' /

'-../

' /

Prof. Scott B. Noege1Chair, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and CivilizationUniversity of Washington

Book review:Van Dam, Cornelius. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation inAncient IsraeL Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

First Published in:Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59 (2000), 220-223.

VOL. 59 No.3 2-2-0220 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

r---.I

has long strived to excise the personal, reshapingits language into seemingly unassailable. andincreasingly incomprehensible, jargon. The re-sulting narrowing of the audience to a small circleof specialists has also shut out the less-informedmasses, who happen to foot the bill. This approachis defensive and hubristic. There is also a conceitin American archaeology's posture as a science,posing our tiny samples, idiosyncratic reconstruc-tions, and meager generalizations with the samesweep and grandeur as the laws of physics and,more lately, biology. To its equal discredit, muchof European archaeology has succumbed to rela-tivism and hand-wringing, giving up any aspira-tion to rigor. Books such as Lamberg-Karlovsky'sare important attempts to find middle ground thatis intellectually and socially responsible, literate,accessible scholarship, authoritative but not dicta-torial, presenting as coherent and complete a vi-sion of early Mesopotamian, Iranian, and Indusvalley societies as we have anywhere. It thus de-serves our thanks and consideration at a numberof levels.

ALEXANDER H. JOFFE

r Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park

The Urim alld Thumim: A Mealls of Revelationill Anciellt Israel. By CORNELIUS VAN DAM.Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997.Pp. xxii + 296. $34.50.It has been more than one hundred and fifty

years since the last exhaustive investigations ofthe Hebrew Bible's mysterious Urim and Thu-mim (hereafter U and T) were published.' Sincethat time, numerous smaller studies, both philo-logical and comparative in scope, have appearedthat have a.ttempted to elucidate these most curi-ous terms. Thus, it is with happy expectationthat I opened this work, a revision of the au-thor's 1988 doctoral dissertation submitted to

I J. J. Bellermann, Die Urim und Thummim. die til-

testen Gemmen: Ein Beitrag zur biblisch-hebrtiischen" Alterthumskunde (Berlin, 1824): J. L. SaalschUtz, "PrU-

fung der vorziiglichsten Ansichten von den Urim undThummim:' in Historisch-theologische Abhandlungen.ed. C. F. Illger (Leipzig, 1924). p. 3.31-101 (noted byVan Dam, p. I).

the Theologische Universiteit at Kampen, in TheNetherlands.

Van Dam had before him no easy task, for to"discover the identity and mode of operation ofthe U[and]T. . . " (p. 4) requires that one care-fully examines the ancient translations and dis-cussions of the U and T, their relationship to the"~I( "ephod" and l1Z7n"breastpiece," a host ofproposed ancient Near Eastern analogues, andthe compete gamut of literary and historical con-texts in which we find the U and T. While thiswork succeeds in synthesizing all of the relevantdata, some of the conclusions reached by theauthor are not altogether convincing. '

The book opens with a historical survey of thevarious exegetical and translational approachesto the U and T. This is one of Van Dam's most

useful contributions, for tracing the various treat-ments of the U and T presents the reader withmultiple options for understanding these itemsand also provides a window to the historical pre-suppositions and interpretive trends active inearly antiquity. Van Dam examines the relevanttextual evidence from Qumran, and the treatmentof the U and T by Philo, Origen, Jerome, Au-gustine, Bede, Thomas Aquinas, the reformersCalvin and Luther, among others, and, regretta-bly, to a lesser extent the medieval Jewish exe-getes, with Rashi appearing most prominently."

Van Dam then examines each of the previ-ously proposed ancient Near Eastern analoguesto the U and T with an emphasis on the Egyptianand Mesopotamian evidence.

Breastplates, magic stones, the Tablets of Des-tiny,3 teraphim, and pendants, are weighed againstthe philological evidence and rejected (with thepossible exception of the teraphim). Often VanDam's rejection is based on a perceived differ-ence of purpose between these oracular mediaand the U and T, but since items and practices sel-dom are borrowe'd by an adoptive culture with-out some modification. the similarities perhaps

"The bibliography too is a disappointingtwo andone half pages in length.

3The author would have benefited by consultingShalom M. Paul. "Heavenly Tabletsand the Book ofLife," J.4.NES 5 (1973): 345-53. Similarly, Van Damtreats the Mesopotamian !nabbl1 as an "ecstatic" (p.112), but there is no evidence. contextual or otherwise,to suggest this. See already Howard Wohl. 'The Prob-lem of the Mabbt1:' JANES 3 (1970): 112-18.

