The Urim and Thummim

The question of the nature of the Urim and Thummim has long enamoured the collective mind of biblical scholarship for centuries. In the last century the subject has virtually been ignored by biblical scholars and Near Eastern historians alike. A collection of short articles in various academic journals have been the extent of the pursuit of this probing question since the last major work on the Urim and Thummin published in the early 1800s. The last major work, that is, until the recent publication of Cornelius Van Dam's The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Israel, which was published in 1997. Because of the lack of in-depth analysis of the Urim and Thummim in recent years, this examation of the nature of the Urim and Thummim and their role in the prophetic functions of ancient Israel will rest largely on the work of Van Dam, with some considerations for modern modes of divination that possibly shed light on the nature of the Urim and Thummim. Basing my exposition of the evidence we have at our disposal on Van Dam's in-depth analysis of the Urim and Thummim I shall first explain generally framework from which one might draw a conclusion regarding the nature of this mysterious method of Israelite divination. I will attempt to summarize Van Dam's conclusions and then proceed to offer my own criticism of his answer to this most vexing question. Because internal evidence from the Bible itself is limited in explaining the Urim and Thummim's nature to satisfy most inquiring minds, analouges from other cultures coming before the time of Urim and Thummim's use are considered. I will argue that modern analogues are worthy of similar consideration, as should be clear after considering certain Talmudic and Kabbalistic understandings of Urim and Thummim tha arguably originated from oral traditions. Finally, after these points of questioning and consideration I will present my own view of the indentity and nature of the Urim and Thummim and the role they played in the prophetic functions of Israel's High Priest.

For many years a dominant means of understanding the Urim and Thummim was found in the allegorical approach. Jaded from the lack of conclusive evidence and the overwhelming sense of mystery that permeates the study of the Urim and Thummim a vast number of scholars taking interest in the Urim and Thummim elected to understand the Urim and Thummim's existence as an allegorical one, and not a physical one. This practice is evident in the translation of and comments made on the Urim and Thummim by various scholars, dating most from the time of the Protestant Reformation. John Calvin in his commentary on Exodus 28 translates the Urim and Thummim as "light and perfection", and explains this translation as such:

By the Urim, therefore, or splendours, I doubt not that the light of doctrine, wherewith the true Priest illuminates all believers, was represented...On the other hand, the Thummim, which signifies perfections, was a symbol of the prefect and entire purity which is only to be sought in Christ. (1)

This view was most popular during the 17th and 18th centuries and has certainly not disappeared, but for the most part this allegorical view of the Urim and Thummim is something to be relegated to the time of John Calvin, Robert Bellarmine, and Fredrich Adolf Lampe. As Van Dam argues, simply because this way of seeing the Urim and Thummim has endured for centuries does not change the fact that this method results from an attempt to understand the Urim and Thummim far outside the context allowed by biblical data itself. Although, as we shall later see, that the symbolic significance of the Urim and Thummim are fundamental to the argument I wish to present, the fact remains that the biblical evidence is more in favour of understanding the Urim and Thummim as having a physical identity, not a purely symbolic one.

What we can glean from the biblical data describing the physical identity of the Urim and Thummim is there is an certain connection between the Urim and Thummim and the vestments of the High Priest, specifically the ephod and the breastplate of judgment. Exodus 28:30 writes that "in the breastpiece of judgement you shall put the Urim and Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron's heart when he goes in before the Lord." Lev. 8:8 further states that "[Moses] placed the breastpiece on [Aaron], and in the breastpiece he put the Urim and Thummim." From this data we can see that the Urim and Thummim were physical objects that were put inside the ephod. We also can that these objects were a plurality, due to the Hebrew plural suffix "im" added to each word. Biblical data further states that the practice that accompanied use of the Urim was to "inquire of God". This inquiry of God was specific, as only one particular form in the Hebrew text is used when the seeker is inquiring of God by means of Urim and Thummim; sa'al be-eloh'im. The basic function of the Urim and Thummim then, we can easily conclude, is to inquire of God. The difficulty at this point is realizing the limits of the biblical data, seeing that these are the only two general certainties that can be gleaned from the biblical texts regarding the physical identity of the Urim and Thummim.

