc.
cit.) objects that ynpl
lxrWy alone at the end of a clause is bald, and
against the usage of Heb. prose.
It
is true that in Joshua and Chronicles lxrWy ynb is more common, but cf.
ynpl
lxrWy in Josh. 11:6; 2 Sa. 10:15, 19; 1 Chr.
19:16, 19, also lxrWy ynpm in 2 Sa. 10:18, and
lxrWy ynplm in 1 Chr. 19:18. In two
of the places cited lxrWy ynpl ends the first half
of
the verse, and lxrWy-lf stands repeatedly at the end of the
verse.
10 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
(11)
1 Sa. 21:10, dvpxeh yrHx hlmWb hFvl xyh hnh . . .
tyl;GA brH
(E1), "The
sword of Goliath . . . there it is, wrapped
in a mantle, behind the ephod."
LXX, e]neilhme<nh h#n
e]n i[mati<&, q
adds, o]pi<sw th?j e]pwmi<doj.22 S,
efoud.
‘A. e]pendu<matoj. V, est involutus pallio post ephod.
(12)
I Sa. 22:18, db dvpxe xWen wyx hwmHv Mynmw xvhh Mvyb
tm,yAv (J), “He
killed that day eighty-five men bearing an ephodh badh.” LXX, pa<ntaj
ai@rontaj efoud [Alex.
li<non]. 'A, fe<rontaj e]pe<nduma
e]cai<reton. V, viros
vestitos ephod lineo.
(13)
1 Sa. 23:6, vdyb
dry dvpxe, “An
ephod went down in his hand." Probably
a marginal gloss; cf. SBOT., Samuel, p. 70.
(14)
1 Sa. 23:9, dvpxeh hwykha Nhkh rtAyAb;x, lx rmxyv (David) said to the
priest, Abiathar, Bring/ hither the
ephod." LXX. prosa<gage to> efoud
Kuri<ou.
'A, e@ggison to> e@nduma (fort. e]pe<nduma). V. Applica ephod
(15)
1 Sa. 30:7, rtybx
wGeyv dvpxeh tx xn hwyGha . . . rtybx lx dvd rmxyv (J)
dvd lx dvqxeh tx, "David said to
Abiathar, Please bring me the ephod;
and Abiathar brought David the ephod."
LXX, prosa<gage to> efoud;
]A, prose<ggison dh< moi to> e]pe<nduma; S, sth?son pro>j me> th>n
e]pwmi<da;
V, Applica
ad me ephod.
(16)
2 Sa. 6:14, db dvqxe rUgH dvdv (J), "David was
girded with an ephodh
badh.23
LXX, e]ndedukw>j stolh>n e@callon; ]A, e]pe<nduma e]cai<reton;
S, u[podu<thn (fort. e]pendu<thn) linou?n. Praeterea Montefalconio edidit:
a@lloj efwd
bu<ssinon ex I Paral. 15:27 ut
videtur. V, David erat
accinctus ephod lineo. Pesh.,
xcvbd xtdp.
(17)
I Ki. 2:26, ybx dvd ynpl ( dvpxeh ) tx
tAxWn yk j~tymx xl hzh Mvybv,24 “I
will not kill thee now, because thou hast
carried the ephod before my
father David." LXX, kai> ou]
qanatw<sw se o!ti ^#raj th>n kibwto>n th?j
diaqh<khj Kuri<ou e]nw<pion tou? patro<j mou. V, quia
portasti arcam Domini
Dei.
(18)
Hos. 3:4 (740 B.C.), Myprtv dvqx Nyxv . . . lxrWy ynb vbwye, "The Israelites
shall abide without ephod and
teraphim." LXX, ou]de> i[eratei<aj, ou]de>
22 Hieronymus, in Epist. LXIV. ad
Fabiolam, 15 (0pp. T. I.. P. 363):
Sextum
est
vestimentum, quod Hebraica lingua dicitur EPHOD. LXX, e]pwmi<da, id est
superhumerale
appellant; Aq. e]pe<nduma, nos ephod suo ponimus nomine.
23 See above, p. 3, note 7.
24 This passage is to be compared
with i Sa. 14:18, where
substituted
for ephod after the LXX was made; see
note 21, p. 9 above. In this
passage
the LXX represents a text: hvhy tyrb Nvrx tx tAxWn yk, so that if the
change
of dvqxe to
Nvrx took
place, it was earlier than the LXX, provided the
LXX
has not been altered. There are two arguments for reading dvpxe apart
from
any desire to suppress the word ephod (for which see p. 40), and apart from
its
being a natural thing for a scribe to recall the bringing of the
no
one person ever bore the
expression
for the priest with the ephod; (2) the context does not suit
does
suit ephod, for v. 26b refers to the afflictions which Abiathar shared with
David,
which can only refer to the time when David was fleeing before Saul, and
Abiathar
was with him, bearing not the
1
Sa. 23:9 and 30:7.
FOOTE : THE EPHOD. 11
dh<lwn; 'A, kai>
a]kou<ontoj di ] e]ndu<matoj kai> dia> morfwma<twn; S,
q, ou]de>
Efwd, ou]de> qerafin.25 V, sine
ephod et sine theraphim; O. L. neque
Ephod (simulaerum) et Teraphim (penates). Pesh., xdvqx
wbl xldv
xmsb Mxsv.
Two
post-exilic passages are appended:
(19)
Is. 30:22, . . . Mrezt jb,hv tkase.ma tDpux txv jpsk
yleysp yUpc tx 26
tAxme.Fv,
"Thou shalt defile the silver plating
of thy images and thy molten gold
band; thou shall scatter them." LXX, kai> mianei?j [alia exempl. kai>
e]carei?j] ta>
ei@dwla ta> perihrgurwme<na kai> perikexruswme<na lepta>
poih<s^j.
V, laminas
sculptilium . . . vestimentum conflatilis.
(20)
Ex. 39:27, 28, rvw;mA wwe dBh ysenk;mi txv . . . UWfyv
(P), "They
made the
mikhnese habbadh of fine linen'" LXX, kai> ta>
periskelh? [q, bad] e]k
bu<ssou keklwsme<nhj. V,
feminalia quoque linea, byssina. The
Targum
Onkelos has: ryvw; CUbdi
xcUb ysenkm27
tyAv;
Samaritan Targum: ynyr;w
rvw;mA tlym28
hrxbf. Pesh. has xcvbd xnvzro (i.e. peri<zwma
bu<ssou).
Targum Onkelos, in Lev. 6:3, gives the plural
Nysin;k;mav.
A. THE FORM
OF THE EPHOD.
1. Was it a Garment?
In the following investigation, the
word ephod will refer to that
which
was in u e before the Exile; and the chronological order will
be
observed wherever conducive to practical results.
As the narrative in 2 Sa. 6:14 has
been already referred to,29 we may.
begin
by noting the conclusion to be drawn from it, namely, that in
spite
of the popular view, the ephod was not a long flowing garment.
David
admits that he had uncovered himself so as to justify Michal’s.
censure
had it not been before Yahweh. That
he could have un-
covered
himself still more shows that he was not nude, and suggests
the
idea that his brief covering answered the purpose of a loincloth.
It
is instructive to compare the post exilic, account of this event, in
1
Chr. 15, and note that the scribe thought it indecorous. Hear,
he
"clothed" David with a is long linen robe,"30 omitted
rUgh
25 Hieronvmus, XXIX. ad Marcellam:
In Osee. . . .pro sacerdotio et manifest-
tationibus, in Hebraeo est, sine Ephod et sine Teraphim; sicut Theod. et Sym.
transtulerunt.
26 txmfv, instead of MtxmFv, with the LXX, and in
harmony with jpsk and
Mrez;ti. For an extended consideration of this
passage, see below, p. 16 f.
27 Cf. Merx, Chrestom. Targum. p. 214: numquam a brevi instruendum.
28 Kohn,
Ex.
30:34) says: Der Ubersetzer hat db offenhar glcich dem arab.
bada, “weiss
sein
genommen.
29 See above, p. 6f.
30 1 Chr. 15:27, Cvb
lyfmb lbrkum may
he an intentional alteration of
dvqxh lyfm, Ex. 28:31.
12 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
‘girded’
in connection with the ephod, and, apparently to justify
Michal's
contempt, substituted for rkrkam 'dancing,' the word qHWm;
‘playing,’
which is as equivocal31 in Hebrew as in English. The
episode
with Michal is omitted.
But the expression in 2 Sa. 6:14,
"girded with an ephodh badh,"
does
not imply a garment. David does not wear it, it is hung about
his
loins by a girdle. In the same way a sword is girded upon the
loins.
The original meaning of rgH, as of Arab. hagara, is ‘sur-
round,
enclose,’ etc.; hence ‘bind on,’ and also ‘prevent access to’;
whence
hrOgHE
'a girdle,' corresponding to lure, ‘enclosure, lap.’
Now
hrOgH32 is the word used in
Gen. 3:7 for the fig-leaf covering
made
by Adam and Eve, "they made themselves aprons," vWfyv
trgoH Mhl. The margin of the A.V. calls it "a
thing to gird on."
The
meaning is evidently a loincloth. The Fr. giron
has the mean-
ing
‘lap’ and also a heraldic design of triangular shape, like a primi-
tive
loincloth.33 But the point is
that rgH
'gird' does not imply
a
garment, but a girding, which is associated with the waist and
loins.
In fact, the ephod was not a garment
at all. By a garment is
meant
something that is worn as clothing; a towel, e.g. is not a
garment,
though a waiter may carry it on his arm; nor is a crown,
although
it is said to be worn. By referring to the passages bearing
on
the ephod, it will be seen that twice the ephod is associated
with
teraphim, which proves nothing. Gideon's
ephod is "put"
in
his city Ophra. The ephod at Nob was on the wall, or floor,
with
Goliath's sword mapped in a mantle "behind" it. When
Abiathar
flees to join David, he takes the Nob ephod "in his
hand."
Three times the ephod is “brought” to a person to be
used
in divination. These passages would surely not suggest a gar-
ment.
But there are three other passages, where one might point
to
the English versions as showing conclusively that a garment was
meant,
for in each case the translation is “wearing an ephod.” The
31 Cf. the older form qHc in Gen. 26:8. Professor Haupt has kindle pointed
out
that Arab. ba’ala III. means both la’aba and jama’a; ba’ala is a
denomina-
tive
verb derived from ba’l ‘husband’; cf.
pai?ze=o@xeue in note 12 of Haupt's
paper
on “Ecclesiastes” in the Philadelphia Oriental Studies. p. 265; cf. also
the
use ludere, in Hor. Ep. 2, 2, 214;
and "play" in Milton, P. L. 9, 1045.
32 For other instances of the use
of rgH
see Ex. 12:11 Jud. 3:16; I Ki. 20:32.
2
Ki. 4:29; 9:1; Prov. 31:17; Is 32:11; Ez.
23:15 etc.
33 For a photograph of such a loincloth,
see Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn,
Hyades
et Deniker (Tome VII.), pl. xii.,
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 13
verb
that is translated "wearing" is xWn 'bear'; the Greek and
Latin
have ai@rw
and portare. But there are no
instances in classical
literature
of ai@rw
or portare by themselves, meaning to
wear as a
garment;
and xWn,
one of the commonest verbs in the O.T., used
perhaps
a thousand times, never has the meaning ‘wear,’ except it
be
made for these three places, as in the English versions. In one
of
these places, 1 Sa. 22:18, St. Jerorne, influenced, it may be, by the
word
db,
supposed to mean ‘linen,’34 translates vestitos ephod lineo,
but
there is no reason for it, since the Hebrew and Greek are the
same.
Now it is true that the Century
Dictionary says that one
meaning
of wear is ‘carry’; as, e.g., country people will advise a
person
to wear a potato in the pocket to keep off rheumatism; but
the
converse does not follow; carry never means ‘wear.’ These
mistranslations
of xWn
by the English "wear" in the familiar phrase
"wearing
an ephod," together with the anachronism of the Priests'
Code,
are accountable for the notion that the ephod is essentially a
garment.35
2. Was the Ephod an Idol?
We have now to examine the passages
in Judges, 1 Sa. 21:9, and
Is.
30:22, where almost all critical commentators have felt constrained
to
suppose that an idol, image, agalma, or the like, is meant. A
notable
exception is Professor Wilhelm Lotz, of
admirable
article36 on the ephod is apparently unknown to recent
writers.
It is, of course, an easy way of escaping a difficulty to say,
here
the ephod is an idol and here it is a garment, but it is unscien-
tific.