July 2000 BOOK REVIEWS 221

should be given more weight than Van Dam al-lows.4 Nevertheless, even if one is inclined to seethese analogues as sharing similar functions, VanDam cautions that it is "faulty argumentation todeduce physical similarities from similar func-tions" (p. 81). Methodologically, this removes allpropriety of comparison and results in setting theU and T apart from all modes of divination.

Also integral to Van Dam's investigation is anaccurate understanding of the phrases 'N Tn]"give/place to/in," referring to the placement of-the U and T; -:1 'NVl "inquire of . . . (Yahweh!God)" when used without reference to revelatorymeans; and ini1' '::J=>'"before Yahweh," occur-ring in conjunction with the use of the U and T.

The first of these expressions Van Dam sees asreferring to the placement of the U and T as realand tangible objects (contra a host of earlier exe-getes prior to the sixteenth century) inside thebreastpiece, perhaps in a pouch of some kind. Anexamination of the second phrase, -:1 'NVl "in-quire of . . . ," which appears ambiguously with-out reference to a revelatory vehicle in sixteenpassages in Judges, 1 Samuel, and 2 Samuel.suggests to Van Dam that "there is good reasonto assume that the U[and]T were involved inthese instances" (p. 188). Concerning the phrase.ini1' '::J=>'"before Yahweh," Van Dam asserts:

Indeed, the fact that the inquiry had to take place be-fore Yahweh was a reminder that, each time, revela-

tion from God was given. It was not the result of somemagical power of the U[and]T. It also reminded God's

people that they had no need for the divination prac-

ticed by the other nations (p. 168).

On the basis of the textual, philological, andcomparative evidence, Van Dam uniquely con-cludes that the U and T "may be interpreted as ahendiadys" (p. \39),5 probably representing asingle gem whose name means "perfect light" (p.230). This "miraculous light verified that themessage given by the high priest was indeedfrom God. . . " (p. 230). Thus, Van Dam distin-

4 For example. contra Van Dam (pp. 40-42), I re-mained convinced by the important study of W. Horo-witz and V. A. Hurowitz, "Urim and Thummim in Lightof a Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137),"JANES 21 (1992): 95-115.

5 The mention of the Urim alone in I Sam. 28:6

Van Dam treats as a pars pro 1010 for the U and T (pp.190-91).

guishes the U and T from the casting of lots andsuggests that "the teraphim functioned as asubstitute for the U[and]T with illegitimate'ephods'" (p. 150). As to the use of the U and T.Van Dam observes:

Most of the times that the U(and)T were employed, a

problem of a military natUre had to be resolved, but thiswas not always the case [I Sam. 10:22, 2 Sam. 2: I]. In

all cases, the well-being of the theocratic nation was

directly or indirectly at stake (p. 193).

Van Dam's analysis of context and his rejec-tion of divinatory parallels ultimately lead himto place the U and T on par with prophecy as ameans of revelation. "Prophetic inspiration is theonly revelatory means that is known that can ad-equately account for the complexity and subtletyof some of the answers received" (p. 217). Thisstatement agrees with some ancient sources (forexample; Num. Rab 21:9, b. Yoma 73b) but isdifficult to reconcile with other evidence, such asI Sam. 28:6, which distinguishes the U and Tfrom prophecy. Indeed one might ask, if the Uand T and prophecy are synonymous modes ofrevelation, why does the Bible differentiatethem? To explain, Van Dam posits a develop-ment in the use of and attitude towards the U andT beginning with the time of Moses.

. . . the silence in Exodus 28 and 39 concerning themanufacture or description of the U[and]T appears toimply the prior existence of the U[and]T and theknowledge of this oracular equipment by Israel as awhole. This in turn suggests that the U[and]T predatesMoses. The inclusion of the U[and]T in the breast-piece of Aaron when he was ordained as high priest(Lev. 8:8) could therefore signal the official incorpo-ration of an ancient means of revelation into the

official cult (p. 236).

According to Van Dam, the demise of the U andT began during David's reign and was completeafter the exile6 and was due in part to the dis-placement of the high priest with the U and T asa means of revelation by prophecy. If correct,this would imply an element of competition be-tween the priesthood and the prophets as VanDam espies.

