‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

ִ
Urim and Thummim

Contents:
Introduction
1. Root and Comparative Material
2. Formal Characteristics
3. Syntagmatics
4. Ancient Versions
5. Lexical/Semantic Fields
6. Exegesis
6.1 Biblical Evidence
6.2 Non-Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls
6.3 Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
6.4 Archaeology
6.5 Plural Forms
7. Conclusions
Notes
Bibliography/Abbreviations

Introduction
Grammatical type: 2× n.m. pl.
Occurrences: 7× HB (4/1/2); 0× Sir; 2× SP; 3× Qum (Total: 12)
Torah: Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21 (only ‫;)אוּרים‬
ִ Deut 33:8 (reverse order).
Nebiim: 1 Sam 28:6 (only ‫)אוּרים‬.
ִ
Ketubim: Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65.
Sam Pent (additions, see A.1): Exod 28:30; 39:21 (39:21 also in 4QExod-Lev f).
Qumran: 4Q164 (4QpIsa d) fr1:5; 11Q19 (11QTemple a) lviii:18-19, 20-21.
Text doubtful: 1 Sam 14:41 (see A.2); 4Q174 fr6-7:7; 4Q299 fr69:2; 4Q376 fr1.i:3;
4Q522 fr9.ii:10.
A.1 In sp, Exod 28:30 begins with a phrase that is not found in mt: ‫ועשית את‬
‫הארים ואת התמים‬, ‘and you will make the Urim and the Thummim’. The plus of
sp is clearly secondary. The following phrase in sp corresponds with Exod 28:30
in mt: ‫ונתתה על חשן המשפט את הארים ואת התמים‬. sp recounts the execution of the
instruction in an additional phrase after Exod 39:21: ‫ויעשו את הארים ואת התמים כאשר‬
2 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

‫צוה יהוה את משה‬, ‘and they made the Urim and the Thummim, as Yhwh had com-
manded Moses’. Virtually the same reading is partially preserved in 4QExod-Lev f:
‫[ משה‬..... ‫ויעש את האורים ו]את התמים‬, ‘and he made the Urim and [the Thummim .....]
Moses’. Since 4QExod-Lev f dates form the mid-third century bce, this plus shows
a very early tendency to harmonise passages and to fill gaps (Hendel 2016: 177-78,
241-42).
A.2 The Hebrew and Greek texts of 1 Sam 14:41 differ considerably. mt reads as
follows:
‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ָ ֣ה ָבה ָת ִ ֑מים וַ יִּ ָלּ ֵכ֧ד יוֹנָ ָ ֛תן וְ ָשׁ ֖אוּל וְ ָה ָ ֥עם יָ ָ ֽצאוּ׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫הו֛ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫אמר ָשׁ ֗אוּל ֶאל־י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣יּ‬

And Saul said to Yhwh, ‘God of Israel, give perfection.’ And Jonathan and
Saul were selected, but the people were cleared.

The expression ‫ ָה ָבה ָת ִמים‬may here mean ‘give a clear answer’.1 The consonantal
text of mt is presupposed in s, v and t j. In lxx, however, the text of the verse
is more extensive, with a Latin translation of the text of lxx being transmitted in
the Vetus Latina (vl) and part of the manuscripts of the Vulgate (v); see Ancient
Versions. lxx has the following text in 1 Sam 14:41:

καὶ εἶπεν Σαουλ κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ τί ὅτι οὐκ ἀπεκρίθης τῷ δούλῳ σου σήμερον
εἰ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἢ ἐν Ιωναθαν τῷ υἱῷ μου ἡ ἀδικία κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ δὸς δήλους καὶ
ἐὰν τάδε εἴπῃς ἐν τῷ λαῷ σου Ισραηλ δὸς δὴ ὁσιότητα καὶ κληροῦται Ιωναθαν
καὶ Σαουλ καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐξῆλθεν

And Saoul said, “O Lord God of Israel, why is it that you have not answered
your slave today? If this guilt is in me or in my son Ionathan, O Lord God
of Israel, give clear ones, and if this is what you say, ‘In your people Israel,’
give, now, holiness.” And Ionathan and Saoul were indicated by the lot, and
the people were cleared. (NETS)

In several other instances, the plural of Greek δῆλος, ‘clear one’, represents Hebrew
‫( אורים‬see Ancient Versions). This raises the question of whether the Greek text was
based on a different version of the Hebrew text including the word ‫אורים‬. The word
‫ תמים‬is represented by ὁσιότητα, ‘holiness’, and seems to have been interpreted as an
occurrence of the noun ‫תּ ִמּים‬.
ֻ If the Greek text was based on a Hebrew text, this
Hebrew text can be reconstructed as follows (cf 14:39):2
‫למה לא ענית את עבדך היום אם בי או ביונתן בני העון הזה יהוה אלהי ישראל הבה‬
‫אורים ואם ישנו)?( בעמך ישראל הבה תמים‬
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 3

‘Why have you not answered your servant today? If this guilt is in me or
in my son Jonathan, O Yhwh God of Israel, give Urim, but if it is in your
people Israel, give Thummim.’

Many scholars regard the shorter reading of mt as the result of parablepsis, due to the
twofold occurrence of the word ‫ישראל‬, which led to the omission of the text between
‫ אל יהוה אלהי ישראל‬and ‫ ישראל הבה תמים‬and the skipping of one of the occurrences
of ‫ישראל‬.3 Other scholars, however, still defend the priority of mt.4 It seems best
to take both options into account.5 Actually, even is the more extensive reading
of lxx is secondary, it may still be relevant for the interpretation of the Urim and
Thummim (see Exegesis).
A.3 The Urim and the Thummim are attested in 4Q164 and 11Q19 (see Exegesis),
but their occurrence is less certain in other, more fragmentary non-biblical texts
from Qumran. For the quotation of Deut 33:8 in 4Q175 (4QTest), see the discussion
of Deut 33:8 under Exegesis.
A.4 According to Eliezer Sukenik’s early analyses, the Thanksgiving scroll (Hodayot,
1QHod a) contains three occurrences of the word ‫אורתום‬, with one of the occurrences
partially restored.6 The meaning of ‫ אורתום‬is uncertain, but already in his Hebrew
editio princeps Sukenik suggested that it is the singular of ‫אורים ותמים‬, ‘Urim and
Thummim’.7 Sukenik’s interpretation was taken over by Dupont-Sommer (1952: 74),
who translated ‫ אורתום‬as ‘Destiny’. Others, however, regard ‫ אורתום‬as a compound
noun consisting of the elements ‫אוֹר‬, ‘light’, and ‫תּוֹם‬, ‘perfection’: ‘light of perfection’,
or ‘perfect light’.8 According to some more recent editions, the text reads ‫אורתים‬, not
‫אורתום‬, which renders a connection with the Urim and Thummim even less likely.
In DJD and the SBL edition of 1QHod a, ‫ אורתים‬is interpreted as the dual of ‫אוֹרה‬ ָ
9
and translated as ‘early light’.
B.1 The proposal to emend the consonantal text of Hos 3:4 and 4:5 and to read
forms of ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬instead of ‫( ְתּ ָר ִפים‬3:4) and ‫( ִא ֶמָּך‬4:5)10 is not supported by the oldest
textual witnesses. Furthermore, there is no reason to change the vocalisation of ‫ָתּ ִמים‬
in Amos 5:10 into ‫תּ ִמּים‬. ֻ 11 It has been proposed to replace the vocalisation of the
enigmatic form ‫תּוֹמיְך‬ִ (hiph. of unknown verb ‫ )?ימך‬in Ps 16:5 by ‫תּוּמיָך‬: ֶ ‫גּוֹר ִלי‬
ָ ‫תּוּמיָך‬,
ֶ
12
‘Your Thummim are my lot’. However, it is more convincing to interpret the form
as part. masc. sg. of ‫תמך‬, ‘to take hold of’: ‫גּוֹר ִלי‬ ָ ‫תּוֹמ)י(ְך‬ ַ ‘you hold my lot’.13
ֵ ‫א ָתּה‬,

