From: Overholt, Thomas W.  "Prophecy and Divination."  Chapter 5 in Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity, 117-148.  Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
 
Please note that some of the italicized words are English transliterations of Hebrew words; that the bold hot-link numbers in parenthesis are links to endnotes (click on the number to jump to the endnote page); and the numbers in red brackets refer to the upcoming page number of the article.  The latter will help for citation purposes. 
Chapter 5 - Prophecy and Divination
 
[117]  Prophets are intermediaries whose primary business is to facilitate communication between a divine reality and a human audience. However, they do not have a monopoly on this function. In ancient Israel as well as in other societies both ancient and modern, diviners were an important source of knowledge about "the purposes, will, or attitudes of the gods (1)."
        Divination may be thought of as "a technique of communication with the supernatural forces that are supposed to shape the history of the individual as well as the group (2)" or an "attempt by men to gain access to the knowledge which only the spirits, as omniscient beings, possess about the source of those social and physical ills which may afict a community (3)." Commonly, a diviner making an inquiry of a god employs some physical technique, such as casting lots or examining the entrails of a sacrificial animal.
        Students of ancient Israelite religion have typically stressed the differences between prophets and diviners. The former are seen as agents who take the initiative in addressing the words of Yahweh to the people and through whom the deity speaks freely. The latter are consulted and must make formal inquiry to discover the deity's will. However, this difference should not blind us to important similarities between prophets and diviners, similarities that can contribute to our understanding of the nature of prophetic activity.

[118] EVIDENCE FOR DIVINATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL
        The Hebrew Bible has six prominent terms designating persons who practice divination. A generic term covers diviner and/or divination (qsm/qesem; cf. Isa. 3:2, Mic. 3:7). The others seem to label more specialized functions: soothsayer (`nn, literally, one who "causes [a spirit?] to appear"; cf. Mic. 5:12), augur (nhs, one who looks for omens; cf. Lev. 19:26), sorcerer (ksp; cf. Mic. 5:11), spirit of the dead ('ob; Lev. 19:31), and familiar spirit (yidde'oni; Lev. 19:31). The original meanings of these terms are not always clear (4), but the fact that in some contexts several of them are mentioned together indicates that some differences of function were recognized (cf. Deut. 18:9-14, which adds charmer and necromancer to the above list; 2 Kings 17:17; 21:16; Jer. 27:9).
        In addition to these terms, references to specific acts of divination are made. Sometimes Yahweh's will is sought by consulting him with the Urim and Thummim (Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 14:41; 28:6), inquiring of an ephod (1 Sam. 23:9-12; 30:7-8), or casting lots (Prov. 16:33; Josh. 18:6, 8, 10; Judg. 20:9). Several texts refer to messages derived from omens, as in the case of the selection of Rebekah (Gen. 24:12-14, 21, 26-27) and Jonathan's decision to attack the Philistines (1 Sam. 14:8-12; cf also 2 Sam. 5:22-25; Num. 17:1-13 [MT 16-28]; Isa. 7:11-12) (5). Yahweh can communicate through dreams (Gen. 31:10-13, 24, 29; 41; 1 Sam. 28:6) or through a ritual ordeal (Num. 5:11-31). Hosea speaks of the people inquiring of a thing of wood (4:12).
        Several texts narrating events from the premonarchic and earliest monarchic periods of Israelite history give us some details about how and why divination was employed. We first consider three that describe a process of selection using lots: 1 Samuel 14; Joshua 7; and 1 Sam. 10:17-27.

1 Samuel 14. This text contains the most elaborate of these accounts. The narrative is set in the context of continuing hostilities [119] between the Israelites under King Saul and the Philistines, and it contains references to four occasions on which Yahweh was consulted (or almost consulted) for instructions on what to do. First of all, Jonathan, acting on his own and without Saul's knowledge, looked for a sign that would reveal whether or not Yahweh would grant him success in his planned attack against the Philistine garrison (vv. 8-12). The answer was affirmative (6). Next, Saul, noticing something wrong in the Philistine camp and discovering that Jonathan and his armor-bearer were missing, summoned Ahijah the priest to bring the ephod (7). Events were unfolding rapidly; however, and Saul ordered the priest to break off the consultation and hurried into battle (vv. 18-20). Later, Saul proposed a nighttime pursuit of the routed Philistines. It is noteworthy that on this occasion the priest took the initiative by intervening and suggesting a consultation (vv. 36-37). Saul complied, posing his questions about the success of the plan in such a way that they could be answered either yes or no (cf. 1 Sam. 23:11; 30:8; 2 Sam. 5:19). Clearly, the expectation was that Yahweh would answer because when he did not Saul assumed that someone among the people had sinned, and he initiated another consultation to determine where the guilt lay (vv. 38-39). In this final consultation (vv. 40-42), the Urim and Thummin (8) were employed to render a series of choices between alternatives [120] that culminated in the identification of the guilty party (9). The language is that of casting lots: in the first round, Saul and Jonathan "were taken," and the people "went free"; in the second and final round, Jonathan "was taken."
        Two of these four consultations have as their purpose the acquisition of information about the outcome of a future event, specifically; a battle (I Sam. 14:8-12, 36-37). Presumably, the aborted consultation (vv. 18-19) had a similar goal. The last (vv. 40-42) seeks to identify the person guilty of a particular infraction. All are directed to Yahweh and assume that he is capable of and willing to provide the desired information. All are structured in such a way that the deity is given the means (a sign, lots) to choose the correct one of two alternatives.
        We need to keep in mind that communication is, by definition, a two-way exchange. In general we might say that if prophetic oracles are a natural way for a deity to initiate communication with a human audience, then divination is a natural way for human beings to initiate communication with a god. However, some cases do not fit neatly into this scheme. In 1 Sam. 14:36-37 we hear of a priest who takes the initiative in suggesting a consultation. As in the case of prophets who come forward to address an audience, he presumably had reason to believe that Yahweh had something to say in the present situation. Then again, we frequently hear of people consulting the prophets, a topic to which we will shortly return.