The feeling that it was a makeshift has given rise to many
curious
conjectures, to show, it possible, some connection between
the
idol and the garment; and so the theory has been evolved that
the
ephod is the covering of the wooden core of an idol, and hence
a
covering, i.e. a garment. Or, working in the other direction, it
has
been thought that the ephod was a priestly garment on an idol,
and
then identified with the idol. Some have grasped eagerly at
34 Cf. note 7 on p. 3 above.
35 In German the verb tragen may translate both xWn ‘bear’ and wbl
‘wear.’
This
fact has added to the confusion, since by the expression Ephodtrager no
distinction
is made between 'ephod-wearer' and ‘ephod-bearer.’ Since writing
the
above I have noticed that Professor Moore observes that xWn, does not mean
‘wear’;
cf. the Internat. Com. on Judges, 1895,
p. 381, note.
36 See Realencyklopaedie fur prot. Theologie u. Kirche, third edition,
vol. v,
14 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
the
apparent distinction between ephodh
and ephod badh, making
the
former an idol and the latter a garment, thus throwing the diffi-
culty
of unifying the two back upon the Hebrews themselves. But
the
distinction does not hold good. Others, not finding any distinc-
tion
in the Masoretic text, wish to make one, and, as Wellhausen,
propose
to point dUpxA when
it means an idol!37 But it must first
be
determined when an idol is meant. If the LXX is any criterion
when
transliterations are used, Gideon's and Micah's ephod would
be
dOpx< represented by efwd, and the other places dUpx< repre-
sented
by efoud.
But those who understand an idol always take it
so
of the ephod at Nob, where the Greek has shoulder piece; and so
the
distinction is merely due to different translators pointing an
unknown
word, sometimes dUpx and sometimes dOpx. In fact,
they
are all forced explanations, arising from giving, undue weight
to
minor details, and neglecting the fundamental principle that a
thing
is what it is used for: and also the ethnological axiom that
"all
worships that contain heathenish elements are traditional, and
nothing
is more foreign to them than the introduction of forms for
which
there is no precedent of usage."38 If the ephod is an article
of
clothing, then it is a garment and is urn; if it is to represent
a
deity, then it is an idol and is worshipped; but if, being neither
of
these, it is connected with sacred lots, then it is a means of con-
sulting
an oracle and is divined with. It is hard to discard the
notion
of the garment-ephod, but it is based solely on mistranslations
arising
from preconceived ideas, and the same is the case with the
notion
that the ephod was an idol. The expressions upon which
the
idea of the idol-ephod is based are the following from Jud. 8:27,
dvqxl Nvfd;gi vtvx Wfyv, “Gideon made an ephod
of it " (cf. above
p.
8, No. 1). This cannot be forced to mean that all the gold went
into
the ephod—vtvx refers
as much to the purple raiment as to
the
gold ornaments--probably but a small fraction became the
material
of the ephod (if, indeed, any of it did!), as this very con-
densed
statement seems to cover much more than is expressed: for
instance,
the cost of making, the cost of the shrine, etc., vtvx
gc.ey.ava
hrp;fAb vryfb, ”and put it in his
city Ophra." This verb is usually
translated
‘set up,’ as though it had no other meaning; but it also
signifies
‘put’ or ‘place,’ as in Jud. 6:37 Gideon says, “Behold,” yknx
gyc.im, “I will put a fleece of wool on the
threshing floor." This
37 See Geschichte
38 Robertson Smith, O. T. in the Jewish Church, 1881, p. 228.
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 15
verb
may mean simply to ‘leave’ somewhere, as in Gen. 33:15, hgyci.x
xn "Let me now leave some of the people with
thee." One might
as
pertinently argue that the
reads
vtx Ugc.iy.av, as to force the expression in the case of the
ephod.39
Mw vyrHx lxrWy lk vnzyiv, “
Without
this comment, it is unlikely that the notion of an idol-ephod
would
ever have been evolved. The verb zanah,
in this use, occurs
eighteen
times, and is usually followed by "after" strange gods, gods
of
the heathen, or idols, also "from" the true God. But the phrase
can
also be used of seeking "after a man," and "unto those having
familiar
spirits," Lev. 20:5f, and even "after whatever pleases the
eyes,"
Nu. 15:39. This expression," then,
does not always mean an
idol,
and hence it cannot be pressed in this particular instance, to
imply
an idol. On the contrary, one might argue that Jud. 8:33 was
conclusive
evidence that in verse 27; it means something different,
for
“as soon as Gideon was dead,” the Israelites again went astray
after
Baalim implying that when he was alive he had kept them
from
idolatry. Put why may not the phrase yrHx hnz refer to a
lot-oracle,
as may also be the case in Hos. 4:12 (cf. below, p. 36)?
This
phrase, however, probably represents a later editorial comment;
the
original narrative, it is agreed, had no criticism to make on
Gideon's
ephod.41 Put a narrative that
has been added to is
likely
to be inconsistent. Professor More, of
Harvard, has sug-
gested
as possible that ephod has supplanted a word like elohim. If
so,
it is easy to account for the condemnatory comment, but it is
hard
to see how ephod could have been substituted and the comment
allowed
to stand, in an age when the ephod was unquestionably
revered.
But the point is that the phrase in question does not prove
our
idol, but may only refer to a popular craze for some unapproved
use
of divination.
Again, if we pass to Jud. 17; and
18, Micah males an ephod and
teraphim.
There seems to be a double strand in the narrative, one
39 Professor Moore. in International Com. Judges, 1895, p. 379,
renders ‘set
up,'
and makes it a proof along with the next phrase, that the ephod was "clearly
an
idol of some kind.” He concludes that this verse. Jud. 8:27, "imperatively
requires
this interpretation."
40 For an extended examination of
the phrase zanah axre, see my paper
in the
Journal of the American
Oriental Society,
vol, xxii., pp. 64-69
41 In Chronicon Hebr., 1699, p. 407, vyrHx in this passage is
interpreted to
mean
after him, i.e. after Gideon's death; when the Israelites took the amiculum
and
used it in idolatry.
16 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
part
of which tells of the making of a hks.emav lsp, "a graven and
a
molten image," and commentators have tried to establish a parallel
between
them and the ephod and teraphim of the other strand of
the
narrative.
showing
that the apparent parallel gives no ground for thinking
Micah's
ephod an image. Canon Driver is certainly right in styling
Micah's
ephod and teraphim “instruments of divination.”43
Again, in 1 Sa. 21:10, where it is
said that the sword of Goliath was
wrapped
in a mantle "behind the ephod," it is commonly held to
mean
that the ephod must have stood free from the wall in order to
have
the sword behind it, thus suggesting an idol; but, as Lotz points
out
(cf. above, p. 13), it is much more likely that the sword was
a
trophy or votive offering, eine Art Weihgeschenk,
and was hanging
from
some large peg, upon which, when not in use, the ephod also
was
hung. He concludes: To decide from, this passage that the
ephod
is a statue standing clear of the wall, an image of Yahweh is
incorrect.
Finally, there are other
commentators and scholars from Michaelis
and
Vatke, who is very sure, to Duhm, Smend, Gesenius-Buhl, Marti,
and
Budde, who considers it "very questionable," who hold a theory
that
the ephod was a ‘covering, garment,’ or ‘mask’ of an idol and
so
practically identified with it. The theory that dpx meant orgi-
nally
‘to cover’ is based on Is. 30:22 (cf. above, p. 11, No. 19), which
remains
to be considered. It reads as follows: yUpci
tx ( t) xm.Fv
‘gv
Mzrti jbhz tkas.m tdpux txv jpsk ylysp, “Thou shalt
defile
the silver plating of thy images and thy molten gold band;
thou
shalt scatter them," etc. Comparing the Greek and Latin
versions,
it will be seen that the Latin is simply Hebrew in Latin
words
with an epexegetical rendering of tdpux by vestimentum.
The
Greek, however, is a translation, treating the Hebrew idiom
in
the first half as an instance of synecdoche. It can hardly he
regarded
otherwise than as a rhetorical figure, where the silver
plating
and the molten gold band of the Mylysp are put for the
images
themselves. To think with Duhm, that the writer is making
a
special point: of the outward decoration of the images, is to over-
look
the evident condemnation of idols,
not merely their adorning.
Cast
away the yvpc
and you still have the lsp. It seems unlikely
that
tks.m is parallel with ylysp for one would surely
expect tkos.m,
42 See Internat. Com. Judges. 1895, p. 375f.
43 See LOT., 7th ed., 1898, p. 168.
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 17
and
so the English versions have tacitly rendered it. Put the chief
difficulty
is that tkas.m
never means molten image, when, as here
it
is a genitive. It means a ‘casting,’ and as a genitive it means
that
the nomen regens is not carved, nor
beaten, but cast. hDqux
is
the
regular feminine of dvqx, and hks.m tDapuxE means a ‘cast band,’
just
as hksm lgf is a ‘cast calf,’ and hks.m
yhlx ‘cast
gods.’
The
parallelism is between yvpc and tdpux, the ‘ornaments’ of the
Mylysp; and there is no rule that requires
parallel expressions to be
synonyms
in more than one sense. The two things are ornaments;
it
is not necessary that they should both be coverings, nor of the
same
material. But the yvpc was not a covering like a garment, but
apparently
a decoration of an image made with silver leaf,--some-
thing
to make it shine. The aphuddah44
was like it inasmuch as it
was
an ornament, a gold band, whether as a loincloth or belt it is
impossible
to say; perhaps it was the ancient ephod. Hence there
is
nothing here on which to base a theory that the ephod was an idol.
These,
then, are the passages that are claimed for an idol-ephod,
and
all of them, as has been shown, are patient of a quite different
interpretation.
It is possible to grant that they may be understood
of
an idol, if this fact were assured beforehand; but to ground a
theory
on them that is inconsistent with passages better understood,
is
unscientific.
But if the ephod was not an idol,
neither was it a gold covering of
a
woolen core. This distinction belongs more to craftsmen than
to
critics; for what worshipper in gazing at such an idol (for idol
it
would be) could distinguish between the inner core and the outer
covering?
There is no doubt that wooden kernels were overlaid with
gold
and silver, as in Baruch 6:39, but they were idols not ephods.
Etymologically
nothing is gained, for the denominative from ephod
is
not ‘to cover’ but ‘to bind.’ Another theory has been advanced
by
Duhm,45 that the ephod was the mask of the idol, which was worn
by
the priest in consulting the oracle. But the girding of the ephod
44 The derived meaning of hdpux
‘binding,’
from dvpx
(see below, p. 45), is
confirmed
by the lateness of this verse, which, by Duhm (cf. Marti), is paced as
late
even as the second century B.C. It is
apparently a misplaced verse, as it does
not
accord with the contest, which is improved in point of coherency by omitting
it.
Perhaps it belongs after Is. 31:6, where it harmonizes with the contest. The
interpolation
of passages referring to idols is not uncommon in Isaiah, as Professor
Haupt
has pointed out in his reconstruction of Is. 40; see Drugulin's, Marksteine,
45 Das Buch Jesaia, 1892, on 30:22.
18 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITLERATURE.
was
not over the eyes, but about the loins (cf. above, p. 12). Again,
to
escape the idol-ephod, if possible, the theory has been advanced,
most
recently by Marti, that the ephod was a gold or cloth garment
hung
upon an idol. That this was customary among the Hebrews
is
not clear, but for other Semitic peoples, see Baruch 6:33. Granting
the
fact, however, how can it be shown that the garment was the
chief,
and the idol the inferior, object in the cult? If people were
led
into idolatry by an idol with a garment on it, it certainly was not
due
to the garment! This theory starts with the idea that the ephod
was
a garment. It is consistent, but the starting-point is wrong.
The
ephod is an instrument of divination.
B. THE USE OF THE EPHOD.
Important as is the light thrown
upon an unknown object by its
context
and environment, it is altogether inferior to that which comes
from
a knowledge of its use. In about half the passages cited for
the
ephod there is nothing to suggest a use. To say that the ephod
had
always a religious significance is not to point out a use. To say
that
"bearing an ephod" is almost synonymous with priest is true,
but
it does not tell what the ephod was for. It does, however, enable
us
to draw a reasonable inference, that, as one of the chief duties,
if
not the foremost duty, of a priest46 in the time of the Judges was
to
obtain divine oracles, so the ephod, his constant companion, was
used
in divination. Some traveling Danites (Jud. 18:5, 14) learn that
Micah
has an ephod and teraphim, and immediately desire to con-
sult
the oracle. On a subsequent migration, they carry off for their
own
use, priest, ephod, and teraphim. David, during his flight from
Said,
is accompanied by the priest Abiathar; and on two occasions,
1
Sa. 23:9; 30:7, it is recorded that he said to the priest dvpxh
hwyGha,
"Bring
me the ephod."47 Abiathar
brought the ephod, and David
46 In ancient
of
men (cf. below, p. 41, n. 103), but every man was free to offer sacrifice or
obtain
oracles by the use of lots. Later the oracular function was restricted to a
particular
order, and ephod-bearer became synonymous with priest. The Hebrew
Nhk, priest, is the Arabic kahin, 'foreteller.' Later still the function of sacrifice was
taken
over to the priests, and the oracular function, at least in theory, was
restricted
to the high priest. For a similar change among the Incas of Peru, see
Reville,
Hibbert Lectures, 1884, p. 230f.
