RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Urim Urlsperger
meanings suggested are “ illumination and truth,”’ “ brightness and righteousness,” but they appear rather as mechanical reproductions of the Hebrew than as illuminative renderings.
The Septuagint in its translation of the fundamental passage shows that the correct tradition of the meaning was already lost, and this impression
is strengthened by Philo, Josephus,
History of and the Talmud. Philo makes the
Interpreta- breastplate to contain two virtues, tion. “interpretation and truth” (De vita Mosis, iii. 11). Josephus (Ant., III.,
vii. 9), while not mentioning Urim and Thummim, says that through the precious stones of the highpriest’s breastplate God revealed the coming of victory for his hosts; on account of this the Greeks had named that breastplate the “ oracle.” Josephus’ conception, that through the shining of these stones the divine oracle was given, reappears in various forms in the Jewish traditions, including the connection of the quadriliteral name of God or of other secret names which inspired the priest in the delivery of the message. New attempts to explain the objects were made by referring to Diodorus Siculus (1., xlviii. 75) and Atlian (Varia hist., xiv. 34), who report that Egyptian priests, who acted as judges, employed an image of truth cut in halves. To connect this image with Urim and Thummim became very popular; and later the image was made that of Tme, goddess of justice, while later still two images were thought of—those of Ra and Tme. Knobel would even derive Urim and Thummim from the Egyptian, making them to be Hebraized loan words. But this line of explanation is rightly rejected. Buxtorf and Spencer would make Urim to be a little image which the high-priest held to his ear, into which the answer was supposed to be whispered. The usual Protestant explanation is that the objects were purely symbolical, while the priest depended for the answer upon internal illumination. The connection of the Urim and Thummim with the lot led Michaelis to think of three little stones, one of which signified “‘ yes,”’ another “no,” and the third no answer at all. This view has remained the prevailing one, but with various modifications. It rests upon the terminology connected with the “ throwing ”’ of the lot which “‘ came out” or “ fell.”’ But interpreters hesitate as to whether ‘‘Urim and Thummim” designates the oracle in general, or the means for casting the lot, or a polished and arough stone. One view makes them partly polished, partly rough dice, thrown by the priest and interpreted by him in accordance with a code. Others think of two stones, one inscribed ‘yes’? and the other “no.” It may be that the correct interpretation of Ezek. xxi. 21-22 gives light, in which it appears that arrows were shaken to and fro before the sacred image, as the Urim and Thummim were shaken before the ephod; and it is not excluded that on one of the lots thus thrown the name ‘“ Jerusalem ’’ was inscribed (verse 22). Similar staves, of different colors and inscribed, are described as existing in the Kaaba, and as being used for the purpose of casting lots and influencing decisions. The latest phase of interpretation refers these objects to a Babylonian origin. The Urim
and Thummim are then in the midst of the twelve stones (connected with the zodiac) in the relations of opposites, yes and no, life and death, light and darkness. They are carried on the breast as were the Babylonian tables of fate. But it is unthinkable to derive a usage in the time of David and Samuel from Babylonian practise, and neither David nor Samuel seems to have had in mind either the zodiac or the opposites named. If any connection with Babylon is to be assumed, the analogy holds only so far as the manner in which the objects were carried—on the breast. [The articles Epuop, and Lots, Hesprew UsE or, should be read in connection with the above discussion. ] (E. Kaurzscnt.) BrisiiogRapHy: A. F. Kirkpatrick, in his commentary on I Sam., pp. 217-218, London, 1880; Dosker, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1892, pp. 717-736; Caldemeyer, in Neue Jahrbticher fiir deutsche T heologie, iii (1893), 107 sqq.; Wellhausen, Heidentum, pp. 132 sqq., ed. of 1897; T. W. Davies, Magic, Divination, Demonology, p. 75, London, 1898; R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte, pp. 319, 414, Freiburg, 1899; P. Haupt, in JBL, xix (1900), 58-59, 70-73; W. Muss- Arnolt, in American Journal of Semitic Languages, xvi (1900), 193 sqq.; T. C. Foote, in JBL, xxi (1902), 27 sqq.; K. Marti, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion, p. 45, Strasburg, 1903; B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des A. T., p. 129, Tiibingen, 1905; G. Wildeboer, TSK, 1905, part 3, pp. 195 sqq.; Benzinger, Archiologie, pp. 347 sqq.; Nowack, Hebriiische Archdologie, ii. 93-94, 119-120; DB, iv. 838-841; HEB, iv. 5235-37; JE, xii. 384-385. The commentaries on the passages cited, especially the excursus in Kalisch’s commentary on Exodus, London, 1855; and the literature under Epuop.
URLSPERGER, irl’-spar’’ger, JOHANN AUGUST: German Lutheran and founder of the Deutsche Christentumsgesellschaft (see CHRISTENTUMSGE- SELLSCHAFT, Din DrutscHe); b. at Augsburg Nov. 25, 1728; d. at Hamburg Dec. 1, 1806. He was educated at the universities of Tiibingen (1747-50) and Halle (1751-54); traveled for a year, became assistant to his father, Samuel Urlsperger (q.v.), at Augsburg, and rose to be first pastor there, retiring in 1776 because of illness. In spite of the pressure of pastoral duties, he devoted himself all his life to the demonstration that comprehension of the Trinity is the key to the comprehension of the entire Christian religion. In the course of his studies and sermons he became convinced, in 1767, that Col. ii. 2-3 contained the key of all knowledge, and between 1769 and 1777 he published seven large treatises on the being of God, in which, without any tendency to Sabellianism, he sought to escape the Athanasian confusion of the Trinity of the divine essence with the Trinity of revelation. Though his sole object in setting forth his doctrines of the Trinity was to reestablish the old dogma and to defend it against frivolous attacks of the neological school, Urlsperger was sharply criticized, only to be completely vindicated on appeal to the University of Tibingen. In his teaching he distinguished sharply between the Trinity of essence and the Trinity of revelation. Such concepts as procession appertain to the latter, not to the former; and in like manner, although, absolutely speaking, there can be in the triune nature of God no first and no last person, nor any which can be considered the origin of deity, there is, in the Trinity of revelation, a distinct subordination of the Son and the Holy
Urlsperger Ursinus