Joshua 7. This text contains the narrative of an unsuccessful Israelite attack on the city of Ai and the subsequent attempt by Joshua to determine the reason for the failure and to take corrective action. One striking feature of the narrative is that it depicts a period of direct, verbal communication between Joshua and Yahweh immediately following the debacle. The question of why Yahweh allowed his people to be defeated (vv. 6-9) is answered with the revelation that someone has violated the covenant requirement to destroy captured persons and [121] booty (vv. 10-12). Yahweh then provides a general prescription for remedying the situation (v. 12), specific directions for how to identify the culprit by lot (vv. 13-14), and an appropriate punishment to be imposed (v. 15). Despite all this, he does not verbally identify the guilt, party. For this he seems to prefer speaking through the sacred lots. Indeed, according to the narrative, Yahweh initiates the divinatory procedure (v 14).
        As in 1 Sam. 14:40-42, the goal of the divination was to identify a guilty party, and the procedure by which this was done was much the same. Here groups were apparently brought before Yahweh one at a time. Those he designated innocent were (it is implied) set free; the guilty were "taken." The main difference between the accounts is that 14:40-42 adds the detail that the Urim and Thummim were used in the selection process.

1 Samuel 10:17-27. This story - how Saul was chosen by lot to be Israel's first king - has strong parallels to the narratives just discussed. Samuel is said to have convened an assembly of Israelites for the purpose of conducting the divination (v. 17), but, as in 14:36 and Josh. 7:14, Yahweh is ultimately the initiator of the action; Samuel is here speaking as a prophet (vv. 18-19), and the selection process is undertaken as a result of Yahweh's decision to accede to the people's request for a king. The account of the selection is couched in the familiar language of "bringing near" and "taking."
        The meshing of prophetic oracle and act of divination in this story could be the result of editorializing by a prophetic narrator who wanted to suggest that having a king must be seen as a kind of judgment against the people (10). Be that as it may, the function of the divination is to discover whom Yahweh had chosen (v. 24).
A second consultation is required to complete the process because when the field was finally narrowed to Saul, he was nowhere to be found (v. 21). In this case, however, direct verbal communication occurs: Yahweh was asked about Saul's whereabouts, and he responded by naming the hiding place (v. 22). The parallel to Joshua 7 is obvious. Apparently, lots are the accepted way to get information of a certain type, namely, which of two alternatives Yahweh prefers. Whether this [122] passage is a single story or a conflation of two episodes, the narrative suggests that it was natural to consult Yahweh in these ways. Nor is the passage negative about this resort to divination or, for that matter, about the kingship (11).

1 Sam. 9:1-10:16. Two additional narratives from the life of Saul describe divinatory procedures. In 1 Sam. 9:1-10:16 Samuel identifies and secretly anoints Saul to be prince over the Israelite people. Although this anointing is die focal point of the story, divination plays an important role in the development of the action, in which Samuel is pictured as a well-known diviner, and the initial contact between the two occurred when Saul sought his services.
        As the narrative begins, Saul and a servant have been sent by his father to retrieve some asses that had wandered off and become lost. Their initial lack of success prompts the servant to suggest that they seek the aid of a local "man of God" whose qualifications appear to be that he is "held in honor" and that everything he says "is sure to happen" (1 Sam. 9:6). The purpose of the visit is to be put on the right track with respect to the task of finding the lost asses (vv. 6b, 8b). We will see that divination for the purpose of finding lost property is fairly common in a number of cultures, and resorting to it seems an altogether natural stratagem in this narrative. Even the author of the editorial explanation in v. 9 takes it for granted and labels the procedure with the rubric "to seek God (12)."
        Saul and his servant proceed to the seer's city and ask directions for how to find him. Meanwhile, the narrator adds parenthetically that on the previous day Yahweh had revealed to Samuel that Saul would be coming and should be anointed prince, so that he could save the Israelites from their Philistine enemies (9:15-16). When Saul comes into view, Yahweh identifies him to Samuel as the man about whom he had spoken (v. 17). The men meet, identities are established (vv. 18-19 show that Saul and the servant had previously known Samuel only by reputation), and Samuel gives Saul instructions about what he should do (v. 19). Samuel also voluntecrs the information that the lost asses have been found (v. 20a). This verse marks the end of the divinatory consultation. Without being asked, the seer answers the question the [123] client brings, and the narrative action moves on toward Saul's anointment. The abruptness of the announcement about the asses may seem surprising, but it can be understood in the context of a convention in some forms. of divination according to which the client conceals from the diviner the purpose of his or her visit.
        The question has been raised whether Samuel or some anonymous "man of God" was being sought out to perform a divination. The identity of the diviner is clear enough in the narrative as it stands, but ambiguity arises when the tradition history of the passage is considered. The story may in fact be a composite in which a folktale about the recovery of lost livestock has been meshed with an account of Saul's anointing. A series of tensions within the narrative gives evidence that this is the case. For example, at the beginning of the story the "man of God" and/or "seer" is unknown to Saul by name (1 Sam. 9:6-13), yet in 9:14 the narrator suddenly identifies him with Samuel, a well-known figure (cf. 10:14-16). Again, according to 9:19 Samuel sends Saul on ahead to the high place, but 9:22 indicates that Samuel in fact escorted him to the sacrificial meal (13).
        According to Bruce Birch, an editor "influenced by prophetic tradition" worked the two stories together. He believes, however, that Samuel was already identified in the folktale, the "theme" of which is "Saul's unwitting encounter as a youth with Samuel (14)." H. W. Hertzberg maintains the anonymity of the diviner in the folktale (15). In fact, despite widespread recognition that the passage is composite, no consensus has developed on the exact verses to be assigned to each of the stories (16). What is important to notice is that the transformation of the folktale did not result in denying, obliterating, or criticizing Saul's recourse to divination. Rather, the account is accepted and utilized by the narrator, whose apparent desire is to show that Saul, directed by divine providence, found more than he sought (17).   Furthermore, according to this composite narrative, the diviner is not simply a technician who in some mechanical way answers the query of a client, but rather a [124] person through whom Yahweh speaks and who is free to enlarge the scope of the consultation beyond what the client originally intended.
