URBANUS

be explained by the supposition that the narrative incor-porates variant traditions with regard to Abraham's origin: the fact that Uni and Harran were both of them centres of moon-worship is possibly significant. L. W. Kino.

URBANtrS.— A Christian greeted by St. Paul in RolB'. The name is common among slaves, and ia found in Inscriptions of the Imperial household.

URI.— 1. The father of Bezalel (Ex 312 3510 3322 1 Ch 22«, 2 Ch IS). 2. Father of Geber (1 K 4i»). 3. A porter (Ezr 10«).

URIAH, or URIJAH (In AV 1 below appears as Uriah [Mt 1» Urias], 2 as Uriah in Is 8^ and Urijah in 2 K 16i»'«, and 4 as Uriah in Ezr S's and Urijah in Neh 3<- 21; while Urijah only is found in the case of 3 and 5. In RV Urijah is found only in 2 K 16i"-'», Uriah elsewhere).—!. One of David's 30 heroes, the husband of Bathsheba. He was a Hittite, but, as the name indicates, doubtless a, worshipper of Jahweh (2 S 11 129. 10. i5_ 1 K 15=. Mt 18). After David's ineffectual attempt to use him as a shield for his own sin, he was killed in battle in accordance with the instructions of David to Joab. 2. High priest in the reign of Ahaz; called a ' faithful witness ' in Is 8', but subservient to the innovations of Ahaz in 2 K le'"-". The omission of the name in 1 Ch 6*-" may be due to textual corrup-tion, since it appears in Jos. Ant. x. viii. 6, which is based on Chronicles. 3. A prophet, son of Shemaiah of Kiriath-jearim. His denunciations against Judah and Jerusalem in the style of Jeremiah aroused the wrath of king Jehoiakim. Uriah fled to Egypt, was seized and slain by order of Jehoiakim, and was buried In the common graveyard (Jer 262''-«). 4. A priest (Neh 3'- 21), son (representative) of Hakkoz, doubt-less one of the courses of the priests (1 Ch 24i"). He was father (or ancestor) of Meremoth, an eminent priest (Ezr 8^ (1 Es 8"2 Urias]). 6. A man who stood on the right hand of Ezra when he read the Law (Neh 8« [1 Es 9« Unas]). Geobge R. Beery.

URIAS.— 1. 1 Es 8M= Ezr 8SS Uriah; perhaps identical with— 2. 1 Es 9"=Neh 8< Uriah.

URIEL ('flame of God' or 'ray light Is God').— 1. Mentioned in genealogies: (a) 1 Ch 6" 15'- ". (b) 2 Ch 132. 2. The angel who rebukes the presump-tion of Esdras in questioning the ways of God (2 Es 4i S20B. 1028), and converses with him at length. In 4» RV reads ' Jeremiel.' In Enoch 91 Uriel, or Urjan, is one of the four archangels, but in 40° and 71 his place is taken by Phanuel. In 191 20^ he is one of the ' watchers,' 'the angel over the world and Tartarus'; and in 21. 27 he explains the fate of the fallen angels (cf. Sib. Orac., where he brings them to judgment). In 72 ff. Uriel, ' whom the eternal Lord of glory sets over all the lumi-naries of heaven,' shows Enoch the celestial phenomena; In 33»- • he writes them down. In the lost ' Prayer of Joseph ' he is the angel with whom Jacob wrestled, the eighth in rank from God, Jacob being the first.

