houtman - the urim and thummim

7/25/2019 Houtman - The Urim and Thummim

1/5

Brillis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toVetus Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

The Urim and Thummim: A New SuggestionAuthor(s): C. HoutmanSource: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 40, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 229-232Published by: BrillStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1518995Accessed: 30-01-2016 00:22 UTC

F R N S

Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1518995?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 45.30.237.169 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 00:22:31 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1518995http://www.jstor.org/stable/1518995?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1518995?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1518995http://www.jstor.org/publisher/baphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/5

SHORT

NOTES

tion of

pomegranates

nd

bells

he

perceives

die

Zusammenfassung

er

Natur,

welche er

Granatapfel

n ihrer

iille

und Sch6nheit

arstellt,

mit

der

Theokratie,

wie sie bestimmt

st,

ich u

manifestirenurch

ie h.

Zeit,

den Weckruf

es

Don-

ners,

der

Posaune,

der

Schelle,

m dem

Opferberuf

es

Hohepriesters ;

or

yet

anothernterpretationeeJacob, p. 323.

25

For furtheretails ee

my

commentary

n the book of

Exodus in the

series

Commentaar

p

het Oude Testament. art

III

(forthcoming).

THE

URIM

AND

THUMMIM:

A

NEW

SUGGESTION

What were the

Urim and Thummim?l

In

the course of the

history

of

interpretation

arious answers have been

given

to this

question. Recently they

have

been dealt with

extensively

nd ade-

quately

in a

dissertation

y

C.

van

Dam,2

and

so

I

can leave

them

outof consideration nd confine

myself

o

presenting

new

sugges-

tion with reference o Van

Dam's

observations.

Van Dam

acknowledges

that the

UT

are

to be

understood

as

tangible objects

(or

an

object ) (pp.

70,

79-80),

but combats

the current

view

that

the UT

were a

lot

oracle

(pp.

89ff., 109ff.,

118ff.,

128ff.).

He draws attention o a number of

passages

(Judg.

i

1,

xx

18, 23, 27;

1

Sam.

x

22,

xiv

36-7,

xxii

9-10,13,15,

xxiii

2,

4,

xxx

8;

2

Sam.

ii

1,

v

19,

23)

in

which-in

his

view-

YHWH/God

is

consulted

by

making

use

of the

UT

(cf.

Num.

xxvii

21).

After

noting

that

in

these

passages

the divine

answer

repeatedly

is

detailed and

not

only

a

single yes

or

no ,

he

arrives at the

conclusion that the

UT

cannot be

a

lot oracle.

In

his

opinion

the

priest

was in the

position

to

give

an

oracle thanks to

divineinspiration.Concerningthe function f theUT he makes the

following

uggestion:

the

UT

were used

by

the

priest

as

a

verifica-

tion of the

divine

origin

of

the

oracle.

If

the

priest

had

obtained

his

message

by

means of

divine

inspiration,

a

miraculous

light

shone

in

close association with the

UT,

but

if

there was no

special light

worked

by

YHWH,

one

would

know that

YHWH

was not

impar-

ting

revelation

by

means

of the

priest.

Van

Dam's refutation f the lot

theory

s

convincing.

Its

chief

witness,1 Sam. xiv 41 LXX, is notsufficientlyeliable.3My agree-

ment with Van

Dam's criticismdoes

not,

however,

imply agree-

ment

with

his

interpretation

f

the function f the

UT.

In

my opin-

ion it is

not

ustified

to

give

a

subordinate function o the

UT.

They

are to be

understood

as the

priestly

racular

means

(Ex.

xxviii

30;

Vetus

Testamentum

L,

2

(1990)

229

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

SHORT

NOTES

Lev.

viii

8;

Num. xxvii

21;

cf.

1

Sam.

xxviii

6).

Reference to them

is

made,

in

my

view,

at

any

event

in

Judg.

xx

27, 28;

1

Sam.

xiv

36-7,

xxii

9, 10, 13, 15,

xxiii

9ff.,

xxx

7,

8).

According

to these

passages they

were

kept

n a box.4

According

to Ex. xxviii30; Lev.

viii

8 the

breast-piece,

the

pectorale

(hosen)

was their

receptacle.

I

leave this

question

out of considerationhere5 n

order

to

focus

my

attentionto

the character of

the UT

as

an

oracular means.

In

my

opinion

it

is worth

considering

the

UT

as a

single object.

The

plural

forms

can

be understood

as

plurales

ntensivi6

nd the

combination

of

both

terms

as

a

hendiadys.7

This

interpretation

s

supported by

the text

of Ex. xxviii

30. The

UT

are reduced to

the

single denominatorof mispdt oracle (oracular means): So shall

Aaron bear

the oracle

(misppdt)

f the Israelites

upon

his

heart

con-

stantly

before the Lord .

But what

kind of

object

is

meant?

An

object by

which God's

pur-

pose

with

men

was

made visible or audible to the

priest,

either

by

revealing

future vents

in

the

form

of

one of

more

pictures

or

by

announcing

it

by

means

of a

heavenly messenger,

who manifests

himself

n it? Is it to be

thought

of as

a

big

precious

stone?

As

is

known,crystal nd also otherstones,such as beryl,play an impor-

tant role

in mantic

practices

at

least

in later

times.8

To

my

suggestion

add some remarks

on

the UT

in

Ex.

xxviii

29,

30. In Ex. xxviii the

UT

(with

definite

rticle)

are

introduced

as

already

existing.

No

order

for

making

them

is

given.9

t is

sug-

gested

that the UT were a

gift

f

God.

0

At

any

event,

t

s

plausible

to

consider

the

UT

as

a

medium of

heavenly

origin.

At the

sanctuary

Aaron,

the

designated high priest, constantly

mustbear the UT upon his heart.Why? It is maintained that Ex.

xxviii

30

presents

reinterpretation

f

the

hosen,

which

probably

is

to be dated

in

pre-exilic

ime. The hosenwould have lost its former

function

s

a

pouch

forthe

UT.

To know

the will

of

God

they,

the

lots,

were taken out

no

longer.

Untouched

they

remained

in

the

pouch.

In a

following

phase

of

reinterpretation

hey

even would

have lost their

place

in

the

pouch,

as

would

appear

fromEx. xxviii

29.

The

hosen

o

longer

had the function f

a

pouch.

It

became

no

more than a breast-piece, a pectorale. 1 It is supposed that the

former

einterpretation

as

attended

with

a

symbolical

nterpreta-

tion of

the

UT.

Referring

to

J.

Maier'2

W.

Dommershausen

perceives

n

Ex. xxviii

30

die

Tendenz,

das Rechtswissen

ganz

an

die

hohepriesterliche

ntscheidungsgewalt

u binden' .3 Thus a

230



4/5

SHORT NOTES

far-reaching

onclusion

is

connected with

Ex.

xxviii

30. Is

this

con-

clusion

legitimate?

In

view

of Num. xxvii

21

(P)

it

is

likely

that the

author(s) (P)

of

Ex. xxviiiwere

acquainted

with the

practice

of

consulting

YHWH

with the aid of

the

UT,

whether

r

not

it was

put

into

effect

n

their

time.

If one

takes

into

account the

composition

of the

texts,

nother

interpretation

f

Ex.

xxviii

30

is

more

plausible.

In

my opinion

it

is

worth

considering

Ex.

xxviii

30 as

an

answer

to

the

question

:

How can the

UT

function s

a

medium of divine

revelation?

The answer is as follows:

by bearing

the oracular means

before

the

Lord. So

it

is

brought

by

the

high priest

within

the

range

of action

of the Holy One. So it is charged afreshagain and again with

divine

power.

But

why

was the

high priest obliged

to bear the

UT

upon

his

heart ?

Is

'al-leb

aharo'n

merely

a

determination

f the

place

of the

UT:

upon

the heart of Aaron

=

upon

the breast

of

Aaron ?'4

The

question

is denied

by

among

others

B.

Baentsch.

In

his view

the

UT

of Ex.

xxviii

are not

only

oracular

instruments,

ut also

Symbole

der

g6ttlichen

ntscheidung

und

Gesetzesoffenbarung .

They are borne by Aaron in order to demonstrate dass er die

Erforschung

es

g6ttlichen

Willens

und die

Beobachtung

desselben

sowohl

fur seine Person wie fur die

von

ihm

reprasentirte

Gemeinde

sich allezeit

als

heilige

Pflicht

und

Gewissenssache

will

angelegen

sein lassen .'5

In

my

view

another

suggestion

s more

inviting.

The

phrase upon

his heart

also occurs

in

Ex.

xxviii

29:

Aaron

shall

bear the names of the sons of Israel

Cal-libbo. ere the follow-

ing interpretation s attractive: the high priest is destined to be

Israel's

representative

n

body

and mind.

As forEx. xxviii

30,

there

Cal-leb

aharon

vidently

has another

meaning.

The oracular has to

be borne

upon

the heart.

Why? Possibly

it is

supposed

that the

radiation of the

UT

has to

penetrate

nto

the

heart,

the intellectual

centre of the

high

priest,

n

order

to

enable

him

to read the will

of

YHWH from

the

UT.

So

the

high

priest

will

be YHWH's real

representative

nd mouth.

Amsterdam

C. Houtman

For

the Urim and

Thummim

(abbreviated

as

UT)

see Ex. xxviii

30;

Lev. viii

8;

Ezra ii

63;

Neh.

vii

64

and

Deut.

xxxiii 8

(TU);

cf.

