When we pass from these ideal representations to the actual history of the pre-exilic period, while we meet with au ci]ual readiness to presuppose familiarity with the objects under discussion, we are able for the Hrst time to learn something as to the modus operandi in the use of the sacred lot. The most explicit of the earlier passages in which this modus operandi is exhibited is the grajiliic narrative in 1 S 14. Uere we find the Hebrew host, led by Saul and Jonathan, proceeding to ascertain the cause of the Divine displetusure (v.") in the face of their hereditary enemies, the Philis- tines. Unfortunately, the Heb. text has here suffered serious mutilation, and, as even the mo.st conservative scholars admit, must be restored by the help of the Greek version. The latter, in Lucian's recension (Lagarde's ed.), runs thus, v.*"- : 'And S.iul said, O Lord, the God of Israel, why hast tliou not answered thy servant this day? if the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan mj' son, give Urim (06s SijXoi/s [see above]); and if thou sayest thus : The inii]uity is in the people, give Thunmiira (o4s offiirijT-a ; NlT C'.pti .njri, which cannot possibly niean, as RV, '.show the right').* And the lot fell ujiou .Saul and Jonatlian, and the people escaped. Ami Saul said : Cast the lot between me and Jonatlian my son, and on wliom.soever the Lord shall cause the lot to fall, let him die.' The true text was apparently still accessible to .Jerome, who renders: '.si in me aut in Jonatha lilio meo, est iniquitas liivc, tla ostensionem [Urim]; aut si h:cc iniquitas est in populo meo da sanctitatem [Thiiiuiiiim].'
From the text of this important passage in its original form, then, we learn (I) that the Urim and Thummim were the recognized medium for discovering Ihe gtiilt or innocence of suspected parties, a species of Divine ordeal ; (2) that as the lots were only two in number, only one question could be put at a time, and that in a way admitting only of two alternative answers ; (3) that where these answers, from the nature of the case, could not be given by a mere ' yes ' or ' no ' (see below), it was necessarj' to agree beforehaiul on the way in which the i.ssuing lot was to be interpreted ; (4) a fourth inference, that the manipul.ation of the lots was the prerogative of the priests, may be drawn from the context (see below), but is more explicitly stated in the onlj' other reference to Urim and Thummim in pre-exilic literature. In the so-called ' Blessing of iMo.ses' (Dt 33) — perhaps as early as the time of Jeroboam I. (so Dillmann and Driver), certainly not later than Jeroboam II. (so most critics) — the benediction of Levi opens thus : ' Give to Levi thy Thummim, and thy IJrim to the man of thy favour' (v.*, following LXX with Ball, rSBA, 18%, 11811"., and Bertholet, Kurzer Handcom. in loc).
Another step forward is suggested by the com- parison of the function here assigned to the
• See Driver's Sota an the Heb. Text of the Booki 0/ Samuet for the restoration of the original Hct>rew of the essentia portions of the above.
«40
UEIM AND THUMMIM
URIM A^S^D THUMMIM
Levitical priesthood with another recital of the priestly prerogatives, where the tribe of Levi alone IS represented as chosen by J" ' to oft'er upon mine altar, to burn incpiise, and to hear* (nxb'Sjan ephod before me' (1 S 2-', cf. 22"* LXX). For although our present Hcb. text nowhere expressly associates the L'rini and the Thummiin with the mysterious epiiod-iniage of tlie early writers (see Ephod, No. 2, vol. i.), an examination of the wliole narrative of 1 S 14 in the Greek text, and of other passages in tlie Books of Samuel, wliere this ephod figures as indispensable to the manipulation of the lot, leads to the conclusion that the ephod-image and Urim and Thummim had some intimate but as yet undiscovered connexion the one with the other. Thus, in 1 S 14, the priest of v."" who presides over the ordeal of Urim and Thummim can be no other than Ahijah the descendant of Eli, who accom- panied Saul, 'bearing an ephod' (iien hVi v.'). In V.'*, according to the true text, he is summoned to ' bring forward the ephod ' (Trpoiriyaye t6 iipovS — not as in MX ' the ark ' ; see Ark, vol. i. p. 15U", note § ; Ephod, vol. i. p. 776, note J), evidently for the purpose of consulting the lot, but immediately ordered to ' withdraw ' his hand when on the point of proceeding to its manipulation (v.'*). Again, in the story of David's adventures at Keilah, we read of his being joined by the priest Abiathar, bring- ing 'an ephod in his hand' {1 S 23°). He is requested by David, in terms identical with those used by Saul, to ' bring forward the ephod ' {v.") ; whereupon the former proceeds to ask a series of questions, each capable of being answered by a simple 'yes' or 'no' (vv. '"-'-). It is impossible to escape the inference that these two narratives of a solemn inquiring of J" on the part of Saul and David offer complete parallels, that in both the answer is obtained by means of UrimandThummim, and that in either case these objects are carried in and cast from, or in some otlier wav intimately connected with, the ephod-image. What has now- been said of the incidents of 1 S 2.'i''*- applies equally to the similar procedure in SO'*-, where David again 'inquired of J"' by means of the cjiliod.