Manners by which the Lord might respond, seven I have hitherto read, or heard.
The first is: that the Lord made those gems only — beyond their accustomed and natural manner — to be illustrated [lit up] or obscured, or otherwise colored; and thence, by the priests, and by the beholding interrogators, it was known and understood what He was responding. So, in the compendium of history, Cedrenus says [they] were signified διὰ τῆς αὐγῆς τὰ χρηστά, διὰ τῆς ἀποσκοτώσεως τὰ δεινά [by the brightness, favorable things; by the darkening, dreadful things]. St. Epiphanius (book On Stones): “By the change of its color the adamant [diamond] signified — death indeed, if [it turned] black; the sword, if bloody [red]; prosperity, if — as [was] scarcely [ever] — white; as, when concerning St. John the Baptist to be begotten, Zacharias received the response.” Anastasius the Nicene (in the cited place) at once says: “the adamant flashed, and, casting forth light, emitted rays. But if [it] pleased not God, the stone remained in its own order [state]. But if He was about to deliver the people to the sword, it became bloody. But if some deadly [thing] was about to happen, it became black.” The same Suidas also set down, word for word; but that part of them alone — [namely] that of the radiation — St. Chrysostom (oration 3 Against the Jews), Genebrardus (bk. 2 Chronology, fol. 94), and others following Josephus (bk. 3 Antiquities, ch. 9 in the Greek, ch. 12 in the Latin of Ruffinus), who wishes those 12 stones, and likewise those which were on the Pontiff’s shoulders — the sardonyxes — to have flashed together. And Abulensis praises [this] (Exod. 28, q. 15); Moncaeus (book On the Golden Calf, ch. 19, q. 2, 23); and, from the Novatores [innovators], Chytraeus (on Judges, ch. 1, p. 131); from the Rabbis in some manner R. Eliezer (ch. 38), once and again; R. Azariah (bk. 3, ch. 50, fol. 157b), in some way, as it seems.
But that manner — as it were imperfect, and, while it is taken alone, not sufficiently consonant to truth — I rejected elsewhere, in the booklet before cited, On the Joshuan Priests. But because a man most learned, one of my dearest [friends], scrutinizes the same [truth] which I [do], in matters great — on account of the antiquity of the time, and the brevity of the Biblical text, [truth] wrapped in darkness — and thinks it sufficiently expounded in the cited Josephus, and strives to respond to my arguments against this, so that the truth and doctrine of Urim and Thummim may be more and more clear: I shall first repeat what I said there, no little word either added or taken away; then, what to those [things], or about them, [says] that Syzetes [co-inquirer] and Disquisitor, that friend most dear to me. I, therefore, thus:
The manner of responding Josephus thus explains: that from those gems a certain wondrous brightness flashed forth, as often as God willed to be the author and helper of waging some war — so much so that, at the sight of the Priest, [it] straightway stood [manifest] to the whole multitude that God would be present [assisting]. But was God consulted only about war? [Was it] only about those questions to which “yea” or “nay” alone sufficed? Nay indeed, [there] was sometimes interrogation also about the manner of doing certain things; sometimes about the same [matter], even if there was no [yes/no] interrogation — [and] yet the response contained that itself, the clearer and fuller it might be. Hear what response [was given] to David asking whether he should go up against the Philistines: “Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind their back, and thou shalt come upon them over against the balsam-trees. And when thou shalt hear the sound of one going in the top of the balsam-trees, then shalt thou join battle: for then shall the Lord go out before thy face, to strike the camp of the Philistines” (2 Sam. 5:23–24).
(col. 216)
But what brightness of stones, what rays, could speak these [things] — so many, so unlooked-for, so new, and so strange? [Something] was asked of the same [oracle]: which [city] he should go up into; and the response was, “Hebron” [2 Sam. 2:1]. What flashing indicated this? But when sometimes “NO” would be answered, sometimes “NOTHING at all,” how would it be understood whether a negative response was given, or none at all? Although, therefore, that manner [is] exceedingly plausible, to me [it is] nevertheless little credible — especially since I see also other lapses of the same author [Josephus] in the same place, [though] much lighter, and less to be blamed. On account of the certainty of the oracles, he says it was called by the Greeks λόγιον. But were there not Hebrews — [the] Septuagint — who so called it, from whom the Greeks received it? Two hundred years before those his commentaries, on account of the violation of the divine laws, he reports those splendors were extinguished. But much before — [that] an end was imposed on this kind of oracle — testify Iarhi [Rashi], Kimchi, Elias [Levita], and other Rabbis. When, concerning the outcome of the Persian war, Alexander the Great wished the Godhead to be consulted for him through Urim and Thummim (of which he had heard), he heard from the Pontiff: “From the day on which that house [Temple] was carried off into Babylon, Urim and Thummim were hidden from it.”
