houtman - the urim and thummim
TRANSCRIPT
-
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/ -
7/25/2019 Houtman - The Urim and Thummim
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/25/2019 Houtman - The Urim and Thummim
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/25/2019 Houtman - The Urim and Thummim
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/25/2019 Houtman - The Urim and Thummim
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)
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp