LOTS, HEBREW USE OF.
TJrim and Thummim (§ 1). Methods of Employment (§ 2). The Lot in Common Life (§3).
Apart from prophecy, the lot takes the first place in ancient Israel as a means of seeking counsel of the deity. In early times there existed various
methods of casting lots, as by means
i. Urim of wooden staves or arrows (rhab-
and domancy, Hos. iv. 12; cf. Ezek. xxi.
Thummim. 21), employed also by Babylonians and
by Arabs. But this and other methods of questioning the deity (necromancy, the conjuration of spirits, etc.) gradually fell into disrepute as heathenish magic, and the only legitimate form in the religion of Yahweh was that practised by the priest, the casting of lots by means of the Urim and Thummim (q.v.). The way in which these lots were handled shows that they stood in the closest connection with the priestly Ephod (q.v.). When therefore Saul or David wished to ask counsel of Yahweh through the casting of lots, they said to the priest: " Bring hither the ephod " (I Sam. xiv. 18, Septuagint; A. V. " Bring hither the ark of God " ; cf. xxiii. 9, xxx. 7). From I Sam. xiv. 37 sqq., Septuagint, it appears that the two lots bore the names Urim and Thummim. Saul prays before questioning the oracle: " If the sin is upon me or upon Jonathan, let Urim appear: if it is upon the people, then let Thummim appear " (cf. S. R. Driver, Hebrew Text of Samuel, p.
89, Oxford, 1890). The proper explanation of the words Urim and Thummim is not certain: the most probable one is that the two lots symbolized the two divisions of the earth's rotation, light and darkness, life and death, yes or no. Urim is light or the full moon or the upper- world; Thummim (from a word meaning perfection) means sunset or under-world. Worn upon the breast, on the high priest's vestment, Urim and Thummim may be compared with the Babylonian tablets of fate which were given to Marduk, who wore them upon his Dreast.
Of what the lots consisted is nowhere stated. The principal facts concerning their use appear in several accounts in the Old Testament. The questions present a simple alternative which the lot
Lots, Hebrew Use of Lourdes
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
is expected to decide. Sometimes they are simple questions to which Yahweh is expected to answer yes or no (cf. I Sam. xxiii. 9 2. Methods sqq., xxx. 8; II Sam. ii. 1, v. 19; of Em- Judges xx. 23) . At other times, the lot
ployment. must decide between two possibilities; if, however, one possibility must be determined from among a number, by the exclusion of one possibility after another the number is reduced to two. An example of this is when Saul wishes to discover among the whole people the guilty one. Lots are first cast between the entire army on one side and Saul and Jonathan on the other (I Sam. xiv. 38 sqq.; similarly in I Sam. xx. 20 sqq.; Josh. vii. 16 sqq.). Hence the lots consisted of two objects of some sort (staves, stones, or similar objects), one of which signified yes and the other no. In special cases, however, any appropriate significance was attributed to one or the other. It may possibly be concluded from II Sam. xiv. 18 sqq. that Urim signified the affirmative, and Thummim the negative. Inquiry was made as to the sin of Saul and Jonathan; if Urim came out, the sin was proved, if Thummim came out, it signified a negative answer and therefore that the sin rested upon the army. From the prophetic books it has been conjectured that Urim and Thummim were two small idols, possibly teraphim, since teraphim are often mentioned in connection with the ephod (Hos. iii. 4; cf . Judges xvii. 5) ; they also appear alongside of spirits and ghosts as employed in the consultation of oracles (II Kings xxiii. 24). If Yahweh were angry, he did not reply; when, from certain happenings during the casting of the lots, the priest drew the conclusion that the divinity was not willing to answer, he ceased further questioning. By II Sam. v. 23-24 it is indicated that the priest, on his own initiative, added certain explanations which he perhaps deduced from some of the accompanying circumstances.
It follows from the foregoing that the privilege of casting the lots belonged exclusively to the priest, whose characteristic duties were precisely the wearing of the ephod and the casting of the lots. In Deuteronomy the care of the Urim and Thummim is designated as an essential charge of the priest (Deut. xxxiii. 8). This possession may have contributed largely to make the priestly office hereditary, the knowledge and ability to handle the oracle being transmitted from father to son.
