Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ratel · 11-18-2004, 06:58 PM

I'm hoping some of the learned folks here can help me with this. I learned in the course of my Christian (mis)education that the ephod of the high priest was a sort of skirt or kilt worn on ceremonial occaisions. That seems to be the interpretation on most of the internet sites I've seen for it. But I've come across two sources that claim it was actually a ritual artificial phallus of some kind. Those sources would be Harwood's Mythology's Last Gods and Wheless' Is It God's Word?

The claim does seem to make sense in the context of Gideon's Ephod that was worshipped by the Israelites, but I'm wondering what support this interpretation has with mainstream scholars, and what basis there is for concluding that is was indeed a phallic symbol?

Toto · 11-18-2004, 07:37 PM

I thought that the mazzeboth were the phallic symbols. It is certain that if the shape is anything resembling an upright rectangle or stick, someone is going to see it as phallic.

link

Quote:

Ephod ('ephodh).--There is no doubt that this was the name of a vestment or ritual loin cloth of linen worn by common priests and temple servants and on special occasions by the king (1 Samuel 2:18; 1 Samuel 22:18; 2 Samuel 6:14). The ephod of the high priest was an ornamental waist coat on the front of which was fastened the holy breastplate containing the pocket in which were the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:6, Exodus 28:30; Exodus 29:5; Exodus 39:2-5; Leviticus 8:28).

There are several passages, however, which have convinced many scholars that another ephod is mentioned which must be an image of Yahweh (see EPHOD). The chief passages relied upon are Judges 8:26-27, where Gideon made an ephod with 1,700 shekels of gold and "set" this in Ophrah, where it became an object of worship. So in Judges 17:4; Judges 18:14-20, Micah provides an ephod as well as an image and pillar for his sanctuary; in 1 Samuel 21:9 the sword of Goliath is preserved behind the ephod; while in various places the will of Yahweh is ascertained, not by putting on the ephod, but by "bringing it near" and "bearing" and "carrying" it (1 Samuel 23:6, 1 Samuel 23:9; 1 Samuel 30:7, etc.). On the basis of these passages Kautzsch (HDB, V, 641) concludes most inconsistently that the ephod appears "exclusively as an image of Yahweh." Driver, after an examination of each text, concludes that just in one passage (Judges 8:27) the term "ephod" is certainly used of the gold casing of an image, and that therefore it may also have this meaning in other passages (HDB, I, 725). It does not seem quite certain, however, that a ceremonial vestment heavily ornamented with gold might not have been "set" or "erected" in a holy place where later it might become an object of worship. If this had been an idolatrous image, would Hosea have deplored its loss (Hosea 3:4), and would its use not have been forbidden in some Bible passage?

Kautzsch's view that the ephod meant primarily the garment used to clothe Divine image, which afterward gave its name to the image itself, is a guess unsustained by the Scriptures quoted or, I think, by any archaeological parallel. We conclude that there is no certain proof that this was an image of Yahweh, though was used ritualistically in receiving the oracles of Yahweh (compare Kuenen, Religion of Israel, I, 100; Kittel, Hist of the Hebrews, II, 42; Konig, Die Hauptprobleme, 59-

Ratel · 11-19-2004, 06:42 PM

Thanks Toto. I wish authors wouldn't make assertions without some kind of evidence for them.

11-18-2004, 06:58 PM	#1
Ratel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SD, USA Posts: 268	The ephod was a phallic symbol? I'm hoping some of the learned folks here can help me with this. I learned in the course of my Christian (mis)education that the ephod of the high priest was a sort of skirt or kilt worn on ceremonial occaisions. That seems to be the interpretation on most of the internet sites I've seen for it. But I've come across two sources that claim it was actually a ritual artificial phallus of some kind. Those sources would be Harwood's Mythology's Last Gods and Wheless' Is It God's Word? The claim does seem to make sense in the context of Gideon's Ephod that was worshipped by the Israelites, but I'm wondering what support this interpretation has with mainstream scholars, and what basis there is for concluding that is was indeed a phallic symbol?

11-19-2004, 06:42 PM	#3
Ratel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SD, USA Posts: 268	Figures Thanks Toto. I wish authors wouldn't make assertions without some kind of evidence for them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.