47 Bertheau, Das Buch der Richter und Ruth,
"The
demand of David, ' Bring the ephod,' means the same as ‘Consult Yahweh.’
But
it is David who consults Yahweh. The words are plain enough, and there
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 19
inquired
of Yahweh. In both instances the answer David receives is
what
one might get by drawing lots. In addition to these passages,
there
is a similar one in 1 Sa. 14:18, which will be considered later,
where
Saul says to the priest Ahijah, "bring the ephod," and appar-
ently
consults the oracle as David did. Now three such indisputable
instances,
where the action has every appearance of being quite
customary,
seem to establish the point that the ephod is directly
connected
with divination. Of course, it is understood that there
is
nothing in any other passage hearing on the ephod to oppose this
conclusion.
One other passage may be noted in this connection.
In
1 Sa. 28:14, where Samuel's spirit is brought up to be consulted by
Saul,
as in his lifetime, he comes up, according to a variant of the
LXX,48
with an ephod about him.
To discover what purpose the ephod
served in divination, some
consideration
must be given to that subject. By divination is meant,
foretelling
events by means that are directly influenced by supernatural
power.
Among the ancients, the means used were
legion; but among
the
Hebrews hardly more than three kinds were practised,--divina-
tion
by clairvoyance, by dreams, and by lot. The first was the office
of
the seer; the last, at least in the early days, that of the priest.
For
the purposes of this investigation, it is necessary to consider only
divination
by lot.49 The point to be determined is how the ephod
was
used in divining by lot. In the performance of this function,
only
two things, apparently, were indispensable: the sacred lots and
some
receptacle in which they were placed. The ephod may have
been
such a receptacle. Its association with rgH ‘gird’ suggests an
apron
from which the lots were cast, or a bag or pouch girded about
the
loins. To determine which of these the ephod was, it is neces-
sary
to know how lots were used.
is
no suggestion of technical language. The expression is vernally varied in 30:7,
where
yl
shows that David wanted the ephod to use. If Abiathar had carried
David's
mouchoir (in modern Hebrew rdAUs= sudarium), he might have asked
for
it in the same way (cf. 2 Ki. 4:6), with the addition of the suffix of the
first
person."
48 The reading of this variant,
of uncertain origin, is a]nh>r presbu<teroj
a]nabai<nwn, kai> au]to>j
peribeblhme<noj efoud. But even supposing the
Hebrew
dvpx hFf instead of lyfm, the verb hFf, which is never used
with
dvpx, would go far to condemn the reading.
49 The expression divination by lot is used without regard
to the nature of the
lot,
and therefore includes arrows and rods, but does riot include dice, which were
not
used as sacred lots (cf. below, p. 25).
20 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
1. The Connection of the
Ephod
It has been noted that there was not
among the Hebrews that
diversity
in the methods of divination that obtained among the
Greeks
and Romans and also other Semitic peoples.50 Apart from
the
office of the seer, and ambiguous allusions to the rod and to
teraphim,
the method was always casting lots. There is no doubt
that
in early times as well as much later, the Hebrews constantly
sought
the will of God by lots. In order to use such means, it is
necessary
to have souse receptacle in which the lots are placed.
From
the passages already examined, it has been inferred that the
ephod,
whether of gold or cloth, was such a receptacle. It could be
carried
about by the priest or girded upon the loins for use.
The fact that the ephod was girded
upon the loins seems to indi-
cate
that both hands must be free to use it, and suggests the idea
that
lots were drawn out of it. An examination has been made of
all
the statements in regard to the use of lots, to determine whether
they
were drawn or cast; for this point is essential in forming an
idea
of the shape of the ephod. There is, in fact, but one passage
which
gives any hint as to how the ephod was used--1 Sa. 14:18-20,
which
may be assigned to a time prior to 8oo B.C. and may be a
contemporary
account. The text is corrupt, but can be restored
from
the Versions (cf. above, p. 9). The previous narrative tells
how
Jonathan and his armor-bearer had put the Philistines to rout,
causing
a great tumult which was noticed by Saul's watchmen at
Gibeah
of Benjamin. Saul at once assembled the people, and found
that
Jonathan and his armor-bearer were missing. Thereupon he
said
to the priest Ahijah, "Bring the ephod." While Saul was speak-
ing
with the priest, the tumult in the Philistine camp burst out anew
and
grew louder and louder. At this point there is a break in the
narrative,
and a blank space in the text (qvsp fcmxb xqsp)51--
possibly
indicating a lacuna--then Said said to the priest, "Take
50 See Haupt's "Babylonian
Elements in the Levitical Ritual," in vol. xix
of
JBL., p. 56.
51 This Masoretic note, of
course, means only that there was a break in the
middle
of the verse, caused by a defect in the surface written on, or quite possibly
by
illegibility of writing or an erasure, in the archetype from which all souse-
quent
copies of the O.T. are derived (cf. W. R. Smith, 0.T. in Jewish Church,
2d
ed., p. 56; Lagarde, Mittheil.
is
the lack of connection with what follows that suggests a lacuna. One would
expect
the priests' answer in the negative, which Saul characteristically refused
to
accept.
FOOTE: EPHOD. 21
out
thy hands."52 Thereupon
Saul called out53 to attack;
the people
with
him took up the shout and they came to the battle. The inter-
est
in the narrative for this investigation centres in the words of Saul
to
the priest, "Take away” or "withdraw thy hand," or "hands,”
if
we adopt the plural of the Greek, the Hebrew may be read either
way.
These words, as a rule, are interpreted to mean that Saul
naturally
impatient, told the priest to cease consulting the oracle.
Thenius,
for instance, says, "’Withdraw thy hand,’ i.e. let it be; we
will
not draw lots." That this exegesis
is not satisfactory is shown
by
the emphasis which commentators place upon Saul's natural
impatience.
He would not wait for Samuel on one occasion; but
his
impatience on this occasion was not so much due to temperament
as
to the bleating of the sheep! On the other hand, Saul was like
the
men of
without
using divination, and when by ordinary means he could
obtain
no favorable answer, he must have recourse to witchcraft.
Other
commentators, again, explain the passage by an inference
drawn
from it in this way: if Saul did not wait to consult the oracle,
it
must have been very complicated and long, says Benzinger54
another
commentator quotes Benzinger to the effect that the con-
sultation
of the ephod was a long process, and this is the reason Saul
did
not wait. But if the ephod was not a magical affair, as almost
all
the modern commentators vaguely imply, but merely an apron
from
which the lots were cast, or a pouch into which the priest put
his
hands and drew the lots, the simplest explanation is that Saul
was
in a hurry to attack the Philistines, and said to the priest,” Take
thy
hands out," in order that he might know the decision of the
oracle.
In regard to the answer given by the lot-oracle, it is possible
that
in 1 Sa. 28:6 we should translate Uhnf xl “did not give a favor-
able
answer," instead of "answered him not." The verse will then
read,
"When Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh did not give hint
52 jd,y Jsox; LXX, Suna<gage
ta>j xei?raj sou. jdy is probably written
defective
for jydy,
as jkrd,
‘thy ways,’ for jykrd, in Ex. 33:13; Jos. 1:8; Ps.
119:37;
also Mkdy
for Mkydy
in Ps. 134:2; cf. Ges.-Kautzsch, §91 k. Jsox<,
'withdraw,'
though the ordinary meaning is ‘gather', it is used of Jacob ‘drawing’
his
feet into bed, and also being ‘taken’ to his people, Gen. 49:33; it has the
meaning
‘to take away' in Is. 16:10; 57:1; 60:21. Jer. 48:33; Hos. 4:3; Joel 2:10;
3:15.
53 qfez.Ayiva may be read qfaz;y.iva with V, conclamavit, and frequently LXX,
e]bo<hse
54 Heb. Archaologie,
p. 408. But he continues quite rightly: “if one had to
exclude
by a series of questions the different possibilities, as this is very clearly
represented
in 1 Sa. 10:20ff.” It was, however, a
simple matter when but (one
question
was put.
22 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
a
favorable answer,55 either by dreams, or by Urim, or by
Prophets."
It
is evident that Saul tried one method of divination and then
another,
and finally resorted to witchcraft. It seems impossible that
the
use of the sacred lots should give no answer at all, though tradi-
tion
probably allowed but one use of them in a single inquiry. In
the
present case, Saul presumably received a favorable answer.
This
seems a satisfactory glimpse of the ephod in use, and the con-
clusion
drawn from it would be that the ephod was a receptacle into
which
the hands are put to draw the lots.
Put as lots are almost always spoken
of as cast, the question arises
whether
in antiquity the custom of drawing in; lots ever obtained.
There
are ten verbs in Hebrew which are used in connection with
lots
in the O.T. They are: xcy, hlfh, hlf, Ntn, lyFh, lyph,
lpn, jylwh, dry, and hry. Seven of them mean ‘to
cast, throw,
let
fall’; while three signify ‘to come up’ and ‘out,’ as from a
shaken
receptacle. These verbs seem to show that among the
ancient
Hebrews, at least, lots were not drawn, but cast. Among
the
Romans, also, the common expression is "to cast lots."
however,
mentions, as if nothing unusual, that the oracular lots in
the
child. Quid igitur
in his [sortibus] potest esse certi, quae Fortunae
monitu pueri manu
miscentur atque ducuntur.56 On the
other hand,
in
the Illiad, III. 316ff., we read that
Hector shakes the lots in a
helmet
with an up and down motion,57 with averted face to prevent
any
suspicion of partiality, and the lot of
In
the same way the ephod, if it were originally a loincloth as has
been
suggested (cf. above, p. 7), would furnish a lap from which
the
lots could be cast. That the shaking of the lap was to some
extent
a familiar action, is seen from Neh. 5:13. “I shook out my lap,
saying,
so God shake out every man from his house." Put in Prov. 16:33
we
read:
55 Professor Haupt has shown, in BELR., note 47 (see JBL., 1900,
hnf, when indicating the answer to an oracle,
technically means the favorable
answer.
56 De Divinatione, II. 41, 86.
57 Professor Gildersleeve
kindly suggested to me that the motion was indicated
by
the verb pa<llein which is used of Hector dandling his little son.
58 w!j a@p ] e@fan, pa<llen de> me<gaj
koruqai<oloj !@Ektwr
a}y o[ro<wn: Pa<rioj de> qow?j e]k klh?roj o@rousen.
I
have to thank Professor Haupt for the additional references: Sophocles, Electra.
710;
Alcman, fragment 63, ll. 24, 400; 15, 191; Herod. 3, 128.
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 23
lrvGh
tx lFUy qyHb
vFPAwm lk hvhymv
The lot is cast in the
lap,
But the
whole disposing thereof is of the LORD
Evidently
the verse does not fit the theory of casting out of the lap.
The
word qyHe [see
Note C], rendered ‘lap’ in this verse, is ambigu-
ous.
The English word associated with it is ‘bosom,’ as also with
sinus and ko<lpoj. But it is quite misleading to translate qyH by
‘bosom.’
It is true that bosom has a wide range
of meanings, but
the
universal significance of the word when used alone is that part
of
the body where the heart is; and this, it may safely be said, qyH
never
means. It would be impossible for us to say, " My reins are
consumed
within my bosom," and in Job 19:27 qyH evidently refers
to
the abdominal cavity including the liver and intestines, the seat
of
the affections among the ancients, which we associate with the
heart,
and the upper or thoracic cavity of the body. This is respon-
sible
for the confusion in the rendering of qyH, and the same exists
in
regard to sinus and ko<lpoj. ‘Bosom’ or 'heart' is
a legitimate
translation
so long as they are used merely for the abstract idea of
affection;
but when the ancient seat of` the passions had given rise
to
a whole sphere of associations with that part of the body about
the
loins and waist, such a translation as ‘bosom’ is entirely mis-
leading.