Going beyond biblical texts it is necessary to consider particular divinatory analogues that exist in the ancient Near East that might shine some light on the question of the the Urim and Thummim's nature, namely the overall conclusion that the Urim and Thummim were some type of lot oracle. This theory has long been the consensus among most scholars today, and it is based fundamentally on the popularity of lot oracles among analogue divination traditions of the Near East. For example, a seventh-century Neo-Assyrian text exists that speaks of a divination practice that consists of a casting of lots known as aban eresi ("the desirable die") and la eresi ("the undesirable die"). W. Horowitz and V.A. Hurowitz argue that this divinatory practice, while not entirely identical, is "highly similar and perhaps somehow related" (2) to the Urim and Thummim. The main problem with this assertion is that even Horowitz and Hurowitz recognize that this neo- Assyrian method of casting lots was a "second rate" and "irregular" method; hardly an official divinatory method (3). Because the Urim and Thummim were an official means of revelation, Horowitz's and Hurowitz's postulated similarity between the two method is thrown into question. Essentially, a brief survey of ancient Near Eastern history will produce many accounts of lot oracles being utilized by various different societies. Simply because lot oracles were popular at the time of the Urim and Thummim's institutional use, this does not imply that the Urim and Thummim were too a lot oracle. The argument of Horowitz and Hurowitz is only one example, but as Van Dam points out, there are many different means of lot oracles in history, but few of them can be argued to relate to the Urim and Thummim in light of what we do know. From this we can conclude that the Urim and Thummim were not a lot oracle, but something else. Furthermore, whether we pay attention to only the example of the Neo-Assyrian lot oracle, or the ties scholars have tried to make between the Tablet of Destinies from the Enuma Elish (4), or the Egyptian high priest's Pendant of Truth (5) we see that these "analogues" have little to do with the Urim and Thummim, and perhaps this might be an indication of the necessity for a shift of emphasis in methodology; instead of focusing explicity on the ancient analogues, consideration to modern analogues might be of some use. This issue will be taken up further on, for at this point it is first necessary to give certain eptymological considerations to the nature of Urim and Thummim.

The Urim and Thummim or, as roughly transliterated from the Hebrew text of Exodus 28:30, et-haur'im ve-et-hatum'im, are mysterious in eptymological origin. Because of this any argument presented regarding their meaning is not subject to a question of black and white, cut or dry, these words have been debated for centuries and most likely will be for years to come. I subscribe to the position that "urim" is dervied from the root "or", meaning "light", in the plural form subject to some Masoretic alteration; hence the "u" beginning as opposed to the expected "o". As for "thummim", I would submit that it is a derivative from the word "thom", meaning "completeness", "integrity", "perfection", or "truth". This position is bolstered by John Calvin's own translation of the words in the above- cited commentary he made on Exodus 28 wherein Calvin renders the translation as "light" and "perfection" (6). Furthermore, on the question of translating "urim", it is necessary to consider that translating it as "light" is more or less consistent with meanings from cognate Semitic languages. For example, the Ugaritic "urm" is translated as "fire" (7). As we can see the Ugaritic and Hebrew roots and their respective English renderings have an undeniable similarity to each other. Further light to be shed on the meaning of urim ve-thumim can be found in the manner by which they have been translated through the years. The Torah Septuagint of the 300 century B.C.E. translates the words as they appear in Lev. 8:8, et-ha-ur'im ve-et-hatummim into the Greek as ten delosin kai ten aletheian; "revelation and truth" (8). Elsewhere the Septuagint translates the words as "manifestations and truth", or "lights and perfection" (9).

At this point the theological and revelatory function begins to unfold. Seeing the Urim as "lights", "revelation", and "manifestation" gains a sense of the fact that the Urim were a means of enlightenment, for they revealed hidden truths, and made manifest things which the Israelite seekers sought from the High Priests prophetic capacity. As for the Thummim we see them as "truth" and "perfection" as characterizing words, for by means of urim (enlightenment, revelation, the manifestation of the unseen) the thummim (the truth, the path of perfection) was what followed directly. This is articulated similarily in the Pseudo- Jonathan texts on Exod. 28:30:

And you shall put into the breastplate the Urim, which illuminate their words and make manifest the hidden things of the House of Israel, and the Tumim [sic] which perfect their deeds. (10)

The same sentiment is found in the Babylonian Talmud;

Why are they called "Urim and Thummim" "Urim" because they made their words enlightening. "Thummim" because they fulfill their words." (b. Yoma 73b) (11)

And also the Jersusalem Talmud; "Urim because they luminated Israel and Thummim because they perfected they way before them" (y. Yoma 7.3) (12). The application of this character to the Urim and Thummim was re-iterated in the translations by Origen, "manifestation and truth", and Augustine, "showing and truth" (13). In essence, what the sense can be made of all this is that generally the Urim and Thummim are seen as a means of enlightenment, revelation, uncovering of truth. In turn, this means illuminating the way or path to truth or, in the same sense, perfection.