C. W. Emmet.

URIU AND THUMMIM.— These denote the two essential parts of the sacred oracle by which in early times the Hebrews sought to ascertain the will of God. Our OT Revisers give as their meaning ' the Lights and the Perfections' (Ex 28'» RVm). This rendering — or rather, taking the words as abstract plurals, 'Light and Perfection' — seems to reflect the views of the late Jewish scholars to whom we owe the present vocaliza-tion of the OT text; but the oldest reference to the sacred lot suggests that the words express two sharply contrasted ideas. Hence if Thummim, as most believe, denotes 'innocence,' Urim should denote 'guilt' — a sense which some would give it by connecting it with the verb meaning ' to curse.' Winckler and his followers, on the other hand, start from 'light' as the meaning of Vrim, and interpret Thummim as 'darkness' (the completion ot the sun's course). 'Urim and Thummim

URIM AND THUIVIJVIIM

are life and death, yes and no, light and darkness' (A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte d. alt. Orients'^, 450; cf. Benzinger, Heb. Arch.'' 459 f.). There is thus a wide divergence among scholars as to the original significa-tion of the words.

As to the precise nature of these mysterious objects there also exists a considerable, though less marked, divergence of opinion, notwithstanding the numerous recent investigations by British, American, and Con-tinental scholars, of which the two latest are those by Kautzsch in Hauck's PRE' xx. 328-336 [1907], with literature to date, and M'Neile, The Book of Exodus [1908], 181-184. The most instructive, as it is histori-cally the oldest, passage dealing with Urim and Thum-mim is 1 S 14"'-, as preserved in the fuller Greek text. The latter runs thus: 'And Saul said, O J" God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If the iniquity be in me or in my son Jonathan, J" God ot Israel, give Urim; but if thou sayest thus. The iniquity is in thy people Israel, give Thummim. And Saul and Jonathan were taken, but the people escaped,' etc. Now, if this passage be compared with several others in the older narratives of Samuel, e.g. 1 S 232-1 30'- 8, 2 S 21, where mention is made of 'en-quiring of the Lord' by means of the sacred lot as-sociated with the ephod, the following points emerge: (1) There is good reason, as most scholars admit, for believing that the Urim and Thummim were two lots closely connected in some way, no longer intelligible, with the equally mysterious ephod. (2) As the lota were only two in number, only one question could be put at a time, capable of being answered by a simple 'yes' or 'no,' according to the lot which 'came out.' (3) When, as was the case in 1 S 14, the situation was more complicated, it was necessary to agree beforehand as to the significance to be attached to the two lots.

As to the material, shape, etc., of the two lots and the precise method of their manipulation, we are left to conjecture. It seems, on the whole, the most prob-able view that they were two small stones, either In the shape ot dice or in tablet form, perhaps also of different colours. Others, including Kautzsch (033. dt.), favour the view that they were arrows, on the analogy of a well-known Babylonian and Arabian method of divination (cf. Ezk 21=1). In addition to the two alternatives above considered, it may be inferred from 1 S 28" that neither lot might be cast. Were they contained within the hollow ephod-image, which was provided with a narrow aperture, so that it was possible to shake the image and yet neither lot 'come out'? (The lot is technically said 'to fall or come out,' the latter Jos I61 RV, I91, etc.) The early narratives above cited show that the manipulation of the sacred lot was a special prerogative ot the priests, as is ex-pressly stated in Dt 338 (gf, lXX), where the Divine Urim and Thummim are assigned to the priestly tribe of Levi, and confirmed by Ezr 2«8=Neh 7".

In the Priests' Code the Urim and Thummim are introduced in Ex 288», Lv 8«, Nu 2721, but without the slightest clue as to their nature beyond the inference as to their small size, to be drawn from the fact that they were to be inserted in the high priest's 'breast-plate of judgment' (see Breastplate). But this is merely an attempt on the part of the Priestly writer to divest these 'old-world mysteries' of their associa-tion with ideas of divination now outgrown, and, moreover, forbidden by the Law. It is, besides, doubtful if P was acquainted, any more than our-selves, with the Urim and Thummim of the Books of Samuel, for the passage above cited from Ezr.-Neh. shows that they were unknown in the post-exilic period. In specially placing them within 'the breastplate of judgment,' it is not impossible that P was influenced by the analogy of the Babylonian 'tablets of destiny' worn by Marduk on his breast, but the further position that these 'and the Urim and Thummim were origi-

955