In sinus and ko<lpoj the original idea seems
to be that of
bulging,
protuberance, etc., hence the part of the body containing the
viscera;
then the folds of a garment where it hangs over the girdle
whence
the lap, a place of concealment, a pocket; and even a con-
cave
surface, bowl, urn. The etymology of qyH is not clear, but its
meanings
have developed on the same lines. Hence when we rent
"The
lot is cast in the qyH," the reference is not necessarily to the
lap
of a garment but more likely to a pouch or urn. But this, again,
does
not accord with the verbs which seem to mean ‘cast out of,’ as
Hector
cast the lot out of the helmet.
The word that is almost invariably
used in general reference to lot
casting
is lrvg
‘lot.’ The lrvg is originally a pebble, thus suggest-
ing
that lots were commonly small and round. They may have been
black
and white, or inscribed with some symbol. In Lev. 16:8, 9, Aaron
casts
lots for the scape-goat : tvlrg
MriyfW;h ynw lf NroHExa Ntnv and
lrvgh vylf hlf rwx ryfWAh.. Instead of rendering with the R.V.,
"Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats,
and the goat upon
which
the lot fell," it is better to read, "Aaron put the lots for the
24 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
two
goats into some receptacle, and the goal upon
which the lot
came up," plainly
referring to a receptacle answering, perhaps, to
the
helmet of Hector.
But in the Talmudic tract Yoma (xmvy), 4, I, the whole
matter is
put
in a different light. Here we read, "The high priest put his
hands
into the urn and took out two lots; upon one was written For
Yahweh, and upon the other was
written For Azazel."59 Evidently
this
was the traditional custom of drawing
lots. The word for ‘urn,’
yPil;qa or yPel;qa seems to be the late
Greek ka<lph possibly akin to
ko<lpoj, something hollowed
out. The Gemarah explains that the
yPlq ‘urn’ was made of wood, but on one occasion
a man had
become
renowned by making one of gold; that the high priest
snatched the lots out quickly so
as not to feel of them; that the lot
which
was drawn in the right hand was for the goat which was near
his
right side, and it was considered a happy augury when the right
hand
held the lot inscribed hvhyl.
The Talmudic tract Baba Bathra (xrtb
xbb), 122,
a, also has
an
instructive account. Eleazar stands before Joshua, bearing the
Urim
and Thummim and casting lots to divide the land among the
twelve
tribes of
twelve
lots, each with the name of a tribe written on it; the other
containing
twelve apportionments of land. The priest put one hand
into
each urn, and drew in one hand the tribe, and in the other
hand
the portion of
instance
and in the one before mentioned, there was a solemn com-
muning
with the Holy Spirit, who was believed to direct the drawing.
This
drawing of lots suggests the comparison of the method of choos-
ing
officers at
of
the candidates, the other with white and colored beans, the person
being
chosen whose name was drawn simultaneously with a white
bean.60
Of course the Mishnah is not the Old
Testament, but it claims in
Pirqe aboth (tvbx
yqrp),
law,
and it reaches back as a written authority to the time of the Second
into
an urn, or two urns as the occasion demanded, and then drawn.
59 vylf bvtk
dHxv Mwl vylf bvtk dHx tvlrvg ynw hlfhv yplqb JrF
:lzxzxl
60 See Seyffert's Dict. of Classical Antiquities, under
"Officials." The urn
used
was called klhrwtri<j; cf. on this subject, klhro<w
o]mfa<n 'to
obtain an
oracle
by lot'; kla<roij qeoprote<wn, ‘to divine by lot"; cf. Eur. Phaenissae, 852.
FOOTE: THE EPOD. 25
This
oral tradition helps one to understand the account of the allot-
meat
of
find
the descendants of Joseph complaining that Joshua had placed
for
them but one portion for an inheritance, whereas they were really
two
tribes. dHx lbHv dHx lrvg hlHna yl hTtn fvdm. This seems
to
point to the two urns, one for the lots and one for the apportion-
relents
and the traditional method of drawing lots. We may compare
here
a passage in Acts 8:21, where Peter tells Simon Magus that he has
neither
part ( lbH?)
nor lot ( lrvg?)
the matter. Ou]k e@sti soi
meri>j ou]de> klh?roj e]n t&?
lo<g& tou<t&61--nothing in either urn,
may
have
been in the mind of the writer, who was doubtless familiar with
Jewish
customs; or more likely the expression was idiomatic and
originated
in this custom. Cf. Sap. 2:9.
But notwithstanding these undoubted
instances of drawing lots,
the
fact remains that the verbs used to express the use of lots are
almost
all verbs of casting. To settle the matter, if possible, the
crucial
instance of casting lots for the robe, Ps. 22 was chosen for
investigation,
as being the one most commonly associated with cast-
ing
dice. This suggested Roman usages and the child drawing tlhe
lot
at the Praenestine Oracle. Authorities
like Paula, Smith's Classi-
cal Antiquities, and Marduardt's Romische Staatsverwaltung have
accepted
the expression “to cast lots”' as stating some unexplained
custom.
The latter, however, refers, in a note, to Servius on the
AEneid,
a passage which will shortly be considered. A distinction
must
first be made between the use of sons or klh?roj ‘lot,’ and tes-
serae, tali, ku<boi and a]stra<galei
‘dice.’
These do not enter into
this
investigation, as they are entirely confined to the gaming sphere.
The
common expression with dice is " playing," “using,” or “throw-
ing.”
In the Roman world the use of dice was prohibited by the
Lex Titia et Publicia et
Cornelia;
the Roman soldiers could not
have
used them under the eyes of a centurion; and even in Decem-
ber,
during the Saturnalia, they could have had no connection with
divination.
To return to the lot, the verbs used
with sors are mostly verbs of
Casting
like conicere, deicere, mittere,
etc., but not the idea of casting
out
of a vessel, but generally in sitellam,
which seems to have been
a
vessel with a small mouth, and filled with water, in which the lots
61 Salkinson-Ginshui translate: hzh rbdb hlHnv
qlHe jl Nyx.
Delitzsch: lrvgh qlhe jl Nyx . qlH, may have denoted, originally
a smooth
pebble
(Is. 57:6) used as a lot. qlH
‘to allot’ may be denominative; cf. Albert
Schultens,
quoted in Gesenius' Thesaurus.
26 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
were
put, but only one of them, as they floated on the top, could
appear
in the small opening. Otherwise the sitella
was used without
water,
lots being drawn from it, as Livy, 25, 3, 16, sitella lata est, ut
sortizentur. The expression in sitellam
is like the in urnam of
Est.
3:7, missa est sons in urnam, but
there is no Hebrew equivalent
for
in urnam. Finally much light is
thrown on the subject by a
passage
in the Casina of Plautus, 2, 5, 34,
which shows that to speak
of
casting lots did not imply that they
were not also drawn at the
same time. Stalino says "Coniciam sortes in sitellam et sortiar Tibi
et
Chalino."
The passage in the AEneid, T. 508 f. refers to the
assignment of
the
daily tasks by lot
Jura
dabat legesque viris, operumque laborem
partibus aequabat iustis, aut sorte trahebat.
Servius
notes that Vergil had used the correct expression : Sorte
trahebat; proprie locutus
est. Trahuntur enim sortes, hoc est, edu-
cuntur.
Further investigation showed that drawing lots was probably the
general
method in classical antiquity. Sortior,
indeed, denominative
from
sors, and meaning to draw lots, as
also klhrou?mai, is a fair index
of
the use of sortes, even where it is
distinctly stated that the lots
were
cast. "Coniciam sortes in sitellam et sortiar" makes the
matter
quite plain. This conclusion taken in connection with the
Hebrew
tradition as found in the Mishnah and O.T. lays it open
to
serious doubt whether a custom of casting a lot out of a vessel ever
existed.
But there still remains the query:
If lots were drawn in divina-
tion,
why was casting lots the well-nigh
universal expression? The
solution
of this difficulty seems to lie in the difference between our
point
of view and that of the ancients in respect to divination. They
believed
in it, as a rule, whether Latins or Greeks, and still more the
Hebrews.
It was an integral part of their religion. The ceremony
was
accompanied with prayer, and it was unquestionably believed
that
the Supreme Wisdom directed which lot should come forth, i.e.
be
drawn. The human element was, as far as possible, eliminated
from
the drawing. The priest communed with God and snatched
the
lots suddenly (see above, p. 24). The impersonal expressions
are
used: the lot came up or came forth (see the verbs, p. 22,
above).
The
statement that the lot was drawn by the priest is distinctly
avoided,
as though implying that God did not order it. So the child
FOOTE: THE LPHOD. 27
was
employed at Praeneste (as perhaps, little Samuel at
being
more purely an instrument by whom God made known His
will.
The peasants in
them,
and in
Evidently
man's part was merely the casting the lots into the urn—
it
was impious to speak of a man drawing them. So Prov. 16:33 seems
to
be the key, when rightly understood, to the whole difficulty. The
lot
is cast in the urn, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.62
In
drawing, man was an impersonal agent--the lot came out. It
was
man's part to prepare the lots and cast (which may have had
the
sense of minding) them in some receptacle. Hence the verbs
used
with lots are not those of drawing, but casting.
We have seen that lots were really
drawn in divination. This
requires
a receptacle of a different kind than would be necessary if
lots
were cast out on the ground. A receptacle would be needed
that
concealed the lots from sight and that could be fixed in such a
way
that the hands would be free to use it. An urn set upon a tripod
would
answer the purpose if it were so shaped that the lots could
not
easily be seen. But this end could more easily be attained by
using
a pouch which would have the additional advantage of being
portable,
and when used could be hung at the waist. This seems to
have
been the nature of the ephod. But it is necessary to extend
this
investigation so as to include those objects which are connected
with
divination by lot.
1. The Teraphim.
There are two considerations which
make it necessary to include
teraphim.
The ephod is associated with teraphim in Jud. 17 and 18,
and
Hos. 3:4; and the teraphim are associated with divination63 in
Gen.
30:27; also in Ezek. 21:26 and Zech. 10:2.
That the teraphim were of the nature
of idols or simulacra, no
one
denies. Laban accuses Jacob of stealing his gods. Micah uses
the
same expression. In I Sa. 15:23 teraphim are condemned along
62 In Prov.1:14, the robbers say
to the your man, vnkeOtb lyPt jlrAvg "cast in
thy
lot among us,” i.e. put your name on a lot and cast it with our lots, so that
you
will have the same chance of getting the booty as we have. But the
"lot"
may
also be interpreted to mean the portion (cf. Jer. 13:25) of the young man-
put
it in with our funds let us have: one purse. See Dr. Philip Schaff’s small
Dict. of the Bible, under
"Lots."
63 See Robertson Smith. O. T. in Jewish Church, p. 226, 1st ed.,
and Maybaum,
Die Entwickelung des altisraelitischen
Prophetenthums,
1883, p. 16.
28 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
with
idolatry, and appear in the same connection in 2 Ki. 23:24.
rious
theories have been advanced concerning teraphim. Wake, in
Serpent Worship, p. 47, quite arbitrarily
identifies teraphim with
seraphim
and refers it to what he styles "the serpent symbol of the
Exodus
called seraph," Nu. 21:8, 9, Heb., comparing also the serpent
of
the
God, pp. 182f., explains
teraphim as representing the manes and
lares
in the worship of ancestors. Schwally''64 and others have re-
cently
derived teraphim from Myxpr ‘manes.' But the commonly
accepted
view compares them to the Penates. It is noteworthy that
penates
always occurs in the plural form as does teraphim, and the
two
accounts of the stealing of teraphim may be compared to Aeneas
taking
the captured penates to
improbable
that in the life of the Punic leader Hannibal in Corn.
Nepos
(Han. ix.), we are to understand teraphim by the statuas
aeneas. As to the form of the
teraphim, it has been supposed from
1
Sa. 19:13 that they were of human shape and size,66 but the
inference
as
to the size is not warranted, since the human appearance was eked
out
by a pillow at the head; all, according to Oriental custom, being
covered
with the bedclothes. Of all the mentions of the teraphim
this
is the only one that might seem to construe teraphim with the
singular,
but it is not certain; the suffixes supplied in the English
are
omitted in the Hebrew, only one being used, vytAwoxEram; which,
however,
may refer to David (so Budde) or even to the bed, though
it
is masculine gender.67 The
LXX ta> kenota<fia ‘monuments of the
dead,’
and Latin statua68 in place of the almost
invariable idola may
64 Das Leben nach dem Tode, p. 36. Further references may be found in
of Biblical Lit.
65 Ethnologically one would err
in imagining any connection between these
early
peoples. On this Brinton says, in Religions
of Primitive Peoples (p. 8),
“Professor
Buchmann expressed some years ago what I believe to be the correct
result
of modern research in these words: it is easy to prove that the striking
similarity
in primitive religious ideas comes not from tradition nor from relation-
ship
or historic connection of early peoples, but front the identity in the mental
construction
of the individual man, wherever he is found.’”
