Demonstratio et veritas. Priestly oracles in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

Abstract

Although shrouded in mystery, the oracles of the high priest (Urim and Thummim) have often been the subject of curious interest in the literature of the Second Temple, as well as in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.). The present research studies the mentions of this device in Pseudo-Philo’s narrative to shed new light on its configuration, role, and function. Despite the attempts made by recent scholarship to distinguish and separate them from the priestly attire, the most plausible hypothesis is to consider Pseudo-Philo’s understanding of Urim and Thummim as light-giving stones, closely related to the ephod, used by the high priest especially when he has to exercise judgment. Thus, such objects gain importance in reconstructing the peculiar significance of priesthood in L.A.B. In this framework, the strange narrative of L.A.B. 25–26 about the idolatrous stones replaced by new luminous ones becomes more intelligible.

Introduction

Despite its rarity and ambiguous character in the biblical text, the priestly oracular instrument of Urim and Thummim appears several (at least four) times in Pseudo-Philo’s account, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.), and at significant moments in his retelling of biblical history. Robert Hayward noticed the phenomenon and provided an initial analysis, ¹ and subsequent scholars who have dealt with the subject have largely been dependent on his reconstruction. His main point is that L.A.B. tends to separate physically the Urim and Thummim from the ephod and the breastplate of the high priest. When Pseudo-Philo describes the priestly garments, he does not mention them (11:15; 13:1), and when he speaks of the Urim and Thummim, he never hints at the robes of the high priest. Nor does he talk about the breastplate as a means of obtaining divine assistance. The Urim and Thummim are rather connected with the tabernacle and the ark. Moreover, in the Benjaminite war, their very efficacy is compromised (cf. 46–47): This means that the revelatory and illuminative properties are taken away from the device and assigned exclusively to the twelve luminous stones. Therefore, the rich narrative in L.A.B. 25–26 concerning new stones made by Kenaz for the high priest’s breastplate is disregarded by Hayward: “These new stones have no connection with Urim, nor does Pseudo-Philo suggest that their light derives from the breastplate over which they are placed for a time, nor does he elsewhere directly associate the breastplate with light.” ² A careful reading of the textual evidence, however, works against Hayward’s arguments. A reconsideration of the problem is accordingly in order. In consequence, I first will try to clarify how Pseudo-Philo shapes the relationship between the high priesthood and the priestly oracles in their preeminent judicial function. In a second step, a historical context will then be provided for understanding the luminous stones of L.A.B. 25–26, anchoring this very strange preoccupation in a fitting historical and material setting.

The Urim and Thummim in the Jewish tradition

Before dealing with the L.A.B. passages referring to the Urim and Thummim, it is useful to recall some fundamentals about the meaning and scope of the expression within the Jewish tradition up to the Roman period. ³

The Urim and Thummim refer to an oracular device placed on the breastplate of the ephod for the exclusive use of the high priest. He could use them to consult the divine will and receive answers on matters of a generally public nature. A handful of quotations in the MT (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65) leaves an aura of uncertainty over the precise shape of these objects—if they were objects at all—and the procedure used. A wide range of hypotheses have been put forward throughout the history of interpretation: from assimilation to the casting of lots, or to a sophisticated alphanumeric system based on the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, to extraordinary light emanation phenomena. ⁴

The traditional interpretation of the term אוּרִים‎ is linked to אוֹר‎ “light,” as a development from the normal plural אוֹרִים‎ by imitation of the subsequent plural of the pair תֻּמִּים‎, derived from the noun תֹּם‎ “perfection, wholeness.” Although the exact function remained a matter of debate during the Second Temple period, there was a progressive identification of the Urim and Thummim with the twelve stones of the breastplate, and consequently a decisive reinterpretation of the divinatory character in relation to the illuminative function of the stones themselves. The earliest attestations are found in Let. Aris. 96–99, Sir 45:8–11; 50:5–11, and perhaps also in Zech 3. ⁵ The Qumran community was also deeply interested in such stones and conceptualized them as illuminative oracles of divine judgment. ⁶ According to Fletcher-Louis, the community developed an elaborate, mystical reflection that recognized in the illuminative power of the Urim and Thummim the original light of creation, of a supernatural order, originating from the heavenly sanctuary but mysteriously made available through the high priest to the eyes of men.

Other evidence comes from Flavius Josephus. In A.J. 3.215–217, he describes the robes of the high priest, mentioning the onyx stones on the ephod shoulder pieces, and, immediately afterward, the twelve stones on the breastplate (cf. also 3.163–166), all fourteen with special illuminative properties. Despite this similarity, which has led some authors to attribute divinatory qualities to all of them, ⁷ the two groups of stones are clearly distinct, and only the latter is described as having an extraordinary, divine origin (A.J. 3.166; cf. B.J. 5.233–234) with mantic functions in the context of war (3.216).

How long did the use of the Urim and Thummim persist? According to Yoma 21b, the Urim and Thummim were one of the five things missing from the Second Temple. Ezra 2:61–63 and Neh 7:63–65 could likewise suggest the absence of the Urim and Thummim after the return from the deportation. Flavius Josephus, on the contrary, states that the Urim and Thummim stopped shining and ceased to function 200 years before the writing of his text (A.J. 3.218), which is around 104 B.C.E., the date of John Hyrcanus’s death. Most likely, such data should be read in the light of the author’s great esteem for Hyrcanus himself to whom he acknowledges “three of the greatest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy.” ⁸ Although it is not possible to determine the exact time frame, it can at least be acknowledged that the sources, well after the destruction of the First Temple, are interested in the use of the oracles. Batsch is not far from the truth when he asserts that the problem of the existence of the Urim and Thummim in the Second Temple is less a case of continuation than of reinvention. In any event, “[on] ne savait pas très bien ce que c’était.” ⁹ Against this temporal and theological background, we must also place Pseudo-Philo and his work. ¹⁰

The Urim and Thummim in the text of Pseudo-Philo

The text of Pseudo-Philo contains at least four passages with an explicit reference to Urim and Thummim (22:8–9; 25:5; 46:1; 47:2). As I shall try to show, to the list one must add the long digression on twelve luminous stones of extraordinary nature (25–26), which are placed in contact with those of the ephod’s breastplate.

L.A.B. 22:8–9

The first occurrence of the Urim and Thummim was in L.A.B. 22, which rewrites a moderately problematic moment within the history of the conquest of the promised land: the crisis of the Transjordanian altar (Josh 22:10–34). At the end of the book of Joshua, the peace between the tribes installed on both sides of the Jordan is jeopardized. The narrative of L.A.B. heavily reworks the biblical plot, turning an episode of mutual misunderstanding into an outright attack on the uniqueness of the cult. ¹¹ The main divergences that L.A.B. introduces are the context immediately preceding and following the account; the sacrificial activity on the altar built by the Transjordanian tribes (22:1), a thing emphatically denied in the biblical account (Josh 22:23, 26, 29); the total absence of Phineas, which is even more significant given the role that he will assume in the course of the narrative; the self-justification discourse, which is much more concerned with the loyalty of the descendants (L.A.B. 22:3) than with their unity (Josh 22:22–29); Joshua’s response, which expands the brief speech of approval by Phineas (Josh 22:31), the underlining study of the Law as a devotion to God, superior to sacrifice (cf. 1 Sam 15:22); the injunction to destroy the altar (L.A.B. 22:6); and, finally, the penitential liturgy with the subsequent dismissal of the people (22:7).