At this point we have explored many of the finer points regarding the nature of the Urim and Thummim. We have taken into account the biblical data, extrabiblical accounts, ancient Near Eastern analogues, eyptomological concerns and differing translations throughout the course of history. But even after all this it is certain that the question still remain, "what were the Urim and Thummim? how might they have functioned in the prophetic functions of the high priest of Israel?" The evidence at this point doesn't seem to lead us towards any sense of certainty regarding the Urim and Thummim's identity, nor does the much more exhaustive study contributed by Van Dam. At this point I submit my own personal opinion that Van Dam's work is a paramount of scholarship, that the amount of work that has gone into it is astounding and that his research is insightful, his evaluation of the evidence painstaking. However, with all this being said, I still find his conclusion unconvincing;

According to my theory and interpretation of the biblical evidence respecting the identity of the UT, the UT probably consisted of a single gem, and the name can best be understood as "perfect light". A miraculous light verified that the message given by the high priest was indeed from God. (14)

My first criticism is a methodological one, namely that it appears in this conclusion that Van Dam's method of assessing the evidence is limited to the biblical context. I feel that, as Van Damn himself has presented in his work, extra-biblical sources are fundamentally important to pursuing the question of the Urim and Thummim's identity. With that being said, I cannot understand why Van Dam would limit the scope of these concluding remarks to only the biblical data. As I will argue further on, extra-biblical traditions are extremely valuable in sheding light the mystery regarding the Urim and Thummim.

My second line of criticism regards Van Dam's assertion that the Urim and Thumim were a single gem, and that they could be understood in translation as "perfect light". I would submit that the Hebrew text simply does not coincide with these conclusions. First, let us pay credence to the reality that the text is referring to ur'im ve-tumm'im. The vuv affixed to the second word clearly is there to indicate that the text is of the ur'im AND the tumm'im. From this follows that ur'im ve-tumm'im could not mean a single gem simply because the text is speaking of at least one thing AND the other. Even if one wished to interpret this more allegorically and posulate that the two refered to one, explanation must be given to the fact that both words end in a plural "'im" ending, which is a further indication of plurality. On a further note, it would be rather curious for Van Dam to presenting an argument that is allegorical in nature after his heavy criticisms of allegorical interpretation of the Urim and Thummim that dominated past scholarship. As for the assertion that the Urim and Thummim are best understood as "perfect light", the affixed vuv throws that argument into question. If "lights" and "perfections" are the most accurate translations, it remains that the translation would be "lights AND perfections".

I do agree with the notion of a sense "light" verifying the divination by the high priest, but apart from that point I maintain that a conclusion regarding the question of the Urim and Thummim should follow from a methodology that encompasses extra-biblical traditions. Furthermore, I believe that such a conclusion should not ignore the likelihood that the Urim and Thummim were a plurality of objects, and certainly not a single one.

The extra-biblical sources I wish to take account of are those from the rabbinical and kabbalistic traditions. Although Van Dam does do a fine job of surveying this material, he does not integrate it into his final conclusion. What we find in the rabbinical, and even more so in the kabbalistic, traditions is a great concern for the relationship between the Urim and Thummim and the Hebrew alphabet. This concern is well-summarized in Van Dam's survey of Jewish sources on the identity of the Urim and Thummim;

Elsewhere (Pequde 234b) the Zohar quotes a certain Rabbi Judah to the effect that the UT are said to signify respectively the luminous speculum, which consisted of the divine Name written in the 42 letters by which the world was created, and the nonluminous speculum, composed of the divine Name manifest in 22 letters. The Zohar contunues in this vein, working with the ideas of light and darkness and associating the UT with creation... (15)