66 Not so, however Hitzig; see
Commentary on 1 Sam. 19:13.
67 Similar irregularity may he
seen in several instances, e.g. Ex. 11:6; 25:19;
Jud.
11:34 etc., cf. Ges.-Khautzsch, § 135, o. See Diehl, Das Pronomen pers.
suffixum 2 u. 3 pers. plur.
des Hebr. in der alttest. Uberlieferung,
See
also SB0T., Critical Note on Judges,
p. 65f.
68 Note that the versions take
teraphim as a plural, with the exception of this
statua.
FOOTE : THE EPHOD. 29
be
attempts to explain away the presence of teraphim in David's
house,
or, it may be that the teraphim, among those who had given
up
idolatry, took the form of ancestral images, associated more or
less
with superstitious veneration, but not idolatry. In the account
of
Rachel's stealing and hiding her father's teraphim (Gen. 31:19-35),
it
is evident that the word is plural, and that the teraphim were
tolerably
small images or she could scarcely have carried them
without
Jacob's knowledge or hidden them so that Laban could not
find
them.
The association of teraphim with
divination69 is so frequent
that
it
seems to indicate the principal use to which they were put. That
they
were not used in idolatrous worship is to be inferred from the
fact
that Hosea, who boldly censures idolatry, allows the use of ephod
and
teraphim.70 But if they were
idols, how could they have given
answers
to questions? It is quite usual for commentators to speak
of
"consulting idols, oracular idols," etc. Now a commentator may
sometimes
give an oracular utterance, but an idol never! If one
idol
had ever given an oracle, we should never have had the magnifi-
cent
arraignment of idols in Deutero-Is. 41:21ff.:
"Declare to us what
will
happen in the future that we may know that ye are gods: yea,
do
good, or do evil, do something, that we may all see it! Behold
ye
are of no account and your work is nothing at all!"--yet many
commentators,
who will not allow any supernatural occurrence to
pass
without advancing a natural explanation, are quite prone to
imply,
and base arguments on the conclusion that the idols in some
mysterious
way gave oracles. Rychlak, e.g., in Osee,
says that error
would
be avoided, si de manifestestationibus
idolorum, quae et consule-
bantur et aliquando
consulentibus responsa dabunt, in-
telligamus. Again, referring
specifically to the older passages which
mention
the ephod, two of which, 1 Sa. 23:9 and 30:7, represent the
ephod
as giving oracles, Maybaum says," All those passages through-
out
give the impression that by ephod is meant a real Yahweh image.
Now,
either an image can give an oracle or the supposition is
69 See an article by Frarrer in
Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Lit..,
Vol. III,
p
986.
70 In this passage. Hos. 3:4, the
prophet says of his unfaithful wife that she
must
abide with him many days in faithfulness, but without a wife's privileges;
so
must
prince,
and without sacrifice and without massebah,
and without ephodh and
teraphim."
Note that ephod and teraphim are more closely joined than the
other
couples.
71 Die Entwickelung des altisrael. Prophetentums, 1883, p, 26,
30 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
untenable.72
It may be argued that the users of them
believed that
they
gave oracles. They may easily have thought that idols heard
their
prayers and influenced their destinies, but it is not credible that
they
believed that any idol (apart from priest-jugglery) ever answered
such
a question as this, "If I pursue this troop, shall I overtake
them?"
1 Sa. 30:17, but David received the answer "yes." Now it
may
have been that lots were used coram idolo
and with some invo-
cation
of the idol. In Cheyne-Black's Encyc.
Biblica under "Divina-
tion."
Professor Davies, of
"We
omit the reference to the teraphim because no new point is
indicated
by it; the king consulted the teraphim [singular], by
shaking
the arrows before it, as was always done also by the heathen
Arabs."
His designating teraphim as singular is quite arbitrary (see
above,
p. 28). By consulting the section on arrows (p. 34, below),
it
will be seen that arrows were not always used before idols. But
farther
on in the article Davies says that possibly the teraphim were
used
as lots. Then why not here in Ezek. 21:26? But the idea that
the
Hebrews consulted idols by casting lots before them is pure
supposition,
while the use of lots is not supposition but fact, as has
been
shown in regard to the ephod, and will be shown in regard to
Urim
and Thummim. These were real oracles, not dumb idols. The
prophets
could not say of them, "Behold ye are of no account, and
your
work is nothing at all!" for great leaders in
on
them and had been victorious.
But "the teraphim," says
the prophet Zechariah (10:2), have
spoken
vanity," rqw vzH MymsOqhv NvxA vrBd Myprth yk "and the
diviners
have seen a lie." The LXX in this passage, and in Hos. 3:4,
renders
teraphim respectively by a]pofqeggo<menoi, and dh?loi, terms
which
indicate anything but dumb idols, and in this connection
should
be accorded due weight. In the passage in Hosea, and also
in
Jud. 17 and 18, teraphim are associated with the ephod. Micah
makes
an ephod and teraphim, puts them in a private chapel, secures
a
competent priest, and then travellers stop in and consult the oracle.
With
what is already known of the ephod, viz., that it was a pouch
72 In the same strain, Aowack
(Die Kleinen Prophelen, 1597, 1). 26) says:
dvpx in the old time undoubtedly was an idol
which was used to give oracles,
1
Sa. 23:6, 9; 30:7. He adheres to the same view in his Richter und Ruth, 1901.
On
the other hand, cf. Meyer (Chzronicozz Hebraeorum, 1699, p. 468), speaking
of
a theory that teraphim were statues of loved ones “Mical audivit quasi vocem
submissam loquentem ad
se de rebus futuris ... quod est impossibile, cum sermo
non possit fieri nisi
per organa a Deo in natura posita.”
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 31
to
contain the sacred lots, it seems quite likely that the teraphim
were
little images used as lots. We have inferred from Gen. 31:35,
the
account of Rachel hiding her father's teraphim, that they must
have
been small from Hos. 3:4--the prophecy of
many
days without teraphim (see note 70 on p. 29, above)--that they
were
not condemned as idols, but associated with the ephod. The
order
of occurrence is always ephod and teraphim. The ephod
itself
was independent of the lots, which were called by another
name.
The Urim and Thummim; as we shall see, were such lots
the
arrows were lots: the goraloth were
lots, the teraphim seem to
have
been used as lots also. It is ouite natural that an image, looked
upon
with superstitions awe as in some way a supernatural agent
should
be the common household means of appeal to a wise and
benevolent
Power, albeit but little known. The small size of such
images
will cause no surprise to those who are familiar with the
innumerable
Egyptian images not longer than three or four inches, or
the
miniature idols of the Chinese. In Ezek. 21 the king of
wishes
to have divine guidance as to the route of an expedition.
To
obtain it he uses three means, of which one is consult the
teraphim.
He looked for real assistance. We are
probably to
understand
that he consulted the teraphim as we might speak of
consulting
the dice. We conclude, then, that there is no Hebrew
authority
to prove that teraphim is ever a pluralis extensivisus, indicat-
ing
but one image, but there are three passages where it is evidently
plural,
and the others are non-committal, or favor the plural. As
to
size, our preconceived notions formed from the words image and
idol
make it hard to think of the very small kind which, as among
the
Chinese, may have been the common household image. The
narratives,
where they are readily carried or concealed even by a
woman,
certainly strengthen this view. That they were not used in
idolatrous
worship in the time of Hosea (c. 740 B.C.) seems a fair
inference
(cf. above, p. 29), and the connection with the ephod,
together
with the fact that they gave oracles seems to point to the
theory
advanced, that the teraphim were small images used as
lots
in divination at a period in all probability earlier than 1000 B.C.
For
elaborate arguments for the identity of teraphim with Urim and
Thummim,
the reader is referred to Spencer's De
Legibus ritualibus
Hebraeorum, 1732, III. 3, and to
Robertson Smith's Old Testament
in the Jewish Church, 1892, p. 292, n. 1.
That the teraphim were
gradually
abandoned seems evident from their later condemnation
as
something classed with idolatry and clung to with like stubborn-
32 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
ness;
cf. 1 Sa. 15:23, "For rebellion is as the sin of divination (Msq,
see
below, p. 34) and stubbornness is as iniquity (Nvx, see below,
p.
40, n. 100) and teraphim."73 Apparently a later comment aimed
at
superstitious practices more than at the principle of divination.
See
also 2 Ki. 23:24, where teraphim are classed with, but not as idols.
2. Urim and Thummim.
The same reasons which made it
necessary to investigate the
teraphim
apply to the Urim and Thummim. Their origin, as in the
case
of ephod and teraphim, is unknown. The earliest document
of
the O.T. which mentions them is the Deuteronomic Blessing,74
Dent.
33:8, which has been assigned by
Jeroboam
II (752-743). The passage in no way helps to an under-
standing
of what the Urim and Thummim were. The account in
I
Sa. 14:41 and 28:6 associates the use of Urim and Thummim with
Saul.
The narrative is probably E, prior to 730 B.C.; and it is to
be
noted that the use of Urim and Thummim is taken as a customary
thing,
and although the passage in 1 Sa. l4:41, in the Hebrew, has be-
come
corrupt, it is evidently since the third century B.C., and it shows
no
signs of intentional alteration. The use of Urim and Thummim76
in
divination in pre-exilic times is seen in I Sa. 14:41f, where Saul
divines
with them to discover who had broken the taboo which he
had
placed upon food. From v. 3 it will be seen that the ephod77
was
used, and we are to understand that the lots were drawn from
it.
Professor Haupt has rendered the passage as follows:78 "Saul
said:
O Yahweh, God of Israel, why hast Thou not responded to
73
rcap;ha Myprtv NvxAv yrm, Msq-txFH yk
74 JdysHe wyxl
jyrUxv jymitu rmx yvilel;v, "And of Levi he said, thy
Thummim
and thy Urim be for the man, thy godly one."
75 Cheyne-Black's Encyclopaedia, col. 1090, § 25.
76 A careful survey of the
literature on Urim and Thummim may be found in
an
article so entitled by Muss-Arnolt in the Amer.
Journal of Semitic Lit., July,
1900.
77 In 1 Sa. 28:6 we read that
Saul could obtain no oracle, neither by dreams,
nor
by Urim, nor by prophets. tvmlHb Mg hvhy vhnf xlv hvhyb
lvxw lxwyv
Myxybnb Mg Myrvxb Mg. Comparing the
undoubted use of the ephod by Saul,
the
omission of it here is an indication that it was understood to he used with
Urim;
cf. Driver's article on "Law" in
also
Robertson Smith's 0T. in the Jewish
78 yb wy Mx
Mvyh jdbf tx tynf xl hm.AlA lxrWy yhlx hvhy lvxw rmxyv
lxrWy jm.fab Onwy, Mxv MyrUx hbh lxrWy
yhlx hvhy hzh NvfAh, ynb Ntnvhyb vx
My(m.tu)
hbh
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 33
Thy
servant this day? If the guilt be in me or in my son Jonathan,
0
Yahweh, God of Israel, give Urim; but if it should be Thy people
combines
Myrvx
with rrx
curse, representing the unfavorable au-
swer,
while Mym.tu means ‘blamelessness, acquittal,’ and is the favor-
able
answer.
The general view of the size of Urim
and Thummim is gained
from
the description of the Nw,h, a kind of pocket (usually, mistrans-
lated
‘breast-plate’), which is given in Exodus and Leviticus. This
pocket,
bearing twelve precious stones, was about twelve inches
square,
fastened permanently to the high priest's breast, with an
opening
to allow the high priest to take out the Urim and Thummim,
which
were kept within. It could scarcely have been used as a
dice-box,
for it could not be removed from the ephod. Here, how-
ever,
we may see a trace of the pre-exilic form of the ephod,
pouch
to contain the sacred lots. It is altogether unlikely that Urim
and
Thummim were ever used with the NwH as nothing is heard of
it
before the Exile, and after the Return it: seems that Urim and
Thummim
could not be used,80 or rather, that they no longer existed.
If
they had survived the Captivity, they could doubtless have been
used.
The Babylonian Talmud, Sota, 48, a,
states that Urim and
Thummim
were lost at the time of the destruction of the
586.
B.C.81 Maimonides82
however, speaks of Urim and Thummim
having
existed to complete the garments of the high priest though
they
were not consulted. It seems probable that something was
made
to represent them.