        The final result is a narrative in which Samuel appears in a role readily recognizable to students of divination in other cultures. Samuel is sought out to provide information about the location of lost property and receives a fee for his services (1 Sam. 9:7-8). His reputation as a diviner depends upon the accuracy of the information he provides (v. 6). Hertzberg comments on the initial meeting in which Samuel gives Saul information about the lost asses: "The servant was right; this seer knows his business (18)." Finally, the diviner knows without having to be told the reason for the consultation.

1 Samuel 28. We come finally to the story of Saul's consultation with the spirit medium at Endor (1 Samuel 28). The narrator at once shows that Saul has two problems. First, the Israelite army is threatened by an apparently superior force of Philistines (vv. 4-5). Second, although consulting Yahweh is normal in such situations, the usual means for doing so have become unavailable: Samuel is dead; Saul (presumably acting as a loyal Yahwist) has banished "the (images of) ancestral spirits and ghosts" (19) from the land (v. 3); and Yahweh has refused to speak by such usual means as dreams, Urim, and prophets (v. 6).
        Saul instructs his servants to seek out a woman who is a medium for ancestral spirits (20), and they inform him that such a person is at Endor. Although he is said to have banished these diviners from the land (1 Sam. 28:3), this one remains, and her location is well known to them. Disguised, Saul visits her at night, and the narrative gives the impression that the procedures for consulting such a person are familiar. He knows what he wants and what to ask the woman to do: "Divine [125] for me," he says, "by means of an ancestral spirit, and bring up for me the one whom I tell you" (v. 8). He requests the spirit of Samuel (v. 11). This work is done; and a dialogue follows (vv. 15-19). The experience leaves Saul flat on his face in fear (v. 20).
        Calling up ancestral spirits is a specific form of the generic operation, divination. Exactly what the woman did is unclear. The most obvious interpretation would be that she somehow summoned Samuel's ghost and allowed Saul to converse directly with his deceased counselor.  J. Lust suggests that vv. 13-14 show that Saul did not himself see Samuel's ghost, and thus the ghost's words (vv. 15-19) "must logically be considered as the witch's interpretation for Saul of what she heard in her vision" (21). In any case, W. A. M. Beuken's argument to the effect that Samuel appears as a prophet and in doing so does not allow the woman time to conjure a ghost (22) has to be rejected as a piece of apologetic that does not come to terms with the underlying religious phenomenon.
        The diviner does not seem to have been limited by the question posed by her client. Even allowing for some editorial expansion, Saul gets more than he requested. Saul came seeking guidance for action in war (v. 15) but got instead a prediction of defeat and death (v. 19) (23). Lust points out that the "structure and wording" of accounts of persons consulting prophets is "practically the same" as 1 Samuel 28: someone in a situation of urgency goes to a prophet (or sends a messenger), puts a question to Yahweh through the prophet (only information is asked for, not help), and the man of God answers with an oracle (24).


ATTITUDES TOWARD DIVINATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL
        The Old Testament presents conflicting evidence with respect to the place of divination in Israelite religion. On the one hand, we have [126] already examined a number of passages that suggest a matter-of-fact acceptance of various forms of divination (25). On the other hand, some references to divination brim with hostility. A classic example is Deut. 18:9-14 (26). Here various types of divination are prohibited, along with child sacrifice. The rationale for the condemnation is that these things were practiced by the nations whom Israel dispossessed (v. 9, 14), and Yahweh prohibits them. The Deuteronomistic bias in favor of prophecy is also in evidence here because the text turns immediately to the promise of a prophet like Moses who will speak the words that God will put in his mouth and who is, therefore, to be heeded (18:15-22).  Similar prohibitions appear in Lev. 19:26 and 19:31.
        Other passages condemn divination in a less systematic or specific way. The text of 1 Sam. 15:23, assigned by McCarter to the "middle stage in the growth" of 1 Samuel (27), equates rebellion with "the sin of divination." Several kinds of divination are included in the catalogue of evils by means of which Manasseh angered Yahweh (2 Kings 21:6), and the prophets sometimes speak disapprovingly of divination (Hos. 4:12; Isa. 2:6; 8:19; 19:3; 44:25; 47:13; Jer. 27:9; 29:8). Jeremiah and Ezekiel accuse their prophetic opponents of uttering false divinations and the like (Jer. 14:14; Ezek. 12:24; 13:1-7, 23; 21:29; 22:28), but the content of what these opponents said and not divination itself seems to be under attack.
        Thus, there is strong evidence that in some periods, or in certain circles, divination was recognized and accepted as a part of Israelite life, while in other times, or among different groups, it was rejected. Given the evidence that Yahweh was sometimes consulted by divination and made his will known through its results, we are led to ask on what grounds some could condemn it. The fact that passages criticizing divination arc found largely in Deuteronomistic and prophetic contexts suggests that ideology and vested interests had a role to play. Broadly speaking, the goal of prophecy, and divination were the same: to facilitate communication between Yahweh and his people. The Deuteronomist believed, however, that the Mosaic prophet was "the only legitimate channel of communication between Yahweh and the people (28)." [127] Furthermore, the reason commonly given for rejecting divination is that it is a foreign practice (29), which is in harmony with the Deuteronomist's polemic against the native Canaanite culture (e.g., Deut. 7:1-5 ).
        For their part, the prophets would have had an interest in establishing their authority over against any who might challenge them. In prophetic texts the thing under attack sometimes seems to be not so much divination itself as particular communications that the prophet considered false and misleading (cf. Jer. 14:14; 29:8; Ezek. 13:1-12, 20-23; 22:28) or that had been performed opportunistically for personal gain (Mic. 3:5-7, 11) (30). In these texts the generic term for divination (qsm) is used, and the precise nature of the activity is difficult to discern. A reasonable suggestion would be that the reference is to the practice of "consulting" (inquiring of, drs) Yahweh through a prophet in order to obtain information and advice. Such consultations are reported with reasonable frequency in the historical and prophetic books. For example, Jeroboam I sent his wife to Ahijah to inquire about the health of their son (1 Kings 14:1-18); in response to Jehoshaphat's request, Ahab sought from the prophets Yahweh's word about the advisability of going to war (1 Kings 22:5, 7, 8); and Zedekiah asked Jeremiah to inquire of Yahweh on the matter of Nebuchadrezzar's attack (Jer. 21:1-7; cf 37:3) (31).