This is all followed by the translation of the ark from Gilgal to Shiloh (with language reminiscent of 1 Kgs 8:4). It is interesting that L.A.B. eliminates the priestly figure of Eleazar in the role of dividing the land: This is now exclusively Joshua’s task (20:5, 9; 21:1; 23:1). ¹² Eleazar’s first appearance in the text is instead associated with the use of the Urim and Thummim, translated into Latin as demonstratio et veritas. This leads us to argue for two different types of lots, one secular, operated by Joshua for the allocation of the land, and one of a priestly nature, with a supposedly different function. It is a communal process in which the people, or a part of them, ask the Lord a question (interrogantes Dominum) in order to know his will on a certain matter. The priest, thanks to the Urim and Thummim, presents himself primarily as a teacher who instructs (instruebat) and manifests the divine purpose to the people (ostendebatur). Commentators note the emphasis in 22:8–9 on the uniqueness of the place of worship in Israel, even before the construction of Solomon’s temple, and the continuity of the sacrificial system, which passes from Gilgal to Shiloh and eventually to Jerusalem. ¹³ Within this construction, which betrays a cultic concern, ¹⁴ the Urim and Thummim justify an alternative cult to that of Jerusalem. The nonprohibition of offering sacrifices outside (and before the existence of) Jerusalem is based on the effectiveness of the oracular device in Shiloh as any rejection by God would inevitably produce a de facto inability to obtain a response: non prohibitus est populus offerre in eo, quia veritas et demonstratio ostendebat omnia in Sylo. The importance of this authorization is underlined by the immediately preceding passage, which focuses on a crisis raised by reduplication of altars. The altar of 22:1–7 is clearly conceived as an idolatrous cult, both for its characterization as a manufactum, a term generally associated with idols, ¹⁵ for the allusion to the golden calf of Exod 32 in 22:5, and, finally, for the lexicon of seduction (seducor, cf. 22:5), usually associated with idolatrous practice. ¹⁶ On the other hand, it is completely licit, and Eleazar’s divinatory practice is the fitting supernatural ratification of it. ¹⁷

Pseudo-Philo presents the Urim and Thummim as priestly instruments of Eleazar. According to Hayward, the Urim and Thummim in 22:8 are juxtaposed exclusively to the ark and tabernacle and not to the garments, but the observation is misleading. It is an overinterpretation to separate deliberately tabernaculum, arca, and vasa from all other accessories necessary for worship, which are listed in 13:1 and include the priest’s garments. The long list may have been summarized in the general term vasa; at any event, the omission does not necessarily indicate an absence. Rather, Eleazar’s priestly action necessitates them. Because the high priest is described twice in his cultic office in Shiloh (22:8: ministrans altari; 22:9: deserviebat in Sylo), which also includes the sacrifices established by Joshua (22:8: constituit Ihesus […] que offerebantur a filiis Israel holocaustomata per singulos annos), the whole priestly apparatus is necessary, although not explicitly mentioned. If the Urim and Thummim are mentioned, it is because of the rhetorical function they have in the passage: Pseudo-Philo needs to show the divine legitimacy of the non-Jerusalemite altar, thanks to the fact that God, through the oracle of the high priest, continues to reveal everything to Israel.

Before moving on to the next text, it is worth noting an evocative detail profiling the subsequent presentations of the Urim and Thummim. Josh 22:20 is the only other biblical mention of the figure of Achan, apart from the episode that narrates his transgression (Josh 7). As we shall see, this story repeatedly appears in the background of Urim and Thummim narratives in L.A.B. by means of explicit or implicit allusions. It constitutes, for our author, the paradigmatic account in which the hidden presence of a sinner within the unaware community makes all the people responsible, and consequently, a divinely guided procedure is necessary to identify and eradicate the evil. Although L.A.B. 22 removes this mention, it still seems to have the motive in mind. ¹⁸

L.A.B. 25:5–7

An oracular inquiry returns after the death of Joshua, in L.A.B. 25. Working from Judg 1:1ff, Pseudo-Philo deviates greatly from the biblical narrative. ¹⁹ What in the biblical text was a request to establish the order of attack nests into a series of multiple and successive appeals in L.A.B. (following the episode of Achan in Josh 7:10ff). First, the feasibility of the war itself is questioned. The divine response generates a new question about the distinction between pure and impure hearts in Israel. To make this distinction, it is necessary to cast the lots (mittere sortes, cf. 25:1), but this is possible only after a dux ²⁰ is appointed. This necessity in turn produces another casting of the lots that ends with the identification of Kenaz, son of Caleb (L.A.B. 20:6). ²¹ The biblical background of 1 Sam 10:19ff draws a parallel between Saul, the first king of Israel, and Kenaz himself, reinforced additionally by the following passage on the proof of the pure and the defiled. ²² Once the sortes peccati revealed the intentions of the hearts and the sinners are locked up in prison, Kenaz summons Eleazar for the oracular procedure through the Urim and Thummim. ²³ The passage begins with the quotation of Deut 29:17 which introduces the presence of a hidden evil within the community by means of the image of the root ²⁴ :

