“Without entering into lengthy philological discussions, it is easy to show that the word _urim_ must have originally signified _light_. This is the sense of _aor_, to sparkle, to shine; it is the sense of _iara_, which has a relationship with _iara_ to see, and with the analogous root of the Indo-Germanic languages from which come _ordo_, _orior_, _Iris_, _Jour_, _Giorno_, etc., etc. In Egyptian we also find this radical in the name of _Horus_, the Shining One, the Morning Sun. With this root again is connected _iara_, the river, the sparkling, and in Hebrew _nahar_,[72] which has the same sense. “Besides, the meaning of the word _urim_ is scarcely contested, and it is generally admitted that its original signification is _lights_, or _beams_. “The word thummim has been less easy to interpret. “The Egyptian radical _tum_ signifies to be shut up, veiled, hidden, dark, obscure. This meaning reappears in the triliterate form of the Semitic _Tamam_.[73] “As from the radical _aor_ the Egyptians had made the god of _light_, so from the radical _tum_ they made the name of the hidden god, the god veiled in darkness and obscurity, who had not manifested himself in the bright vesture of creation――the god Tum, hidden in the silence and darkness of eternity, in opposition or contrast to Horus, the god of the morning of creation, shining in the sunbeams, and glittering in the bright gems of the midnight skies. “Thus, according to the etymology of these words, we have in the _urim_ the lights, beams, or rays, and in the _thummim_ the obscurities and shadows, which doubtless passed over the face of the pectoral.… The high-priest grouped the luminous signs according to a system which remained one of the mysteries of the tabernacle. This key alone could give the interpretation of the will of JEHOVAH, and this may explain the curious episode in the time of the Judges to which allusion has already been made, when we find one of the tribes of Israel hire a Levite to place the ephod and interpret its oracles.” What rule was followed in interpreting the answers――whether it was formed by grouping all the luminous letters, or only that one which was brightest in the name of each tribe――we know not. We do not even know whether the foregoing explanation is the true one, although we may safely allow that it answers to all the requirements of the Scriptural texts, as well as to the indications of tradition. It is thus that Josephus explains the manner in which the oracles were given by the “rational of judgment,” and well-nigh the whole of Jewish and Christian tradition follows in his steps.