1. Root and Comparative Material

√
A.1 ‫אוּרים‬ִ is traditionally derived from ‫אור‬, ‘to be(come) light’, just like the nouns
‫אוּר‬, ‘fire’, and ‫אוֹר‬, ‘light’,14 although it is possible to interpret ‫ אור‬as a denominative
verb derived from ‫אוֹר‬.15 Part of the earliest translations already express a connection
4 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

of ‫אוּרים‬
ִ with the verb ‫ אור‬or the nouns ‫ אוֹר‬and ‫( אוּר‬see Ancient Versions). The
connection with the verb ‫ אור‬is explicit in the Talmud, which uses the verb ‫אור‬
hiph., ‘to enlighten’, to explain the meaning of ‫אוּרים‬:
ִ ‫למה נקרא שמן אורים ותומים אורים‬
‫שמאירין את דבריהן‬, ‘why is their name called Urim and Thummim? Urim, because
they enlighten their words’ (b. Yoma 73b); ‫ולמה נקרא שמם אורים שהן מאירין לישראל‬,
‘and why is their name called Urim? Because they enlighten for Israel’ (y. Yoma
7, 44c). An addition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (t psj) Exod 28:30 explains the
function of the Urim and Thummim in a similar way, using the Aram. verb ‫נהר‬
pael, ‘to illumine’: ‫אוריא דמנהרין מיליהון ומפרסמין טמירן דבית ישראל‬, ‘the Urim, which
illumine their words and uncover the secrets of the house of Israel’. A phrase in 4Q164
(4QpIsa d fr1:5) may already reflect the same derivation: ‫מאירים כמשפט האורים והתומים‬,
‘those who enlighten according to the judgment of the Urim and the Thummim’.
√
A.2 Julius Wellhausen proposed to derive ‫אוּרים‬ ִ from ‫ארר‬,�‘to accurse’ (Wellhausen
1883: 418-19 n. 1; cf. Van Dam 1997: 95 n. 55). In the same context, he suggested
that ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬designates the contrasting aspect of the pair and connected this
√ word with
Arabic tamīma, ‘amulet’ (see B.1 below). The derivation of ‫אוּרים‬ ִ from ‫ ארר‬is men-
tioned in several dictionaries16 and is preferred in DCH VIII, with ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬translated
as ‘acquitted’.17 For the form, see Formal Characteristics.
A.3 With reference to Grimme (1901), GB, 318, mentions ‫אוּרים‬ ִ in connection with
the verbs ‫ ירה‬i qal/hiph., ‘to throw’, and ‫ ירה‬iii hiph., ‘to instruct’.
A.4 Hans Duhm (1926: 50) interpreted ‫אוּרים‬
ִ as an ancient pass. part. form of ‫ארה‬
qal, ‘to pluck’: He supposed that the term ‫אוּרים‬
ִ denoted plucked off twigs that
jumped out of the priest’s pouch. The derivation from ‫ ארה‬is mentioned as one of
the options in KBL.18
A.5 ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬is usually interpreted as the plural form of the noun ‫תֹּם‬, ‘completion’,
‘perfection’ (cf. Formal Characteristics). Like √ the adjectives ‫ ָתּם‬and ‫‘( ָתּ ִמים‬perfect’,
‘blameless’), the noun ‫ תֹּם‬is a derivative of ‫תמם‬, ‘to be(come) complete’. The
interpretation of ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬as the plural of ‫ תֹּם‬is found in most of the dictionaries,19 but
HALOT mentions as a second option that ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬can be regarded as ‘an independ-
ent tantum pl.’.20 DCH refers to the option of translating ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬by ‘acquitted’ (also
derived from the verb ‫)תמם‬, which becomes attractive if ‫אוּרים‬ ִ is translated as ‘ac-
cursed’ (see A.2).21 Part of the earliest translations already express a connection of
‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬with the verb ‫ תמם‬and its derivatives (see Ancient Versions). This connection
is already made explicit in the Talmud, where the question ‫למה נקרא שמן אורים ותומים‬,
‘why is their name called Urim and Thummim?’, is followed by an answer that uses
the verb ‫ שלם‬hiph., ‘to fulfill’, to explain the term Thummim: ‫תומים שמשלימין את‬
‫דבריהן‬, ‘Thummim, because they fulfill their words’ (b. Yoma 73b). An addition
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 5

in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (t psj) Exod 28:30 offers a similar explanation: ‫תומיא‬

‫דמשלימין בעובדיהון לכהנא רבא‬, ‘the Thummim, which bring fulfillment in their affairs
for the high priest’. In the Jerusalem Talmud, the name Thummim is explained with
the verb ‫ תמם‬hiph., ‘to complete, make perfect’: ‫ותומים שהן מתימין לפניהם את הדרך‬
‫שבשעה שהיו ישראל תמימין היו מכוונין להן את הדרך‬, ‘and Thummim, because they make
perfect the road before them; as long as Israel was perfect, they were straightening
the road for them’ (y. Yoma 7, 44c). Although many dictionaries propose to derive
‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬from ‫תמם‬, this derivation remains uncertain (cf. BDB, 1070).
A.6 Werner Dommershausen considered the etymology of ‫אוּרים‬ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬as uncer-
tain: ‘The words “Urim” and “Thummim” cannot be explained etymologically from
the Hebrew vocabulary. Israel took them over from foreign people dwelling in the
land of Canaan, but we do not know the language from which they were taken’
(Dommershausen 1977: 453).
B.1 A connection of ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬with Arabic tamāim, ‘amulets’ (sg: tamīma), was proposed
by Freytag (1830: 199). Initially, Julius Wellhausen approved the proposal (1883:
418-19 n. 1; cf. A.2 above), but later he began to cast doubt on it (Wellhausen 1897:
143-44, 166). More recently, the connection with the Arabic word was rejected quite
emphatically by Van Dam (1997: 96 n. 63).
B.2 There have been several unconvincing proposals to derive ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬from
Akkadian and Egyptian roots (Van Dam 1997: 95-97).

2. Formal Characteristics
A.1 ‫אוּר‬, ‘fire’, is interpreted as a qul form (BL, 452 61r). The related noun ‫אוֹר‬,
‘light’ (plural ‫אוֹרים‬,
ִ see Ps 136:7), may originally be just a variant form of ‫אוּר‬,
‘fire’ (BL, 452 61s), if it is not a qull form, like ‫( תֹּם‬BL, 455 61f’, with reference
to Akkadian urru, ‘day’). Although ‫ ֻא ִרים‬in Isa 24:15 is interpreted as the plural
ִ is the plural of this noun. See Root and
of ‫אוּר‬, ‘fire’, it is uncertain whether ‫אוּרים‬
Comparative Material A.1.
A.2 If ‫אוּרים‬ ִ is a derivative of the verb ‫ארר‬, ‘to accurse’ (see Root and Comparative
Material, A.2), the form may belong to the same category as ‫תמם <( תֹּם‬, plural
ֻ 22
ֻ ‫רבב <( ר ֹב‬, plural *‫ ֻ)ר ִבּים‬and ‫עזז <( עֹז‬, plural *‫)עזִּ ים‬.
‫)תּ ִמּים‬,
A.3 ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬is often interpreted as the plural of ‫תֹּם‬, ‘completion’, ‘perfection (see Root
and Comparative Material A.5). No other occurences of the plural of ‫ תֹּם‬are attested.
‫* <( תֹּם‬tumm) is a qull/qutl form derived from the verb ‫( תמם‬BL, 455 61h’). The
vowel u and the doubling of the mem are preserved before suffixes (‫תּ ִמּי‬, ֻ ‫תּמּוֹ‬,
ֻ ‫תּ ָמּם‬,
ֻ
etc.). Nouns of the qull/qutl type are ‘often used to form abstract forms’.23
6 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

3. Syntagmatics
A.1 In Biblical Hebrew, ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are mostly determinate, with either a
suffixed possessive pronoun (Deut 33:8) or the article (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num
27:21; cf. vocalisation ‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫ ָבּ‬mt 1 Sam 28:6; also 4Q164 fr1:5; 11Q19 lviii:18-21).
The use of the article in Exod 28:30 is quite remarkable, since the ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ֻתּ ִמּים‬
had not been mentioned previously. Also in the additional phrase of sp before Exod
28:30 mt, ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are determinate: ‫ועשית את הארים ואת התמים‬, ‘and you will
make the Urim and the Thummim’. In Neh 7:65 there is no article before ‫תּ ִמּים‬. ֻ mt’s
vocalisation of the preposition preceding ‫אוּרים‬ ִ in Neh 7:65 and ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬in
Ezra 2:63 (‫)ל‬ ְ also implies the absence of the article. In the Mishnah, the article
is omitted before both nouns (m. Yoma 7:5, m. Soṭah 9:12, m. Shevuʿot 2:2). For 1
Sam 14:41, see Introduction A.2.
A.2 ‫אוּרים‬ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are never specified by adjectives. The nouns occur only in the
absolute state.
A.3 ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬occur as nomina recta of ‫מ ְשׁ ָפּט‬, ִ ‘judgment’, ‘decision’, in
Num 27:21 (‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫)וְ ָשׁ ַאל לוֹ ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ָה‬, 11Q19 lviii:18-19 (‫)ושאל לו במשפט האורים והתומים‬,
4Q164 (4QpIsa d) fr1:5 (‫)מאירים כמשפט האורים והתומים‬.
A.4 ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬occur in the nominal clause ‫אוּריָך ְל ִאישׁ ֲח ִס ֶידָך‬ ֻ ‘Your
ֶ ְ‫תּ ֶמּיָך ו‬,
Thummim and Your Urim (belong) to Your faithful one’ (mt Deut 33:8).
A.5
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are the subject of the verb ‫ היה‬qal, ‘to be’, in Exod 28:30.
‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are the direct object of the following verbs:
‫אוּרים‬
• ‫ נתן‬qal, ‘to give’, Exod 28:30, Lev 8:8.
• ‫ עשׂה‬qal, ‘to make’, Exod 28:30 (sp), 39:21 (4QExod-Lev f, sp); cf. Introduction
A.1.
• ‫ יהב‬qal, ‘to give’, 1 Sam 14:41 (source text of lxx? cf. Introduction A.2); Deut
33:8 in 4Q175 (see Exegesis).
A.6 ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are governed by ‫ ְל‬in Ezra 2:63/Neh 7:65. ‫אוּרים‬
ִ is governed by
a ‫ ְבּ‬indicating the instrument in 1 Sam 28:6 (+ ‫ענה‬, ‘to answer’).

4. Ancient Versions
A.1 The nouns ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are rendered as follows in the ancient translations.
a. Septuagint (lxx) and other Greek translations24
‫אוּרים‬
ִ
δήλωσις, ‘act of making clear, explaining’ (sg):25 Exod 28:30 lxx; Lev 8:8 lxx; also 1
Esdras 5:40 lxx (for ‫אוּרים‬
ִ Ezra 2:63/Neh 7:65).
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 7

δῆλος, ‘obvious’ (pl):26 Num 27:21 lxx; Deut 33:8 lxx (order reversed); 1 Sam 28:6 lxx/σʹ.
Cf. Sir 33:3 ἐρώτημα δήλων, ‘inquiry of the clear ones’ (Hebrew lost). Also in 1
Sam 14:41 lxx, δῆλος (pl) may represent ‫;אוּרים‬ ִ see Introduction A.2.
διδαχή, ‘teaching’ (sg):27 Deut 33:8 σʹ
φωτίζω, ‘to illumine, provide light’:28 Ezra 2:63 lxx τοῖς φωτίζουσιν, ‘for the illuminat-
ors’ (ptc act pl); Neh 7:65 lxx (ὁ ἱερεὺς) φωτίσων, ‘(the priest) who will enlighten’
(ptc act fut sg).
φωτισμός, ‘light’ (pl):29 Exod 28:30 αʹσʹθʹ; Lev 8:8 αʹθʹ; Num 27:21 αʹσʹθʹ; 1 Sam 28:6 αʹ
‫ֻתּ ִמּים‬
ἀλήθεια, ‘truth(fulness)’ (sg):30 Exod 28:30 lxx; Lev 8:8 lxx; Deut 33:8 lxx (order re-
versed); also 1 Esdras 5:40 lxx (for ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬Ezra 2:63/Neh 7:65).
ὁσιότης, ‘piety’ (sg):31 1 Sam 14:41 lxx (mt: ‫)ת ִמים‬. ָ
32 lxx
τέλειος, ‘perfect’, ‘impeccable’ (pl): Ezra 2:63
τελειότης, ‘state of being complete and not deficient’:33 Exod 28:30 αʹσʹθʹ (pl); Deut
33:8 σʹ (sg).
τελείωσις, ‘act of executing and completing’ (pl):34 Lev 8:8 αʹθʹ
Untranslated: Neh 7:65.
b. Peshitta (s)
‫אוּרים‬
ִ
(yida ʿtā), ‘knowledge’ (sg):35 Lev 8:8.
(nahhīrā), ‘light’ (sg):36 Exod 28:30.
‫( ܗܪ‬nūhrā), ‘light’ (sg):37 Deut 33:8.
‫( ܪ‬nūrā), ‘fire’ (sg):38 1 Sam 28:6.
(šèlèṯā), ‘request’, ‘inquiry’ (sg):39 Num 27:21.
‫ֻתּ ִמּים‬
(qūštā), ‘truth’ (sg):40 Lev 8:8.
(šalmā), ‘entire’, ‘perfect’, etc. (sg):41 Exod 28:30.
(šūmlāyā), ‘fullness’, ‘perfection’ (sg):42 Deut 33:8.
‫ܬ‬ (šalmūṯā), ‘perfection’ (sg):43 1 Sam 14:41 (cf. lxx).
Paraphrastic in Ezra 7:63; Neh 7:65: ‫ܘ ܠ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ , ‘a high priest who can
ask and can see’.
c. Targumim (t)
‫אוּרים‬ִ
‫אוּריָּ א‬,
ַ pl of ‫אוּרא‬:
ָ t o,psj,n Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; t j 1 Sam 28:6.
‫אוֹריְ ָתה‬,ָ ‘instruction’, ‘Torah’:44 t n Num 27:21 (first hand, later emended).
‫נהיריה‬/‫נאיריה‬/‫נעיריה‬, ‘the luminaries’, pl of ‫נהיר‬/‫נאיר‬/‫נעיר‬:45 t smr Exod 28:30 (2x);
39:21; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21.
‫נוריא‬, ‘the fires’, pl of ‫נור‬, ‘fire’:46 t smr Deut 33:8 (with suffix: ‫)נוריך‬.47
8 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

‫ֻתּ ִמּים‬
‫תּוּמּיָּ א‬,
ַ ָ 48 t o,psj,n Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Deut 33:8.
‘the integrities’, pl of ‫תּוּמּא‬:
‫שלמיה‬, ‘the perfections’, pl of ‫שלם‬:49 t smr Exod 28:30 (2x); 39:21; Lev 8:8; Deut 33:8
(with suffix: ‫)שלמיך‬.
d. Vetus Latina (vl)50 and Vulgate (v)
‫אוּרים‬
ִ
demonstratio, ‘action of pointing out or showing’ (sg):51 Exod 28:30 vl
manifestus, ‘clear’ (pl):52 Deut 33:8 vl (order reversed)
ostensio, ‘showing, exhibiting, manifestation’ (sg):53 Lev 8:8 vl; 3 Esdras 5:40 v (=
1 Esdras 5:40 lxx; for ‫אוּרים‬
ִ Ezra 2:63/Neh 7:65). The word ostensio in 1 Sam
14:41 vl,vmss may also represent ‫;אוּרים‬
ִ see lxx (δῆλος pl).
doctrina, ‘instruction’, ‘teaching’, ‘that which is taught’ (sg):54 Exod 28:30 v; Lev
8:8 v; Deut 33:8 v
doctus, ‘learned’, ‘wise’ (sg):55 Ezra 2:63 v; Neh 7:65 v
sacerdos, ‘priest’ (pl): 1 Sam 28:6 v
Untranslated: Num 27:21 v
‫ֻתּ ִמּים‬
sanctitas, ‘sanctity’, ‘integrity’ (sg):56 1 Sam 14:41 vl,vmss (lxx: ὁσιότητα, mt: ‫)ת ִמים‬.
ָ
57 vl,v vl,v vl
veritas, ‘truth’, ‘reality’, etc. (sg): Exod 28:30 ; Lev 8:8 ; Deut 33:8 (order
reversed); 3 Esdras 5:40 v (for ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬Ezra 2:63/Neh 7:65).
eruditus, ‘learned’, ‘well-instructed’ (sg):58 Neh 7:65 v
perfectio, ‘completion’, ‘perfection’ (sg):59 Deut 33:8 v
perfectus, ‘complete’, ‘perfect’ (sg):60 Ezra 2:63 v
A.2 Some renderings in the older layers of lxx seem to be based on guesses promp-
ted by the context, such as δήλωσις and δῆλος pl as translations of ‫אוּרים‬, ִ but es-
pecially ἀλήθεια as translation of ‫תּ ִמּים‬,
ֻ although these renderings may reflect an
early interpretation of ‫אוּרים‬
ִ as a derivative of ‫ ירה‬hiph., ‘to instruct’ (cf. διδαχή
σʹ
Deut 33:8 and Root and Comparative Material A.3), and of ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬as a derivative
of ‫( אמן‬Houtman 2000: 494). These Greek renderings have influenced later transla-
tions; see especially vl demonstratio, manifestus, ostensio (‫;)אוּרים‬
ִ s , ‘truth’,
vl & v veritas (‫)תּ ִמּים‬.
ֻ Furthermore, the renderings σʹ διδαχή, ‘teaching’, s ,
‘knowledge’, and v doctrina, ‘instruction’, may also have been influenced by lxx’s
translation of ‫אוּרים‬
ִ by δήλωσις and δῆλος pl. Other renderings in s and v may also
have been prompted by the context; e.g., s , ‘request’, ‘inquiry’, v doctus,
eruditus.
A.3 Especially the somewhat more recent translations
√ of ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬reflect an
interpretation of these nouns as derivatives from ‫אור‬, ‘to be(come) light’, and
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 9