Kenaz said, “Was it not about these people that Moses, the beloved of the Lord, spoke, saying, ‘Perhaps there is among you a root bearing poison and bitterness’? Now blessed be the Lord, who has revealed all the plans of these men and did not let them corrupt the people with their evil deeds. Bring then here the Urim and Thummim, and summon Eleazar the priest, and let us inquire of the Lord through him.” 6 Then Kenaz and Eleazar and all the elders and all the congregation prayed together saying, “Lord God of our fathers, reveal to your servants the truth, for we are found not to believe in the wonders that you did for our fathers from the time you brought them out of the land of Egypt until this day.” The Lord answered and said, “First, question those who have been found, and let them confess their deeds that they have done with cunning, and afterward they will be burned in the fire.” 7 Kenaz had them brought and said to them: “Behold now you know that Achan confessed when the lot fell on him and he declared everything he had done. Now declare to us your wickedness and schemes. Perhaps, if you tell the truth to us, though you die now, nevertheless God will have mercy on you when he will resurrect the dead.”

The vocabulary echoes what was already encountered in 22:8, albeit with slight modifications. The expression congregate ergo huc demonstrationem et veritatem indicates the gathering of the people and the preparation of the oracle. The priest Eleazar is summoned. Jacobson notes his “surprising” anachronistic appearance as, according to the biblical account, he had already died and been buried in Gaba a long time before (Josh 24:33). ²⁵ Whether one should think of an “illogical residue of the Achan episode” or not, his presence stresses once again the connection between the high priest and the oracles. Unlike the previous passage, the content of the divine response is well articulated: The Lord invites sinners to confess and to proceed with the punishment of fire like the one inflicted on Achan in Josh 7:15,25. The anchorage to the biblical passage is further offered by the explicit reference to his confession (confessus est Achiar).

What is the meaning of the insertion of the Urim and Thummim after the sortes peccati and the identification of the perpetrators among the people? It is primarily aimed at giving a confirmation from above to the lot, as the stubborn infidelity of the people prevents direct access to the truth. ²⁶ The divine response with the order to interrogate the people should be read as an invitation to verify the effectiveness of the procedure through the correspondence of the confession of the individuals. ²⁷ Second, the intervention of the priest is not oriented toward the ratification of who (25:4: qui) is guilty—neither the number nor the identity of them seems to be of any doubt—but what are the faults in question (cf. 25:8–11) and what (25:4: quid) is to be done with the guilty. ²⁸ The practice of the Urim and Thummim unequivocally confirms the use of fire as prophesied by Kenaz (25:6: postea igne concremabuntur, cf. 25:3), as a clear allusion to final judgment. On the other hand, however, Elas’s intuition (25:8–10) triggers a chain reaction that takes the form of a general confession of sins in which everyone is guilty of idolatry. L.A.B. repeats the motif of hiding objects underground three times. Thanks to the confession, Kenaz can easily find them. ²⁹ Precisely this unearthing of concealed idolatrous objects (astutely introduced by the proleptic citation of the root of gall and bitterness in Deut 29:17) proves to be the result of the enlightenment achieved by the Urim and Thummim. And the confession is not an end in itself: Through the allusion to Achan, ³⁰ Kenaz is able to offer, even within an inescapable judicial perspective, the hope of eschatological mercy for those who will be able to manifest their evil (25:7: si dixeritis veritatem nobis, etsi modo moriamini, miserebitur tamen vobis Deus). Accordingly, Urim and Thummim play a key role within a specific divine strategy aimed at promoting the people’s admission of guilt as a necessary condition that preludes the possibility of an act of mercy. Something similar is also found in another episode of Israel’s history that Pseudo-Philo recounts (L.A.B. 45–47) and to which we now turn.