From this we see the Urim and Thummim linked to a plurality, as opposed to a singular object, of a specific relation to the Hebrew alphabet in a mystical context. The Hebrew alphabet are seen here in a view that permeates kabbalistic thought that views them as the tools by which God created the universe. Because the Urim and Thummim are associated with this view the concept now arises that there is a certain link between the mysticism of the Hebrew alphabet. With this in mind let us begin to turn attention to that specific mystic understanding of the Hebrew alphabet and their divinatory power as expressed in a modern analogue as means to understanding the nature of the Urim and Thummim. But before we do this, it is necessary to consider the theory regarding the Urim and Thummim as postulated by E. Robertson, that saw the Urim and Thummim as a collection of 22 small wooden or metal discs with a letter from the alphabet inscribed on each (16). This is the general model I propose the Urim and Thummim most likely resembled, in light of the rabbinical and kabbalistic understanding of the Urim and Thummim. Through the interpretation of various spreads of the alphabet discs the enlightenment from God would be convey, and the perfect or truthful path would be illuminated for one who sought answers through the Urim and Thummim.

The deeper mystic meaning of each Hebrew letter is a well-established belief from the rabbinical and kabbalistic traditions. Talmudic commentary on the Book of Exodus speaks of "[knowing] how to combine the letters with which heaven and earth were created" (17). Sefer Yetzirah makes much reference to the notion of the Hebrew alphabet "as the manifestation of celestial patterns of energy...'Twenty-two foundation letters: He ordained them, He hewed them, He combined them, He weighed them, He interchanged them. And He created with them the whole creation and everything to be created in the future' "(18). It is in this sense that we can see the Hebrew alphabet as a means to divine the future. Because they are understood as the very metaphysical makeup of space and time, understanding them on a profound level could easily be seen as a means to prophesy. In summation, the Urim and Thummim were most likely a collection of individual incriptions of Hebrew characters that were used in a model of divination vaguely similar to lot oracles. Similar to lot oracles, but unique in terms of complexity, a complexity that existed by virtue of the deep mystical and, as I propose, divinatory meaning of each letter which is aptly described by Edward Hoffman's guide of the meaning of the alphabet in terms of Jewish mysticism, entitled The Hebrew Alphabet. It is with this in mind that, I shall proceed to further elaborate on the specific model I propose the Urim and Thummim resembled.

One criticism I have of the majority of scholarship on the Urim and Thummim is that in all its elaborate attempts to relate the Urim and Thummim to a particular ancient Near Eastern analogue, virtually no serious consideration is given to later analogues. I do admit fully that because cultures, and hence divinatory traditions by implication, do mix and mingle that it is useful to understand past analogues in an attempt to chart the evolution of divinatory traditions that could have lead to the develpment of the Urim and Thummim. But taking that notion a step further, I would not think it to be irrational to then take into account analogues that follow much later down the course of history, as they are just as much a part of the linear evolution of the tradition as past analogues. I argue then that in order to keep the question of the nature of the Urim and Thummim best informed, modern analogues might prove as a useful tool of understanding. The particular modern analogue I wish to explore in relation to the Urim and Thummim is that of the standard Tarot deck.

Given the association Tarot has with the New Age movement, it is understandable why scholarship might ignore the Tarot tradition altogether on grounds questioning the academic credibility of the New Age movement alone. These reservations aside, despite the Tarot tradition's adoption by the New Age movement, it remains a well-established divinatory tradition that has been practiced for hundreds, and perhaps even a thousand years (19). Furthermore, there are undeniable ties between the Tarot method of divination and the Hermetic Kabbalah which, though not identical with the original Kabbalah of Judaism, is based on the original Kabbalistic traditions, specifically the mystical divinatory power of the Hebrew alphabet (20).

