* Of. Book of Jiil)ilee8 8", where the lota for the appuitioiiing of the earth among the sons of Nouh are drawu from the patriarch's bosom.
t See, however, Hommel, AIIT 282 f., who finds the orifrinal of the Jewish liiph priest's ephod in the pectoral of the lligh Priest of Memphis, as flared bv Emian, hgijpt, '2i)S.
t The most that can l>e said for thia view is that the pres« oca of these tablets on the breasts of Marduk and NelM) was linewn to P, and may possitily have influenced bis placlug of them OD the breast of the high priest (but see al>ove).
USURY
UZ
841
dowiiwanis, ami for which the curious reader is referred to the bibliography at the end of this article.* Philo, it may bo said, did not, as is often erroneously stated, regard the Urim and Thuraraira as two images carried in the breastplate (see Mangey's note, 0pp. ii. 152), but as symbols of 'the t\\o virtues. Illumination and Truth {Si]\iixtlv re xai i\fiO(Lav),' Josephus (Ant. III. viii. 9) does not ex- pressly name the Urim and Thnmmim, but appears to identify them with the jewels of the breastplate and on the shoulders of the high priest, which, by a miraculous ellulgence, gave supernatural guidance, particularly on the eve of battle.t
A favourite explanation of Jewish writers, reaching back to the Jerusalem Targum ^pseudo- Jonathan on Ex 28*^), was to the ellect that Urim and Thuinmim contained the sacred tetragramma- ton (ni.T), which spelled out answers to inquirers by illuminating the letters of the tribal names on the transparent gems ! Scarcely less curious is the view, probably still widely entertained, that the liigli priest threw himself into a hypnotic trance bj' ga/.ing intently on the dazzling jewels, — again wrongly identified with Urim and Thumniim, — and while in this state was the recipient of the Divine message (see Kalisch, Exodus, pp. 540-545, and cf. Plumpire in art. cited above).
LiTKRATURs. — For the views of older scholara nee Buxtorf, *llit>loria Urim et Thummini' in Ugolini, Tfui^aunis, vol. xii., And Hiivnt^cr, De U^!J. ILbritorum ritualibus i^lisui), diijsert. 7. 0( nioiieni works and articles reference may be made, besides the ordinary commentaries, to the artt. in Winer's RWB (with reff. to many older works); Kiehm, UWB, art. 'Licht und Kecht' (Luther's rendering of L'riiu and Xhummin); Smiths Dli, and esp. to the excellent study of Kautzsch in J'JlI-y vol. xvi.; the standard treatises on Biblical Archaeology; Kaliscb's excursus in the bo<iy of hiscomroentary on Exodim, pp. 540-.'>45; Haupt, 'Babylonian Klements in the Levitical Itituaf' in JUL xix. (r.WO) I>P- 5s f., 72 f.; and for a complete conspectus of the views of nuidem schoIaiN, W. iluss-Anmlt, The i'riin and TIfummim, a Swjf}estion as to thrir orujinai Sature and Signi- fieancf, a reprint from AJSL, July 190U.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
DSORY.— See Debt, vol. i. p. 579 f. We may add here liiat the Babylonian contract tablets show that the p.ayment of interest was an established custom from the time of Khammurabi (c. 2200 B.C.) onwards. Doubtle.ss it had already existed for centuries in the time of that king. He interferes to enforce the paj-mcnt of a loan with interest. The usual rate of interest seems to have been 20 per cent., though the payment is also mentioned of 11a and 13^. In another case a loan is to be repaid within two montlis, after which 10 per cent, interest w ill be charged. In addition to silver or money there are lent corn, dates, sesame seed, and onions. Some of the loans are secured on houses, slaves, etc. ; and in one case the services of the slave specified as security are given in place of interest. These contract tablets, etc., extend from c. '2'JO.l B.C. to c. 100 B.C. {Guide to Bab. and Assyr. Ant., Hrit. Mus., 1900, pp. 1'22-191).