L.A.B. 46:1; 47:2

L.A.B. 45–47 rewrites Judg 19–20. The tribes of Israel gather to wage war against Benjamin because of the terrible crime committed by the Gibeonites against a passing Levite and his concubine (cf. Judg 19–20:10; L.A.B. 45–46 ³¹ ). The account of Judg 20:11ff narrates the painful victory of Israel, only after three attempts, each preceded by a petition to God through the high priest Eleazar (20:18, 23, 27–28). Pseudo-Philo highlights the difficulty of justifying the fact that God twice passes over the imminent defeat. ³² While in Judg 20:18 the first question concerns the order of attack, L.A.B. reformulates the inquiry, which becomes a direct question about the outcome of the clash. With the introduction of Phineas from the outset, the priestly oracle makes its appearance. However, it turns into a blatantly deceiving device through which God promises a victory that does not actually take place. Hayward gleans from this strange divine plan that, by this point in the narrative, Urim and Thummim have lost their power and have been replaced by the precious stones of the priestly breastplate. However, a closer look at the whole narrative shows that this “deception” (seductio, 46:4) is oriented toward a longer-range plan. As can be seen in the following narrative (46:1, 3), the divine trickery was caused by a sin that the people had hitherto ignored but that God wants somehow to denounce. But it is not yet time: The second oracular consultation again promises victory along with a revelation of the reasons (propter quod) for the first failure. Yet, the new defeat melts the hearts of the people, who gather around the Ark of the Covenant to do penance. According to Jacobson, L.A.B. 46 rewrites the text of Judg 20:11ff based on Josh 7. The same episode was present, as we have seen, in the oracular consultation of 25:5, and not by chance. In both accounts, Pseudo-Philo has the priest intervene with the Urim and Thummim when the nation (or part of it) is in a compromised situation that still needs to be laid bare fully. In both cases, a prayer invokes the full manifestation (25:6: revela servis tuis veritatem; 47:2: non abscondas a servo tuo, sed renuntia nobis) of that condition that has determined the national failure in war. ³³ In 46:4, L.A.B. merges the passage of Josh 7:6 with Judg 20:27, describing a public penitential liturgy in which all the people, together with the priest Phineas, prostrate themselves before the Ark of the Covenant, tear their clothes, and sprinkle their heads with ashes. ³⁴ Once again, in his intercession with God (46:4–47:1), Phineas asks if the people have really sinned. The biographical reference to the zeal shown in the transgression at Peor (47:2; cf. Num 25) alludes to a situation similar to that of Achan, where the sin of one (cf. Num 25:6) had called into question the whole community of Israel. The plea is finally answered, and God reveals the reason for the defeat: hypocritical connivance with the idolatry of Michas (47:7–8; cf. 44). Divine deception has therefore enabled the people to recognize the sin they had committed, and the Urim and Thummim of the priest Phineas, instead of having become useless, turn out to be the instrument by which a sort of divine pedagogy is carried out within the community. Indeed, the repeated punishment makes room for awareness and repentance, after which the act of idolatry is revealed. So God can finally turn to Israel’s side: They go out in battle against the sons of Benjamin and defeat them, returning victorious to Shiloh under the leadership of Phineas, who is at the same time the priest and commander (47:9–10).

Luminous stones in L.A.B. 25:10–26:12

We have seen that the Urim and Thummim are clearly associated with the functions of the high priest and are conceived as a revelatory device of hidden sin among the people. Hayward’s arguments do not seem to be compelling, and the texts analyzed so far can equally be explained by associating Urim and Thummim with the breastplate, in accordance with the unanimous tradition during the Second Temple period. A revealing example that points decisively in this direction is 28:3. At the time of Kenaz’s death, Phineas proposes to speak first, and Kenaz himself, together with the prophets, confirms him for this purpose:

Speak, Phineas! Perhaps someone can speak before the priest, who keeps the orders of the Lord our God, especially when truth comes out of his mouth and a shining light from his heart?