But my Syzetes [co-inquirer] thus [argues]: “I have seen [him] who, against Josephus’s opinion (which I follow), would strive with no single battering-ram. 1. He writes that it displeases him, and that the singular testimony of Josephus is suspect. 2. Because in the same place Josephus lapses in two other matters, [so] here too [he lapses]: both because he says this was called by the Greeks λόγιον, though nevertheless the Septuagint, who were Hebrews, so called it; and because he says [that] two hundred years before his commentaries these splendors [were] extinguished on account of the violation of the law — whereas the Talmudists, and Iarhi [Rashi], and Kimchi, and Elias the German testify [that] long before, an end was imposed on this oracle, namely already from the Babylonian captivity: [for] they report [that] a response [was given] by Jaddus to Alexander the Great asking that God be consulted for him about the outcome of the Persian war. Finally, because it would follow from this narration of Josephus [that] this oracle [was] wont [to respond] only about war — which is not true; likewise it would follow [that it] responded only to those questions to which [one] could respond by ‘so,’ ‘yea,’ or ‘no’ — but it is agreed [that] it often responded to several [things], and sometimes [with] unlooked-for [things], and beyond the interrogation.” With these [arguments] the acute and excellently learned man strives to darken Josephus’s brightness [fulgor]; but by a light hand the soot [fuligo] can be removed.
To the first I respond: although Josephus alone had said it, his authority ought to be the greatest in matters pertaining to the Priesthood, since he himself was a Priest; and besides, no other Hebrew writer of that age survives who could discuss such [things], except Philo and Josephus. Philo touched a few [things] of this kind, intent on allegories only, and did not deny [it]. That Josephus, therefore, alone affirmed it — what wonder [is that]?
That [is] indeed nothing to wonder at; but I wonder at this: whence, and from what words of mine, he carved out that argument. For nowhere does it appear — because [rather] I seem to myself to have hinted the contrary sufficiently, when I said that manner was “plausible to many.” Then, when he says, “although Josephus alone had said it [dixisset],” he signifies [that] several others said [it], some of whom he would afterward name; he would otherwise have said, “although Josephus alone had said it [dixerit].” But they [the words] stuck in the pen; and only this he urges: that, since Josephus was a Priest, he is deservedly to be believed in matters pertaining to the Priesthood. Rightly [so] — if that matter, in his time still, pertained to the priesthood—
(col. 217)
—[pertain to the priesthood], or could at least, once in all [his] life, have been experienced by him. Meanwhile he concedes — [he] who wrote about this historically, not allegorically — [that] no other of the Hebrews of that age survives.
He goes on. To the second: I deny [that] Josephus lapses in these [matters]. For although the 70 were Hebrew Sanhedrists, yet they wrote in Greek, not in Hebrew; and when they wrote in Greek, they said λόγιον; and afterward all the Greek proselytes followed them in this name-giving — for no other cause than that which Josephus there reported; from whose Greek context it is manifest [that] he is speaking of those Greeks only who venerated the Judaic rites. For it is known [that] Jews and Greeks are so distinguished that they retain the name of “Greeks,” [those] as many as from the Gentiles passed over to Judaism. But I myself [say] that the Septuagint, since they were Hebrews, not only knew Greek, but were the first to impose on the rational this logion-name; and therefore not the Greeks themselves — whether they be proselytes, or not. Yet he less rightly thinks Josephus speaks of Greek proselytes. For in him [Josephus], ἅπαντες οἱ τὰ ἡμέτερα τιμῶντες [“all who honor our customs”] are the Gentiles who nevertheless looked up to the Jewish nation, its laws, temple, and institutions, and pursued [them] with love and honor — as [do] some who [were] sometimes at first philosophers, whom he was just now calling τοὺς μὴ τὴν σοφίαν ἐπ’ ἐκφαυλισμῷ τῶν θείων ἠσκηκότας [“those who practiced wisdom not for the disparagement of divine things”]. For thus also, of them, [in] bk. 1 Against Apion: ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἠπίσταντο τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ὅσοις αὐτῶν ἐντύχοιεν, οὐχὶ φαυλότατοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ἀλλ’ οἱ ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ μάλιστα τεθαυμασμένοι, ῥᾴδιον γνῶναι [“that not only did they know the Jews, but also admired those of them whom they met — [these being] not the basest of the Greeks, but those most admired for wisdom — it is easy to know”]. And he subjoins the example of Clearchus, Aristotle, [and] others; and he had already before said [that] Pythagoras was a zealot of Judaic matters. Secondly, the [Gentile] Kings — about whom thus (bk. 12, ch. 3) he inscribes [the title]: πῶς ἐτίμων οἱ τῆς Ἀσίας βασιλεῖς τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος [“how the kings of Asia honored the nation of the Jews”] — and this he pursues through the whole chapter. Thirdly, other men of whatsoever sort, whom he narrates to have come to Jerusalem by a four-months’ journey κατὰ τιμὴν τοῦ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἱεροῦ [“for honor of the temple among us”]. That not all those were proselytes appears from [the things] which he adds: [that] some, namely, were not partakers of the sacrifices; some left [them] half-completed as remaining; others [were] not even admitted into the temple. Assuredly indeed, from the Gentiles many there were who — although they still remained bound by their [own] superstitions — nevertheless admired and praised the rites and manners of the Jews (about whom also [in] bk. 2 On Moses, Philo). Some also, who indeed bade farewell to [all] superstitions and idols, yet did not become proselytes, but were called σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν [“those revering God”], whom Josephus distinguishes from the Jews (bk. 14, ch. 12); and sometimes St. Luke names [them] in the Acts of the Apostles, as I noted on that book.
More would my little objection seem to be dissolved, if there were established some Greek version of the Mosaic law before the Septuagint. For by it this little denial of mine would be weakened; yet my affirmation for that more ancient version — which I delivered in the Biblical Prolegomena — would be strengthened. [Though] two [things] would yet have to be proved: that that version [was] once made not by Hebrews skilled in the Greek tongue, but by Gentiles alone; and likewise [that] those ancients rendered the Hebrew name by no other word than τὸ λόγιον. Of which [things], the former, to deny [it], the punishment of Theopompus (in Josephus, bk. 12, ch. 2) would seem enough.
But the Syzetes [co-inquirer] goes on: “Concerning the cessation of the oracle too, deservedly [I prefer] the authority of Josephus to all the Talmudists, and to six hundred more recent Rabbis, who of all antiquity—”
(col. 218)
“—are most unskilled — I prefer [Josephus]. Concerning that response of Jaddus, indeed — [which touches] the cessation of oracles — neither the Latin nor the Greek Historians, who pursued Alexander’s affairs well-nigh scrupulously, remembered [it] even by one little word. But Josephus, and Zonaras, and Glycas, when they accurately narrate what Jaddus did with Alexander, recount these [things]; whence it is sufficiently gathered [that] Alexander thought nothing about an oracle through Urim and Thummim — of which I judge [it] altogether likely he was also entirely ignorant. But concerning the victory over Darius, they teach [that he was] made more certain by God through a vision. I think, therefore, [that] Josephus treated of a flashing of this kind [as] utterly and always ceasing. For that, by intervals, [it] even sometimes ceased earlier — as in Saul’s time, and afterward in [the time] of certain Kings after David — is not to be doubted. Glycas indeed indicates [that], when the Israelites had offended God, He was not wont to answer them through the Ephod. So, therefore, I suspect [that] the Jews were wont, first, through the Priests — the Ephod being applied — to consult God; [and] if by this way it did not succeed, [they] had recourse to the prophets, even [those] who were not priests. For so you may read [that] the priests themselves also went to Huldah the prophetess for the sake of an oracle.” I do indeed gladly recite the words of the very learned man — not so as only to defend or explain those [things] of mine, but much more because doctrines always bring not a little to the amplification of the disputation, and of that truth which is sought by us.