At Athens, in the classical period, interest varied from 12 to 20 per cent., at Kome from 84 to 12 [ler cent. ; but towards tlie beginning of the Christian era the rate of interest at Kome was lowered llirougli the accumulation of capital, but high rates still prevailed in the provinces. In Greece and Rome money was often lent and interest ])aid by the month. See art. 'Interest' in Diet. Claxa. Ant., O. SeyUert, etc. W. H. BeNNETF.
UTA (Ovri.), 1 Es 5**. — His sons returned among the temple servants undiM- Zcrubbabel. There is Do corresponding name in Ezra and Nehemiah.
• A convenient and occeasibie mimmary of the more important of these oilier views will t>e found in I'lumptre's article in BniiUis nil.
f J"«rnhiis' statement, 'the breastplate and snrdonvx (prob. Intended by him to represent Urim and Thuinniini) left off ihinint; two hundred years' before bis time, is too absurd to require refutation.
DTHAI ("niy). — 1. The name of an individual or a family of Judali, .settled at .Jerusalem alter the Caiitivity, 1 Ch 9* (H VuBd, A VuBi, Luc. OiOi) ; called in Neh 11* Athaiah. 2. One of the sons of Bigvai who returned with Ezra, Ezr 8" (B OiSl, A Oieai, Luc. 'ileal).
DTHI (B OiVo.;, A OWl), 1 Es 8*=Uthai, Ezr 8"
DZ (pp; LXX 'Os [Gn 22=' 'Of, La", 'fif ; Job l" 322 42i'i>.. ^ yfi [xwp"] ^ Ai'<r(f)rT<$] ; Vulg. Hus [Gn lO^* Us, Jer 25" A-usitis]).—l. The eldest son of Aram, and grandson of Shem (Gn 10'-^). As the name of Aram is omitted in the parallel passage in 1 Ch I", Shem would there seem to have been his father. This, however, must be due to some over- sight, the wanting passa'^e being duly inserted in the LXX. — 2. A sou of Nahor by .Mikah, the eldest brother of Buz and tCemucI ' the father of Aram' (Gn 22-'). In the AV the name is tran- scribed Huz (Josephus has OCfos). — 3. One of the two sons of Dishau, son of Seir the Horit* (Gn 36*). — i. The name of the native place of Job. Con- siderable dillerence of opinion exists as to how far the above names are connected. There would seem to be but little doubt that the genealogical statements in Gn 10 are ethnological and geo- graphical rather than personal, and all that can be deduced from them therefore is, that the people of U? were Semites of the Aram.-ran stock. That U? the son of Xabor should be uncle of Aram and Chesed, is probably due to the existence of two distinct tr.aditions («ncerning these Semitic races, the earlier one making him a son of Aram, and the later one attributing to him an earlier period than that of Aram. Nevertheless, it is not by any means iuipossible that a recurrence of names at a later date may have taken place, such a thing being by no means unusual, as the genealogical lists show.* Kautzsch, on the other hand, goes further, and maintains not only the connexion of U? the grandson of Shem ■with U? the son of Nahor, but also with U? the son of Dishan as well.t This he regards as indicating that the district belonging to the tribe rejiresented by Aram's firstborn originally included a considerable part of that of the Aranux-an tribes. From this L? in the wider sense is to be separated U? in the narrower sense, which originated in the mingling of the .Aramaean Unites with another Semitic race — the ' Nahorites' of Gn 22-^"'''. U? the grandson of Seir is to be explained in a similar manner as a mingling of (pre-Edomite) Uorites and Arama'an Unites in a part of Iduma;a. The 'land of U?' would there- fore be a rather extensive geographical idea. All this seems to be couhrmed by other coincidences of names accompanying that of U?— the name of Aram, already referred to ; Maacah, another son of Nahor (Gn 2'2**, which forms [lart of a geo- graphical name in 1 Ch 19") ; Buz (Gn 22-') and Buzite (Job 32=); Chesed (Gn 22--) and Kasdim (Job 1" AV and RV 'Chaldeans'); Shuah, a nephew of Naiior (Gn 2j'), and Sliuliite (.Job 2"); also IJcdcm, the country whither Abraham sent Shuah, together with his other ehihlien by tkcturah (Gn 2.')"), and the race to which Job belonged — the 'sons of the East' or Bcnol;Lcdem (Job V).