The priest has priority in the assembly because he is the guardian of the Lord’s commands (cf. Mal 2:7), especially when the truth (veritas) comes from his mouth and the light (lumen refulgens) shines from his heart. There seems to be a strong echo of vocabulary and imagery alluding to the oracle. ³⁵ The term veritas usually translates the noun תֻּמִּים‎, while the lumen refulgens from his heart, as well as being in line with the etymological meaning of the first term of the pair (אוּרִים‎), can be understood in a literal sense as the gleam that sparkles from the twelve stones that decorate the high priest’s breastplate, resting on his chest, close to his heart (de corde). ³⁶

If this reading is correct, not only must we think of Urim and Thummim as an illuminating device associated with the high priest’s breastplate, but we must also take into consideration for the present work the extensive expansion of L.A.B. 25:10–26:12, which deals at length with new luminous stones associated with the priestly attire.

Within the list of sins of the various tribes (25:8–13), the men of Asher denounce the finding of seven golden statues (simulacra), called “Nymphae” by the Amorites, adorned with precious gems (preciosissimes lapides). They give out light, illuminate the temples, and have the power to heal the blind. As soon as Kenaz learns that they have been hidden beneath the summit of Mount Sichem, he sends men to retrieve them. The reader is then provided with information about their oracular power: he sunt nimphe, que invocate ostendebant Amorreis per singulas horas opera eorum. Attempting to reconstruct the Hebrew expression behind the Latin term nimpha, Jacobson suggested an allusion to female Canaanite deities, principally Ashera, Ashtoreth, and Anath. ³⁷ Fletcher-Louis has drawn attention to a description in De dea Syria (§32) by Lucian of Samosata (second century C.E.) of the statue of Atargatis, the main goddess of the Syrian pantheon, worshipped at Hierapolis in western Anatolia. ³⁸ She bears on her head a stone called λυχνίς ³⁹ from which a great light shines at night to the point of illuminating the whole sanctuary. The parallel with 25:12 is all the more striking if one considers that both Lucian and Pseudo-Philo link idols to the oriental flood myth so that the sanctuary and its cult are thought of as an alternative to the chaotic forces of evil.

In addition to this historical background, more should be said about the illuminating stones included in the idol’s attire, especially if one considers that from 25:11 onward, the stones become the real topic of interest, rather than the statues. From the first century C.E., there was a significant increase in the production and circulation of engraved precious stones of various shapes and materials. They were often considered to have curative, magical, and divinatory powers. The earliest literary evidence—except for Theophrastus, who in 315 B.C.E. wrote a treatise on mineralogy, de lapidibus ⁴⁰ —is that of Pliny the Elder, who developed an extensive survey on stones and their properties in his last book Naturalis Historia. In some passages, he mentions the mantic ⁴¹ and therapeutic properties that some of these stones possess (for example, agate ⁴² or amber ⁴³ for the eyes; cf. L.A.B. 25:12). This is also confirmed by Greek lapidaries ⁴⁴ and Magical Papyri, ⁴⁵ certainly from a later period, but containing much older traditions, from both the Mediterranean basin and the Near Eastern regions. ⁴⁶ The origin of these gems is believed to be Alexandria, where there were different ethnic communities (Egyptian, Greek, Roman) and an active Jewish presence. ⁴⁷ The production reached its peak around the second–third century C.E. ⁴⁸ Most of them were used as amulets and talismans; others adorned statues and figurines in temples. Magic stones were also used by theurgists to produce statues of the gods, in order to endow them with prophetic abilities. ⁴⁹ It is the so-called practice of τελεστική (or consecratio) ⁵⁰ : The figurine of the deity was animated and allowed to provide oracles by introducing into it σύμβολα / συνθήματα, that is, elements taken from nature, such as herbs, perfumes, and stones. The underlying belief was that every god or goddess had a representative in the plant, animal, or mineral world. By virtue of this sympathetic relationship (συμπάθεια), the σύμβολα made possible the very presence of the deity in the statue, as well as his or her divinatory potential. Therefore, “by properly fashioning and consecrating the god’s ‘material image,’ he or she could be persuaded to appear (generally in the form of light) and answer the questions put to him or her by the theurgist.” ⁵¹