√
‫תמם‬, ‘to be complete’, respectively (cf. Root and Comparative Material). For
ִ see lxx φωτίζω, αʹσʹθʹ φωτισμός, s
‫אוּרים‬, , ‫ ܗܪ‬, ‫ ܪ‬, t smr ‫נהריה‬/‫נאיריה‬/‫נעיריה‬,
‫נוריא‬. For ‫תּ ִמּים‬,
ֻ see lxx τέλειος, αʹσʹθʹ τελειότης, τελείωσις, s , , ‫ܬ‬ ,
t smr ‫שלמיה‬, v perfectio, perfectus.
A.4 In v 1 Sam 28:6, the rendering of ‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫ גַּ ם ָבּ‬by neque per sacerdotes, ‘nor
by priests’, harmonises the expression with the following ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫גַּ ם ַבּנְּ ִב‬, ‘nor by the
prophets’, rendered in v as neque per prophetas. The free translation of ‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫גַּ ם ָבּ‬
took the connection of the Urim with the priesthood elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible
into account.
A.5 In Ezra 2:63 and Neh 7:65, the ‫אוּרים‬ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are often translated in such a way
that the reference to the priestly oracle is replaced by a description of the priest’s
qualities. lxx Neh 7:65: ὁ ἱερεὺς φωτίσων, ‘the priest who will enlighten’. s:
‫ܘ ܠ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬, ‘a high priest who can ask and can see’. v Ezra 2:63: sacerdos
doctus atque perfectus, ‘a learned and perfect priest’. v Neh 7:65: sacerdos doctus et
eruditus, ‘a learned and well-instructed priest’.

5. Lexical/Semantic Fields
The Urim and the Thummim belong to the semantic field of ‘divination’. [ Discussion
will be added later. ]

6. Exegesis
6.1 Biblical Evidence
A.1 In Exod 28:30, Moses receives the instruction to put (‫ )נתן‬the Urim and the
Thummim (‫אוּרים וְ ֶאת ַה ֻתּ ִמּים‬ ִ ‫)את ָה‬ ֶ into the ‘breastpiece of decision’ (‫)ח ֶֹשׁן ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט‬. This
indicates that the Urim and the Thummim were supposed to be tangible objects.
The instruction with regard to the making of the ‫ח ֶֹשׁן‬, ‘breastpiece’, had been given
in 28:4, 25-29, where ‫ ח ֶֹשׁן‬already occurs twice as the nomen regens of ‫( ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬28:15:
‫ ;ח ֶֹשׁן ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬28:29: ‫)ח ֶֹשׁן ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט‬. The ‫ ח ֶֹשׁן‬is described as a square pouch: ‫זֶ ֶרת ָא ְרכּוֹ וְ זֶ ֶרת‬
‫ר ְחבּוֹ‬,ָ ‘a span its length and a span its width’ (28:16). Since a ‫זֶ ֶרת‬, ‘span’, is at most
25 cm, the Urim and Thummim are supposed to have been quite small. Remarkably,
mt does not indicate that the Urim and Thummim had to be made. The impression
that they existed already is strengthened by the use of the article: ‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫ ָה‬and ‫ַה ֻתּ ִמּים‬
(contrast 28:4: ‫ח ֶֹשׁן‬, ‘breastpiece’, ‫אפֹד‬, ֵ ‘ephod’, etc.). The instruction to make
the Urim and Thummim in sp is clearly secondary (Introduction A.1). Since the
breastpiece had to be attached over the ‫אפֹד‬, ֵ ‘ephod’, the Urim and Thummim would
be on the heart of Aaron (‫על ֵלב ַא ֲהר ֹן‬, ַ 28:30). The end of 28:30 indicates a strong
10 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

relationship between the Urim and Thummim and ‫מ ְשׁ ָפּט‬, ִ ‘decision’, ‘judgment’: The
presence of the Urim and Thummim on Aaron’s heart when he will come before
Yhwh (‫)ל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬
ִ implies that ‘Aaron will carry (‫ )נשׂא‬the ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬of the Israelites on
his heart (‫)על ִלבּוֹ‬ ַ before Yhwh (‫’)ל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬.
ִ The instruction is carried out in Lev
8:8: As Aaron is consecrated to be priest of Yhwh, Moses clothes him (‫)שׂים ָע ָליו‬
with the breastpiece (‫)הח ֶֹשׁן‬ ַ and puts (‫ )נתן‬the Urim and the Thummim into the
breastpiece. The repetition of the object marker ‫ את‬in the expression ‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫ֶאת ָה‬
‫( וְ ֶאת ַה ֻתּ ִמּים‬Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8) seems to indicate that the words ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫ֻתּ ִמּים‬
designate two different objects or two distinct groups of objects. See also the plural
form ‫וְ ָהיוּ‬, ‘and they will be’, which follows in Exod 28:30.
A.2 Num 27:15-23 recounts the appointment of Joshua as Moses’ successor. Ac-
cording to Num 27:21, God tells Moses that in the future Joshua must stand before
Eleazar the priest, who is Aaron’s son and successor. On behalf of him (apparently
Joshua), he (apparently Eleazar) shall consult the judgment of the Urim (‫וְ ָשׁ ַאל לוֹ‬
‫אוּרים‬ִ ‫)בּ ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ָה‬ְ before Yhwh (‫)ל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬. ִ It is the judgment of the Urim that in-
dicates what the Israelites, under the leadership Joshua, must do (27:21b): ‫ַעל ִפּיו‬
‫יֵ ְצאוּ וְ ַעל ִפּיו יָ בֹאוּ הוּא וְ ָכל ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִאתּוֹ וְ ָכל ָה ֵע ָדה‬, ‘at its word they shall go out, and
at its word they shall come in, he, and all the children of Israel with him, all the
congregation’. The suffix ‫ו‬- at the end of the expression ‫ ַעל ִפּיו‬probably refers back to
‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫מ ְשׁ ַפּט ָה‬,ִ ‘judgment of the Urim’; cf. ‫גּוֹרל‬ ַ ‘according to the lot’, in Num
ָ ‫על ִפּי ַה‬,
26:56; ‫על פי המשפט‬, ‘according to the judgment’ in 11Q19 lviii:21. In Num 27:21,
the Urim may be mentioned as a pars pro toto for the Urim and the Thummim (cf.
11Q19 lviii:18-21). The decisions of the Urim may concern Joshua’s leadership in
general (see 27:16-17), but according to many scholars they relate, more specifically,
to warfare; cf. ‫יצא‬//‫ בוא‬in 27:21b and in Josh 14:11; 1 Sam 18:13, 16; 29:6.
A.3 In Deut 33:8 Moses blesses Levi, the tribe of priests. According to mt he
addresses God as follows: ‫אוּריָך ְל ִאישׁ ֲח ִס ֶידָך‬ ְ ‘And about Levi he said:
ֶ ְ‫וּל ֵלוִ י ָא ַמר ֻתּ ֶמּיָך ו‬,
“Your Thummim and Your Urim (belong) to Your faithful one”.’ It is significant that
the Thummim and Urim are described as originating with God: ‘Your Thummim
and Your Urim’. The exceptionality of the order with the Thummim mentioned
before the Urim seems to have induced lxx to represent ‫אוּרים‬ ִ (δήλους) before ‫ֻתּ ִמּים‬
(ἀλήθειαν); see Ancient Versions. The text of the quotation in 4Q175 (4QTest) is
more extensive than the text of mt: ‫וללוי אמר הבו ללוי תמיך ואורך לאיש חסידך‬, ‘And
about Levi he said: “Give to Levi your Thummim, and your Urim to your loyal
one”.’
A.4 For 1 Sam 14:41, see Introduction A.2.
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 11