DIVINATION AS A SOCIAL PROCESS
        As in the case of prophecy, the Hebrew Bible does not set out to give us a description of the social role of diviner or of the actual process [128] of divination in which such persons engaged. Nevertheless, at least a partial picture of this activity can be assembled from available evidence.
        We learn nothing about how people came to be diviners, but evidently in Israel, as in other cultures, diviners were entitled to receive a fee for services rendered. In the story of Saul and the lost asses, a small amount of silver is mentioned as the appropriate payment (1 Sam. 9:7-8), and Mic. 3:11 speaks of prophets who "divine for silver." The narratives tell of "fees for divination" brought to Balaam by the elders of Moab and Midian (Num. 22:7) and of forty camel loads of goods brought to Elisha by Hazacl of Damascus (2 Kings 8:7-9). Despite the last example, one does not hear of rich diviners, which agrees with the situation found in other cultures. Divination is usually not a profitable profession, and diviners certainly cannot earn a living from such a talent.
        Even in societies that accept diviners as performers of a legitimate social role, members of the public evaluate the skill and effectiveness of individual practitioners by various largely informal tests. Several texts, mainly in the prophetic books, speak of such critical evaluation. As we might expect, the prophets most often dispute the "worthless divination" of their opponents on the basis of preconceived ideas about what Yahweh was likely to say to his people. Thus, Jeremiah rejects their message of peace (14:13-15), their encouragement of rcvolt against Nebuchadrezzar (27:9-10), and their prediction that the exile would be short (29:8). Ezekiel also rejected the message of peace (13:6-10; probably 21:29), and he condemned those he understood to be encouraging wickedness (13:22-23; 22:27-31). Micah 3:5-7 mentions the prediction of peace but adds a motivational criterion, asserting that the contents of these prophets' speeches were determined by self-interest. These criteria arc obviously subjective. A more objective criterion is whether what the diviner says proves to be accurate. Use of this standard is explicit in 1 Sam. 9:6 and implicit in Joshua 7. Convinced that the defeat at Ai was the result of some infraction of the rules of combat, Joshua cast lots to determine the identity of the guilty party, who was subsequently executed. Ai was attacked again, this time successfully We can safely assume that the victory would have been understood as a proof of the divination's validity.
        Divination is understood to be one way in which gods can communicate with their human devotees. Among both Israelites and [129] their neighbors, the client most frequently initiates such communication. We have numerous examples: This pattern is not invariable however. After the defeat of the Israelites at Ai, Joshua, their leader, prayed to Yahweh and was instructed by him to divine (Josh. 7:6-15). In both 1 Sam. 10:17-24 and 14:36, the person who ultimately performed the divination (Samuel and a priest, presumably Ahijah, respectively) initiated the process. In these cases Yahweh, working through a diviner, might be said to initiate the contact (33). Similarly, note that in the narrative of the lost asses Saul initiated the consultation, but Samuel had an independent message that dramatically broadened its scope (1 Sam 9:15-20; 9:27-10:8).
        The texts indicate divination was used by Israel and its neighbors in ways that correspond to what we know about its use in other cultures. Divination is commonly employed when the situation requires a selection from among alternatives or a decision about some course of action. Thus, lots were used to apportion the land (Joshua 18-19), select between goats on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:6-10), identify a guilty party (Josh. 7:14-18; 1 Sam. 14:41-42), decide who would go into battle (Judg. 20:8-11), and choose a king (1 Sam. 10:20-24). Information gained by divination was used to decide the time or route of a march (Num. 27:21; Ezek. 21:21-23), as well as whether to pursue the enemy or flee to safety (1 Sam 23:9-12; 30:7-8; cf. 14:37).
        A closely related motivation for divination was to gauge the probability of future success (1 Sam. 14:8-10, 37; 28:15; 30:7-8; 1 Kings 20:33). Diviners could be enlisted to help recover lost property or information (1 Sam. 9:5-10, Neh. 7:65)(34) or to discover the cause of some circumstance (Gen. 30:27; Josh. 7:14-18; 1 Sam. 6:2; Jonah 1:7).  
[130]      The kind of knowledge communicated in divination follows from these purposes. The seeker learns the cause of a present state of affairs (1 Sam. 6:1-9; Gen. 30:27), the identity of a guilty party (Joshua 7; 1 Sam 14:41-42), what to do 11 the future (1 Sam. 28:15; at least this is what Saul sought), or what will happen in the future (1 Sam 28:19). On one occasion the divination served to legitimate a sociopolitical innovation, the monarchy (1 Sam. 10:17-24).
        The biblical texts give us some insights into how divination works. We notice first of all some indications that it is rulebound, eliminating discretion on the part of the diviner. Mechanisms are employed that seem to ensure that results, because they are free from human manipulation, represent what God intends. Thus, the cows pulling the cart upon which Yahweh's ark had been placed were left to choose their own way (1 Sam. 6:7-9), and Yahwch identifies the guilty party through the random fall of Urim and Thummim (1 Sam. 14:41-42). Sometimes the circumstances are more ambiguous, as in the case of spirit mediums, who might be in a position to manipulate the apparitions they call up (cf. 1 Sam. 28:11-19).
        Proverbs 16:33 may be taken as a general statement of the theory of such divination: humans cast the lots, but God decides (35). Micah seems to allude to this explanation when he says that seers and diviners are shamed when Yahweh does not answer (3:7).1 Samuel 10:24 explicitly states that Saul, selected by lot to be Israel's king, was chosen by God (cf. Josh. 7:14; Judg. 20:18).
        We have already encountered a formal element well suited to such a theory, namely, the format of a choice between two alternatives that is employed in some divination. So, the Philistine cows will cither take the ark to its own land or not (1 Sam. 6:9 ); Yahweh takes one of the groups presented to him acid lets the other go (Josh. 7:14-18; 1 Sam. 10:17-24; 14:41-42) (36); and the Babylonian king consults his diviners about which of two roads to take (Ezek. 21:21-22).