6 Despite the references to the U and T in Ezra 2:63and Neh. 7:65.

Ii

222 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

If the U[and]T were not a lot oracle but were closely

related to prophecy (as I have argued), then we arebringing together two elements that generally speaking

have been carefully separated in biblical scholarship,

priesthood and prophecy (p. 231).

Yet Van Dam stops short of drawing a directcorrelation between the two and attributes the

diminishing use of the U and T also to priestlyunfaithfulness and an increased reliance on pro-fessional counselors.

My criticisms of this work stem from what Iperceive to be a methodological double standardand a theological presupposition concerning thenature of the U and T. Though on the one handVan Dam posits a development in the use of andattitude towards the U and T in ancient Israel, onthe other, he tends to treat the Israelite theologi-cal stance on divination and magic as a monolithwithout contradictions, developments, or regres-sions. It is simplistic to treat Saul's consultationof the necromancer (i Sam. 28) as an anti-Saulinepolemic or an example of "popular" practice, butthe appearance of other divinatory means are notas easily dismissed. The uncondemned presenceof teraphim in David's private room (1 Sam.19:13, 19:16) at a time which Van Dam argueswitnessed the declining use of U and T (a meansof revelation that he also states replaced the ter-aphim [po260]) and the condemnatory listing ofteraphim in Ezek. 21:26 among the Babylonianking's repertoire of divlnatory tools are cases inpoint. Such contradictions perhaps compel VanDam to side with a proposal first suggested byJohn Spencer (1630-93) that views the teraphimas a means of prophetic revelation and the onlypossible analogue to the U and T (pp. 44-45,149-51).7 This also raises a question unad-dressed by Van Dam, namely, the possible impactof the state religion upon the U and T, especiallyin those periods for which apostasy is recorded.

One could add that no biblical prohibitionsagainst magic and divination (for example,18:10-1 t) would have been issued if peoplewere not practicing these arts. Moreover, what isdeemed a legitimate means of access to God inone culture is often illegitimate in another, and

7 Van Dam also is persuaded by the LXX's treatmentof the leraphim in Hos. 3:4 with an identical word(deloi) to that used to translate Urim in Num. 27:21,Deut. 33:8, and I Sam. 28:6 (p. 149).

VOL. S9 No.3

such distinctions are often maintained within thesame culture as well. It is perhaps analogous thatHammurapi's Code and the Middle Assyrian lawsalso proscribe sorcery and black magic despitethe fact that divination and other forms of magicare deemed theologically legitimate and are quiteubiquitous during these periods.8

Van Dam's static portrayal of the Israelite atti-tude towards magic and divination eventuallycreates a sort of circular reasoning. Divination isrejected in some passages of the Hebrew Bible:'and since the U and T are employed apparentlywithout condemnation in others. it must not con-

stitute divination and must be something else.Thus Van Dam asserts very early in his work that"as a licit oracular means, the U(and)T musthave functioned in such a way that the reason foroutlawing divination as practiced among Israel'sneighbors did not apply to this priestly oracle"(p. 125). In this way, Van Dam severs perhapstoo hastily the more divinatory dimensions of theU and T.

The assumption that the U and T is not a divi-natory vehicle in turn shapes his methodology.When investigating the expression -::1'xv "in-quire of . . . (Yahweh/God)," Van Dam eliminatesfrom the discussion the same expression whenused in reference to a ghost (l Chron. 10:13),teraphim (Ezek. 21:26), and wood (Hos. 4:12)because in these cases the expression refers todivinatory sources of revelation.9 Also excludedis 1 Sam. 28:6, since it mentions dreams andprophets.

Van Dam similarly argues: "The association ofthe Name with the U[and]T effectively dispelsmagical notions about the oracle" (p. 24). The ev-idence for competing Yahwist belief systems inIsraellOand other ancient Near Eastern divinatoryand magical practices in which sacred names are

8 On this point, see also Erica Reiner, A~tral Magicin Babylonia. Transactions of the American Philosoph-ical Society 85/4 (Philadelphia. 1995), p. 101.

9 Yet the Akkadian cognate sdlu "ask" appears inreference to the divinatory use of magical stones. See,for example, Horowitz and Hurowitz, "Urim andThummim in Light of a Psephomancy Ritual from As-sur (LKA 137)," pp. \OS, 107.

