THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
I
problem, and Ex. xxviii. 30, “ Thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before Jehovah; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before Jehovah continually ” (Am. R. V.), was the basal passage. The words ‘‘ put in” might in that verse be replaced by “‘ put on or upon,” according to the Septuagint; but this and all other interpretations which identify the Urim and Thummim with the precious stones of the breastplate are excluded by the context of Ex. xxviii. 15 sqq.; cf. especially Lev. viii. 8. In both these passages the objects are introduced as something at hand and well known, not as new objects prepared for the purpose. In the parallel, Ex. xxxix. 20 sqq., the objects are not mentioned. From the fundamental passage their function seems purely symbolical— Aaron bears the ‘‘ judgment” of the children of Israel upon his heart; this is not diminished by the practical purpose involved in the passage Num. xxvii. 21. In any case use of the objects for obtaining oracles is indicated. Outside P, mention is made of these objects in Deut. xxxiii. 8; Ezra ii. 63=Neh. vii. 65; the original text of I Sam. xiv. 41, and xxviii. 6 (Urim alone). In the passage from Deuteronomy it was formerly the custom to refer “ thy holy one”’ to Aaron on the basis of Ex. xxviii. 30. Against this construction is to be noted: the oracle is directed to Levi, restricting it to Aaron is pure eisegesis; and in the context of the oracle regarding Levi it is the Levites as a whole and their functions which the oracle has in mind, so that the carrying of the Urim and Thummim belongs to the priestly stock as such, without limitation to the high priest. But of the nature and use of the objects this passage gives no further knowledge. Out of I Sam. XXviii. 6 is gleaned that by the Urim direct answer to a question asked of God might be had, as also by dreams or through the prophets. I Sam. xiv. 41, in which the Septuagint has preserved the correct text, to be rendered: ‘‘O Yahweh, God of Israel! Why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If to me or to my son Jonathan falls the blame, give Urim; if to the people, give Thummim.” To this reading the Vulgate gives testimony [cf. also 8. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. 89, Oxford, 1890]. Granting the correctness of the Septuagint reading, this passage shows that by the use of these objects an alternative was presented, that the issuing of one of them indicated an affirmative, of the other a negative; if neither came out, that indicated divine unwillingness to answer. The context (verses 36 sqq.) implies the presence of a priest, though the passage does not show that the management was exclusively in priestly hands.
When it is noted that in the reports concerning the throwing of the lot the matter is brought into connection with the priests and the ephod, it seems at least probable that in these cases reference is to the use of Urim and Thummim (cf. I Sam. xxiii. 6, 9, xxx. 7 sqq.; note that in xiv. 18 ‘‘ ephod”’ is to be read for “ ark’’; Driver, ut sup., p. 83). But in what way Urim and Thummim were brought into connection with the Ephod (q.v.) absolutely
nothing is known; the earlier narrators are silent concerning these matters because they could assume knowledge on the part of their read-
Connection ers, the later writers because the things with the had been forgotten. It does not mili- Ephod. tate against the foregoing exposition that P does not put the Urim and
Thummim, in relation with images and introduces the ephod as un article of priestly dress. The objects seem to have been used without the ephod and without priestly accessory by David (II Sam. ii. 1, v. 19, 23) and by Samuel (I Sam. x. 20 sqq.; ef. the method in I Sam. xiv. 41-42; Josh. vii. 16); possibly Hos. iv. 12 and Mic. iii. 11 assume the use of Urim and Thummim. The answer seems sometimes to have been a simple affirmative, as often in the cases already cited; sometimes with additional directions (Judges xx. 27; I Sam. xxx. 7 sqq.); sometimes negative with further statement (11 Sam. v. 23). Where names appear in the answer, the case may have been put as an alternative (Josh. vii. 16 sqq.; Judges i. 1, xx. 18; I Sam. x. 20 sqq.; II Sam. ii. 1). The latest mention appears in Ezra ii. 63 = Neh. vii. 65, in which the expectation is expressed of a priestly possessor of the objects. In the fifth century B.c. the management of the objects was no longer known, while the synagogue reckoned them among the five things which the second temple did not possess, and the Talmud declares that with the preexilic prophets the use of the Urim and Thummim ceased. In P, therefore, Urim and Thummim are objects which are found in a pocket attached to the high-priestly ephod or cloak and employed by the high priest in obtaining expressions of the divine will. The occasional references make them the means of casting the lot and getting answers in affirmative or negative form. The ephod, employed in casting the lot, is here not a cloak, but an image overlaid with metal or put on with a cloak. Often a priest is the assumed keeper, but others appear to exercise the same function (Saul, David); and the privilege of consulting the oracle was not merely in public interests, but also in private (cf. Judges xvii. 5-6; I Sam. xxii. 10, xxiii. 11-12, xxx. 7-8). It appears, then, that either Ex. xxviii. 30 is the original and only legitimate account of the Urim and Thummim—in which case the other reports and the practises named are gross misunderstandings of the real situation—or the very old narratives, such as Judges xvii.—xviii. and I Sam.
Develop- xiv. 23, etc., tell what was a general ment in custom untrammeled by written law. Use. The In the latter case the situation in P is
Meaning of a step in evolution in which the atthe Names. tempt is made to rescue the lot from
superstitious or idolatrous usage. Then these objects became representative of Israel’s God and the handling of them was restricted to the high priest. But Ex. xxviii. 30 is to be regarded as idealistic in its representations. Investigations regarding the meaning of the names have not resulted very satisfactorily. When it is supposed that both words are abstract plurals, not much progress ismade. If from I Sam. xiv. 41 it be gathered that Urim means “ revelation (of guilt),”” Thummim would mean ‘‘ revelation of innocence.” Other