        This rule is not hard and fast, however. The account in Joshua 18-19 about how land was apportioned among seven tribes seems to [131] suggest the use of a separate token for each. When Saul and his servant went to consult the diviner (1 Samuel 9), they wanted to know the whereabouts of the lost asses. A yes-no pattern of inquiry pursued deftly and at length might well have yielded this information, but it was not used. Again, Saul asked the spirit medium an open-ended qucstion about what he should do (1 Sam. 28:15 ).
        The more general question in this regard is whether in the process of facilitating communication between Israelites and Yahweh the diviners had an active or a passive function. Did they shape the outcome, or were they conduits for the transmission of information? The evidence just cited suggests the latter, but, as usual, the matter is not that simple. In the Balaam narrative, Balak's request (Num. 22:6-7) implies that the diviner can manipulate the outcome of the divination in the client's favor. The wording of Balaam's response (23:21-23) seems to imply that such manipulation is possible, although he makes what must have been the diviner's standard assertion: what is communicated is solely the deity's will (cf. Num. 24:1; once the deity's will is ascertained, divination stops). Similarly, Isa. 47:9, 12 seems to suggest that the Babylonians used several types of divination ("sorceries," "enchantments") to ensure (military) success. In the consultation about the lost asses, Samuel seems to have gone beyond the matter at hand to utter an additional message based on revelation (1 Sam. 9:15-20; 9:27-10:8). Of course, when mediums (1 Samuel 28) or prophets are consulted, the process is by its very nature much more open-ended. Again, examples from other cultures show how interpretation, even the interpretation of texts, can be part of the function of a diviner.

ISRAELITE AND NON-ISRAELITE DIVINATION
        Over the centuries and around the world, divination has played all important role in many societies. In addition to the sheer scope of its distribution, anyone studying divination is impressed by the variety of techniques employed. Even societies where one form has gained special prominence, say; the inspection of livers from sacrificial animals (hepatoscopy) in ancient Babylon or the casting of palm nuts (Ifa divination) among the Yoruba of west Africa, acknowledge and use other techniques as well. Evidence for several kinds of divination in [132] Israel - among them signs (1 Sam. 14:8-12), lots (Joshua 7; 1 Sam. 10:20-21; 14:40-42), consulting with ancestral spirits (1 Samuel 28), and inquiring through prophets (1 Kings 14: I-18) - is therefore not at all unusual.
        Divination not uncommonly coexists with other forms of intermediation. Prophets and diviners may be found in ancient Israel, in Islam (37), mid among the Seneca (38). Siberia (39) and tribal India (40) have both shamans and diviners, and Uganda (41) has diviners and spirit mediums. The roles are not always clearly distinguishable and sometimes are practiced by the same person.
        Viewed against the background of non-Israelite practices, the divination mirrored in the Hebrew Bible appears quite normal. The social process is a familiar one, as is the underlying assumption upon which it is based, namely, that such acts are a valid form of communication with the divine. This normalcy can be illustrated by viewing the characteristics of Israelite divination just described in the context of non-Israelite practices.
        Diviners typically receive some remuneration for their services. As in the case of Samuel (1 Sam. 9:7-8), the fees arc often modest (42). However, sometimes diviners make a living at their profession (43), and sometimes they are not paid at a11 (44).
[133]    Audiences are no more passive with respect to diviners than they are to prophets, and diviners' activities are evaluated in a variety of ways. One criterion is whether the outcomes of the divination are accurate and effective. If they are, the reputation of the diviner will be enhanced (as in 1 Sam. 9:6) (45).
        Diviners may also be judged on the basis of stereotypical expectations that are, of course, culture-specific, but the process is the same as in Israel. These expectations sometimes involve procedural details. For example, the first verse recited by Ifa diviners should not relate directly to the client's problem (46), and they should not be too facile in their recitation of the verses associated with the sign revealed by casting the palm nuts (47). However, conformity to expectations goes beyond this. According to A. Irving Hallowell, Ojibwa shaking tent "conjurers" successfully played a role that had been prescribed by their culture and in the process strengthened belief in the reality of the spirits (48). The society may want to know that the diviner has had the proper dreams or visions and has been certified by an established diviner (49). What he or she says should be in correspondence with sentiments of the group (50). Furthermore, diviners are subject to critical evaluation by their peers (cf. Mic. 3:11), who may be present at a divining session (51), or a client may consult another diviner to check the accuracy of the first or to try to obtain a more favorable result (52).
        On this matter of evaluation, note that factors may predispose people to believe in the results of divination and therefore offset any errors and inaccuracies. One such factor is the belief that the gods arc responsible for the existence of, or otherwise stand behind, the system [134] of divination (53). For example, that the god Ifa "himself set up the system" of divination that bears his name is assumed (54), and the formula "Ifa says . . . ," is frequent in the verses (55). Another factor is that the nature of the problems dealt with (e.g., a Yoruba client's wish to know where to build a new dwelling) may make accurate assessment of results difficult and invite after-the-fact rationalizations like "Had I not divined, things would have turned out worse (56)." Sometimes procedural safeguards make it unlikely that the diviner could manipulate a result. For example, the Yoruba client routinely withholds from the diviner information about the problem that motivated the consultation (57).
        Divination may in fact play a centrally important role in a given society (58). About the Late Assyrian Empire, Jana Pecirkova has said that it was "an inseparable part of the political ideology and the practical politics of the state (59)." In such situations the tendency is to focus any suspicions that might arise on individual diviners, not on the system itself (60).
        In both Israel and elsewhere, the client normally takes the initiative, but this practice should not of itself lead us to a negative evaluation of divination, and on this matter, as elsewhere, ambiguity exists. In examining the biblical evidence, we noted a case where the diviner-priest took the initiative in suggesting a consultation (1 Sam. 14:36-37), and in several narratives Yahweh appears to be the one who set the process in motion (Josh. 7:10-15; 1 Sam. 10:17-21). In other passages Yahweh's intention is freely announced with respect to some [135] matters but must be divined for matters of another type (Josh. 7:10-12, 13-21; 1 Sam. 10:20-21a, 21b-23). Elsewhere, possession of the medium by a god might be understood to mean that the deity has responded to the people's initiative by becoming available to them. Above all, the consensus among those utilizing divination-that it is a divinely sanctioned mode of communication-should alert us to its great importance.