10See, for example, Jeffery Tigay, "The Sig-nificance of the End of Deuteronomy," in Michael Y.Fox et aI., eds., Texts. Temples. and Traditions: ATribute 10 Menahem Haran (Winona Lake, Indiana,1996), pp. 137-43.

July 2000 BOOK REVIEWS. 223

invoked demands that we rethink this conclusion.Moreover, the S'ame ancient sources that VanDam cites in support of the use of the U and T asa prophetic experience (i.e., b. Yoma 73b), alsospecifies the ritual placement of the inquirers.This suggests that the use of the U and T was lessrevelatory and more mechanical in technique.Sipre Numbers 27:21 also tells us that the inquiryusing the U and T involved ritual whispering, anact that smacks more of magical praxis than rev-elation.11 In any event, the reader would havebenefited if Van Dam had defined and demar-

cated more clearly what he means by magic, div-ination, oracular activity, and prophecy.

Throughout the work, one senses in the meth-odology and interpretation of evidence. a theo-logical desire to disconnect the U and T from allforms of divination. This is especially noticeablewhen Van Dam turns his attention to the theolog-ical implications of his observations.

Against the background of controlling the god(s), ma-

nipulation, and coercion (which are inherent in thisview of reality and thus also of divination) stood God's

revelation of himself to Israel. He as the sovereign

God was not to be controlled or manipulated (p. 122).

Yet earlier Van Dam distinguishes divinationfrom revelation by the diviner's initiative in dis-cerning the import of the deity's message (p. 117)and a lack of divine self-disclosure. This wouldappear to place U and T among divinatory andnot revelatory methods of inquiry, since the Uand T clearly are used at the request of humans.

Similarly, after discussing the possible use ofthe teraphim as earlier and somewhat analogousoracular vehicles of revelation, Van Dam suggeststhat "Yahweh may have accommodated himselfto this situation by granting his people theU[and]T as a revelatory aid in place of the tera-phim" (p. 260). If such is the case, avers VanDam, "Yahweh's calling the U(and)T hisl! [Deut33:8] deepens in meaning, for it illustrates theextent. to which Yahweh went to accommodate

his people" (p. 260). At this point. Van Dam'sanalysis turns slightly sermonesque: "The cruxof the shift to prophecy seems to have been that

I( Cf. Biblical Hebrew tZm7 "whisper" and Akka-dian latJiiSu "whisper," both frequently used in refer-ence to magical incantations.

I! The emphasis is Van Dam's.

Yahweh was weaning his people from the use ofphysical means of revelation [as the U(and)Twere] to dependence on revelation by the wordof God as given by the prophets" (p. 272). In-deed, the conclusion of this book romanticallytheologizes what would be discussed in manycircles as evidence of religious syncretism. ForVan Dam, the move away from signs to wordalone illustrates that".. . Yahweh sought tonurture Israel to maturity" (p. 273).

Such remarks pave the way for a Christologi-cal perspective on revelation that pervades andinforms the remainder of the book. Much like the

Christian canon, prophecy is placed at the end ofa chain of religious progress: "After Malachi. noother prophet arose until John the Baptist ap-peared. as predicted. . . " (pp. 273-74). Thus.the U and T eventually became an outmoded andperhaps less revelatory means by which peoplecommunicated with God. the most effective waybeing now through Jesus. Van Dam concludes byway of a doxology: "the fulfillment of all OldTestament revelation would be revealed in the

promised Messiah. who is the Word and Who be-came flesh (John 1:14)" (p. 274).

In .sum, while Van Dam offers a fresh ap-proach to the topic and a comprehensive synthe-sis of all prior studies on the subject. the totalbody of evidence ultimately leads us to a skepti-cism underscoring our inability to deduce thefunction and cultural significance of the U and T.It is frustratingly ironic that despite a host ofcomparative material, textUal evidence, and aplethora of scholarly inquiry on the subject, wefare only slightly better in terms of our knowl-edge of U and T than the scholars of the nine-teenth century. Van Dam certainly has shed agreat deal of light on the purpose and use of theU and T, but it is the nature of the evidence thatforces us to conclude, albeit more pessimisti-cally, by citing the author: "Nowhere is there anindisputable and clearly datable reference to theU[and]T" (p. 242).

SCOlT B. NOEGEL

University of WashingtonSeattle

, ~

i

ItI