A.5 When Saul sees the Philistine army approaching, he consults Yhwh (1 Sam
28:6, ‫)שׁאל ביהוה‬, but Yhwh does not answer him (‫)וְ לֹא ָענָ הוּ יְ הוָ ה‬, neither through
dreams (‫)גַּ ם ַבּ ֲחֹלמוֹת‬, nor through the Urim (‫אוּרים‬
ִ ‫)גַּ ם ָבּ‬, nor through the prophets (‫גַּ ם‬
‫יאם‬ ַ As in Num 27:21, the Urim may be mentioned as a pars pro toto for the
ִ ‫)בּנְּ ִב‬.
Urim and the Thummim.
A.6 According to Ezra 2:63 and Neh 7:65, the governor said to the descendants of
priestly families who were unable to produce their genealogical register that they
should not eat (‫ )אכל‬of the most holy things (‫)מקּ ֶֹדשׁ ַה ֳקּ ָד ִשׁים‬ ִ until a priest (‫כּ ֵֹהן‬,
Neh 7:65: ‫)הכּ ֵֹהן‬ ַ would arise (‫‘ )עמד‬for the Urim and Thummim’ (Ezra 2:63: ‫אוּרים‬ ִ ‫ְל‬
ְ Neh 7:65: ‫תוּמּים‬
‫;וּל ֻת ִמּים‬ ִ ְ‫אוּרים ו‬ ְ The omission of the preposition ‫ ְל‬before ‫תּוּמּים‬
ִ ‫)ל‬. ִ in
Neh 7:65 implies a strong relationship between ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫תּוּמּים‬, ִ but does not imply
that the combination ‫אוּרים‬ ִ and ‫תּוּמּים‬
ִ refers to a single object; cf. 2 Chron 9:22 (‫ְלע ֶֹשׁר‬
‫וְ ָח ְכ ָמה‬, ‘for wealth and wisdom’; cf. 1 Kgs 10:23: ‫וּל ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ְ 2 Chron 16:11 (‫יהוּדה‬
ְ ‫;)לע ֶֹשׁר‬ ָ ‫ִל‬
‫וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, ‘for Judah and Israel’); Ezra 1:5 (‫יָמן‬
ִ ְ‫וּבנ‬
ִ ‫יהוּדה‬
ָ ‫ל‬, ִ ‘for Judah and Benjamin’).
A.7 Many exegetes (e.g., Milgrom 1991: 509-10; Van Dam 1997: 182-90; Houtman
1990: 230; 2000: 496; also HALOT, 1372) suppose that in some texts the expression
‫באלהים‬/‫שׁאל ביהוה‬, ‘to inquire of God/Yhwh’, implies a role for the Urim and the
Thummim, also if they are not mentioned explicitly. In addition to 1 Sam 28:6 (see
A.5), the expression occurs in Judg 1:1; 18:5; 20:18, 23, 27; 1 Sam 10:22; 14:37;
22:10, 13, 15; 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23; 1 Chron 14:10, 14. One of the
passages – 1 Sam 30:7-8 – refers to the use of an ‫אפֹד‬,
ֵ ‘ephod’, brought by the priest
Abiathar, in the divination procedure. This may be significant in view of the notion
that Aaron’s breastpiece (‫ )ח ֶֹשׁן‬with the Urim and the Thummim was attached to his
ֵ ‘ephod’ (Exod 28:15-30; see A.1). It is indeed possible that the reference to the
‫אפֹד‬,
ephod in 1 Sam 30:7-8 implies a role for the Urim and the Thummim, although this
ephod may be not be similar to the ephod described in Exodus 28 (cf. 1 Sam 21:10).
From a methodological point of view, it is questionable whether the function of the
Urim and the Thummim can be described on the basis of texts in which they are
not mentioned explicitly. It may be significant that 1 Sam 23:6-12, where the ephod
brought by Abiathar has a similar role, is preceded by a passage in which David was
able to consult Yhwh (‫שׁאל ביהוה‬, 23:2, 4), although apparently the ephod was not
yet present. Furthermore, 1 Sam 28:6 mentions the Urim explicitly in connection
with the expression ‫( שׁאל ביהוה‬see A.5), but the text refers to dreams and prophets
as alternative channels of divination. This evidence suggests that it was possible to
inquire of God either with or without the Urim and the Thummim, and either with
or without the ephod, and either with or without a role for the priests.
12 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

6.2 Non-Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls

A.1 The Urim and Thummim are attested in at least two non-biblical texts from
Qumran. Fragment 1 of 4Q164 (4QpIsa d) preserves part of a pesher on Isa 54:11-12,
a passage in which several kinds of gems are mentioned:
4Q164 (4QpIsa d) fr1:5 …]‫מאירים כמשפט האורים והתומים‬
‘those who give light according to the judgment of the Urim and the Thummim’
√
This phrase may reflect the interpretation of ‫אוּרים‬
ִ as a derivative of ‫אור‬, ‘to
be(come) light’; see Root and Comparative Material.
A.2 The section of the Temple Scroll (11Q19 = 11QTemple a) designated as the Law
of the King (lvi:12-lix:21) dates from the second half of the 2nd century bce. It
is based on Deut 17:14-20 and other biblical passages. It prescribes the use of the
Urim and Thummim when the king prepares for war (lviii:15-16: ‫ואם יצא למלחמה‬
‫על אויביו‬, ‘and if he goes out to war against his enemies’) in a section that draws on
Num 27:21, a biblical verse that does not yet explicitly relate to warfare:
11Q19 lviii:18-21 ‫ולוא יצא עד יבוא לפני הכוהן הגדול ושאל לו במשפט האורים‬ 18
‫והתומים על פיהו יצא ועל פיהו יבוא הוא וכול בני ישראל אשר‬ 19
‫אתו לוא יצא מעצת לבו עד אשר ישאל במשפט האורים‬ 20
‫והתומים והצליח בכול דרכיו אשר יצא על פי המשפט אשר‬ 21
(continuation at top of column lix missing)
18 And he shall not go out until he comes before the high priest and asks him
for the judgment of the Urim 19 and the Thummim. Upon his testimony he
shall go out (to war) and upon his testimony he shall come in (from war),
he and all the sons of Israel who 20 are with him. He shall not go out (into
war) according to the counsel of his heart until he asks for the judgment of
the Urim 21 and the Thummim. Then he shall prosper in al his ways when
he goes forth according to the judgment which …
(translation: DSS 7, 151)

6.3 Ancient Near Eastern Parallels

During the past decades, the biblical Urim and Thummim have been compared
with objects that played a role in Mesopotamian (A.1; cf. A.2) and Hittite (A.3)
divination rituals.
A.1 The most usual form of divination in Mesopotamia was extispicy, the meticu-
lous inspection of the entrails of a sacrificial animal (see, e.g., Starr 1990), but the
7th-century Assyrian text of the tablet LKA 137 (Ebeling 1953: 186-87) seems to at-
tests the practice of psephomancy, divination with the help of pebbles that could be
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 13

performed rather quickly. The colophon at the bottom of the reverse side indicates
that the text was copied from an older source text (Akkadian colophon text: Arbøll
2020: 313). Unfortunately, several lines of the text are quite damaged, especially
on the reverse side, but it is beyond doubt that the text concerns divination with
the help of stones with different colours. Edward Lipiński (1970) already argued
that LKA 137 ‘confirms the opinion that the ʾūrīm and tummīm of the Bible were
originally two stones and gave a “yes” or “no” answer’ (1970: 496). Wayne Horowitz
and Victor Hurowitz (1992) translated the Assyrian text and discerned many par-
allels between LKA 137 and the biblical references to the Urim and Thummim, but
their interpretation was heavily criticised by Irving Finkel (1995), who offered a new
translation of the Assyrian text and concluded ‘that LKA 137 can have nothing to
do with either Urim or Thummim’ (1995: 276). Hurowitz adopted part of Finkel’s
interpretations and published a new translation of the text including the colophon
in COS I (1.127, 444-45).
LKA 137 begins with an invocation of the sun god Šamaš (obv. lines 1-28), which
includes the wish that this deity will reveal his bīru, ‘inspection’, and that the
Babylonian god Bel/Marduk will reveal his dīnu, ‘decision’ (cf. BHeb. ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬in Exod
28:15, 29, 30; Num 27:21; Prov 16:33). Furthermore, this section stipulates that
seven deities – apparently either their symbols or their names – must be drawn on the
ground: Sin, Šamaš, Adad, Marduk, Urašgubba, Dagan and Nabium/Nabu (lines 16-
18). Thereafter, the speaker indicates that he has finished the drawing and that he
lifts up one or more stones (line 19: anašši n[a 4.meš]). The following section, which
concerns a favourable decision, includes the phrase ‘let a stone-of-desire jump up’
(line 23: na 4 erēši lišḫiṭamma), while the final section of the invocation concerns an
unfavourable decision and includes the phrase ‘let a stone-of-no-desire jump up’ (line
27: na 4 lā erēši lišḫiṭamma). Line 28 indicates that the procedure must be repeated
up to three times: ‘Twice for a decision (dīnu), thrice for a verdict (eš.[bar] =
purussû).’ The front of the tablet ends with a short rubric (line 29): ‘Incantation for
a verdict (eš.bar/purussû) through alabaster and hematite.’ The stones mentioned
in this rubric were probably selected because of their different colours: the colour
of alabaster is close to white, while the colour of hematite is usually close to black,
although it may range to brown and red (cf. Horowitz & Hurowitz 1992: 102, 107;
Finkel 1995: 274; Lambert 2007: 19). The damaged top of the reverse side of the
tablet probably refers once again to the drawing of the seven gods on the ground
and mentions white stones (na 4 babbar.meš) and black stones ([na 4] gi 6.meš).
What follows is a diagram comprising seven fields, each with the name of one of the
seven gods mentioned on the obverse side, although some of these names have not
been preserved entirely or have not survived at all due to the damage. The diagram
is assumed to indicate how the drawing on the ground must be performed.
14 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

