URIM, yurim, AND THUMMIM, thum'im: Media employed by the Hebrews in obtaining divine oracles. Concerning the nature and method of employing them there is much doubt; even from the time of Josephus and Philo an

The Basal abundance of conjecture concerning Scriptural them is in evidence, but no satisfac- Passages. tory solution. Two sets of data ap pear, those furnished by P and those by other writers. Until the nineteenth century P was the source generally employed to elucidate the

108

problem, and Ex. xxviii. 30, " Thou shaft put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before Jehovah; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before Jehovah continually " (Am. R. V.), was the basal passage. The words "put in" might in that verse be replaced by "put on or upon," according to the Septuagint; but this and all other interpretations which identify the Urim and Thummim with the precious stones of the breastplate are excluded by the context of Ex. xxviii. 15 sqq.; cf. especially Lev. viii. 8. In both these passages the objects are introduced as something at hand and well known, not as new objects prepared for the purpose. In the parallel, Ex, xxxix. 20 sqq., the objects are not mentioned. From the fundamental passage their function seems purely symbolicalAaron bears the "judgment" of the children of Israel upon his heart; this is not diminished by the practical purpose involved in the passage Num. xxvii. 21. In any case use of the objects for obtaining oracles is indicated. Outside P, mention is made of these objects in Deut. xxxiii. 8; Ezra ii. 63=Neh. vii. 65; the original text of I Sam. xiv. 41, and xxviii. 6 (Urim alone). In the passage from Deuteronomy it was formerly the custom to refer "thy holy one" to Aaron on the basis of Ex. xxviii. 30. Against this construction is to be noted: the oracle is directed to Levi, restricting it to Aaron is pure eisegesis; and in the context of the oracle regarding Levi it is the Levites as a whole and their functions which the oracle has in mind, so that the carrying of the Urim and Thummim belongs to the priestly stock as such, without limitation to the high priest. But of the nature and use of the objects this passage gives no further knowledge. Out of I Sam. xxviii. 6 is gleaned that by the Urim direct answer to a question asked of God might be had, as also by dreams or through the prophets. I Sam. xiv. 41, in which the Septuagint has preserved the correct text, to be rendered: " O Yahweh, God of Israel l Why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If to me or to my son Jonathan falls the blame, give Urim; if to the people, give Thummim." To this reading the Vulgate gives testimony [cf. also S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. 89, Oxford, 1890]. Granting the correctness of the Septuagint reading, this passage shows that by the use of these objects an alternative was presented, that the issuing of one of them indicated an affirmative, of the other a negative; if neither came out, that indicated divine unwillingness to answer. The context (verses 36 sqq.) implies the presence of a priest, though the passage does not show that the management was exclusively in priestly hands.

When it is noted that in the reports concerning the throwing of the lot the matter is brought into connection with the priests and the ephod, it seems at least probable that in these cases reference is to the use of Urim and Thummim (cf. I Sam. xxiii. 6, 9, xxx. 7 sqq.; note that in xiv. 18 "ephod" is to be read for " ark "; Driver, ut sup., p. 83). But in what way Urim and Thummim were brought into connection with the Ephod (q.v.) absolutely

nothing is known; the earlier narrators are silent

concerning these matters because they could assume

knowledge on the part of their read

Connection ers, the later writers because the things

with the had been forgotten. It does not mili

Ephod. tate against the foregoing exposition

that P does not put the Urim and

Thummim in relation with images and introduces the ephod as an article of priestly dress. The objects seem to have been used without the ephod and with

out priestly accessory by David (II Sam. ii. 1, v. 19,

23) and by Samuel (I Sam. x. 20 sqq.; cf. the method

in I Sam. xiv. 41-42; Josh. vii. 16); possibly Hos.

iv. 12 and Me. iii. 11 assume the use of Urim and

Thummim. The answer seems sometimes to have been a simple affirmative, as often in the cases al ready cited; sometimes with additional directions

(Judges xx. 27; I Sam. xxx. 7 sqq.); sometimes

negative with further statement (11 Sam, v. 23).

Where names appear in the answer, the case may

have been put as an alternative (Josh. vii. 16 sqq.;

Judges i. 1, xx. 18; I Sam. x. 20 sqq.; II Sam. ii.

1). The latest mention appears in Ezra ii. 63=Neh.

vii. 65, in which the expectation is expressed 'of a

priestly possessor of the objects. In the fifth cen

tury B.c. the management of the objects was no longer known, while the synagogue reckoned them among the five things which the second temple did not possess, and the Talmud declares that with the preexilic prophets the use of the Urim and Thum mim ceased. In P, therefore, Urim and Thnmmim are objects which are found in a pocket attached to

the high-priestly ephod or cloak and employed by the high priest in obtaining expressions of the di vine will. The occasional references make them the means of casting the lot and getting answers in affirmative or negative form. The ephod, employed in casting the lot, is here not a cloak, but an image overlaid with metal or put on with a cloak. Often a priest is the assumed keeper, but others appear to exercise the same function (Seal, David); and the privilege of consulting the oracle was not merely in public interests, but also in private (cf. Judges

xviii. 5-6; I Sam. xxii. 10, xxiii. 11-12, xxx. 7-8).