The standard Tarot deck is comprised of seventy-eight cards; twenty-two making up the "Major Arcana" (a collection of symbolic cards) and the "Minor Arcana" (composed of four suits; "wands", "cups", "swords" and "discs/pentacles"). It is believed that the original Tarot deck was made up of only the twenty-two cards of the Major Arcana, and the Minor Arcana (a precursor to the modern playing deck) was added later on (21). What immediately is striking is the fact that the Major Arcana, the central focus of the Tarot, has as many cards are there are Hebrew letters. This understanding of the basis of each card from the Major Arcana as corresponding to a particular Hebrew letter from which it gains its divinatory power is maintained in the thought of prominent Tarot scholars; Eliphas Levi (22), Paul Foster Case (23), and Arthur Waite (24) are to name a few. The way in which Tarot cards are read are by means of "spreads"; particular arrangements based on religious concepts; the Celtic cross is one example, the four letters of the name of God and the four faces of the vision of Ezekiel are another. The meaning of the spread is interpreted by means of the symbol of card by virtue of the context of the spread in which it appears, and even more importantly, the inherent divinatory value of the card. Cards have different divinatory understandings by virtue of context as they appear with different cards or in different spreads. The divinatory value of the card is dependent on the Hebrew letter to which it corresponds and its mystical value in the general scheme of Creation.

It is through the model of Tarot as a modern analogue worthy of further consideration that a clearer view of the Urim and Thummim can be seen. Biblical date alone helps us to know that the Urim and Thummim were stored in the priestly vestment of the breastpiece of judgment, which was attached to the epod. We know that the Urim and Thummim's purpose was to "inquire of God", in the context of the prophetic functions of the High Priest. From eptymological analysis of the Urim and Thummim we learn that illumination, light, truth and perfection are important themes that define the Urim and Thummim in a profound way. From studying the rabbinic and kabbalistic commentaries on the Torah we learn of a further understand of the Urim and Thummim as having relation to the Hebrew alphabet and its creative, mystical, and hence divinatory power. This leads us to the question of the usefulness of "modern" ( I admit Tarot as we know it isn't exactly "modern", but certainly not "ancient") analogues in understanding the exact way in which the Urim and Thummim would have been utilized. I propose not an argue for a historical link between the Tarot tradition and the Urim and Thummim; Tarot does not equate with the Urim and Thummim, they are not one and the same. Instead I see the Tarot's "spread" model of divination as analogous to the Urim and Thummim. I therefore conclude that the Urim and Thummim were a collection of twenty-two objects (likely discs or flat stones) upon which a Hebrew character was inscribed on each. These objects would be arranged in a particular spread and the high priest would then interpret them according to a method not unlike that of way cards are read in the Tarot tradition.

If a historical link between the Tarot and the Urim and Thummim should exist, meaning if a proposed historical relationship of thousands of years of cultural evolution and diffusion is what connects Tarot and the Urim and Thummim, then we have in our hands a great testament to role of prophetic function in our society. If mysticism and prophecy are relegated to the realm of lacking credibility that defines the New Age movement, we truly see how far modernity has pushed the spiritual aspects of humanity to the margins of popular Western society. If Tarot and the Urim and Thummim are cultural evolutionary "cousins" in some sense (taking into consideration the enourmity of this "if") we see the same fundamental system of spiritual inquiry in two very different positions of esteem; the official means of divination by the high priest of the nation on one hand and the widely discredited method of inquiry used only by charlatans and fools on the other. Whatever the case, should a historical relationship exist or not, the mere exploration leaves one with the question if Kant was correct in illustrating the limits of reason and hence the task of faith, and if Derrida was correct that we live in the midst of a "tyranny of reason", how does the prophetic survive? On what margins does it exist? It is hiding in the marginalized forms of spirituality like Tarot, I-Ching, the Wiccan movement? Has the hyper-rationality of modernity forced prophecy into the margins or our culture? Has the "Exile" been resurrected?

Notes:

1. Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Eisenbrauns Publishing, 1997), p. 13. 2. Ibid. pp.40-41. 3. Ibid. p. 42. 4. Ibid. p. 46-47. 5. Ibid. p. 72. 6. Ibid. p. 13. 7. Ibid. p. 64. 8. Ibid. pp. 83-84. 9. Ibid. pp. 84-85. 10. Ibid. p. 87. 11. Ibid. p. 88. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. p. 89. 14. Ibid. p. 230. 15. Ibid. p.25. 16. Ibid. p. 211. 17. Edward Hoffman, The Hebrew Alphabet (San Fransico: Chronicle Books, 1998), p. 11. 18. Ibid. p. 12. 19. Rosemary Ellen Guiley, The Mystical Tarot (New York: Signet, 1991), p. 9. 20. Ibid. pp. 16-32. 21. Ibid. p. 5. 22. Ibid. p. 16. 23. Ibid. p. 29. 24. Ibid. p. 30.