    Gods are often assumed to have specifically established divination as a way to communicate with humans (61), and divinatory acts may begin with an invocation of gods (62). C. J. Gadd speaks of an assumption among the Babylonians that an "understanding of the world-order" is possible to humans only if it is granted by the gods. "Divination," he says, "is the process (or one process) by which this communication is maintained, when the god's attention has to be ascertained, and is not freely announced (63)." According to A. Leo Oppenheim, the ancient Mesopotamians assumed that the gods were able and willing to communicate their intentions and that they were "interested in the wellbeing of the individual or the group.." (64). For the Yoruba, Ifa, the god who speaks through the verses, was empowered and commissioned by the high-god, Olorun (65). We should not overlook the testimony of diviners themselves who say that such activities represent "a communication with the gods (66)."
        This communication is not limited to the specific information or advice received during a consultation. Sometimes, particularly when game is scarce, the Montagnais-Naskapi native Americans of the northeastern woodlands divine by scapulimancy (i.e., the interpretation of spots and cracks on shoulder blade bones that have been held in a fire) as part of their preparations for a hunt. This operation is motivated by a [136] desire not only to locate animals but also "to re-establish harmony between individual hunters and the supernatural world believed to control the game supply" (67). By performing divination, the Montagnais-Naskapi do not abandon their own judgment about where animals might be found, although this interpretation has sometimes been offered. Divination, rather, is part of a whole "cycle of communications between men and spirits." This cycle begins before the hunt and lasts through disposal of the dead animals' remains; it comes to awareness especially in the killing of special animals (e.g., bear, moose, beaver), which involves special rites. "The use of divination is the sign that a spiritually important hunting event is imminent." Divination provides "a theatrical representation" of a normally "hidden aspect of the killing of animals"; it affirms a relationship and starts a "cycle of exchange (68)."
        Each culture has a standard set of motivations for divination and of expectations about what knowledge may be obtained through it. Frequently - as in 1 Sam. 14:8-12, 36-37 and in 1 Kings 22:5-6, 15 (where prophets are consulted) - a client seeks guidance for future actions (69) or wishes to learn whether a proposed enterprise will be successful (70). Diviners often assist in locating lost or stolen property or identifying thieves (71), which is reminiscent of 1 Sam. 9:5-10. They also may be called upon to diagnose illness (72).
        Often gods are assumed to speak through prophets freely; but in divination speech is assumed to be filtered through some form of mechanical technique. Communication with the divine by means of [137] divination is, therefore, both limited and subject to subjective manipulation by the diviner. Basing a judgment about the comparative worth of prophecy and divination on such a supposition is dangerous, however. On the one hand, proving that the prophet's words are the unaltered words of the god would be difficult. On the other hand, divination tends to be rulebound, and the diviner's discretion, if not eliminated, is at least severely curtailed. One piece of evidence for this lack of discretion is the tendency for questions asked during divination to be phrased in such a way that they can be answered yes or no, the god being left to make the choice between alternatives (73).
        In Ifa divination, the diviner casts palm nuts, which are either loose or arranged on a chain, and then recites a series of verses associated by tradition with the resulting pattern. The activity proceeds according to strict rules, deviation from which is noted and criticized by both clients and other diviners. Subjective manipulation of the loose nuts or the chain would be difficult and is protected against by the fact that clients often keep the reason for the consultation secret and themselves select from the recited verses the one appropriate to their situation (74).  The Ifa verses form a body of tradition so important that they are in effect the unwritten scriptures of the Toruba (75).  This kind of textual regulation of the results of divination can be found in ancient Mesopotamia, where omen lists and the like existed in written form. The result was a collection of generally accepted rules that introduced a degree of regularity into the interpretation of omens (76).
        Some forms of divination are apparently much easier to manipulate than Ifa. A Navajo diagnostician, arm trembling, may silently recite [138] a list of diseases, causes of disease, or curing ceremonials; when the arm ceases to tremble, the correct choice has been reached (77). Among the Kuba of Zaire, the diviner recites a list of names or formulae while rubbing a disk on the back of a carved figure that has been anointed with oil. The word being uttered at the moment the disk sticks is understood to be the answer to the client's question. In addition, the diviner personalizes the recited list by utilizing knowledge of the client's activities, social situation, and the like (78). In such cases the diviner would seem to have a certain amount of control over the result, but this is not what the diviners say or (at least most of) their audiences believe. For example, the Navajo diviner Gregono describes his trembling arm as acting compulsively and outside his control (79).
        Even given stronger controls, we should not think of the diviner as trapped by an inflexible technique. In Ifa, for example, divine control (Ifa himself selects the figure and is the source of the verses) and human interpretation (the client selects as applicable one of the verses the diviner has memorized for that figure) are balanced. The client's interpretation of the results of the divination is affected by the number and kind of verses the diviner has memorized for a given figure. The diviner may attempt to influence the interpretation by improvising a verse or supplying a verse connected with another figure and also has some discretion in prescribing the required sacrifice, a standard part of the content of every message received through divination (80).
        Other examples of divination display a similar balance between prescription and interpretation. Among the Ixil Maya, the diviner selects a series of "day names" by scooping up a handful of seeds and laying them out on a cloth in a pattern of rows and columns. This process would be difficult to manipulate subjectively. Once the pattern of day names has been established, however, the diviner chooses from among the meanings associated with each of the days the one most appropriate for the present situation. In this the diviner may utilize knowledge of both the situation that prompted the consultation and the way the world runs (81). Similarly, BaMasemola diviners interpret the pattern into which the cast bones fall, probably using their knowledge [139] of tribal and personal affairs in the process (82). One type of Tibetan divination involves the practitioner grasping a Buddhist 108-bead rosary. The beads between the two hands are counted, and formulae yield the general meaning of the number of beads between grasping hands, as well as texts giving detailed answers to questions for various combinations of numbers. However, the diviner's "intuitive feeling for the situation" is said to introduce an element of "creation or inspiration" into the process (83). Again, in scapulimancy the cracks and scorch marks on the bone are generated randomly, but the diviner has to interpret them. This interpretation can be affected by how the bone is held in relation to the surrounding geography. In addition, various interpretations of any given pattern are possible (84).