Horowitz and Hurowitz (1992: 109-10) pointed to a correspondence between LKA

137 and the text of 1 Sam 14:41 in lxx: LKA 137 demands that a ‘stone-of-desire’
may jump up in the case of a favourable decision and that a ‘stone-of-no-desire’ may
jump up in the case of an unfavourable decision (obv. 20-27). The Greek text of
1 Sam 14:41 demands δῆλοι, ‘clear ones’, in the case of one of the two alternatives,
and ὁσιότης, ‘holiness’, in the case of the other (see Introduction A.2). Horowitz
and Hurowitz connected the presumably alabaster ‘stone-of-desire’ with the Urim
and the presumably hematite ‘stone-of-no-desire’ with the Thummim, arguing that
alabaster – just like the Urim – expressed the notion of ‘shining’, while they suggested
that hematite was associated with ‘truth’ – just like the Thummim (1992: 111-13).
They made the following concluding observation (1992: 114):

If our analysis of LKA 137 and Urim and Thummim is accurate, we may
cautiously come to the conclusion that the Urim and Thummim of ancient
Israel, even if not entirely identical to the psephomancy stones described in
LKA 137 are highly similar and perhaps somehow related.

In LKA 137 the speaker refers to the purity of ‘the hem of my garment’ (túg.síg-
ia; obv. lines 14-15). Horowitz and Hurowitz suggested that this hem ‘serves as
a container in which the divinatory stones are housed or out of which they are
drawn’ (1992: 103) and that the biblical ‫( ח ֶֹשׁן ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט‬Exod 28) and ‫( ֵחיק‬Prov 16:33)
had the same function as this hem (1992: 103, 109). According to Finkel, this
suggestion is quite dubious. He argued that the drawing on the ground played a
more significant role than Horowitz and Hurowitz assumed (1995: 274-75): Stones
with different colours were probably thrown on the drawing and the oracular decision
was presumably derived from the positions where the stones came to rest (Finkel
1995: 275-76; similarly Steinert 2018: 258). Apparently, the stones were cast up to
three times, with the result regarded as valid if each of the three attempts had the
same outcome, whereas the procedure was regarded as inconclusive if the outcomes
differed from each other (Finkel 1995: 276; cf. Horowitz & Hurowitz 1992: 105, 108).
It is unclear how precisely the oracular decision was derived from the distribution
of the stones over the drawing on the ground, but it stands to reason that bright
stones indicated a favourable answer and that dark stones indicated an unfavourable
answer (Finkel 1995: 276; Lambert 2007: 20). Despite Finkel’s criticism of the
interpretation of LKA 137 by Horowitz and Hurowitz, he still designates the diviner
to which this text refers as ‘psephomancer’ (1995: 275-76), which implies that there
remain some relevant correspondences between this text and the biblical descriptions
of the Urim and Thummim. Both LKA 137 and the biblical Urim and Thummim
texts refer to divination rituals in which small objects played a decisive role.
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 15

A.2 A Late Babylonian tamītu text from Nippur (CBS 12578) describes divination
through the use of two balls of wool. The Babylonian tamītu texts concern oracular
consultation of the sun god Šamaš and the storm god Adad, who are addressed
as dšamaš bēl dīnim, ‘Šamaš, lord of dīnu’, and dadad bēl bīri, ‘Adad, lord of bīru’
(Lambert 2007). As in LKA 137 (above A.1), dīnu here designates the divine decision
transmitted by the oracle, while bīru, ‘inspection’, denotes extispicy, the inspection
of the entrails of an animal (Lambert 2007: 5). In CBS 12578 Šamaš and Adad are
asked to reveal whether a sick person will recover. The following passage discloses
part of the procedure (lines 9-12):
‘The ball of white wool (piqqanni šīpāti peṣâti) in front of the ball of red
wool (piqqanni nabāsi) from salt water which I have placed before your great
divinity, [may they] be noted so that I may witness your reliable decision.’61

According to Lambert (2007: 19-20), the colour symbolism is comparable to that

of LKA 137 (above A.1), with the white ball representing a positive answer to the
diviner’s question and the red ball representing a negative answer:
The diviners regularly ask for a “yes” answer, so the sequence of the balls,
white before red, was a visual hint. Perhaps the two balls were then put in
a bag or other container, where shaken up, and somehow one came out first
and its colour provided the answer.62

A.3 Anne Marie Kitz (1997) argued that the Hittite KIN oracles are important for
the interpretation of the Urim and Thummim. However, her interpretation of the
Hittite texts is somewhat outdated in view of the more recent analyses. Several
scholarly studies describe the basic structure of the KIN oracles (e.g., Orlamünde
2001; Marcuson 2016: 100-75; Warbinek 2019b: 137-39). In Hittite literature dated
between the late 14th and late 13th centuries, the KIN (literally: ‘work’) is con-
sidered to be one of the means through which the gods revealed their will. Many
KIN oracles concern a decision that the questioner had to take, for instance the king
in the case of warfare. After the question, which is so phrased that the answer can be
either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, the text expresses the wish for either a positive answer (‘Let the
KIN be favourable’), or a negative answer (‘Let the KIN be unfavourable’). The fol-
lowing section relates to the ritual itself, performed by an ‘Old Woman’. In general,
the ritual led to a clear answer, either ‘favourable’, or ‘unfavourable’. According to
the texts, the standard ritual implied that a symbol ‘took’ other symbols and ‘gave’
them to yet another symbol, or put them into the latter symbol or at a specific
position near it. Apparently, certain combinations of symbols were interpreted as
‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable’, with some of the individual symbols having either
16 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

a positive or a negative connotation. As the outcome of the ritual was often not
immediately clear, the procedure was usually repeated once or twice. The following
example of a standard oracular report concerns the king’s plan to wage war. The
king hopes that the ritual will affirm his plan and he receives a positive response
(KUB 5.1 ii:60-65):
..... Let (the oracle) be favorable. ‘Ḫannaḫanna’ arose and took ‘well-being’,
‘the good of the land’ and ‘ZABABA’. They are placed to the right of ‘the
Hittites’. Second: ‘The Hittites’ took for themselves ‘rightness’, ‘power’ and
strength’, ‘the royal campaign’ and ‘well-being’. To ‘the gods’. Third: ‘The
enemy’ took for himself ‘battle’, and ‘the whole soul’. They were given back
to ‘the enemy’. Favorable.63

Only in a small number of reports, no outcome of the procedure is mentioned, even

though the ritual was performed three times. Some of the sections describing such
an unresolved oracular quest end in an extensive unwritten space, perhaps to make a
later addition of the outcome possible (Orlamünde 2001: 301 n. 42; Warbinek 2019b:
143-47). Unfortunately, we can no longer retrieve how the ritual was performed. In
a thorough study of one of the KIN texts (KUB 5.1 + 52.65), Julia Orlamünde
hints at the possibility that a kind of pawns with symbolic values provided the
crucial information while moving over an oracular gameboard. She argues that
cup-marked stones and rocks excavated in the Hittite capital Hattuša, especially in
cultic areas, may have functioned as such KIN boards, casting doubt on the older
assumption that the function of the artificial cavities was to contain food and libation
offerings (Orlamünde 2001: 310-11). According to Livio Warbinek (2019a: 162-
63), Orlamünde’s hypothesis is supported by other ancient Mediterranean evidence,
including the biblical Urim and Thummim. Further, Warbinek (2019a) points out
that the KIN procedure was easily performed, which was a significant advantage
when the questioner was in haste. The other Hittite divination methods, such
as augury (interpretation of the behaviour of birds) and extispicy (interpretation
of animal entrails), took more time and were usually more expensive (see already
Orlamünde 2001: 311).