The description in 25:11–12 corresponds surprisingly well. After the mention of the seven sinful men who discovered the nymphs, Pseudo-Philo moves on to talk about the precious stones embedded in the statues:

11 Nor will there again be their like in the world, graven by the hand of a craftsman or adorned with the variety of painting. They were fixed and set up for the consecration of idols. Those precious stones, among which were crystal and prase, had been brought from the land of Havilah; and they were graven in appearance in the manner of openwork decoration. One of them was engraved on the top, and another, as if marked with spots, so shone in its cutting as if it revealed the water of the deep lying beneath.

12 These are the precious stones that the Amorites had in their sanctuary, the value of which was inestimable because when they would enter at night the light of a lamp was not necessary, so brightly did the natural light of the stones shine forth. Among them the brightest was the one that was cut in the fashion of open–work and purified people of demons. For even if one of the Amorites was blind, he would go and put his eyes on it and regain his sight. These Kenaz found, and setting them aside, he stored them until he would know what should be done with them.

A sort of theurgic consecration is referred to by the fact that the stones ⁵² are inserted (confixa) for the consecration of the idols (in consecrationem idolorum). Their exotic origin, from the mysterious land of Havilah, and their inestimable value fit the Plinian narrative according to which the greatest value was attributed to stones from foreign countries (India, Persia, Egypt, Arabia, or Africa). ⁵³ L.A.B. specifically includes crystal, particularly valued in antiquity and associated with ice and water clarity, ⁵⁴ and prase and chrysoprase, two different forms of dark green chalcedony. ⁵⁵ Such stones are kept in sanctuaries (lapides preciosi quos habebant Amorrei in sanctis suis). Several statues in antiquity were covered with jewelry—earrings, bracelets, and precious stones—both in the Near East and in Greece, as can be seen from the inventories of the Delian temple. One of the statues of Jupiter Heliopolitanus shows twelve settings for jewels on his arm rings. ⁵⁶ Moreover, according to Pliny, Pompey (who conquered Judea in 63 B.C.E.) had a significant collection of precious gems (dactyliotheca) in the Capitoline. His victories (including, of course, that in Judea) spread the fashion. After him, Caesar consecrated six collections in the temple of Venus Genetrix, and Marcellus consecrated one in the temple of Apollo. ⁵⁷

Archeological excavations have shown a rapid development of these stones, probably used as talismans and personal items, in Judaea as early as the first and second century C.E. ⁵⁸ In particular, one of these gems, dating from the second century C.E., shows on the reverse side a leontocephalic demon, dressed in military clothing and holding a sword in his right hand and a Gorgon’s head in his left hand; on the back is the inscription ΙΟΥΔΑΣ. The editor ⁵⁹ has suggested a relationship with the figure of Judah, son of Jacob, described in the Bible as a young lion (Gen 49:9; Rev 5:5). Furthermore, the engraving of the name of a tribe on the stone is a clear allusion to the twelve gems of the breastplate. Another stone found with the same leonine figure has eleven concentric circles on the verso, which could be considered an abstract representation of the remaining tribes of Israel. These gems attest to the presence of Jewish circles or syncretistic groups in which the biblical heritage of the high priest’s breastplate, mediated through ongoing theological reflection during the Second Temple period, comes into interaction with pagan traditions and practices fostered by the new fashion of precious gems and their religious magic quality.

Against these traditions, Pseudo-Philo articulates his polemic through a highly creative story. Despite the fascination aroused by the beauty of these objects (26:1), the judge is invited by God to destroy them because they are irreparably contaminated and must be removed from the world. He keeps them aside and guards them on the altar in Shiloh, waiting for an angel to come and hide them at the bottom of the sea as they are indestructible and neither fire nor iron or water would consume them (26:4). ⁶⁰ However, after the disappearance, God promises to provide twelve new stones, coming from the same place, the land of Havilah (25:11: de terra Evilath), a clear allusion to paradise. ⁶¹ Then, Kenaz will place them on the ephod, in correspondence ⁶² with the twelve stones that Moses had placed on the breastplate (11:15; 13:1). ⁶³ He is then invited to perform an act of consecration by contact, according to that same sympathetic procedure followed for the consecration of the nymphs, but in open contrast to their idolatry. By doubling the number of precious stones, he assumes the same role as Moses in the desert, preparing a new breastplate for the priest.