        Finally, consider the matter of inspired intermediaries divining. In the Hebrew Bible, we hear of persons consulting prophets, and we can note examples of similar activity in other cultures as well: A. Anisimov reports that after a curing seance, a Siberian shaman divined with rattle and reindeer scapula to answer clanspeople's specific questions about the future (85). In Japan, local guardian deities may reveal through a possessed villager the prospects for the coming harvest (86). Among the Hill Saora, shamans divine while in trance, and V. Elwin reports that visitors drop in when a shaman is known to be in trance because consulting him or her then about one's personal affairs is economical (87). Handsome Lake, the Seneca prophet, divined in a case of suspected murder (88).
        This overlapping of functions can be nicely illustrated with an example from Kiganda society (Uganda), which has both diviners and prophets (89). Occasionally single individuals combine both roles, especially [140] during times of crisis, such as the period when colonial rule was coming to an end. Peter Rigby supplies a case study of one such person, Kibuuka Kyobe Kigaanira (i.e., Kigaanira the medium of Kibuuka Kyobc, one of the important national hero-gods), who, after he was already "involved in the divinatory aspects of Kiganda religion (90)," was possessed by Kibuuka and instructed to establish himself in the god's national shrine. There he carried on a dual role, divining throughout his career but also performing national prophetic functions (e.g., he advocated the restoration of Buganda glory, the expulsion of the whites, the return of the king, and the return to the old religion) (91). He was jailed because of his activity but released after Uganda achieved its independence in 1963. After his release, "he returned to divination and the mediumship of Kibuuka" (92). Divination is portrayed here as an indigenous base from which prophecy can emerge when needed (in a time of crisis) but that it never really transcends.
PROPHECY AND DIVINATION
        Our knowledge about the development of prophecy in Israel is sketchy. For instance, the relationship between early and writing prophets is debated, with many seeing a sharp division between them. Yet the biblical narratives designate both by the same terms (prophet, seer) and describe them in such a way that the reader is aware of a continuity of message and speech forms between the two (93). Although the use of writing may have had some effect upon prophetic behavior (94), early prophets need not be considered inferior to later ones; both served as intermediaries between their people and Yahweh and could affect the lives of individuals and groups.
[141]     We do not need to trace some sort of genetic development from divination to prophecy. Rather, the focus should be on the importance of communication between God and humans. The underlying assumptions about the possibilities and nature of divine-human communication - that such communication is possible, that the deity is ready and willing to engage in it, and that it is normally carried on through intermediaries - seem to provide the foundation for belief in both prophecy and divination. If we define religious intermediation as a process of communication between the human and the divine spheres in which messages in both directions are channeled through one or more individuals who are recognized by others in the society as qualified to perform this function, then both are intermediaries. Just as early Israelite prophets are not inferior to later prophets, so diviners are inferior to neither. Their activities are, however, somewhat different (95).
        To speak of divination and prophecy as in some respects "different" implies an emphasis on the observable activities of the bearers of these roles (physical techniques over against "direct" inspiration, waiting to be consulted
over against taking the initiative, etc.). To speak of them as the "same" assumes that the most relevant point of comparison is the social function of intermediation /communication. To speak of an area where the differentiation is "fuzzy" (e.g., diviners taking the initiative, prophets being consulted) resembles the first approach more than it does the second. Note that there are differences in mode of operation between early and canonical biblical prophets (the former sometimes formed groups, they did not leave a written deposit of their words, they addressed mostly kings and not a larger audience), but their "sameness" is more important.
        We should realize that assigning names is not a neutral activity. Serge Moscovici (96) points out that "naming" bestows upon something "a settled position in the culture's identity matrix." Further, naming "is not a purely [142] intellectual operation enhancing clarity or logical consistency: it is an operation that is subservient to a social purpose." As a result of naming, the thing can be described and qualities imputed to it, it can be distinguished from other things, and "it becomes subject to a convention between those who use it and share the same convention."
        "Prophet" and "diviner" are the equivalents in English of category designations already present in the Hebrew Bible. To some extent the distinction must be based on observable behavior (e.g., there are different Hebrew terms designating various specialized roles within these broad categories), and categories serve the useful function of reducing "the complexity of the social environment:" But the creation of separate categories results in a masking of similarities, and this may in part be intentional. Categorization tends to protect "the value system which underlies the division of the surrounding social world" (97).
        Roles presuppose "some essential characteristic" defining membership in the category (98). But which characteristic is considered "essential" no doubt depends upon the point of view of the person describing the role. So, to talk about the difference between prophets and diviners in terms of direct contact with Yahweh versus manipulation of physical objects already displays a certain prejudice. It also has the effect of making the distinction between these roles appear quite large. If intermediation/communication is taken as the essential characteristic, then this impression of difference fades.
        The differences have tended to dominate the discussion of biblical prophecy and divination. For example, Herbert Huffmon understands the prophet to be "a person who through non-technical means receives a clear and immediate message from a deity for transmission to a third party." This definition highlights the contrast "with learned, technical divination and the use of interpretative skills (99)." Insofar as "interpretative skills" refers to the ability, learned through formal training, to read the signs displayed in the entrails of sacrificial animals, or the like (100), this difference seems accurate enough, but we must not assume that prophetic speech was simple reporting that involved no interpretation at all of the supposed direct contact with deity. What lies behind the debate between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jeremiah 28), two Yahweh prophets who came to opposite conclusions about a particular specific [143] historical circumstance, if not interpretations of experience based on differing understandings of the relationship of Yahweh to his people?
