; According to I'rot. Sayce, the Kasdim and the Chaldasi each ha*l a different oriLnn, tite former being those West Semitic trib4;s who invaded Babylonia towards the end ot the Srd millennium D.c, and esUiiilished there that dynoaty ot kings of wbii'h llanunurubi (Amraphel) is the most renowned. It was at this iime that Kn.sdiin and ilabylonian became synonymous, like ChaldiDan and Babylonian in later days. Ur (.Multayyar), being situated on the western hank of the Euphrates, would naturally Imj in the district which, as j)ointed out by Uommel, was outside the limits ot Babylonia proper, and therefore within the d^'nain of those early conqueron. (On these matters, and the question of An'haxad, see Sayce, Expot. 7't>n<«, Not. 1901, pp. e4-e«, and Hommel, ib., March 1902, p. S8S).
URBANDS {Ovp^avdi. AV Urbane).— The name (nuisiuline) of a Christian greeted by St. Paul in Jlo IG''', described as ' our helper in Christ.' The name is common among slaves, and is found in inscriptions of the Imperial household (CJL vi. 4i;37). He is commemorated Oct. 31 with Stachys and Araplias (which see). For later legends see Acta Sanctorum, Oct., vol. xiii. p. G87.
A. C. Headlam.
URI ("TN 'fiery'; or perhaps contracted from .■i-i:.x).— 1. The fatlier of Bezalel, Ex 31- So" 38", I'Ch 2=», 2 Ch P (B Oipdas in all except 1 Ch 2"-^ Ovpel; A Ovpt in all except 2 Ch 1' Oi>ios). 2. Father of one of Solomon's commissariat officers,
1 K 4" (BA 'A3ai, Luc. 'ASSal). 3. A porter, Ezr 10" (BX 'aSoOe, A'n5ou(?, Luc. Ovplas).
URIAH, in 2 K 16'»-" URIJAH (.ttsn, w'-isk Jer 26*'- ='• ^, ' flame of J" ' or ' my light is J" ' ; B Ovpdas, A Ovplas ; Urias). — 1. One of David's ' thirty ' mighty men (2 S 23'', 1 Ch 11"). Like Ahimelech, another of David's followers, Uriah belonged by race to the ancient Hittite population ; but, as his name seems to indicate, he had adopted his master's God as his own. The few personal traits of Uriah's character, which are incidentally revealed in the narrative of 2S 11, not only illustrate the quiet heroism so often existent in the lives of common- place people, but also enable us to gauge the depths to which David had fallen.
When summoned by royal command from the scene of wsu:, Uriah's behaviour was <iuided by a resolve to live as far as was possible under the same conditions as his comrades in the field ; accordingly after his interview with David, instead of seeking repose and relaxation in his own house, lie immedi- ately went on duly as one of the royal bodyguard ; and this chivalrous determination was so lirnily fixed in his mind that he retained it even when in- toxicated. Josephus (Ant. vil. vii. 1) in his usual way embellishes the story of Uriah's death. In particular he states that David wrote to Joab ' commanding him to punish Uriah, and signified that he had offended,' and supplies graphic details of the engagement in which Uriah fell. Besides
2 S 11, Uriah's name occurs in 2S 12='- ">• ", 1 K 15', Mt 1«.
2. High priest in the reign of Ahaz. The two notices of him that are found in the Bible leave us in some doubt as to his real character. On the one hand, he is selected (Is 8') as one of two ' faithful witnesses ' who were to attest the utterance of the propheiy concerning Maher-slialal-hash-baz; while, on the other hand, the narrative of 2 K IG'""" pre- sents us with the picture of a weak compliant man who not only tolerated but even actively abetted the religious innovations of king Ahaz. It is possible that this unworthy complaisance is the cause of the oniissiun of his name in what seems intended to be a list of high priests in 1 Ch G''". He is, however, included in a list given by Josephus [Ant. X. viii. 6), which is evidently based on that in Chronicles. There are so many suspicious features about the Chronicler's list that one is tempted to suppose an extensive corruption of the text. It is of course conceivable that Urijah was the second priest, whose special duty it was to regulate the temple services (cf. Jer 2!)'°).
The changes Introduced by Ahaz with the connivance of Urijah were of a startling charoi.-ter. The priest ho/l apj^ar- ently so placed the Assyrian altar that the ant^iviit brazen altAr stood between it and the front of the Holy Place. Ahaz, however, was determined that his new altar should be the 'great' or principal one, and so he removed the ancient oltAf to the north side ot the new one. The new altar now occupied the correct U•^,'al position before the Uoly Place, and was used for all ortlinnry sacrificial purposes. The old altar was not. however, entirely iliscanltMi. from time immemorial kings ana leaders of Israel llad iiuiuirod of J" at thi.t Mime brazen altar. A favourable answer might not so easily be obtained at a oe«
838
URIAS
URIM AND THUMMIM
one, however eleirant and modem. The old altar therefore was retained for purposes of divination. It must, however, be noted that this explanation of v, 15 is not free from doubt. Miuhaelis, followed by Oesenius, Kittel, et al., renders njpi 123? T'i;'7' ns'njn : ' as for the brazen altar it will be for nie to inquire,' i.e. 'to consider what I shall do with it*; so Vultf. erit paraiuin ad voliuUutcm imain^ The LXX tit rt «■/^4" 1 = 1^3'?] does not convey a meaning consistent with the context. It seems to be implied in the subsequent narrative that Urijah assented to the other structural alterations in the temple carried out by Ahaz.