A good deal has been made by
Wellhausen, Benzinger, and
Thenius-Lohr
of the technic of the priest in the use of lots; but
the
idea has arisen from a misconception of the manner in which
they
were used, and a misunderstanding of 1 Sa. 14:18 and perhaps
14:41f,
where receiving no answer may have been ascribed to a fault
of
technic. Undoubtedly, if the post-exilic priest had had Urim and
79 See BELP. in JOURNAL OF
BIBLICAL LIT., 1900, p. 58, and notes 54-61,
cf.
"Crit. Notes on Numbers," in SBOT., p. 57, l. 45.
80 Cf. Ezra 2:63, and Bertheau-Ryssel’s,
commentary: also Siegfried ad loc.
81 Mym.t;v
MyrUx vlFb Mynvwxrh Myxybn vtmwm, from the destruction of the
former
prophets Urim and Thummim were lost."
82 Yadh Hachazaqah,
Nhb Nylxwn vyh xlw p”fxv
Mydgb hnmw Mylwhl ydk Mym.tuv MyrUx, They made
in
the Second Temple Urim and Thummim, in order to complete the eight
garments,
although they were not consulted by them."
34 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
Thummim,
he would have used them; but not having them, the idea
may
have grown up that they were of the nature of charms. Well-
hausen,
in Skizzen, III., p. 144, in speaking
of amulets, says: "Frey-
tag
has compared the Thummim of the high priest, which likewise
were
carried at the neck. The phylacteries and bells on the pallium
show
that one is not justified is repudiating the comparison. How-
ever,
although the later Jews may have regarded Urim and Thummim
as
a charm-ornament of the high priest, they seem to have been
originally
two lots to which, when used for oracular purposes, was
attributed
any alternative you please as signification (see Vatke,
323)."
It is riot improbable that the sacred lots had come down
from
heathen times and that they were originally amulets.83 They
may
have been the sacred, or priestly, lots, while the teraphim were
the
common household lots. Probably they were marked by color,
or
more likely with the words by which they were called, indicating
one
as the favorable, and the other as the unfavorable answer. Be-
ing
lost at the Captivity, and forgotten, the very significance of the
names
was no longer recognized and the Versions render "Lights
and
Perfections."
3. Arrows and Rods.
These complete the list of articles
used by the Hebrews in divina-
tion
by lot, if, indeed, the arrow is to be distinguished from the rod.
It
is misleading even to speak of the Hebrews in this connection, for
an
undoubted instance of a Hebrew (not a Bedouin) divining with
arrows
is yet to be found.
In Ezek. 21:26f, "the king of
way
to use divination ( Msq): he shook the arrows, he consulted the
teraphim,84
he inspected the liver. In his right hand is the lot,
in
a dissertation by Anton Huber.85 In the game of Meisir, arrows
were
used for lots. They were previously marked with names or
notches,
and then placed in a leathern bag or quiver, and shaken
under
a sheet which was held so as to conceal the arrows from the
person
who shook them. When an arrow was shaken up so as to
project
above the others, it was drawn and handed to another person
83 Cf. Brinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples, 1897, p.
148, on lucky stones.
84 The idea advanced by Davies,
of
the
arrows and consulting the teraphim were but one act is not borne out by the
Hebrew.
The methods used are as evidently three as any brief statement could
make
them.
85 Uber des "Meisir" genannte Spiel der heidnischen Araber,
FOOTE: THE
EPHOD. 35
who
gave it to the owner, who won according to the marks on the
arrow.
This gives all the facts necessary for understanding how
arrows
were used. The connection with Ezek. 21:26 is established by
the
word for shaking the arrows, Arab. qalqala,
which is the lqal;qi
of
this passage. The lot in his hand,
arrow
marked
Wellhausen,
Skizzen, III., p. 127, comes to the
same conclusion,
based
upon
the
oracle according to the ritual of his people, putting the arrows
into
a quiver, after first marking them with the names of different
places,
and then shaking them to see what place would be indicated
by
the coming out of an arrow, and what city he should first attack.
The
Greeks call this belomanti<a or r[abdomanti<a. Wellhausen's con-
jecture
Skizzen, III. p. 167, quoted by Benzinner p. 408, n., that
torah goes back to the
lot-arrow and the verb hry 'cast' used of
lots
and of arrows, a direction being obtained in the first instance
from
the way the arrow pointed when cast is very doubtful, inasmuch
as
it lacks the element of chance which is the essence of divination
by
lot; for if arrows deviated in any unforeseen way from the direc-
tion
in which they were shot, it would render skill in archery unat-
tainable.
Besides it is first necessary to show that arrows were ever
‘cast’
in divination. They were shaken and drawn. It was this
superstitious
use of chance that caused Mohammed to forbid this
use
of arrows, Koran, Sura V. 4, 92; he
implies that Satan is the
one
who directs chances, not God. Contrast with this Prov. 16:33
see
above, p. 27. Canon Driver, in his article on “Law,” hrvt, in
conjecture
in spite of his warning: Such conjectures always remain
uncertain
and do not deserve too much credit. Wellhausen there-
upon
retracts a conjecture made with as little foundation, that
is
related to tama’im 'amulets.' But Driver
thinks to brace up the
theory
by the use of hry in casting lots. There might be some
ground
for it if lots were really cast as he supposes; but being in
reality
drawn, as were the arrows, there is none. Some commenta-
tors
have entered so heartily into the idea of the Loospfeile that an
arrow
is never shot but it is in divination. So it is with Jonathan and
David,
and so with Joash at Elisha's death-bed. But it is altogether
unlikely,
since an arrow, when shot, is gone.87
86 See Haupt's "Babylonian
Elements in the Levitical Ritual," JBL. XIX.,
notes
11-13.
87 Sellin, in Beitrage zur Religionsgesch., 1897, p. 116 ff., is not convincing;
36 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
In regard to the use of the rod, the
only reference is Hos. 4:12, ymfa
vl dyGya vlqmav lxw;y vcfeb, "My people
consult their staff, and their
rod
makes known to them." From this passage no idea can be
gained
of the method used in divination, except the derivation of
lqe.ma from llq, ‘shake,’ indicating,
perhaps, the use of rods in a way
similar
to that of the arrows; and this is favored by the parallelism
with
Cfe which may be used for CHe, 'arrow'; cf. 1 Sa. 17:7,
"the
staff88
of his spear." But it is not even certain that it was a lot at
all.
The reference may be to a so-called divining rod which is said
to
shake in the hand and indicate where water is to be found. If
the
use of the rod, however, were similar to that of the arrow as a
lot,
this verse (Hos. 4:12), with the use of hnz ‘to go astray’ after
lot-oracles
(see above, p. 15) ought to be compared with Jud. 8:27,
where
the same expression is used of Gideon's ephod. The rod has
an
extensive use in Hebrew literature as a magician's wand or pedes-
trian's
staff, but the data that prove its use as a lot are wanting.
2. The Ephod as a Part of the Insignia of Priests.
With the Captivity the ancient regime of the Hebrews came to an
end,
and the period of Babylonian influence began. In all probability
many
old customs and usages fell into desuetude, never to be revived;
many
traditions derived from heathen times lapsed, and thereafter
were
only remembered with shame; many ceremonial objects of
venerable
antiquity were lost, and became names to conjure with,
or
were restored under new forms bearing little likeness to the old.
So
it was with the Urim and Thummim, which were never to appear
again;
and yet the longing for them breaks forth in the Korahite
psalm
(43) of the
Thy
Thummim, that they may lead me."89
But though Urim and Thummim did not
exist after the Captivity
(see
above, p. 33), yet the NwH was made, and also the ephod to
which
it was attached; for the Babylonian Talmud, Nywdq, 37, a,
has
a tradition of sages coming to a certain heathen Dama, the son
Ezek.
21:26, e.g., certainly does not show that the Hebrews used arrows. In
Reclus,
Primitive Folks, p. 276, is a suggestion as to the meaning of
an arrow
shot.
Among the Kohls of Chota Nagpore, an
arrow is shut in front of a person as
a
sign that the way is cleared for him.
88 The text has CH, the Q're Cf; cf. also the
interchange of h and ‘ in modern
Arabic.
89 See Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Lipsiae, 1872, p.
xlvii, who emends: Hlw
ynvHny hmh jymtuv jyrUx. Cf. Duhm ad loc.
FOOTE: THE
EPHOD. 37
of
Nethina of Ashkelon, to purchase stones for the ephod.90 But
though
the ephod was restored in an altered form, it was never again
used
in divination, and only survived as a part of the insignia of
the
high priest. These insignia were known as the abundance of
garments,
Mydgb hbvrm, which is explained as follows: “High
priests
who officiated from the day that the oil of anointment was
lost
(literally hidden), had their
high-priesthood indicated by the
abundance of their garments," that is, they
wore the eight priestly
garments;
of which the four peculiar to the high priest are given
as:
Cycv NwHv dvqxv lyfm, the robe, the ephod, the breastplate,
and
the gold plate.
It is impossible to say with
certainty just what this high priest's
ephod
was. Some writers, like Riehm (Handworterbuch des
biblischen Altertums, 2d ed., 1893-4, "Ephod"),
consider it
tially
a shoulder-piece; as Thenius, e.g., says the ephod is nowhere,
anything
else than a shoulder garment. Others see in it a long robe
with
a girdle about the waist and the hoshen,
or ‘pocket,’ fastened
between
the girdle and the shoulders. No doubt the description
was
plain enough to him who wrote it; but the only clue we can
have
to the object described must come from a knowledge of what
the
old ephod was. This gives us three points which, in all proba-
bility,
were the traditional residuum from which the post-exilic ephod
was
reconstructed.91 These were the pouch for the sacred lots the
girding
about the waist, and the equivalence of ephod-bearer and
priest.
Now the main points in the description of the later ephod
are
that it is an essential part of the insignia of the high priest, the
hoshen, a pouch for the sacred
lots which were no longer in exist-
ence
and the woven piece for girding on. These have been brought
out
in all descriptions of the post-exilic ephod, but the point that
has
been overlooked is that the Iroshen was upon the woren piece
(bwH) which was used to gird
it on, Ex. 28:28, and not between the
band
and the shoulders as has been supposed. Moreover, the loci-
tion
of the woven piece was not at the waist, but higher up, "over
90 dvqxl Mynbx
MymkH vnmm vwqk. See Babylonian Talmud, xmvy, p. 73,
a,
Commentary of Rashi. hbvrm is the participle Pual (hB,rum;), and properly
denotes
the high Priest, not his garments; cf. Levy's Dict. hbvrm; see also
Jastrow's
Dict., p. 838, b.
91 Robertson Smith 0. T. in the Jew.
old
Hebrew life which are reflected in lively form in the Earlier Prophets, were
obsolete
long before the time of the Chronicler, and could not be revived except
by
archeological research. The whole life of the old kingdom was buried and
forgotten."
38 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
the
heart," Ex. 2*:29f. Hence the band must have encircled the
body
just under the armpits. The braces92 over the shoulders, not
needed
on the old ephod, were required to keep the band in place
when
it was no longer around the loins. The "stones of remem-
brance"
are an indication of the thought of a later age and are quite
in
harmony with the fashioning of a decoration, the use of which
had
long since passed away. The expression "over Aaron's heart"
is
simply an indication of place; the metaphorical sense of bl
was
mind
as we still preserve it in the phrase to learn by heart. Rashi
(Breithaupt,
p. 672) says : "I have neither heard of nor found in
the
Talmud an exposition of the form of this ephod; but I imagine
that
it was a cincture of a breadth accommodated to a man's back,
something
like an apron (succinctorium)." There is another indi-
cation
of the location of this band. Ezek. 44:18, giving directions as
to
the priestly garments, says: fzayAb
vrgHya xl,
which is said to mean
that
the band shall not be so high as to be sweated under the arms,
nor
so low as to be liable to the same at the loins. But this is
doubtful.
Yet so Rashi: "Hence they did not gird themselves in
places
liable to sweat, neither at their armpits above nor their loins
below."
Modern attempts at restoration of the post-exilic ephod
have
neglected these points. Professor Moore (Cheyne-Black's
Encyc. Biblica, vol. ii.,
"Ephod") describes it as a curious garment
coming
to the knees, apparently confusing it with the lyfm or ‘robe’
of
the ephod, Ex. 39:22, which was not a part of the ephod, but was
put
on first, and is enumerated by itself as a distinct garment (see
above.
p. 37). Braunius93 has some curious pictures of the ephod,
and
Riehm94 has some still more
curious, but they are, of course,
imaginary
reconstructions and not intended to be taken as authentic.
But
from the data given above we shall not be far astray if we
picture
to ourselves the post-exilic ephod as a woven band, probably
as
wide as the hoshen, i.e. a span,
encircling the body between the
armpits
and the loins, having jeweled braces to hold it in place, and
a
jeweled pouch in front-the traditional receptacle for the sacred
lots.
It is not hard to see in this portion of the post-exilic insignia
92 Professor Haupt has kindly suggested to me
that in the description of the
bronze
carriages for the sacrificial basins in 1 Ki. 7:30, 40 (cf. Crit. Notes on
Kings, SB0T. ad
loc. and Stade's paper in ZAT. XXI.),
tvptk means
'struts,
oblique
braces' ='suspenders'; see the figure of a Bedouin with tvptk Psalms,
in
SBOT., p. 224.
93 De Vestitn Sacerdotum Hebr.,1701.
94 Handworterbuch les biblischen Altertums, 1884, Ephod.
FOOTE : THE
EPHOD. 39
the
essential features of the ancient ephod. It cannot be termed a
development,
but rather a reconstruction based upon a tradition
which
embodied the chief characteristics of the antique ephod.
3.
CONCLUSION.
In the light of the foregoing
investigation it is apparent that many
commentators
have gone astray because they did not give due weight
to
the essential connection of the ephod with divination,--and not
some
magical, image-speaking, priest-juggling, kind of divination,
which
is utterly without proof among the Hebrews, but the ephod
is
associated with divination by lot. This is the raison d'etre of the
old
ephod, and an investigation which overlooks it is liable to any
kind
of idle conjecture. Professor Marti's error has been of this
nature,
and this is the difficulty with Professor Moore's article in
the
Encyc. Biblica, although some of the
inferences are no doubt
correct
and were published by the present water in the JHU Cir-
culars95 over eight months before
that article appeared.
That the ephod was originally an
idol and afterwards became
something
to hold lots is again, opposed to the sound ethnological
principle
stated by Robertson Smith that nothing is more foreign to
traditional
rites than the arbitrary introduction of new forms. Any
custom
that is based on a superstition cannot charge, because the
essential
cannot be distinguished from the non-essential. This is
clearly
seen in the superstitious rites of the Romans, and especially in
magical
incantations and the rites of the Salii.96 Quintilian,
says:
Saliorum carmina vix sacerdotibus suis
satis intellecta:97 sed
illa mutari vetat
religio et consecratis utendum est. But
divination
by
lot was a superstition. The ephod, it is evident, goes back to
times
that cannot long have been distinguishable front pure heathen-
dom.
The lots used with the ephod were not common pebbles, but
traditional
and sacred lots, whether teraphim or Urim and Thummim.
Correctness
of ritual is the more important as the rites are less
understood.
Hence Micah's joy at having a Levite for a priest:
“Now
I know that Yahweh will do me good, since I have gotten a
95 This statement is made, of
course, in my own defence. The paper referred
to,
antedating the appearance of the Encyc.
Biblica, dues not note that the arti-
cle
on Dress by Abrahams and Cook
suggests the possibility of the ephod's being
originally
a loincloth.
98 See Teuffel and Schwabe, History of Roman Lit., 1891, concerning
the Salii.
97 How true of our own Authorized
Version and the following too.
40 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
Levite
as my priest."98 The same devotion to the minutest detail
of
ritual is to be noted in the Ceremoniale of the Roman Church.
And
so with the ephod, unless the proper lots were had, no oracle
could
be obtained; cf. Ezra 2:63, and see above, p. 33. The very
manner
of drawing lots was of prime importance, cf. Gemarah on
Yoma,
4:1 (see above, p. 24). How, then, can we suppose that the
ephod
was at one time an idol, and in less than two hundred years
after
it was something to hold lots girded on little Samuel's waist!
Yet
Maybaum99 asserts that MIicah's ephod was an idol (lsp) and
later
on was called lgf, a 'calf'! It has been suggested that the
ephod
must have been connected with idolatry, because in several
passages
the word ephod seems to have been purposely eliminated
from
the narrative.100 Budde, in
his commentary on Judges, 1897,
p.
68, says that the old ephod must somehow have represented the
deity
and therefore was afterwards repudiated. But if any such
intentional
corrupting of passages took place, it must have been
accomplished
shortly before the Captivity, since, with the exception
of
Wellhausen,101 commentators agree that Hosea allows the ephod
and
teraphim as "necessary forms and instruments of the worship of
Jehovah,"
to use the words of Robertson Smith, and hence the ephod
could
not have been an idol. As for post-exilic times it makes little
difference
what it was, for it had evidently been forgotten; and yet
one
cannot help feeling that, had it been an idol or any object of
worship,
it would not have been restored;102 but, like the teraphim,
which
represented a comparatively harmless superstition, would have
been
allowed to remain in oblivion. There is, however, another
reason
for the corruption of the passages referring to the ephod
98 :Nhkl
yvl.eh yl hyh yk yl hvhy byFyy yk ytfdy hTf hkym rmxyv. What a
confession,
by the way, that the Aaronic priesthood was not known! See
Robertson
Smith, O. T. in. Jew.
99 Prophetenthum, 1883, p. 27.
100 Cf. I Sa. 14:18; 14:41; 28:6;
28:14 LXX, variant; I Ki. 2:26; also according
to
Wellhausen, in Ezek. 44:18, and I Sa. 15:23, where Nvx he thinks was dvpx.
101 Kleinen Propheten, p. 103, 1897. It is not without a touch of
scorn that
Hosea
here enumerates without explicit condemnation Masseba, Ephod, and
Teraphim,
as something one will hardly get along without in exile: this is neces-
sary,
you know, you surely like it this way!
102 The survival among Christian
people of heathen rites which have lost their
ancient
significance, such as, e.g., the Yule-log, is not parallel; inasmuch as a
century
of disuse and oblivion would have clone away with anything as a survival.
The
later ephod was not a survival, but a reconstruction; while the earlier ephod
probably
represents a survival.
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 41
which
will be mentioned presently when the ephod is considered as
a
survival.
Having considered all the passages
that throw any light on the
ephod,
and also the conjectures which seem to have most weight
and
are most recent, it remains to sum up the conclusions arrived
at. Starting with the principle that what a thing
is for is the truest
indication
of what it is, we find that the ephod was evidently used
in
divination by lot. An investigation of the use of lots reveals the
fact
that they were said to be cast, but
were in reality drawn; and
the
ephod was the receptacle, klhrwtri<j, that held them. Taken
in
connection
with the passages that speak of the ephod being girdled
on
or fastened about the waist (rgH having this special
meaning),
and
the passage in 2 Sa. 6:14ff. which shows what a scanty covering
it
was, the ephod appears to have been a pouch, large enough to
put
the hands into, which was hung at the waist of the person using
it.
It was easily carried in the hand. Its early use was not confined
to
any special order of priests;103 but, like other things originally
common
to all, it gradually became a priestly function. Samuel as
a
lad, girt with the ephod at
child
that drew the oracles of Fortuna at Praeneste. The ephod was
quickly
consulted, though there was doubtless a technical method
which
was always observed. The lots were probably teraphim in
the
earlier times, but Urim and Thummim seem to be supplanting
them
at least as early as the time of Saul, though they continued to
be
associated with the ephod as late as Hosea, 740 B.C. There is
no
reason for supposing that Micah's ephod was anything different
from
that used by Saul and David. In regard to Gideon's ephod
when
we omit the later editorial comment, there is the bare state-
ment
that it was made and placed in the city of
statement
no theory which conforms to what is known of the ephod
can
be disproved. The strongest probability lies on the side of its
being
what the ephod was later--a pouch for the sacred lots, made,
it
may be, most sumptuously (compare the candles, etc., given to
churches),
as befitted the maker's social position (as, e.g. Gideon's),
and
used as Micah's ephod was, in a private chapel such as wealthy
citizens
affected. It is best to leave it so. Coniectura vilis est.
Connected with the subject of the ephod
is the consideration of
103 But Welinausen, Proleg., 2d ed., 1883, p. 137 states
that only priests could
use
the ephod What shall we say, then, of Micah's Levite, of Samuel, or Saul, or
David?
See also Robertson Smith, 0.T. in Jew.
baum, Prophetenthum,
1883, p. 10.
42 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
it
as a survival of a primitive usage for ceremonial purposes just as
the
use of stone knives for circumcision, or the Shofar in the modern
synagogue,
the use of candles instead of gas or electric lights at
dinner
parties, or the costume of the yeomen of the guard in Eng-
land
who are still habited in the costume of the sixteenth century, or
the
academic gowns, the royal crowns and sceptres, or the vest-
ments104
of the Catholic Church, etc.; cf. Joshua
in the Polychrome
Bible, p. 62, 1. 5. In the qW sackcloth is a survival
of primitive
usage;
cf. Gen. 42:25 the corn sack, Is. 20:2 dress of prophets and
devotees,
Gen. 37:34 conventional mourning garb. If the priests put
on
the ephod, they did so because the ephod was a primitive usage.
It
has been seen that no distinction is made in the O.T. between
ephodh and ephodh badh, which has been supposed to
mean linen
ephod. But from the
consideration on p. 3 above, note 7, and the
extended
examination in Note D, p. 47, below, we must understand
FIG. 1. FIG. 2. FIG. 3.
ephodh badh to be a covering of the
nakedness, literally ephodh partis
(virilis). Such representations are to be
seen on Egyptian and
Babylonian
monuments. Perhaps the commonest shape of the
ancient
loincloth is shown in Fig. 1, which certainly meets the re-
quirements
of the description of the mikhnese badh.
The loincloth
of
the Indians of Cape Horn (see above, p. 12, n. 33) was triangular
in
shape and kept in pace by a cord, as in Fig. 2. The ephodh badh,
however,
considering the use to which it is put, may have developed
from
something like Fig. 3. This is a pouch or bag, differentiated
from
the kilt by its specialized use. For the ephod was not a mere
loincloth
or covering of the nakedness. The mikhnese
badh were
that,
and became the sacred garment. The ephod was not a loin-
cloth
per se, but a pouch for sacred lots
existing side by side with
ordinary
loincloths and sacred kilts. Moreover, the mikhnese
badh,
or
sacred kilt, does not appear to have excited any repugnance at a
104 It may he noted that the
vestments of the Church, especially the Chasuble,
Alb,
and Stole, are probably the ancient official garments of civil magistrates of
the
early centuries of the Christian era, and rather of Syrian officials than of
Greek
or Roman. See the Century Dictionary,
1900, Vol. VIII., p. 6741.
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 43
period
of greater refinement than that of the early monarchy. That
this
was the case with the ephod seems, to most commentators,
proved
by the apparently intentional corruption of some of the
passages
referring to the ephod (see above, p. 40, n. 100). These
commentators
explain this repudiation by supposing the ephod to
have
been an idol. But this was not the case. Perhaps the reason
for
the repudiation of the ephod by certain redactors of the Biblical
documents
may have been that they considered it indecent, either
because
it was too scanty for a loincloth, or perhaps, because it had
some
connection with the phallic worship of the Canaanites. The
ephod
was not a phallus, which, we have constantly to remind our-
selves,
was daily seen by the ancients without the slightest offence
(see
Dr. Dollinger's Heidenhum und Judenthum,
p. 169); but badh
may
have meant phallus, and ephod was closely connected with it,
sharing
the sacredness of the symbol, which to the ancients suggested
only
profound and reverent thoughts. This cannot he doubted from
such
references as Gen. 24:2-47:29,105 where a vow was rendered the
more
inviolable by contact with what was looked upon as the symbol
of
the mystery of life. Some such connection as this may account
for
a feeling in later times that the ephod was indecent.
Ethnological Parallels.
The ephod seems to be a special
development of the primitive
loincloth.
The loin-covering was probably the starting-point of
development
in the direction both of the garment and the pouch.
A
step in this development is seen in an account by John Foreman,
who
travelled for several years in and about all the principal islands
of
the Philippine Archipelago, and who proceeded to
ber,
1898, at the request of the American Peace Commission, to
express
his views before them. In 1696, he says, the men of the
was
attached a piece of stuff in front, which was thrown over their
shoulders
and hung loose at the back. This loincloth, which cannot
but
remind one of the fig-leaf hagoroth of
our first parents (Gen. 3:7)
would
evidently furnish a place where articles could be carried. But
the
ephod was not an ordinary pouch used for general purposes,
but
it had a distinctly sacred character. The post-exilic ephod still
105 Cf. Dillmann's Genesis,
Genesis, p, 232,
106 The Philippine Islands, 2d ed.,
44 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
retained
its sacred character, being a part of the merubah
begadim
(see
above, p. 37, n. go) by which the high priest was distinguished.
This
use of garments to denote dignity is not without parallel.