        More recently, Huffmon has argued that the results obtained in Israelite priestly divination by lots, like similar forms in modern cultures studied by anthropologists, arc not really random but are manipulated by the diviner so that they express the group consensus and legitimate an already obvious course of action (101). This assertion may to a certain extent be true, although he seems to underestimate the safeguards against arbitrary interpretations already discussed (one of his examples is Ifa divination). However, we might also ask whether the utterances of prophets are not similarly open to manipulation. When Micah (3:5-12) and Jeremiah (6:14; 14:14-15; 23:16-17) rail against false prophets, we infer that they are accusing them of saying what people wanted to hear, but did the true prophets like themselves do any differently? Were they not saying what a certain group "wanted" (i.e., thought it appropriate) to hear? Given the social dynamics, how free and spontaneous the words of any prophet can be is an open question. Kenelm Burridge has argued that "a prophet carries the interpretative role of the diviner out of an established framework into a quite new ambience of awareness .... He must articulate thoughts and aspirations and emotions that arc immanent in the community to which he speaks if he is to be acceptable as a prophet" (102). Here again the dividing line between divination and prophecy is blurred.
        True, the words of the biblical prophets were often at odds with the religion of the majority of the people they addressed and therefore "more often than not . . . played a destabilizing rather than a validating role in the religious life of their contemporaries" (103). This fact does not, however, undermine the validity of Burridge's observation. Insofar as prophets, by definition, had to have supporters, they could surely have been giving expression to the convictions of a portion of the population.
[144]    Robert Wilson (104) also stresses the difference between the two roles when he says that "unlike diviners and priests, prophets come into direct contact with the divine, either when they are possessed by the divine or when they supernaturally transcend the human world to enter the divine realm. Prophets are therefore channels through which divine messages reach the ordinary world and through which humans can gain direct access to the divine." Note that the last sentence makes two statements about prophets. The first fits diviners as well because they are also channels for messages from the divine world. We have seen that in both ancient Israel and elsewhere the results of divination arc considered to reveal the will of the god, a point Prov: 16:33 states directly: If Yahweh's will can be revealed in longer oracles, certainly it can also be revealed in a simple yes or no.
        Wilson's second statement, that prophets provide "direct access to the divine," suggests a more promising criterion for separating the two but is not unambiguously true. Distinguishing clearly between prophet and diviner is difficult because of the fuzzy area between them. For example, because spirits speak through them, African spirit mediums and Ojibwa shaking tent shamans seem, like prophets, to offer direct access to the divine. Yet both are sought out for answers to questions and problems that are typical of consultations with a diviner (105). These examples are not unlike the biblical accounts of consulting prophets. The medium at Endor no doubt employed a technique for summoning "gods" (1 Sam. 28:13) (106), but the result on this occasion was a direct experience of an ancestor spirit, Samuel. In 1 Sam. 10:17-24 we are privy to an occasion on which Samuel functioned both as a prophet and as a diviner (107).
[145]     H. M. Orlinsky's differentiation between diviners and prophets is even stricter: only the canonical prophets arc to be considered really prophets; all the rest (Samuel, Gad, Elijah, Elisha, and others) are to be classed as diviners (108). Huffmon criticizes Orlinsky's assertion that in Israel no development leads from divination to prophecy and says that this view seems to assume the latter originated in something like "a miraculous mutation in the people of Israel (109)." Orlinsky does acknowledge some similarities between the earlier diviners (whom he calls seers) and the canonical prophets: for example, the activities of both may involve ecstasy and the messages of both are grounded in Yahweh monotheism. However, the differences between the two are stressed: seers were members of guilds, but prophets received a spontaneous calling against their will; seers "predicted the future and attempted to control it," and prophets did not; the seer was "a man of action," but the prophet "a man of words" (110). These characterizations are not well documented and are sometimes - as in the case of the claim that seers were sought out for advice, for which they were paid, and prophets were not - inaccurate. Furthermore, they ignore what I have taken to be the major point of comparison: both were important and conventional means by which the people communicated with Yahweh.
        The model of prophetic activity introduced in chapter 2 and used throughout this study represents the social dynamics of intermediation as a process of communication. Speaking of God as the initiator of this process has been convenient for us although we have seen in this chapter that that is not invariably the case. The dynamics of divination can also be illustrated by a version of the model. The communication is still dialogical, but this time it is normally (again, exceptions exist) initiated by the client (or audience).         Figure 3 (above) diagrams the act of consulting a diviner. Such a consultation begins when the client, motivated by a problem or question, [146] presents himself or herself to a diviner (1). The diviner performs a technical operation, perhaps preceded by an invocation of the deity (2), observes the god-given result of the action (3), and communicates that result to the client (4). The client responds (5) by accepting the result and acting on it or perhaps by rejecting it or seeking another opinion.
        The acts of divination reported in 1 Samuel and Joshua 7 are relatively straightforward instances of this process. Take, for example, 1 Sam. 14:38-46. Saul, needing to determine who was guilty of sin, initiated a consultation (1). The identity of the diviner is not clearly indicated, but presumably it was a priest (14:36). The diviner cast lots (2), and the guilty person was taken (3). Saul was made aware of this result (4) and took action by confronting Jonathan (5). The whole occurrence may have lasted only minutes.
        By contrast, clients of an Ifa diviner may seek detailed advice about their problem by asking a series of questions. Such consultations may be quite long, even requiring several sessions to complete (111). The pattern is, however, exactly the same, the length being accounted for by the large number of repetitions of the basic elements. For example, the client approaches a diviner (1), who invokes the god, Ifa, and casts the palm nuts (2). Observing the placement of the nuts, he identifies the figure (3) and recites the verses he has memorized for it (4). The client chooses one of these verses as applicable to his or her own case (5) and then asks additional questions (1). The diviner casts the nuts to determine the answer (yes or no) to each of these (2, 3) and reports the result to the client (4); this sequence may be repeated many times. Finally, the [147] client accepts the result and makes preparations to offer the required sacrifice (5).
        This process takes place within a particular social setting. As with divination, so too with prophecy: it is at home in a situation of crisis, ambiguity or the like. In many of the occasions on which people resort to divination, the crisis is real and immediate: someone is ill, or a decision must be made about whether to go into battle. In others - planning to build a new house or to go on a journey - it is more nebulous, with at most a vague threat, a possibility of misfortune, that must be investigated. This difference suggests that the sense of crisis has powerful psychological roots. As we have already noted in the cast of prophecy, a situation is a crisis for those who imagine it so.
        In terms of their social role and function, then, diviners must be considered alongside prophets as legitimate intermediaries between Israelites and Yahweh.