In these [words] of his, therefore, [set out] at somewhat greater length, [there] are only two [things] which I approve less. One, that he should think it truly written by Josephus (as also [in] bk. 1 On the Calf, ch. 19, Moncaeus thinks) [that], two hundred years before he wrote that history of his, this flashing ceased. Concerning Josephus’s authority — how great it is, and to whom, or how many, and what sort [of matters], and in which matters it is to be preferred — I would not now litigate; let us see the thing itself only. He committed the commentaries of Jewish antiquity to letters (as he himself indeed reports, toward the end of them) in the 13th year of the Emperor Domitian, the 56th of his own age, in the 95th year of Christ the Lord [AD 95]. Therefore, in the first year of the 108th Olympiad, [in the year] of the City 1046, before Christ the Lord born 105 years or thereabout (let whoever will follow whatever chronology; for about two, or three, or four years, the little disagreement makes nothing to the purpose), this splendor ceased — therefore, after the times of the Maccabees, and before the death of John Hyrcanus [and] the reign of Aristobulus and of his brother Alexander. But that in the whole time of the Maccabees already there was nothing of this oracle, appears even from this: that, although so many and so grave perils, fears, and doubts often befell them, yet never — neither Mathathias, nor Judas, nor Jonathan, or Simon, although they themselves were Pontiffs — are they found to have consulted God through Urim and Thummim. But because, [in] bk. 1, ch. 4 [1 Macc. 4], we thus read about Judas purging the temple (verse 44): “And he took counsel concerning the altar of holocausts, which was profaned, what he should do with it. And a good counsel came into their minds, to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the Gentiles had defiled it; and they demolished it. And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the house, in a fit place, until there should come a prophet, and answer concerning them.” — If any ray had then still been in Urim and Thummim, would they not have looked to it? And truly, by this argument, that whole matter—
(col. 219)
—[by this argument, that whole matter is] entirely completed, [as] Abulensis judged (Exodus 28, quest. 15), and our Pererius (vol. 4, on Genesis, ch. 25) — who, however, whether he sufficiently agrees with himself, I do not see, while from that fact of Judas [Maccabee] he proves [that] Urim and Thummim were then not [in being], and yet says [that] they ceased in the times of Jonathan. For since Jonathan followed Judas, if in the former’s age they had already ceased, they could not [have] reached the later one’s time, and then cease. (That I may meanwhile be silent [that] they assign the 168th Olympiad to the same Jonathan — which, however, was much earlier.) But Abulensis, indeed, because he does not labor over accurate chronology in this disputation, so proposes Josephus’s opinion that he says now [that] this oracle began to have its end 130 years before the nativity of Christ the Lord (as [in] 1 Kings [Sam.] ch. 23, quest. 7), now 150 years (as in the same, ch. 14, q. 31), now 160 years (as [in] Exod. ch. 28, q. 15) — where, however, against Josephus, he concludes [that], before the times of the Maccabees, as I said, an end [was] already made for them. I add also a third reason. Josephus says, in the same place, that the brightness [was] divinely taken away, on account of sins, and the transgression of the laws themselves. But what [sins] could those be — so grave, so hateful to God Himself, and worthy of so great a penalty and detriment? And how does Josephus, when he commemorates the deeds, slaughters, [and] calamities of Simon, Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, and the others, not even by a little word indicate this divine wrath, and the loss of the oracle? Before those [men], therefore, it is certain that [it] failed [by] 200 years. Which was the one [thing] now to be proved.
But to the completeness of this question pertains also this: that it be inquired at what time before — nay, even before the age of the Maccabees — this kind of oracle vanished. Great is the dissension among the Jewish Rabbis themselves, as appears from those [things] which R. Azariah wrote (bk. 3, ch. 50, fol. 157b, and ch. 51, fol. 164). But I find three chief opinions. The first is that of Abulensis (in that quest. 