Difficult Questions for Mormons

The Interactive Bible ^

[ejonesie22]

Ya think?

LOL

;-)

[T Minus Four]

LOL! Running a little behind today :-)

[nando9]

I’m sure glad you have all proved my original post so totally wrong. No self-congratulatory echo chambers here. Move along.

[T Minus Four]

Stick around NooB, your skin will get thicker I imagine.

[nando9]

Hey nana. Spiritual noob here. Since you appear to be the scholar in these parts, I had to turn to others to question your interesting though philologically loosey-goosey treatise on what the Urim and Thummim were or weren’t.

There just so happens to be a book, authored by a scholar not connected in any way with those dang mormons, considered by other scholars to be the singular modern treatment of this topic. I’m sure you’ve read it, but just in case here is a short review by another not-dang mormon. You will find his conclusions quite fascinating, I’m sure, particularly as to their use in receiving and disseminating revelatory guidance and answers. Weird.

Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel, The
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 1999 Review by Harbin, Michael A

(The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. By Cornelis Van Dam. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997, 296 pp., $34.50.)

“Urim” and “Thummim” (UT) are the Hebrew names for the object or objects used by the OT high priest to determine God’s will for the Israelites. Their actual identity has puzzled scholars for centuries. They are not described. Their method of use is not explained. The etymology of the terms is at best uncertain. Even their mention in the OT is somewhat haphazard. Still, scholarly consensus has concluded that they are some form of “lot oracle” and for that reason, no detailed study of the UT has appeared since 1824. Van Dam asserts, however, that the lot theory does not satisfy all of the evidence and undertakes a new exhaustive examination of the issue.

Van Dam begins with a study of the history of interpretation. He performs a topical overview, which surveys the various interpretations from the time of Philo to date and evaluates the different theories.

From this, Van Dam turns to the ancient Near East to explore possible analogues. First he explores lot oracles and notes that the use of lot oracles in the ancient Near East seems to be less common than supposed, and that there is no real analogy to the UT. The same is true with teraphim, which he covers very briefly as associated with the UT. He then examines in more detail analogies that have been proposed by region: Mesopotamia, Hatti, Ugarit, Egypt, Arabia and even China. While he notes items of dress in these cultures that may be compared to the ephod of the priest (which held the UT), he does not find any comparable method of revelation. With this foundation, he begins to repudiate the lot-oracle concept.

After a chapter on the history of translation, Van Dam arrives at the heart of his work, the biblical usages. He surveys the UT within the context of divine revelation in general and notes that God used a variety of methods to provide revelation to Israel, and encouraged the people to inquire of him for guidance. This was tempered with a stringent prohibition against divination of any type, specifically including teraphim and apparently lot oracles. Van Dam argues that the UT could not be lot oracles since on several of the occasions we find it used, the answers recorded exceed the possible yes/no responses of the lots.

Drawing upon the traditional translation of “light(s) and perfection(s)” evidenced in ancient Jewish tradition and the LXX, as well as the role performed by the high priest who was entrusted with the use of the UT, Van Dam concludes that the UT was used to validate a prophetic statement from the high priest as true revelation from God. He argues that the UT was some type of stone that would illuminate (with “true” or “perfect” light) when removed from the ephod to verify the divine source of a declaration (p. 224).

So, what happened to the UT? Here, Van Dam is more tentative. He concludes that the UT were not used after David, probably because of priestly unfaithfulness, although he also sees a role for increasing written revelation that supplanted the need for immediate revelation. Tied in with priestly unfaithfulness, he also notes a parallel increase in the prophetic office.

Although many questions are left unanswered, overall, this is an excellent survey of a very important, although obscure, facet of OT worship. Van Dam has provided a very thorough and readable compilation of the material available on the subject. His conclusions, although not completely new, are thought-provoking as they tie together the spiritual and physical realms.

Michael A. Harbin

Taylor University, Upland, IN