true, belongs to a difTerent circle of iileas. Ex- amples of this second kind of revelation are common in the heathen world, as the Pythia in Greece, the hAhin in Arabia, the sibyl, and the like. Even in Greece this inward inspiration was considered something higher than divination by omens, and in ancient times, at least, tlie Oracle subserved high ethical and national ends. The divine omens were not intelligible to ordinarj' men, hence they required persons either of special endowment, or of skill acquired from tradition or by practice, to interpret them. Such persons, augurs, soothsayers, diviners, or prognosticators {Is 47), might be called prophets of the deity to men. Tlie I'ylliia, being wholly overpowered by the deity, ulteied her oracles with no consciousness of their meaning. The oracles were often enigmatic, requiring an interpreter. The interpreter was called prupliet [irpo<prjT-qi, in which t\\epro is not temporal).
Tlie nifthods of divination practised in Israel will have more altinity wilh Ihoae usual amonf^ the Slieniitic pL'Oj'li s than with those of the general heathen world.* The feeling's prevalent in the ICast appear from the fact that a message tioin the deity nii;,'ht be brought to one by a person of another nation (Jt' '^~^, 2K 31-"): from the freciuent mention of divinen*, as among the Philistines (1 S 62, Is 2''), and of localities to vhic-h they had given names (Jg 7* 9^") ; from the weight laid on omens (Jg (i-^ ?■', 2 S .V-^), and particularly on dreams (J)r "ilir., 1 s 2S'^) ; and from the use of the oracle by the sat red .)ot(Jg8« 17s 185, lizk ai'-ii). An exhaustive list of the practices appears to be given in l>t ISlO- n. The passage 8t.ates that the practices were in use among the abori^'inal tribes which Israel disi)ossessed ; but as these tribes had been absorbed into Israel and fonned one people with it, the practices no doubt continued to maintain themselvea in Israel. The dilference might be that they were now performed in the name of J", and not in that of the native deities. The terms describing the practices are used by Heb. writers rather indiscriminately, but perliaps three distinct forms can be discovered ; (1) the oracle gained by certain methods from a god or idol (DCp), (2) interi>retation of omeni (tyn:), and fS) utteranoes of one possessed or ins])ired by the deity. (1) The oracle was common, perhaps, to most of the Sliemitic peoples ; at least it appears in Arabia and Babylon, aa well as in Israel. Mesha of .Moal), too, states that Chemosh gavo him commandments, but the metliod of receiving them is not in(hcated (cf. Ezk 21'-^). Lots (which were usually headless arrows or rods) were shaken and drawn in the presence of the idol, e.g. Hobal at Mecca, and the teraphim (one image) by Nebuchadnezzar (Kzk 2121). xhe (juestion put by the impiirer usually tfiok the form of an alternative, ' yes " or ' no,' ' this ' or ' that,' though several possibilities might be proposed. In the story of Neljuchadnezzar the alternative was ' Itabbath-ammon ' or 'Jerusalem,' and the decision came out 'Jerusalem.* In method the sacred lot in Israel, Urim and Tunmiim, did not dilfer. This also gave a reply to an alternative proposed. It is possible that LX.V of 1 S U'*!-'*^ suggests the original reading: ' And tSaul said, If the guilt be in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urim, O Lord God of Isi-ael ; but if thou say it is in my people Israel, give Tummim.' The first time Saul 'iil Jonathan were taken and Israel left ; the second time Jonat.ian was Uiken and Saul left. The fonn of the sacred lot is unknown, and in later times its real nature seems to have been forgotten. Nebuchad- nezzar drew the lots before the teraphim, certainly an image. In Israel the cphod was used, and hence the ephod is supposed by many to have been an image of J". Ephod and ter.iphini are named together (Jg 17^, llos 3-^), but it remains uncertain whether they were things different though used together, or things of the same class, the two naiTU'S neing cunmlative, or the one used as interpretative of the other. In the time of Saul and t)avid the epho<l was in common use ; later it fell into desuetude. Ilosea, however, mentions it as one of the ap^iliancea of religion in his day, and certainly not W'ith ap^>rnbatnin (Jl-*). If the root ka^am originally referred to this particular kind of divination, its use ceased t^> be exact. Saul uses the word of riivination by the 'df* (I s iS'*). and the canonical prophets call the false prophets k6^i^inim, diviners, and their oracles kciiem, liivination fpl. tyt'^dnittn), even when these prophets spoke (as they thought) by inspiration of J" or by dreams. (2) 'The root nahash (used In I'iel t'-j) appears to be used properly of divina- tion from omens. Joseph divined with a cu|>, the significant Indications being afforded by the play of light in the fluid, or by the bells and movements of the fluid itself, or, as some think, by the behaviour of oil poured into the cu|i of water (Gn 44'' i*). The word as well as ita noun is used of divination liy omens, but the different kinds of omen are not discriminated (Lv I»"^, Nu 2;l''Ci 211) ; in an enfeebled sense the word meant to infer from signs or hidications generally (Gn SO'n, 1 K •HP'). (3) (tracks by inspiration or possession by deity were common to the heathen