6.4 Archaeology
A.1 Excavations in the southern Levant (Megiddo, Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath, Tel Abel Beth
Maacah, etc.) have uncovered some large hoards of astragali, worked bones of mainly
sheep and goats, which date from Late Bronze Age or Iron Age contexts. Most of
the astragali show traces of artificial abrasion, which has made them more cube
shaped and allows them to be used as dice. Many of them have drill holes, some of
which have been filled with metal to make them heavier. Most of the hoards have
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 17

been found in cultic contexts, sometimes in an open or closed vessel. The conclusion
was drawn that such astragali were cast or drawn in the context of divination rituals
(Susnow et al. 2021).
A.2 For the possibility that that cup-marked stones and rocks excavated in the
Hittite capital Hattuša functioned as oracular gameboards, see Ancient Near Eastern
Parallels A.3.

6.5 Plural Forms

A.1 The plural forms ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬have been explained in different ways (cf. Kitz
1997: 401-02):
1. ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are true plurals, with each of these terms referring to more
than one object (e.g., Noort 1977, 93-94; also Robertson 1964: 22 objects,
each with a letter of the alphabet).
2. Originally, ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are singulars with mimation that were later erro-
neously interpreted and vocalised as plurals (Jirku 1953; for mimation, see
Waltke & O’Connor, IBHS, § 9.8). Several scholars assume that each of the
terms ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬designates a single object, namely either a white or a
black stone (e.g., Lipiński 1970; Dommershausen 1977: 453). Note that the
ancient versions have both singular and plural renderings of ‫אוּרים‬ִ as well as
‫תּ ִמּים‬.
ֻ
3. ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are plurales intensivi and together constitute a hendiadys desig-
nating a single object, possibly a gem (Van Dam 1997: 161, 224, 230; Houtman
1990: 230; 2000: 496 with n. 343).
4. According to Anne Marie Kitz (1997), ‫אוּרים‬ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬are real plurals, with the
plural forms not primarily indicating multiple objects, but rather the repetition
of the casting of the objects, as we know it from the Assyrian text LKA 137
and the Hittite KIN oracles (see Ancient Near Eastern Parallels A.1 and A.3).

A.2 In view of the evidence described earlier, the interpretation of ‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬
ִ as
a hendiadys (option 3) seems to be less convincing. The plural form ‫ וְ ָהיוּ‬in Exod
28:30 and the repetition of the object marker ‫ את‬before ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬in Exod 28:30 and Lev
8:8 seem to indicate that the words ‫אוּרים‬
ִ and ‫ ֻתּ ִמּים‬designate two different objects
or two distinct groups of objects (see Biblical Evidence, A.1). Although this is not
decisive, the text of 1 Sam 14:41 in LXX also suggests that the terms Urim and
Thummim refer to two different objects or two groups of objects (Introduction A.2).
Furthermore, it is harder to imagine that the outcome of the oracular quest remained
unclear (see 1 Sam 28:6) if a single object was involved, while it is understandable
18 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

that the use of more objects could produce an inconclusive result; cf. Ancient Near
Eastern Parallels A.3. If only two objects were involved, the outcome of the proced-
ure could be unclear if the ritual was repeated and the consecutive results differed
from each other; cf. Ancient Near Eastern Parallels A.1.

7. Conclusions
A.1 The etymology of the words ‫אוּרים‬,
ִ ‘Urim’, and ‫תּ ִמּים‬,
ֻ ‘Thummim’, is uncertain.
Although the Hebrew Bible includes several references to the Urim and Thummim,
their physical nature – including their number, shape and colours – also remains
unknown. The manner in which they were operated can neither be retrieved with
any precision.
A.2 The Urim and Thummim must have been two or more small objects that played
a crucial role in a legitimate oracular procedure that aimed at determining the will
of God. The objects were entrusted to the high priest, who carried them in a square
pouch (‫)ח ֶֹשׁן‬. The high priest drew or cast the Urim and Thummim at least once
when the king or another important figure wanted to know the will of God.
A.3 In view of the extra-biblical material, part of which came to light only recently,
it seems legitimate to conceive the Urim and the Thummim as differently shaped or
differently coloured stones or astragali.
A.4 Biblical evidence (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65) and post-biblical evidence (4Q164;
11Q19) indicates that even in a relatively late period divination with the Urim and
the Thummim was not regarded as obsolete and that the Urim and the Thummim
were still held in high esteem.

Notes

1 ↑ Cf. DCH VIII (‫שׂ‬-‫)ת‬, 644 (sub d); HALOT, 1750 (sub D).
2 ↑ Barthélemy, CTAT 1: 186-87; cf. Toeg 1969: 493-94.
3 ↑ Toeg 1969; Noort 1971; Tov, TCHB 3, 224; Dietrich 2015: 61, 65-66, 99-100; Hendel 2016: 264.
4 ↑ Van Dam 1997: 197-203; Tsumura 2007: 377-79.
5 ↑ Cf. HALOT, 1750 (sub D).
6 ↑ Sukenik 1955, Plates 38 and 52 (iv:6, 23; xviii:29).
7 ↑ Sukenik 1950: 43: ‘‫’לדעתי הוא יחיד של אורים ותומים‬.
8 ↑ DCH I (‫)א‬, 164 s.v. ‫ ;אוֹר‬DCH VIII (‫שׂ‬-‫)ת‬, 644; DCHR I (‫)א‬, 215 s.v. ‫אוּרים‬ִ and *‫אוֹרתּוֹם‬.
ְ The
form ‫ אורתום‬is also attested in 4Q403 (4QShirShabb d) fr1.ii:1. In DJD XI, this occurrence is
translated as ‘perfect light’ (279, 281, with discussion at 283).
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 19

9 ↑ DJD XL, 157-58, 160-61, 261; Schuller & Newsom 2012: 38-41, 64-65. See also DCHR I (‫)א‬,
215 s.v. *‫אוֹר ַתיִ ם‬
ָ (n.f.du.): ‘early light, dawn, the time between the first light of day and the
time of sunrise’; cf. DCH I (‫)א‬, 164 s.v. ‫אוֹרה‬. ָ The recent reconstructions of 1QHod a differ
considerably from Sukenik’s edition. The lines with the three occurrences of ‫ אורתים‬are now
labelled as xii:7, 24; xxi:15. For an extensive survey of earlier interpretations, see DJD XL,
160-61.
10 ↑ See BDB, 1070 s.v. ‫ תֹּם‬4. For Hos 4:5, cf. also BHK 3.
11 ↑ See HWAT, 855 s.v. ‫תּ ִמּים‬.
ֻ
12 ↑ See DCH II (‫ב‬-‫)ו‬, 337 s.v. ‫גּוֹרל‬.
ָ
13 ↑ See BHS, HALOT, 1751 s.v. ‫תמך‬, DCH VIII (‫שׂ‬-‫)ת‬, 645 s.v. ‫תמך‬.
14 ↑ HWAT, 18, treats ‫אוּרים‬ ִ as the plural of ‫אוּר‬, ‘fire’. Ges 18, 27, regards the interpretation as ‫אוֹר‬,
‘light’ (sing, with ending ‫ –ם‬due to mimation) as likely.
15 ↑ DCHR I (‫ )א‬204, 206, s.v. ‫ אור‬i.
16 ↑ GB, 19; KBL, 23, 90 s.v. ‫ ;ארר‬HALOT, 25; DCH I (‫)א‬, 165 s.v. ‫אוּרים‬,
ִ 398 s.v. ‫ארר‬.
17 ↑ DCH VIII (‫שׂ‬-‫)ת‬, 644 s.v. ‫תּ ִמּים‬.
ֻ
18 ↑ KBL, 23, 84 s.v. ‫ ארה‬ii.
19 ↑ BDB, 1070; GB, 880; KBL, 1032; Ges 18, 1442.
20 ↑ HALOT, 1750-51.
21 ↑ DCH VIII (‫שׂ‬-‫)ת‬, 644-45.
22 ↑ See BL, 455 61h’. Cf. the forms ‫עזִּ י‬, ֻ etc.
ֻ ‫עזֵּ ְך‬,
23 ↑ Joüon-Muraoka, GBH, 241, § 88 B i. Cf. BL, 455 61h’.
24 ↑ For αʹσʹθʹ, see Field i, 133, 181, 259, 325, 537; Van Dam 1997: 84.
25 ↑ GELS, 147.
26 ↑ GELS, 146.
27 ↑ GELS, 164.
28 ↑ GELS, 726.
29 ↑ GELS, 726.
30 ↑ GELS, 25.
31 ↑ GELS, 508-09.
32 ↑ GELS, 674.
33 ↑ GELS, 674.
34 ↑ GELS, 674.
35 ↑ Payne Smith, CSD, 188; Sokoloff, SLB, 564
36 ↑ Payne Smith, CSD, 329; Sokoloff, SLB, 893.
37 ↑ Payne Smith, CSD, 330; Sokoloff, SLB, 896.
38 ↑ Payne Smith, CSD, 334; Sokoloff, SLB, 904.
39 ↑ Cf. Payne Smith, CSD, 554; Sokoloff, SLB, 1497-98.
40 ↑ Payne Smith, CSD, 499; Sokoloff, SLB, 1346.
41 ↑ Payne Smith, CSD, 582; Sokoloff, SLB, 1568.
20 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

42 ↑ Payne Smith, CSD, 566; Sokoloff, SLB, 1529.