Through the luminous stones, it is possible to connect the specific revelatory function of Urim and Thummim with the eschatological figure of the prophet–priest Phineas–Elijah. After the descriptive list (26:10–11), God orders Kenaz to place the stones in the ark next to the tablets of the Law, until the arrival of Iahel (Solomon ⁶⁴ ) who will build the temple and place them between the two cherubim so that they will be in memoriam domus Israel. This location is temporary as the stones will be hidden by God when the enemies take over the sacred space because of rampant sin. ⁶⁵ Several ancient sources have speculated about the hiding and guarding of the Temple vessels in view of the eschatological restoration. ⁶⁶ The review offered by Kalimi and Purvis shows how traditions differ about the exact location of their storage. Nevertheless, these vessels are buried somewhere underground, awaiting the arrival of the eschatological prophet who will unearth them and reestablish worship in Jerusalem. ⁶⁷ L.A.B. (not cited by the authors) makes a significant change to the tradition: The stones are brought back to Eden by God himself, where they were taken (et reponam ea in locum unde ab initio prolata sunt) and kept there until the end of time, when God will remember the world and visit the inhabitants of the earth. ⁶⁸ This is also the place where the eschatological prophet–priest Phineas–Elijah is sent, awaiting the final return to earth to taste death (48:1). Because everything is stored in heaven awaiting the last days, I argue that Pseudo-Philo considers the high priest Phineas–Elijah as the one who will be responsible for recovering the sacred vessels, including the luminous stones. ⁶⁹ Accordingly, clothed in priestly vestments and adorned with his breastplate and the Urim and Thummim, he will fulfill his eschatological cultic office, participating in the divine judgment that will take place in the form of a final and decisive phenomenon of enlightenment and revelation. ⁷⁰ Just as in the narrative where at momentous events in Israel’s history the high priests facilitated through the Urim and Thummim the acknowledgment of sin and public repentance for Israel to restore its relationship with God, so at the end of time, the eschatological priest–prophet will return, before his death, and reveal the spiritual condition of humankind.

Conclusion

At the end of the study, we can now draw some general conclusions.

First, L.A.B. considers the Urim and Thummim as an oracular device exclusively for the use of the priest, Eleazar first and Phineas later. The way he configures them is strongly influenced by the biblical narrative of Josh 7, in which Achan’s sin is exposed and then punished. The Urim and Thummim take on the role of revelatory instruments that, even when they seemingly fail, enable the exercise of a divine pedagogy aimed at unveiling hidden idolatry and thus “unblocking” and “reactivating” Israel’s spiritual situation. Against Hayward and other scholars, textual evidence seems to be better explained if Urim and Thummim are closely associated with the precious stones of the breastplate, in accordance with Second Temple Jewish beliefs that unanimously tend to describe Urim and Thummim as light-making devices.

Regarding the illuminative stones, an historical setting of the work during the first century C.E. in Palestine has allowed a better understanding of the mysterious account of L.A.B. 25–26. From the first century on, gems with medicinal and mantic powers were widely distributed throughout the Mediterranean basin, including Judea; Pseudo-Philo’s polemic openly contrasts the idolatrous use of such objects, which may have been adopted by Jewish circles, as archeological evidence shows.

In conclusion, Pseudo-Philo offers an original elaboration of the traditional Urim and Thummim, both in his description of the peculiar functioning as priestly instruments of judgment and in the eschatological role given to them. The implications of such a role in relation to the final coming of the Levite figure of Phineas–Elijah (cf. L.A.B. 48), the last man to have made use of the Urim and Thummim (cf. L.A.B. 47:2), show another promising avenue of research that is still waiting to be fully explored.