15 on Exod. 28): [that] this was done in the intermediate times between Alexander and the Maccabees. And to this opinion [belongs] that which, in the cited R. Azariah (ch. 51), he says: [that] after Simeon the Just, Urim and Thummim ceased. The other: already from the burning of the Jerusalem temple by Nebuchadnezzar, and the Babylonian captivity. And this is the opinion of several Rabbis — partly of those cited before, partly of others — and of Christians, neither few nor unlearned: as Galatinus (bk. 4, ch. 9), Porchetus (part 1, Victory, ch. 7). For these, and those Rabbis, say [that] Urim and Thummim were in the first temple only, not in the second. So the Talmudists themselves (ch. 1, Tract. Yoma, near the end), and the Jerusalem Talmud in Kiddushin, and Tract. On Fasts. The third: [that] in those days in which the excellent Pontiff was slain by Joash King of Judah, all the responses — both those [given] in the holy of holies, and those which God gave through Urim and Thummim — ceased. So Genebrardus (bk. 1 Chronology, fol. 61), cited also by Moncaeus himself (p. 225). And hence [there] seems to me to have been born either a [true] history, or a fable, which he narrates — about the lost gem of the Pontifical ephod, most precious, and at last found by a certain [man] who had given most liberal alms, and, with great advantage to himself, restored to the priests — [which] he narrates [as happening] under the ten—
(col. 220)
—tribes’ captivity times, [does] Cedrenus (fol. 90). But out of these, to me the middle [opinion] seems the truer. First, because, since on account of [their] sins the Jews were deprived of that oracle (as Josephus above taught), then deservedly they seem [to have been] deprived [of it], when, for the same [sins], they were despoiled of the temple, and the altars, and all sacred things. Whence also is refuted that which (fol. 164, ch. 51) R. Azariah said — [that] that sin was the heresy of the Sadducees. For [both] this was after the times of Simeon the Just (as [is] shown [in] bk. 2 Trihaeresium, ch. 19), and [also] a sin so general, and in such excellent heads of the people, did not exist at the beginning. Second. Because after that captivity, [there is] nowhere any more mention of it, so as to be said to have existed — although (as [was] said above, quest. 26) it be found (2 Esdras [Neh.] 7, v. 65) “until Urim,” which the cited R. Azariah confesses (ch. 50, fol. 157b) can be expounded, as if [it were] “very late,” or “after many ages,” or, as he himself speaks, “until the resurrection of the dead,” or “until the coming of the Messiah.” [For] that first opinion seems to be posited only so that, in some manner — though with less accurate truth — the truth might be retained with some authority of Josephus. The third [opinion] — whence it can be proved, I do not see. That author indeed cites St. Epiphanius; but whence? And why, on account of that king’s [Joash’s] crime against the Pontiff, would the Pontiffs themselves be mulcted of their own supreme good, and ornament, and benefit? For although it was some penalty of the Kings also, that they could not use the Pontiffs’ oracles, yet a greater grief would have seized the Pontiffs themselves, on account of that loss. Then, [were there but] few, or little-otherwise-wicked Kings? So many priests — and those innocent, and all wearing the ephod — did Saul butcher, by a most nefarious sacrilege (1 Kings [Sam.] ch. 22); and yet still afterward Urim and Thummim flourished. How, therefore, would they, by the fault of one [king], Joash, have been so taken away? Fourthly, [I prefer the middle opinion] because that sentence seems not only more likely, but also more favorable to Christian truth, and more useful. For how great [a thing], if in the second temple this oracle never was — and yet by Haggai (ch. 2, v. 9) the same is said [to be] nobler and more august than the first, and that on account of one [thing], namely, JESUS CHRIST coming into it! Nay, R. Azariah openly professes himself to embrace this opinion (in the cited ch. 51), so that, when he would treat of the second temple with Haggai, he [may] elude the Christians’ argument thence [drawn]. Therefore both he, and — [in] ch. 10 Tract. On the Vessels of the Temple — Rambam, say [that] Urim and Thummim [were] partly in the second temple, partly not: [that they] were at some time toward its beginning; [that they] were not [thereafter] placed [there]. Fifthly and lastly, because the good author [Genebrard], on the first chapter of Haggai, against that opinion could produce nothing except Josephus’s authority alone — which, however, has been shown above to be alien from the truth. And this author, in whose disquisitions I respond, I suspect had not a little of moment for embracing that Josephan time [dating] so eagerly. For with me also, unless the light of truth carried me elsewhere, why would it not avail very much? As also in that which there he wonders at — [namely] Genebrard—
(col. 221)
—[wonders at] Genebrardus, a Catholic and erudite man, [for] denying [that] there was sacred fire in the second temple — and yet [for] citing ch. 1 of book 2 of Maccabees [2 Macc. 1], when the contrary is taught there. For Genebrardus, in that place (fol. 94), was not reporting his own opinion, but the opinion of the Jews; and from the book of Maccabees he was only proving [that] the priests were unwilling that that fire be contaminated, as it were, by the hands of impious Gentiles. But his own [opinion], consonant with Scripture, he afterward delivered (fol. 138).