1

Sam.

xiv

41

LXX.

For

the

Urim

without Thummim see

Num.

xxvii

21;

1

Sam. xxviii 6.

231



5/5

232

SHORT NOTES

2

The Urim and Thummim.

A

study

of

an Old Testament

Means

of

Revelation

(Uitgeverij

Van den

Berg,

Kampen,

1986).

Up

to

now

little

attention

s

paid

in

the learned literature

to this Dutch

thesis,

although

it

is

written

n

English.

3

See

in

particular

J.

Lindblom,

Lot-casting

in the Old

Testament ,

VT

12

(1962), pp. 164-78 (pp. 176-8), an adherent of the lot theory;cf. Van Dam, pp.

105ff.

4

Cf.

1

Sam.

xiv

18-19,

xxii 18

cj.;

1

Kings

ii

26

and see

Judg.

viii

27,

xvii

5,

xviii

14,

17,

18,

20;

1

Sam.

ii

28,

xiv

3,

xxi

10,

xxiii

6, 9,

xxx

7;

Hos.

iii

4,

where,

in

my

opinion,

an

original

'dronhas been

replaced by

'epod.

Cf.

in

particular

W.

R.

Arnold,

Ephod

nd Ark

Cambridge,

Mass.,

1917),

and also

P. R.

Davies,

Ark

or

Ephod

in 1

Sam.

xiv.

18?, JThS

NS

26

(1975),

pp.

82-7; idem,

The

history

of the

Ark

in

the books

of

Samuel ,

JNSL

5

(1977),

pp.

9-18.

In

my

view

originally

the ark

was not an

unparalleled object.

5

For

that and

for

my

view on the

ephod

and

the

ark

see

my commentary

on

the

book

of

Exodus

in the series Commentaar

p

hetOude Testament.

art

III

(forth-

coming).

6

Cf.

e.g.

W. Gesenius-E.

Kautzsch,

HebrdischeGrammatik

Leipzig,

190928)

124;

for another

interpretations

ee F.

E.

K6nig,

Historisch-comparativeyntax

er

hebrdischen

prache

Leipzig,

1897)

262

g;

A.

Jirku,

Die Mimation

in

der

nord-

semitischen

Sprachen

und

einige Bezeichnungen

der altisraelitischen

Mantik ,

Bib

34

(1953),

pp.

78-80.

7

Cf.

Van

Dam,

pp.

79-80.

Urim

in Num.

xxvii

21;

1

Sam.

xxviii

6

apparently

has to

be understood as

a

pars pro

toto.

8

See

e.g.

H.

Bachtold-Staubli

(ed.),

Handwirterbuches deutschen

berglaubens

(Berlin,

1933),

cols. 576ff.

9 See on the contrarythe Samaritan Pentateuch, with a description of the

execution

in Ex.

xxxix

21.

'0

For

this and

similar

suggestions

see

Van

Dam,

pp.

27,

29, 32,

81-2.

1

See

K.

Elliger,

Ephod

und

Choschen. Ein

Beitrag

zur Ent-

wicklungsgeschichte

des

hohepriesterlichen

Ornats ,

VT

8

(1958),

pp.

17-35

(p.

30);

cf. I.

Friedrich,

Ephod

und Choschen

m

Lichte

es

Alten

Orients

Wien,

1968),

pp.

57ff.

12

Urim

and

Tummim ,

Kairos

11

(1969),

pp.

22-38.

13

See

TWATIII,

col.

279.

14

Cf.

F.

H. von

Meyenfeldt,

Het hart

leb, lebab)

n hetOude Testament

Leiden,

1950),

pp.

131ff.

15

Exodus-LeviticusG6ttingen, 1903), p. 243. For another interpretation ee

Van

Dam,

pp.

71-2.

ESAIE

II

20,

UNE

SIGNATURE

KARAITE?

Dans

son Der

Textdes

Alten

Testaments

Stuttgart,

19885),

p.

121,

E.

Wiirthwein

cite

Es. ii

20

comme

un

cas

typique

de

corruption

textuelledue a une coupure erronee d'un mot.Au lieu de lahaparpd-

rot,

n

un seul

mot,

le

TM

a,

en effet

a4por

erot,

n

deux

mots.

Deja

Friedrich Delitzsch

avait

signale

ce

cas

a cote

d'une

dizaine

d'autres.1

Et

de

fait la

quasi

totalite des

traductions

et

commentai-

res

consultes,

d'Ibn

Ezra a

nos

jours,

ont

corrige

e

texte,

conside-

Vetus

Testamentum

L,

2

(1990)


houtman - the urim and thummim

Documents