It appears, then, that either Ex, xxviii. 30 is the

original and only legitimate account of the Urim

and Thummim-in which case the other reports

and the practises named are gross misunderstand

ings of the real situation=or the very old narratives,

such as Judges xvii.-xviii. and I Sam.

Develop- xiv. 23, etc., tell what was a general

went in custom untrammeled by written law.

Use. The In the latter case the situation in P is

Meaning of a step in evolution in which the at the Names. tempt is made to rescue the lot from superstitious or idolatrous usage. Then

these objects became representative of Israel's God and the handling of them was restricted to the high priest. But Ex. xxviii. 30 is to be regarded as idealistic in its representations. Investigations regarding the meaning of the names have not re sulted very satisfactorily. When it is supposed that both words are abstract plurals, not much progress

is made. If from I Sam. xiv. 41 it be gathered that

Urim means "revelation (of guilt)," Thummim

would mean "revelation of innocence." Other

109

meanings suggested are " illumination and truth, "brightness and righteousness," but they appear rather as mechanical reproductions of the Hebrew than as illuminative renderings. The Septuagint in its translation of the funda mental passage shows that the correct tradition of the meaning was already lost, and this impression is strengthened by Philo, Josephus, History of and the Talmud. Philo makes the Interpreta- breastplate to contain two virtues, tion. "interpretation and truth" (De vita Mosis, iii. 11). Josephus (Ant., III., viii. 9), while not mentioning Urim and Thummim, says that through the precious stones of the high priest's breastplate God revealed the coming of vic tory for his hosts; on account of this the Greeks had named that breastplate the "oracle." Josephus' conception, that through the shining of these stones the divine oracle was given, reappears in various forms in the Jewish traditions, including the con nection of the quadriliteral name of God or of other secret names which inspired the priest in the de livery of the message. New attempts to explain the objects were made by referring to Diodorus Sicu lus (L, xlviii. 75) and lElian (Varia hist., xiv. 34), who report that Egyptian priests, who acted as judges, employed an image of truth cut in halves. To connect this image with Urim and Thummim became very popular; and later the image was made that of Tme, goddess of justice, while later still two images were thought of-those of Ra and Tme. Knobel would even derive Urim and Thum mim from the Egyptian, making them to be Hebra ized loan words. But this line of explanation is rightly rejected. Buxtorf and Spencer would make Urim to be a little image which the high-priest held to his ear, into which the answer was supposed to be whispered. The usual Protestant explanation is that the objects were purely symbolical, while the priest depended for the answer upon internal illu mination. The connection of the Urim and Thum mim with the lot led Michaelis to think of three little stones, one of which signified "yes," another "no," and the third no answer at all. This view has remained the prevailing one, but with various modifications. It rests upon the terminology con nected with the " throwing " of the lot which " came out" or " fell." But interpreters hesitate as to whether "L'rim and Thummim" designates the oracle in general, or the means for casting the lot, of a polished and a rough stone. One view makes them partly polished, partly rough dice, thrown by the ', priest and interpreted by him in accordance with a code. Others think of two stones, one inscribed " yes " and the other " no." It may be that the correct interpretation of Ezek. xxi. 21-22 gives light, in which it appears that arrows were shaken to and fro before the sacred image, as the Urim and Thummim were shaken before the ephod; and it is not excluded that on one of the lots thus thrown the name "Jerusalem" was inscribed (verse 22). Similar staves, of different colors and inscribed, are described as existing in the Kaaba, and as being used for the purpose of casting lots and influencing decisions. The latest phase of interpretation refers these objects to a Babylonian origin. The Urim

and Thummim are then in the midst of the twelve stones (connected with the zodiac) in the relations of opposites, yes and no, life and death; light and darkness. They are carried on the breast as were the Babylonian tables of fate. But it is unthinkable to derive a usage in the time of David and Samuel from Babylonian practise, and neither David nor Samuel seems to have had in mind either the zodiac or the opposites named. If any connection with Babylon is to be assumed, the analogy holds only so far as the manner in which the objects were carried-on the breast. [The articles Ephod, and Lots, Hebrew Use of, should be read in connection with the above discussion.]

(E. Kautzsch†.)

Bibliography: A. F. Kirkpatrick, in his commentary. on I Sam., pp. 217-218, London, 1880; Dosker, in Presbyterian. and Reformed Review, 1892, pp. 717-736; Calde meyer, in Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, iii (1893), 107 sqq.; ZVellhausen, Heidentum, pp. 132 sqq., ed. of 1897 T. w. Davies, Magic, Divination, Demonology, p. 75, London, 1898; R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte, pp. 319, 414, Freiburg, 1899; P. Haupt, in JBL, mix (1900), 58-59, 70-73; w. Muss Arnolt, in American Journal of Semitic Languages, xvi (1900), 193 sqq.; T. C. Foote, in JBL, xxi (1902), 27 sqq.; K. Marti, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion, p. 45. Strasburg, 1903; B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des A. T., p. 129, Tübingen, 1905; G. wildeboer, TSX, 1905, part 3, pp. 195 sqq.; Benzinger, Archäologie, pp. 347 sqq

Nowack, Hebraische Archaeologie, ii. 93-94, 119-120; DB, iv. 838-841; EB, iv. 5235-37; JE, xii. 384-3$5. The commentaries on the passages cited, especially the excursus in Kaliach's commentary on Exodus, London, 1855; and the literature under Erxon,