Now, it may naturally be asked how the Divine image and the priestly ‘waistcoat’ could be desig- nated by one and the same name.* The view that *éphéd stands properly for the gold or silver over- laying or casing of an image of wood, clay, or even brass, can appeal for support to Is 30”, where the certainly equivalent feminine form ’aphuddah
* Th. U. Foote, in what is in itself.a very thorough and in- genious monograph, 7'he Ephod: its Form and Use (Baltimore, 1902), denies that there is any distinction between ’@phéd and *éphéd bad. The latter expression, since 73 in the sense of ‘linen’ is unproved, he explains as=‘’éphdd partis [virilis],’ and the ’éphéd itself as the container of the sacred lots, a kind of pocket which may have been developed from the primitive loin-cloth. Foote arrives at this result (although he himself recognizes images in the téraphim so often associated with the *ephod) by a quite artificial and untenable exegesis of Jg 827, 1 § 2110, and other passages. Moreover, if the ’éphdd was
nothing but a pocket for the sacred lots, whence its sharp con- demnation in Jg 827), and the bold alteration of the text in 18 1418, where, in place of the objectionable ’éphéd [so still the LXX], the Ark—wholly impossible here—is inserted in the MT? The only explanation of this is that even at a very late date the true meaning of the ’éphéd in those passages was still well known, and on that account gave offence.
stands parallel with zippdi, the metal casing of carved images. Yetitisa question whether ’éphéd did not primarily denote simply the garment used to clothe the Divine image (cf. Jer 10°, Ezk 161). From this, as the most precious part and that which most struck the eye, the whole image might soon come to take its name. If we might assume that this ephod already had attached to it a pocket with the sacred lots, this would explain very simply how in the Priests’ Code (Ex 285*-) the objection- able ’éphéd could be wholly ignored as an image of the Deity, but retained without prejudice in the form of a garment with the oracle-pocket.*
(c) Not only the *éphéd but also the téraphim (o’»7m) should doubtless be understood as images of the Deity—for the most part (see below), images of Jahweh. With the exception of 2 K 23*4 and Zec 102, the word térdphim, in spite of the plural form, should probably be everywhere (quite cer- tainly so in 18 19)* 16) taken as the designation of only one image; that is to say, it is an example of the so-called pluralis majestatis, as happens frequently with such words as ’ddénim, béalim, and usually ’éohim. The etymology is still quite obscure. The connexion with the réph@im, or shades, favoured by many, is extremely improb- able. All that is clear is that the téraphim is related to the ’éphéd in the same way as the image of a household god is to the more official image set up in a ‘god’s house’ and attended to by a priest. That the ¢téraphim is not necessarily an image of Jahweh is proved by the case of the ¢éraphim stolen by Rachel from Laban (Gn 31) *4£), which the latter calls ‘my god’ (vy.* *); and by Ezk 21°65 (21), where the king of Babylon consults the téraphim at the crossing of the roads. In all other passages it is quite possible to understand téraphim to mean an image of Jahweh. So [probably, in- deed, by a later and mistaken expansion], along with the *éphéd, in Jg 175 18%4-1%20 1 § 1918. 16 (which passages speak plainly in favour of a human-like form), and Hos 34 (again coupled with the *éphéd; see above). The circumstance that in 1S 15%, 2 K 2374, and Zee 10? (where the téraphim appear just as in Ezk 21° as giving oracles) the possession and use of a téraphim is branded as a species of idolatry, proves nothing against its character as an image of Jahweh. From the Prophetic point of view, which is that repre- sented in all the above passages, there is little difference between images of Jahweh and images of actual idols. 'The hypothesis that the téraphim represented a survival of images of ancestors or stood for former tribal and family gods, would indeed suit well their character as household gods, but lacks all probability. Apart from the fact that no certain evidence can be adduced in favour of the prevalence of Ancestor Worship in Israel (see above, p. 614 ff), it is hard to suppose that in the house of so zealous a Jahweh-worshipper as David there should have been found any image but one of Jahweh. Of the existence of the latter kind of image we have proof, above all, in Ex 21°, There we read that the slave who has no desire to go free in the seventh year is to be pinned by the ear to the doorpost before [the image of] God, which is evidently assumed as set up by the en- trance. In view of the whole spirit and standpoint of the Book of the Covenant, this can refer only to an image of Jahweh as the witness of this sym- bolical transaction. In like manner ‘ God’ in 227 6)
* Mention should be made here of the suggestion of Schwally (Semit. Kriegsaltertiimer, i. 15) that the priest, when giving oracles, himself put on the ’éphdd, the clothing of the idol, ie the knowledge of the god might thus be transmitted to