In ancient times, the casting of lots played a
prominent part in the fife of the Israelites. It may
be safely assumed that often the Israelites sought
counsel of the deity in reference to
3. The possible eventualities just as they
Lot in made use of the service of the seers
Common (cf. I Sam. ix. 6 sqq.). According to Life. the priestly writer, Joshua was directed to ask an answer from the lots by means of the priest (Num. xxvii. 21; cf. Josh, ix. 6 sqq.). In jurisprudence also the lots played a part; in intricate cases they were used to discover the guilty (Josh. vii. 16 sqq.; I Sam. xiv. 36 sqq.), and decisions in other cases were reached by their aid (Ezek. xxiv. 6; Prov. xviii. 18, xvi. 33; Matt. xxvii. 35). After the time of Solomon, the his-
torical narratives cease to mention the lots of Urim and Thummim; internal evidence favors the assumption that they lost their importance. The prophets became more and more numerous, and it is to them that, for example, Ahaz turns with questions that David would have sought to solve by the sacred lots (I Kings xxii. 5). According to Jewish tradition, the Urim and Thummim no longer existed in the second temple. Alongside of the liturgical lots, secular lots (if this expression be permitted) were always in favor; booty taken in war was always divided by means of lots (Joel iii. 3; Nah. iii. 10; Ob. 11). In controversies regarding possession a decision was reached by casting lots (Prov. xviii. 18) and in similar ways (cf. also Zech. ii. 1). The lots, usually small stones, were shaken in the bosom, that is, in the fold of the dress in front, until one fell out (Prov. xvi. 33). At the time of the second temple, the casting of lots was still resorted to; for example, in the selection of the two goats on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 7-10), in the division of the days of office among the priests (Luke i. 9; cf. I Chron. xxiv. 5 sqq.), and in apportioning the contribution of wood for the altar (Neh. x. 34). I. Benzingee. Bibliography: Consult the literature under Divination; Ephod; Urim and Thummim; the articles under those words in the Bible Dictionaries; also the works mentioned under Archeology, Biblical, by Nowack and Benzinger, and others.
LOTZ, lets, WILHELM PHILIPP FRIEDRICH FERDINAND: German Lutheran; b. at Cassel Apr. 12, 1853. He was educated at the universities of Leipsic (Ph.D., 1879; lie. theol., 1883) and Gottingen, and in 1883 became privat-docent at the former institution. In the same year he went to Erlangen as privat-docent and tutor, but in 1884 accepted a call to Vienna as associate professor of Old-Testament exegesis in the Evangelical theological faculty. He was promoted to a full professorship there in 1884, a position which he held until 1897, when .he was appointed to his present post of professor of Old- Testament exegesis at Erlangen. He has written: Die Inschriften Tiglathpileser's I. in transscribiertem assyrischem Grundtext mit Uebersetzung und Kommentar (Leipsic, 1880); Qucestiones de historia sabbati (1883); Geschichte und Offenbarung im Alten Testament (1891); Die Bundeslade (1901); Das Alte Testament und die Wissenschaft (1905) ; Die biblische Urgeschichie in ihrem Verhaltnis zu den Urzeitsagen anderer Volker, zu den israelitischen Volkserzafdungen und zum Ganzen der Heiligen Schrift (1907); and Hebraische Sprachlehre (1908).
LOTZE, let'se, RUDOLF HERMANN: German philosopher; b. at Bautzen (31 m. e.n.e. of Dresden), Saxony, May 21, 1817; d. at Berlin July 1, 1881. He studied philosophy and medicine at the University of Leipsic, taking degrees in both subjects, and became extraordinary professor of philosophy there in 1842. He was called to Gottingen in 1844, and to Berlin in 1881, but here he was able to lecture only a part of one semester. Lotze was one of the most influential philosophers of the second half of the nineteenth century, and he has many followers, particularly among theo-