The other [thing] which, in the Syzetes’ [reply to] my words, I approve less, is [this]: that Alexander interrogated nothing, knew nothing, or thought nothing about Urim and Thummim. He brings forward witnesses for himself — but all mute, and utterly silent about this. I brought forward [witnesses] speaking, and affirming. That [maxim] of the dialecticians I would not obtrude — [the argument] from negative Authority; but because my business is with a man most consummate not only in Theology but also in Law, from that [very fact] I ask: which kind of Witnesses is the more to be heard? If [those things] which mine assert [my witnesses] did not pass over in silence, but his Witnesses said [them to be] false, perhaps — with me not much, or not at all, gainsaying — I could employ that Fonteian [stratagem]: “Do you [pl.] not fear to trust the testimonies of the Belga and of the Allobroges? Does Indutiomarus know what it is to bear witness?” Yet I will now proceed as though — [for] what I have said — no one bore witness: and I say [that], even by conjecture alone, it can seem, to men not altogether stupid, to be not improbable [that] Alexander — although concerning that oracle of the Jews it had, in his age, long fallen silent — knew, [and] thought [something of it]. And, first indeed, does not Josephus write, in this very place about which we are disputing, [that] the flashing of those stones was an object of admiration to foreigners and strangers, even most greatly? Does he not narrate — as I touched on above also — [that] Philosophers looked up to the same? Does he not, [in] bk. 1 Against Apion, enumerate Pythagoras, Hermippus, Herodotus, Clearchus, Aristotle, Hecataeus of Abdera, who either came to know Jewish matters, or even explained [them] in published books? And Hecataeus indeed — ἀνὴρ (says he) φιλόσοφος, ἅμα περὶ τὰς πράξεις ἱκανώτατος, Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνακμάσας [“a philosophic man, and withal most competent in affairs, having flourished together with King Alexander”]. But Aristotle was the tutor of this same Alexander. Could Alexander himself, then, learn nothing of the Jews — both from others, and [especially] from this [Aristotle]? Now those things which, among some nations, are, or were, most admirable, are wont to be very greatly celebrated in [common] talk. And who would believe [that] a King neither unlearned nor idle did not sometimes inquire curiously about the nations which — before Darius, whom he was seeking — would meet him, and did not interrogate [about] whatever seemed, among individual [peoples], illustrious and wondrous? Nay, [did he inquire] not even then, when he was admonished by an object divinely seen [in a vision]? when he had taken Tyre and Gaza? when he was sending letters thence to the high priest, and at last hastening to Jerusalem? To meet [him], as he came, went forth that high priest Iaddus [Jaddua], with the priests all clad in the priestly fine linen [byssus], himself conspicuous in the Pontifical ornaments. Alexander was stupefied; adoring, he fell down, reached out his right hand, entered the city and the temple, and offered many sacrifices by that one’s [the priest’s] prescription — as Josephus copiously narrates (bk. 11, last ch.) — to say nothing, meanwhile, of what Gorionides [Josippon] narrates (bk. 1, ch. 6). Could he then hear nothing of Urim—
(col. 222)
—and Thummim? Did he inquire nothing about that one’s [the priest’s] vestments? And if he did inquire — since, in the Greek tongue, [it] was named, among other [names], λόγιον — whether, because he knew [that] by that word an oracle is signified, and [because] on so great an expedition he was of all men most desirous of oracles, did he not at least take occasion thence of ascertaining whether, among that nation, there were any — and what sort of — oracle? And when he interrogated whether there was anything [such] even then, and what once had been, did not the Pontiff answer [him] most copiously and most wisely? [That] there was, therefore, by Alexander something thought, known, and heard of Urim and Thummim — even if no writers said [it] — the very consideration of the facts nevertheless renders certain enough, and probable.
But the Syzetes goes on. To the third [point] I say [that] none of those [things] follow which are inferred. For Josephus mentions war, as the matter about which [inquiry] was more frequently made; but he mentions the flashing only — the subsequent Priestly manifestation being passed over — because that manifestation [was] a customary thing, whereas the flash [was] a thing plainly unusual and unheard-of to the other nations, and therefore he had resolved to commend that to memory. But I hold it persuaded [i.e. I am persuaded that] all who have read Josephus will concede, from his very words, [that] those two [inferences] do follow. But if we add those [things] which the Syzetes wishes, and interpret [him] in his own manner, they will not by any means follow. Yet it would have had to be proved [that] Josephus speaks with those modifications appended. Otherwise, anyone might say [that] any other manner whatever was in Josephus’s mind — [but was] by him [left] as if [it were] either solid [attested] elsewhere, and heard, or at least less rare, and [as] a marvel not explained. And therefore not by reasoning, as I [do], but by affirming, our Pererius hands down, in the place cited, [that] Josephus’s manner was not general, but only in matters of war — and indeed only concerning the outcome, whether favorable or adverse. But [enough] of these [matters] concerning Josephus now. It would please me to inquire also this: did St. Augustine condemn this manner of his (q. 117)? Our Delrio denies [it] (bk. 4 Disquisitions, ch. 1, q. 2, sect. 1) — [saying he condemned] only that one [manner] which posits a flashing diamond.