43 ↑ Sokoloff, SLB, 1568.
44 ↑ Jastrow, 34.
45 ↑ Tal, DSA, 506.
46 ↑ Tal, DSA, 512.
47 ↑ According to Van Dam (1997: 88 n. 24), one manuscript reads ‫נהיריך‬, ‘your luminaries’.
48 ↑ Jastrow, 1653-54; Dalman, ANHT, 444; both with reference to 2 Sam 15:11.
49 ↑ Cf. Tal, DSA, 903-04.
50 ↑ For Vetus Latina and other Latin translations deviating from v, see Van Dam 1997: 89-91.
51 ↑ OLD, 513; similarly Lewis & Short, LD, 543.
52 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 1108; OLD, 1073.
53 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 1283; cf. OLD, 1275: ‘The action of exposing to view’.
54 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 605; OLD, 568.
55 ↑ OLD, 568.
56 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 1626; OLD, 1686.
57 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 1974; OLD, 2037.
58 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 658; OLD, 619.
59 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 1340; OLD, 1337.
60 ↑ Lewis & Short, LD, 1340; OLD, 1337.
61 ↑ Lambert 2007: 100-01. For the interpretation of piq(q)annu as ‘pellet’ or ‘small ball’ and the
possibility that the salt water played a role in the dyeing process, see Lambert 2007: 154.
62 ↑ Lambert 2007: 19.
63 ↑ We quote from the translation of KUB 5.1 by Beal (1999: 48). His translation of some other
Hittite KIN texts was published in CoS, Vol. 1: 207-11.

Bibliography
For the abbreviations applied → List of Abbreviations

Arbøll 2020
Troels Pank Arbøll, Medicine in Ancient Assur: A Microhistorical Study of the
Neo-Assyrian Healer Kiṣir-Aššur (AMD 18), Leiden: Brill.
Beal 1999
Richard H. Beal, ‘Seeking Divine Approval for Campaign Strategy: KUB 5.1
+ KUB 52.65’, in: Ktema: Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome
antiques 24, Strasbourg, 41–54.
Dietrich 2015
Walter Dietrich, 1 Samuel 13-26 (BKAT, 8/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 21

Dommershausen 1977
Werner Dommershausen, ‘‫’גּוֹרל‬,ָ gôrāl’, TDOT, Revised Edition, vol. II, 450-56.
DSS 7
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Transla-
tions, Vol 7: Temple Scroll and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth
et al.), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
Duhm 1926
Hans Duhm, Der Verkehr Gottes mit den Menschen im Alten Testament, Tübin-
gen: Mohr
Dupont-Sommer 1952
André Dupont-Sommer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ebeling 1953
Erich Ebeling, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Finkel 1995
Irving L. Finkel, ‘In Black and White: Remarks on the Assur Psephomancy
Ritual’, ZA 85: 271-76.
Freytag 1830
Georg Wilhelm Freytag, Lexicon arabico-latinum, vol. I, Halle: Schwetschke.
Grimme 1901
Hubert Grimme, ‘‫ אראל‬und Stammverwandtes’, OLZ 4: 43-45.
Hendel 2016
Ronald Hendel, Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (TCSt 10), Atlanta,
ga: SBL.
Horowitz & Hurowitz 1992
Wayne Horowitz and Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz, ‘Urim and Thummim in Light
of a Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137)’, JANES 21: 95-115.
Houtman 1990
Cornelis Houtman, ‘The Urim and Thummim: A New Suggestion’, VT 40: 229-
32.
Houtman 2000
Cornelis Houtman, Exodus, Vol. 3, ch. 20-40. Historical Commentary on the
Old Testament, Leuven: Peeters.
Jirku 1953
Anton Jirku, ‘Die Mimation in den nordwestsemitischen Sprachen und einige
Bezeichnungen der altisraelitischen Mantik’, Bib 34: 78-80.
Kitz 1997
Anne Marie Kitz, ‘The Plural Form of ʾÛrîm and Tummîm’, JBL 116: 401-10.
22 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

Lambert 2007
Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions (MC 13), Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Lipiński 1970
Edward Lipiński, ‘ ʾŪrīm and Tummīm’, VT 20: 495-96.
Marcuson 2016
Hannah Marcuson, “World of the Old Woman”: Studies in female ritual practice
in Hittite Anatolia (PhD thesis, University of Chicago).
Milgrom 1991
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB), New York: Doubleday.
Noort 1971
Edward Noort, ‘Eine weitere Kurzbemerkung zu 1 Samuel xiv 41’, VT 21: 112-
16.
Noort 1977
Edward Noort, Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Mari: Die “Mariproph-
etie” in der alttestamentlichen Forschung (AOAT 202), Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Orlamünde 2001
Julia Orlamünde, ‘Überlegungen zum hethitischen KIN-Orakel’, in: Thomas
Richter, Doris Prechel, Jörg Klinger (eds), Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalische
Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, Saarbrücken, Saarbrücker: 295–
311.
Robertson 1964
Edward Robertson, ‘The ʾŪrīm and Tummīm: What Were They?’, VT 14: 67-
74.
Schuller & Newsom 2012
Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms):
A Study Edition of 1 QH a, Atlanta: SBL.
Starr 1990
Ivan Starr, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria
(SAA 4), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Steinert 2018
Ulrike Steinert, ‘The Assur Medical Catalogue (AMC)’, in: Ulrike Steinert (ed.),
Assyrian and Babylonian Scholarly Text Catalogues: Medicine, Magic and Divin-
ation (Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 9),
Boston & Berlin: de Gruyter, 203-91.
Sukenik 1950
Eliezer Lipa Sukenik, ‫מגילות גנוזות‬, vol. II, Jerusalem: Bialik.
 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬ 23

Sukenik 1955
Eliezer Lipa Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem:
Magness.
Susnow et al. 2021
Matthew Susnow, Nimrod Marom, Ariel Shatil, Nava Panitz-Cohen, Robert
Mullins, Naama Yahalom-Mack, ‘Contextualizing an Iron Age IIA Hoard of
Astragali from Tel Abel Beth Maacah, Israel’, Journal of Mediterranean Ar-
chaeology 34: 58-83.
Toeg 1969
Arie Toeg, ‘A Textual Note in 1 Samuel xiv 41’, VT 19: 493-98.
Tsumura 2007
David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT), Grand Rapids MI:
Eerdmans.
Van Dam 1997
Cornelis van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient
Israel, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Warbinek 2019a
Livio Warbinek, ‘An “Economical” Oracular Procedure: Evidence from the Hittite
KIN Oracle’, in: Manfred Hutter & Sylvia Hutter-Braunsar (eds), Economy of
Religions in Anatolia: From the Early Second to the Middle of the First Mil-
lenium BCE, Proceedings of an International Conference in Bonn (23 rd to 25 th
May 2018) (AOAT 467), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag: 153-67.
Warbinek 2019b
Livio Warbinek, ‘Abbreviations, Lines and Clay Tablets: How to Write a KIN
Oracle, How to Manage the Space’, in: Elena Devecchi, Jana Mynářová, Gerfrid
G.W. Müller (eds), Current Research in Cuneiform Palaeography 2: Proceedings
of the Workshop organised at the 64 th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Innsbruck 2018, Gladbeck: PeWe, 137-55.
Wellhausen 1883
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin: Georg Reimer,
2
1883.
Wellhausen 1897
Julius Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, Berlin: Georg Reimer, 21897.
24 ִ Urim and Thummim
‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬

Kees den Hertog †31-03-2021

Independent scholar, minister of the Dutch protestant church in Germany

Paul Sanders,
Assistant professor of Old Testament,
Protestant Theological University, Amsterdam

First published: 2nd August 2022

Last update: 23rd May 2023
This article should be cited as:
Kees den Hertog, Paul Sanders, ‘‫אוּרים וְ ֻת ִמּים‬
ִ – Urim and Thummim’,
pdf downloaded from: http://www.sahd-online.com