Herbert
Spencer in Ceremonial Institutions,
"Badges and Costumes,"
1880,
p. 181, quotes Cook as saying of the Sandwich Islanders, that
quantity
of clothing is a mark of position, and of the Tongans he
says
the same; while he tells us that in
signify
their rank by wearing a large amount of clothing at great
inconvenience
to themselves. The Arabs furnish an allied fact. In
Karseem
“it is the fashion to multiply this important article of
raiment
[shirt] by putting on a second over the first and a third
over
the second.” The same practice prevails
in
many,
where the peasant girls wear a great many skirts.107 The
ephod
came, in time, to be the symbol of a special class of men who
were,
in a way, intermediary between man and God, for through
them
divine oracles were obtained. A sacred band for the loins may
be
the index of this divine mission. Frazer's Goldelz
Bough, 1890,
Vol.
1., p. 37, gives instances of kings in the
were
regarded as divine persons and were consulted as an oracle.
He
says: "At his inauguration the king of
girdle108
of red and yellow feathers, which not only raised him to
the
highest earthly station, but identified him with their gods." But
a
still closer parallel to the ephod is to be found among the
Cliff-dwellers,
who used a sacred girdle of cotton cloth, which, like
the
later ephod, was about a span wide, and served as a pocket for
the
prayer meal and sacred amulets (see above, p. 134) used in cere-
monials.109
We do not know that the amulets were used as lots, but
if
so, here would be a primitive ephod with amulet-lots and distinctly
sacred
character. No doubt many ethnological parallels will come
to
light when the true idea of the ephod and divination by lot are
borne
in mind; but there can be no reasonable doubt that it reaches
back
in its origin to most primitive times.
Etymology of the Term "Ephod."
No etymology yet proposed for the
word dvpx
has been generally
accepted.
The various forms of the stem which occur, are:
dOpxe,
107 Cf. the plate
"Volkstrachten,
108 Cf. Huxley, Science and Hebrew Tradition.
109 Such a sacred girdle as is
here described may be seen among the ethno-
logical
exhibits of the
FOOTE: THE EPHOD. 45
dpoxe, TAd;paxA, dPox;y,.va, OtDApuxE, tDapuxa. It used to be definitely stated
wished
dpx
that meant ‘to gird or bind on,’ and dvpx was the ‘thing girded
on,’
and hdpx
the ‘girding on.’ One difficulty with this etymology
was
the lack of Semitic parallels for dpx with such a meaning,
which
is
gained entirely from the context; but the chief difficulty is that
critical
research has shown that dvpx was in use several centuries
earlier
than dpx
and hdpx,
whence arose the later opinion that
is
denominative and hdpx a derivative. Another group of commen-
tators
following Lagarde (Ubersicht, p. 178;
Mittheil. 4, pp. 17, 146)
refer
dvpx
to Arab. wafada ‘to come as an
ambassador,’ and finally
a
‘garment of approach to God.’ This is just as fanciful as Lagarde's
etymology
of lx
and hnxet.
The ephod is not to be regarded as a
garment.
Other commentators and scholars have based a theory on
the
use of hDpux110 in Is. 30:22 (see
above, p. 16f., for a consideration
of
this passage) that dvpx means a ‘covering, garment, mask,’ but
this
verse may be as late as the second century B.C., and a careful
study
of the parallelism would favor some such idea as ‘ornament’
for
hdpx
which may be derived from the ornamental post-exilic
ephod. The form hDApuxE is the regular fem. of dOpxe
for dOpx< cf.
MdoxA, hm.AduxE; lgofA, hl.AgufE; especially MOrfA, f. hm.ArufE and the by-form
MOryfe.
For the initial e, cf.sUbxe, Ges.-Kautzsch, §§ 23, h; 84 a, q,
and
Haupt, Assyr. E-vowel, p. 26, No. 10.
The Syriac equivalent of
dvpx has the fem. form, xTAd;Pi with aph eresis of the
initial x;
see
Noldeke,
Syriac Gram. § 32 (cf. xTAr;Ha end for xtrHx). A
tentative
explanation of dvpx has been given recently by Hubert
Grimme
in the Orient. Litt.-Zeitung,
February, 1901, under the title,
lxrx und Stammverwandtes,
who notes the phenomenon seen in
the
Semitic languages of q showing a tendency to become x. He
come
believes that there are two q's, a sonant q which is stable, and a surd
q
which has a tendency to become x.111 He gives
several examples,
and
among these are dpeqi ‘wrap together," appearing as dqx ‘wrap
up,'
and dvpx ‘zusammenziehbare
Loostasche.’ This is, at least, the
meaning
sought, but the etymology is not certain.
110 Cf. the Talmudic xDnUpxE and xdnvp. It is by no means necessary to
suppose
that xdnvp
is derived from Latin funda, Funda (Macr.
Saturn. 2.4, 31)
may
he a Semitic loan word.
111 Cf. Haupt, in Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie. vol. ii (
2; Allen in PAOS., October, 1888, p. cxi; Talcott
Williams' article on the Arabic
dialect
of
Haupt
considers Grinune's theory very uncertain.
46 JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
NOTES.
A. According to Skeat's Etymological Dictionary of the
1882,
the verb kilt, to tuck up, is derived
from a substantive signifying lap, occur-
ring
in Sved. dial. kilta, the lap; cf.
the Icelandic Kjalta, the lap, kjoltu-barn, a
baby
in the lap. The oldest form of the substantive occurs in Moeso-Goth. kilthei,
the
womb, from the same root as
a
substantive is ‘lap,’ hence ‘tucked-up clothes.’
B. Braunius, De vestitu saceradotum Hebr.,
tingerus
in Hist. Orient. de Religione veterum
Arabum,
Islamismum
sacra sua celebrasse nudos, atque ita aedem Meccanam circuivisse."
See
also Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites;2 pp. 161, 450 f, where
he
remarks:
At Mecca, in the times of heathenism, the sacred circuit of the Caaba
was
made by the Bedouins, either naked or in clothes borrowed from one of
the
this
usage was not peculiar to
was
customary for the sacrificer to borrow a suit from the priest; and the same
custom
appears in the worship of the Tyrian heal (2 Ki. 10:22), to which it may
be
added that, in 2 Sa. 6:14, David wears the priestly ephod at the festival of
the
in-bringing
of the
conduct
a shameless exposure of his person (cf. above, p. 7); see also I Sa. 19:24.
The
Mecean custom is explained by saying that they would not perform the
sacred
rite in garments stained with sin, but the real reason is quite different.
It
appears that sometimes a man did make the circuit in his own clothes, but in
that
case he could neither wear them again nor sell them, but had to leave them
at
the gate of the sanctuary (Azraci, p. 125; B. Hisham, p. 128f.). They
became
taboo (harim, as the verse cited by Ibn
Hisham has it) through contact
with
the holy place and function. See further in Robertson Smith; and cf.
Jastrow
in JAOS., XX., p. 144, also XXI.,
1900, p. 23, The Tearing of Garments.
C. The primitive use of qyH is clearly seen from
the following analysis, to be
associated
with the sexual relation, as Professor Haupt has suggested. The uses
of
qyH
are here classified in five groups which are arranged chronologically
according
to the earliest passages quoted in each group.
1. The primitive use of qyH
as seen in
the earliest passages, clearly refers to
sexual
embrace; as, Gen. 16:5, "I gave my handmaid into thy embrace." So
2
Sa. 12:8; 1 Ki. 1:2 (contemp.?) Prov. 5:2; Mic. 7:5; and probably Deut. 13:7;
28:54,
56.
2. Another primitive use of qyH is seen in the place where a child is held.
If
at the breast, the Hebrews used: dDa, hz,HA, bble, dwa, and dwo. If on the
shoulder,
see Is. 46:7. Undoubtedly the reference
is to the abdominal part
of
the body and the lap (cf. note A on kilt,
above). So Nu. 11:12; Ruth 4:16;
2
Sa. 12:3 (nearly contemp.) 1 Ki. 3:20; 17:19; Is. 40:11; Lam. 2:12. Note that
our
use
of bosom in these places is poetic and
symbolical; cf. above, p. 23.
3. The use is then seen to be extended to
the garment about the qyH, the lap,
the
folds of a garment overhanging the girdle-the primitive pocket or place for
putting
the hand. So Ex. 4:6, 7; (in J, 850
B.C.) Ps. 35:13; 74:11; 79:12; 89:50;
Prov.
6:27; 16:33; 17:23; 21:14; Is. 65:6, 7; Jer. 32:18.
FOOTE:
THE EPHOD. 47
4. Then the word is used of a curved
surface, showing a similarity of develop-
ment
with sinus and ko<lpoj. So I Ki. 22:35 (600
B.C.?) Ezek. 43:13-17.
5. Among the latest uses of the word are Job
19:27, referring to the abdominal
cavity,
and Eccles. 7:9, referring to the same figuratively as seat of affections.
With ith the use of qyH compare Assyr. utlu and sunu; e.g. Descent of Istar,
Obv.
35, “the slaves sa istu urtli hairisina
who from their husbands’ embrace ...''
And
II R 35, Nr, "a maid sa ina sun mutisa
who in her husband's embrace ...''
D. On p. 3 above, it is maintained that db
never means
‘linen’ but always
‘part.’ All the decisive passages are here discussed.
Ex. 39:28 makes it plain
that
db does
not refer to the material of the Mysnkm. The LXX and Pesh. feel
the
difficulty and omit db. We revert then to the original meaning 'part.'
Con-
sidering
Ex. 28:42 in this light, rWb tOKkl hvr;f,, and the following
clause are
plainly
explanatory of db is and may be glosses. In Lev. 6:3 “even the miknese
badh shall he put over his
flesh" seems to he a gloss on db vdm, which with
the
Lev.
6:14 db
between tntok
and wdq
may have been added later when db was
misunderstood
to mean linen; db after tpn,cm is also a subsequent
audition;
after
ysnkm
and Fnekx
it is probably original. Note that the dbh ydgb are worn
in
the sanctuary only (i.e. in P). In Lev,
16:23 db
is original, while in v. 32 ydgb
wdqh seems to be an explanatory gloss, as also
in v. 4. In I Sa. 2:18; 22:18; 2 Sa.
6:14;
I Chr. 15:27 db dypx, already sufficiently discussed, affords
no reason for
inventing
a new meaning for db; these passages are simply satisfied with the
original
meaning 'part.' In Ezek. 9:2, 3, 11;
10:2, 6, 7; Dan. 10:5; 12:6, 7
MyDbh wbl,
associatied with Mynt;mA, apparently refers to a loin cloth, MyDb
for
db
as partes privatae for pars virilis. The supernatural being in
Ezk. 9 and 10
may
have had on an db
dypx around vynt;mA with an inishorn stuck in the belt
of
the dvpx. This argument becomes more cogent when it is
seen that the
Versions
do not understand db. In the
earlier passages: I Sa. 2:18 the LXX
simply
transliterates; in 22:18 li?non in Cod. Alex. is evidently a subsequent
correction;
and
in 2 Sa. 6:14 e@callon is clearly a guess. Some of the later
passages
show that db
was supposed by some translators to mean 'linen.' In
I
Chr. 15:27, the Chronicler (see above, p.11) apparently substituted another
phrase
for db dvpx dvs lfv, which was added later under the influence of
the
parallel
passage. But if we find 'linen' in the
LXX in I Chr. 15:27 as well as in the
Priestly
Code; consistently throughout the Vulgate; and in the Peshita everywhere
except
in Dan. 10:5; 12:6, 7, nevertheless in Ezek. 9:2, 3, 11 the LXX renders
MyDb by o[ podh<rhj, and similarly rpvsh
tsq was not
understood. Moreover
Theodotion,
who must have known the hypothetical 'linen,' discards it entirely and
resorts
to a transliteration, while the Pesh. sometimes hazards rqyx. From the Versions,
then,
it is plain that 'linen' is simply a
guess for db
and is varied
47b JOURNAL
OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
without
scruple; cf. MyDbh wbl in Ezek. 9:11; 10:2, 6
variously rendered
e]ndedukw>j to>n podh<rh,
--th>n stolh>n, --th>n stolh>n th>n a[gi<an; contrast
Ezek.
44:17, 18, Heb. and Versions. We may
then conclude that db 'linen’ never
existed,
and db in db
dvpx, db
ysnkm, db
ydgb means
pars (virilis) and
MyDb in MyDbh wbul is an accusative of the
member, as in Jud. 1:7, cf. Ges.-
Kautzsch
§ 121 d, and means partes (privatas), or as Haupt has suggested,
Mydb means a covering of the db
like
xeiri<j, manica, podei?on,
etc,
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: