When Nephi and his brothers returned to Jerusalem to obtain the plates of brass, they relied on cleromancy,[1] or the casting of lots, to decide who among them should first go to the house of Laban. Because colloquial usage of the English expression “the lot fell on [a person]” implies a random act of chance, readers may misinterpret the spiritual underpinnings of what casting lots signified in ancient Israel. This study offers a historical, contextual, and theological framework for understanding the role of lots in the Bible and Near Eastern traditions, an approach that in turn informs our understanding of this practice in the Book of Mormon. I show that Nephi and his brothers’ casting of lots would have been the most common way of ascertaining God’s will at the time, rather than simply being an exercise of random odds. Finally, cleromancy may have other implications for interpreting the loss of Laman’s birthright privileges. In this regard, I analyze questions of inheritance and primogeniture in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, arguing for a possible double entendre in the use of lots relative to the reassignment of Laman’s birthright to Nephi.

Introduction

The Book of Mormon includes a single yet important reference to lot-casting at the outset[2] of the text in 1 Nephi 3:11. After departing Jerusalem, Lehi received a further revelation from God that his sons were to return to Jerusalem in order to acquire the brass plates held by a powerful military official named Laban. Having just fled Jerusalem under the threat of persecution and death, Laman and Lemuel were quick to complain that it was a “hard thing” that Lehi was asking of them, to which Lehi responded: “I have not required it . . . , but it is a commandment of the Lord” (v. 5). Convinced but still irresolute, Laman and Lemuel joined Nephi and Sam and returned to “the land of Jerusalem”—a larger geographic region in which the city of Jerusalem was located. There the brothers “consult[ed] one with another” (v. 10), questioning among themselves who should go and retrieve the brass plates. The brothers decided to settle the issue by casting lots. “And we cast lots,”[3] writes Nephi, and the answer followed: “the lot fell upon Laman” (v. 11).[4] Note that after obtaining the decision of the lot, Laman, with no indication of further hesitation, went to Laban’s house.[5] Why would Laman base his decision to accept the risk of going in alone to negotiate with Laban on the results of an ostensible “game of chance” like lot-casting? The answer lies in the cultural and religious saliency of lot-casting in ancient Israel and throughout the Near East as a means of divining God’s will on a particular subject.[6]

Casting Lots as a Divine Process

The sociocultural background of the brief lot-casting episode in Nephi’s account is usually overlooked by readers of the text, owing in part to the chance nature of lots in Western society (compare Eng. lottery). In other words, it is often assumed that none of the brothers wanted to go, so they resorted to a game of chance—lot-casting—to determine who would be the unlucky one to have to visit Laban. In reality, however, casting lots in this context was part of a divine petition to find out who God thought should go into the city of Jerusalem. The brothers’ lot-casting was a cultural and religious act bound to common divinatory practices of their day throughout Israel and the Near East.[7]

The ocular function of casting lots is well attested as an approved[8] divinatory method in the Old Testament (see, e.g., 1 Chronicles 25:8; Joshua 18:6; 1 Samuel 14:42; Jonah 1:2, 7).[9] The common term for “lot” in Hebrew is gôrāl, the base meaning of which is “stone” or “pebble”; the term later developed a metaphorical sense of “fate.”[10] Aaron cast lots to determine which of two goats God would choose as the scapegoat for Israel’s sins on the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16:8). In addition, Joshua cast lots in Canaan to know God’s will on how to divide up the land among the tribes of Israel (see Numbers 26:55; Joshua 14:2; 15:1; Judges 1:3). In Biblical Antiquities (25:1–2), Kenaz (Cenez), grandson of Esau, is said to have been appointed through lot-casting to be the leader to fight the Philistines and to rule over Israel.[11] The sailors with Jonah on the ship cast lots to discover who was responsible for the calamitous storm they were experiencing; the lot fell on Jonah, and he was thrown overboard (see Jonah 1:4–16). Lot-casting was also used to settle disputes. Recognizing the authority and efficacy of the lot, Proverbs 18:18 states: “The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.”

One particularly clear example of how cleromancy was viewed as a divinely guided process is found in Proverbs 16:33 (New International Version): “The lot is cast into the lap,[12] but its every decision is from the Lord.”[13] The decision of the lots (be they stones, ostraca, arrows, rods, pieces of wood, or bones) is expressly said to come “from the Lord.” The Psalmist also acknowledged before God, “My times are in my hand,” as it appears in the King James Version (Psalm 31:15). In place of times (Gk. kairoi), several older manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) contain the word lots (klēroi),[14] just as is found in the Douay Version. The underlying meaning of times and lots, however, relates eschatologically to “fates”[15] (compare Latin tempus, “time, condition, circumstance”); that is, God fates or wills the outcome. This is also reflected in the Syriac term ḥlqa, which means both “fate, lot, portion” and “God’s will, a divine commandment.”[16] In short, God directs the judgment given by the lots, thereby extending credibility to the result. Accordingly, in these contexts casting lots was viewed as “a sacral act,”[17] worthy at times to be preceded by prayer,[18] as in the case of the lot-casting that accompanied Saul’s becoming king when he importuned, “O God of Israel, give a true decision” (compare 1 Samuel 10:19–22).[19]

Although lot-casting was recognized as a divinely led process, there was at times in ancient Israel an uncomfortable acceptance of the practice owing to its resemblance to similar pagan practices and forbidden forms of magic and sorcery (see Leviticus 19:26).[20] “Why then,” inquired theologian James Orr, “does the Bible appear to speak with two voices, generally prohibiting but at times countenancing various forms of divination?”[21] The children of Israel had been exposed to a myriad of forms of magic, sorcery, and divination during their time in Egypt, something that manifested itself in postexilic times. In addition, during their captivity in Assyria and Babylon, they encountered a professional class of workers of the spiritual arts.[22] The Torah makes clear that such forms of divination and sorcery are to be avoided. Deuteronomy 18:10–12 states some of those prohibitions:

There shall not be found among you [anyone] . . . that useth divination (qōsēm qĕsāmîm), or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord.

In this list of proscribed professions, “diviner” is qōsēm qĕsāmîm, “one who practices divination.” Qĕsāmîm is used in a negative sense with non-Israelite forms of divination, such as the “soothsayer” of Balaam killed by the children of Israel (Joshua 13:22), Philistine diviners (1 Samuel 6:2), and “divination” (belomancy, hepatoscopy)[23] used by the king of Babylon (Ezekiel 21:21). However, qĕsāmîm diviners were at times favorably[24] viewed in Israelite society (see Isaiah 3:2; Jeremiah 14:14; Micah 3:6–7; Zechariah 10:2). The meaning of the verbal root qsm has been discussed extensively in the literature.[25] Its primarily meaning is “to divide,” “decide,” or “to part,” that is, to determine something by lot (compare Syriac qṣm). The noun qesem refers to “a lot,”[26] an “oracle,” or “divination” (and so by extension “witchcraft”[27] at times). Proverbs 16:10 makes clear that the term can refer to a divine pronouncement from the God of Israel: “A divine sentence [qesem] is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.” Here the notion of “divine verdict” for qesem in this verse (as the New English Translation renders it) seems most appropriate from the context. In short, the strict injunction against “practicing divination” in Deuteronomy 18:10, a term closely related to lot oracles, is not stringently adhered to in the Old Testament. There was a degree of leniency for lot divination when used properly in relation to ancient Israelite religion to discover God’s will.

During New Testament times lot-casting was also viewed as a divinely guided process (see Matthew 27:35).[28] Under the direction of Peter, the eleven apostles met after the death of Judas Iscariot in order to choose his replacement (see Acts 1:23–26 NIV). They nominated two men, Barsabas and Matthias (see v. 23). In order to know which of the two men to choose, the apostles prayed: “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs” (vv. 24–25). Note that the apostles then relied on lots to learn the Lord’s answer: “Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles” (v. 26). Two options were offered up to the Lord in binary fashion, and he selected between them.[29] Commenting on the Acts of the Apostles, Bede (AD 673–735) stressed the importance of prayer in the choosing of the new apostle: “But if anyone, compelled by necessity, thinks that he ought, after the apostles’ example, to consult God by casting lots, let him take note that the apostles themselves did not do so, except after calling together the assembly of the brethren and pouring forth prayer to God.”[30] Bede further argued that “before Pentecost the ordination of Matthias was decided by lot” because the Father had not yet sent the Holy Ghost into the world.[31] The coming of the Holy Ghost into the world, accordingly, became for some the latest possible date for the authorized use of cleromancy.

The Roman soldiers who divided up Jesus’s clothing at his crucifixion also employed lots.[32] Matthew 27:35 (NIV) states, “When they had crucified him, they divided up[33] his clothes by casting lots.” The account in John makes clear that the lot-casting was for the tunic, not for the clothing that was torn into four pieces: “[They] took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic,” saying to each other, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be” (John 19:23 English Standard Version).[34] Of the Gospel writers, Matthew[35] and John note that the act of parting Jesus’s clothing by casting lots was a fulfillment of a prophecy[36] in Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments[37] among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.”[38] The Roman soldiers of Pilate may have looked upon the clothing of Jesus as a form of spoils (which were commonly divided up in the Old Testament by casting lots)[39] since there was a provision in Roman law that executioners could take possession of a victim’s clothes.[40]

In both Old and New Testament times, the casting of lots was also a procedure closely associated with the temple.[41] In Nehemiah’s day, the priests and others would cast lots to determine which tribe would take wood offerings to the temple in Jerusalem to burn on the altar (see Nehemiah 10:34). The duties for the temple gatekeepers were determined by casting lots (see 1 Chronicles 26:12). The high priest at the time of David was selected through lots: “These likewise cast lots over against their brethren the sons of Aaron in the presence of David the king” (1 Chronicles 24:31), something also confirmed by Josephus during the time of Jesus.[42] Similarly, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist “was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense” (Luke 1:9 NIV), an honor that might come only once in a lifetime.[43] In addition, according to the second-century apocryphal Protevangelium Jacobi, Joseph was chosen as the husband of Mary by sortilege in the temple.[44] After entering the temple with divining rods, Joseph took out all of his rods[45] one by one, but none gave him a sign. Then from the final rod a dove flew out over his head and the priest declared to Joseph, “You have been chosen by lot to receive the virgin of the Lord into your guardianship” (9:7).[46] The Protevangelium Jacobi also recounts that when the temple priest needed to find someone to make a curtain for the temple, he sought out undefiled virgins, one of whom was Mary, and brought her into the temple. The priest then said, “Cast lots before me to see who will spin the gold, the asbestos, the fine linen, the silk, the sapphire blue, the scarlet, and the true purple.” The lot that Mary drew while in the temple was to spin the true purple material for the new temple curtain.[47] Additionally, Eleazar the priest, Joshua, and the leaders of the tribes of Israel cast lots “at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation” in Shiloh “before the Lord”[48] to divide their land inheritance in Canaan (Joshua 19:51).

Postbiblical Oracular Beliefs

A belief in the efficacy of lot-casting is found throughout the Bible, but even in the centuries after the death of Christ it was viewed as one of the ways that God could dispense divine knowledge. The Babylonian Talmud (BT Yom 22a[16]) states that “they arranged for a lot [paysā]” in order to choose the order of priests.[49] In the second century AD, Irenaeus (ca. AD 130–ca. 202) reported that when the Marcosians, a gnostic sect founded by Marcus, would meet for the sacramental meal, “all of them [were] accustomed to cast lots” as a way of inviting the Holy Spirit and to decide who would speak that day’s prophecy.[50] Around AD 215, the Christian theologian Hippolytus (ca. AD 170–235) described the following process of ordaining a new bishop.[51] All other bishops and elders would lay their hands on new appointee, implore God that the new bishop would “wear your high priesthood without reproach,” and “assign lots,” that is, select other clergy[52] members through this same power.[53] The use of lots by Hippolytus suggests a process similar to that involving Matthias in Acts 1:26, one that was still utilized for calling individuals to positions of service in the church. Similarly, in the Council of Barcelona (AD 599), the people and the clergy nominated three individuals, and the Bishops and the Metropolitan, after fasting, cast lots to select a new bishop from among them, “leaving the determination to Christ the Lord.”[54]

In the early centuries of the Christian church, lot-casting continued to be recognized as a divinely guided process—the choosing of the apostle Matthias is usually cited to support this position—but it was also discouraged by others. Many early Christian writers, such as Saint Jerome in the fourth century, viewed sortilege as a form of magic, something belonging the earlier eras of the church.[55] However, stones or other “instruments” commonly used in lot-casting were still considered by many[56] to be valid tools for divine inquiry and response. For example, in AD 394 Augustine of Hippo wrote:

Now there are many ways in which God speaks with us. At times he speaks through an instrument [instrumenum], as through a codex of the divine scriptures. He speaks through a heavenly body, as he spoke to the Magi through a star. . . . He speaks through a lot, just as he spoke concerning the choice of Matthias in place of Judas. He speaks through the human soul, as through a prophet. He speaks through an angel, just as we understand him to have spoken to certain patriarchs and prophets and apostles.[57]

Augustine also wrote positively of lots when he declared them a “thing that in human uncertainty indicates God’s will” (res est in dubitatione humana divinam indicans voluntatem).[58] However, his views on divination were evolving,[59] for he later taught against some types of oracles (sortes),[60] saying they were “inimici Dei, omnes consultores sortilegorum” (foes of God, all who consult oracles).[61] Augustine came to approve of the secular use of lots, specifically for inheritance and property division,[62] but not for religious application.[63] Around the same time period, Ambrose of Milan, who was made bishop of Milan in AD 374, fully endorsed the use of lots in his commentary on Luke saying: “He who is chosen by lot is not grasped by human judgment.”[64]

A similar tension surrounding the casting of lots continued through Jewish and Christian history. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas cited a Decretal by the Catholic Church (XXVI, qu. v, can. Sortes) condemning lot-casting: “We decree that the casting of lots, by which means you make up your mind in all your undertakings, and which the Fathers have condemned, is nothing but divination and witchcraft. For which reason we wish them to be condemned altogether, and henceforth not to be mentioned among Christians, and we forbid the practice thereof under pain of anathema.”[65] In more recent Christian traditions, the casting of lots has persisted in certain contexts. On occasion, John Wesley said he used sortition saying, “At some rare time, when I have been in great distress of soul, or in utter uncertainty how to act in an important case which required a speedy determination, after using all other means that occurred, I have cast lots.”[66] For instance, when he needed to choose a wife, he used three lots with different messages to make that decision.[67] Today the Amish still employ lot-casting as a means of selecting bishops, pastors, and deacons.[68] And as recently as 2012, the Coptic Orthodox Church drew lots to select their new leader, Pope Tawadros II—a tradition revived in the last century.[69]

While references to lot-casting continued in the early centuries of the Christian church, church fathers began to reference lots more often in eschatological contexts. In his early second-century-AD Letter to the Trallians (12.3), Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote, “And also pray for me, who have need of your love, along with the mercy of God, that I may be worthy of the lot for which I am destined.” In addition, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, wrote an epistle to the Philippians (12:2) in the first half of the second century AD in which he spoke eschatologically of the “lot” the righteous might receive through Christ: “But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints.”[70] This portion of the epistle is preserved only in Old Latin, where “lot and portion” appears as (sortem[71] et partem).

Precedent for a metaphorical interpretation of “lot” as relating to one’s eternal salvation appears on occasion in the Old Testament[72] but more plainly in several New Testament passages. In Jeremiah 13:25 the Lord declares to Israel, “This is thy lot [gôrāl], the portion of thy measures from me, saith the Lord; because thou hast forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood.” Here the “lot” apportioned to Israel was metaphorical—the people’s “inheritance” was being scattered (i.e., lost), a result directly related to their disobedience and sin. Daniel 12:13 (NIV) states, “You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance [gôrāl].” In the New Testament, Acts 26:18 (New King James Version or Hebrew Names Version) records, “That they may receive . . . an inheritance [klēros] among those who are sanctified.”[73] Colossians 1:12 (Revised Standard Version) similarly states that we should give “thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share [klēros] in the inheritance of the saints in light.”[74] Acts 26:18 and Colossians 1:12 use the Greek word κλῆρος (klēros), “lot” or “portion,” which refers to a small stone or piece of wood used in divination, but is here used figuratively for one’s spiritual inheritance. The related term κληροπαλής (klēropalēs) means “distribute by shaking the lots,” and κληρονομέω (klēronoméō) signifies “receive, gain possession of, inherit,” which is also common throughout the New Testament in contexts of inheriting eternal salvation.[75] This metaphorical meaning of lot is also by far the most common in the Qumran literature.[76]

Lot-Casting, Birthright, and Inheritance in Ancient Israel

In biblical tradition, the eschatological significance of one’s “lot” or “inheritance” in the eternities is patterned after the practice of land inheritance by lot. A close relationship exists among lot-casting, birthright of the firstborn, and issues of inheritance in Jewish tradition. Consequently, there may be additional symbolism (or minimally, irony) and purpose in the choice of lot-casting by Nephi and his brothers. Knowing of Laman’s past tendencies toward stubbornness and disobedience, one may wonder why the Lord chose Laman for the crucial first attempt at obtaining the plates. The answer likely relates to him being the holder of the birthright as the eldest son. It may be that Laman’s subsequent failure and reaction to that failure[77] opened the door for that birthright to be taken away and inherited by Nephi.[78]

Inheritance laws in ancient Israel were patterned after God’s stated relationship to Israel—his “firstborn” (bᵉkôwr) in Exodus 4:22 (compare Jeremiah 31:9): “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” In Jubilees 1:24–25, God says, “And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me; and they will all be called ‘sons of the living God.’”[79] In ancient Israelite society, the rule of primogeniture designated the firstborn as the inheritor of the birthright (see Deuteronomy 21:16), an honor that enabled him to be “preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power” (Genesis 49:3 ESV) and to be entitled to a double share in the inheritance (see Deuteronomy 21:17; 1 Chronicles 5:1). However, in certain cases, such as with Esau and Jacob (see Genesis 25:29–34), Reuben and Joseph, and Manasseh and Ephraim (see Genesis 48:17–20), a younger son could supersede the firstborn and take possession of the birthright. In the Hebrew Bible, however, the title of “firstborn” (bᵉkôwr) was never passed to another son, even when the birthright (bᵉkôwrâh) was transferred.[80]

The exact moment God reassigned the birthright to Nephi is perhaps unclear, but this transition was signaled after the brothers’ unsuccessful effort to bribe Laban with the riches from their home in Manasseh. An angel appeared and declared to Laman and Lemuel, “The Lord hath chosen him [Nephi] to be a ruler over you” (1 Nephi 3:29), something the Lord had earlier promised Nephi personally if he remained faithful (see 2:22). It seems that Nephi took the Lord’s pronouncement to heart and began to increasingly interact with his siblings in the capacity of ruler and teacher. As early as at Nahom, Laman and Lemuel accused Nephi of trying to take “it upon him to be our ruler and our teacher, who are his elder brethren” (16:37, a specific charge Lehi later contradicts at 2 Nephi 1:25), indicating that they believed Nephi was already overstepping his bounds. That Nephi was engaging his new role over a period of time is clear since Nephi himself states that he “had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord [note the plural, indicating multiple times the Lord had declared Nephi would be ruler], until the time they sought to take away my life” (2 Nephi 5:19). The unanswered question in this is whether he was assuming that role with the backing of the birthright or simply attempting to keep “the commandments of the Lord.”

While it has been argued that the angelic event in 1 Nephi 3:29 represented the reassignment of birthright from Laman to Nephi,[81] I suspect that for years after Nephi was simply fulfilling his role as promised ruler and teacher over his brothers (see 16:38), although the birthright had not been officially transferred to Nephi at that point. Indeed, there is textual evidence that the birthright was not formally withdrawn until after Lehi’s people arrived in the New World. Shortly before his death, Lehi declared, “But if ye will not hearken unto him [Nephi] I take away my first blessing, yea, even my blessing, and it shall rest upon him [Nephi]” (2 Nephi 1:29). In this context, blessing must refer to the birthright itself, and the conditional clause suggests that the reassignment of birthright had not formally happened yet. In my view the birthright itself was likely bestowed on Nephi just before Lehi’s death. At one point in Lehi’s final blessings and counsel he tells the group, “It must needs be that the power of God must be with [Nephi], even unto his commanding you that ye must obey” (v. 27), which may indicate the general time frame in which Lehi transfers the birthright privileges to Nephi.[82] What is more certain, however, is that the forfeiture of Laman’s birthright was triggered by his disobedience[83] (see 1 Nephi 8:4, 17–18), and Nephi’s inheritance of that birthright was directly related to his obedience (see 2:18, 22).

There is clear precedent in the Hebrew Bible for removing birthright privileges because of waywardness. Reuben, who was the firstborn, had his birthright taken away for poor behavior (see 1 Chronicles 5:1). Like Laman, what Rueben lost, according to Genesis 49:4, was his “preeminence”[84] (תּוֹתַר) as holder of the birthright, which was then passed to Joseph. In fact, the notion of conditionality attached to inheritance finds broad support throughout the Bible and likely informs the transference of Laman’s birthright in 1 Nephi.

Later Lamanite narratives reveal a persistent resentment toward Nephi and his supposed “usurpation” of the birthright. Zeniff provided a long list of Lamanite grievances against the Nephites common in his day, but all of which originated with Laman and Lemuel (see Mosiah 10:12–17). Among these, Zeniff records that the Laman and Lemuel were angry “because they said that he [Nephi] had taken the ruling of the people out of their hands; and they sought to kill him” (v. 15). In a similar vein, the Lamanite king Ammoron once wrote to Moroni concerning the time when Laman lost his right to rule. He falsely[85] charged that “they [Lehi and Nephi] did rob them [Laman and Lemuel] of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them” (Alma 54:17), and that he would now work “to avenge their wrongs, and to maintain and to obtain their rights[86] to the government” (v. 24). This was a result of the schism that came to a head in the land of first inheritance when the Nephites separated themselves from the Lamanites. At that time Nephi wrote that “they did murmur against me, saying: Our younger brother thinks to rule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people” (2 Nephi 5:3).

Citing birthright privileges, Laman and Lemuel sought to reclaim their right to rule through violence. And the precedent was now set. The bitterness of having been deprived of rulership authority caused the Lamanites to teach “their children that they should hate [the Nephites], and that they should murder them . . . ; therefore they have an eternal hatred towards the children of Nephi” (Mosiah 10:17). In this skewed version of historical memory, it was justifiable to instruct Lamanite children to “rob and plunder” Nephites (v. 17) because, as Lamoni’s father warned, it was Nephi who originally “robbed our fathers” (Alma 20:13; compare 54:17). Thus, the Lamanite understanding of history was one of illegitimate loss of the birthright inheritance, including the authority to rule, which justified perpetual violence against the Nephites.

It may be significant that the event that set into motion the reassignment of the birthright inheritance was lot-casting because of the close connection between lots and inheritance in the Bible[87] and elsewhere in the ancient Near East.[88] For example, in Sumerian and Old Babylonian writings, inheritance texts discuss the use of lot-casting as a means of distributing land, a practice also associated with inheritance procedures.[89] An Old Babylonian text from Kuttala describes lots used in the inheritance of part of a household: 1 šar E₂.DU₃.A ašar isqum ša PN imaqqutu, “1 šar [i.e., a space measurement] of a house where the lot of [personal name] will fall.”[90] The relationship between lots and inheritance in the ancient Near East, according to Westbrook, is a direct one:

Division of inheritance is carried out by lot, a custom prevalent throughout the ancient Near East. In Old Babylonian documents recording the division of an inheritance between co-heirs, a typical concluding clause is: ‘by mutual agreement they have cast the lot; they have divided the inheritance-share of their father’s house’. The Akkadian word for ‘lot’, isqu, was so closely associated with the process of inheritance that it could even be used as a synonym for the inheritance share itself.[91]

In the Old Testament, casting lots is also intimately linked to determining one’s inheritance, especially in regard to land. Land rights and inheritance (naḥălâ [< nḥl “to inherit”])[92] of the twelve tribes were decided by lot-casting (see Joshua 18:6, 9–10). In Numbers 26:54–55, the Lord tells Moses: “To many thou shalt give the more inheritance (naḥălâ), and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided (ḥâlaq)[93] by lot (gôrāl): according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit.” Note that in the LXX of verse 55 “lot” (κλήρων, klērōn) is cognate to κληρονομήσουσιν (klēronomēsousini), “they shall inherit.” The division of land by lot is explicitly linked to “inheritance” in Psalm 78:55: “He cast out the heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance [ἐκληροδότησεν, eklērodótēsen] by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents.” The word eklērodótēsen, “divided by inheritance,” corresponds to the Hiphil of the Hebrew yrš, “to inherit.”[94] The allotted portions of land for each tribe were carefully laid out “by line,”[95] that is, by a measuring line (compare Amos 7:17; Joshua 17:5) to ensure they each received their appropriate inheritances.[96]

Given the close relationship among lot-casting, sovereignty,[97] and inheritance, perhaps a double entendre is implied by Nephi and his brothers’ use of lots. God answers Nephi and his brothers’ inquiry through lots, while simultaneously providing a pretext for revoking that birthright in favor of Nephi. The lots “chose” Laman since he was the legitimate birthright holder, but his failure and reaction to that failure led him to lose his “allotment” or birthright inheritance.[98] Thus, the same process standardly used to assign one’s inheritance was instrumental in reassigning that inheritance. The semantic overlap in Hebrew, Greek, and Akkadian (and many other languages) between lot and inheritance makes this an attractive possibility and suggests a yet deeper significance to this lot-casting episode in the Book of Mormon.

Conclusion

Lot-casting was a common practice throughout the Bible and later biblical tradition. That it was an acceptable means of determining God’s will finds consistent support in the Old and New Testaments. The appearance of lot-casting at the very beginning of the Book of Mormon is significant for several reasons. First, casting lots was in its height of popularity in the sixth century BC in Israel,[99] coinciding with the Urim and Thummim’s falling into disuse sometime during the monarchical period (1000–586 BC).[100] The casting of lots, in part, seems to have taken the place of the Urim and Thummim by the end of this period, increasing Israel’s reliance on the processes.[101] Second, while seemingly a pedestrian topic in Western culture as a game of pure chance, for the people of ancient Israel and the Near East, casting lots was strictly divinatory in nature, just one of a series of methods of divination performed to obtain guidance from a heavenly source in decision-making. Casting lots provided a means for religious legitimation of their task. Nephi and his brothers sought for and received revelation through lots on who was to go to the house of Laban. Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, and Sam, having been brought up in the land of Manasseh and Jerusalem proper, would have been fully familiar with the process and benefits of lot-casting in order to obtain a divine, reliable decision. Neither Laman nor Lemuel evidently contested the oracular decision of the lots, suggesting they accepted the outcome as God’s will.[102] God’s selection of Laman by lot, fully prescient that he would fail, may have been, as Brant A. Gardner has argued, a divine effort to justify Nephi’s ascendancy.[103] As I have proposed here, the lot-casting narrative in the Book of Mormon additionally has overtones of a double entendre: the very method commonly used to determine inheritance in ancient Israel—lot-casting—initiates the process that leads to Laman losing his birthright “lot.”

Notes

[1] The technical terms for casting lots are cleromancy and sortilege.

[2] As is true for the book of 1 Nephi, Luke begins both of his books with lot-casting scenes (see Luke 1:8–9; Acts 1:26).

[3] This is the only recorded case of literal lot-casting in the Book of Mormon. There is also one instance of the derived idiomatic usage. In Alma 20:30, Ammon and Lamoni entered the land of Middoni and convinced the king of the land to release Ammon’s brethren. We are told that “it was their lot to have fallen into the hands of a more hardened and a more stiffnecked people.”

[4] Brant A. Gardner asserts that Laman was the likely choice by the lots since he was the eldest and choosing him would “confirm Yahweh’s hand in the casting of lots.” Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Gregg Kofford, 2007), 1:105.

[5] Casting lots to determine who would undertake a challenging task is similarly attested in the Midrash (Gen. R. 84:8), where Joseph’s brothers cast lots to determine who should take Joseph’s bloodied coat to their father Jacob. Thomas Aquinas termed such use of lots to decide who would carry out a task “divisory lot-casting.” Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, trans. Matthew L. Lamb (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1966), book 1, lecture 4, ad Eph. 1:11. In the Aeneid (I. 508f.), daily tasks were determined by drawing lots: Jura dabat legesque viris, operumque laborem partibus aquabat iustis, aut sorte trahebat, “She was giving judgments and laws to men, and she was making equal the labor of the tasks in just parts, or she was drawing them by lots.” Most famously, in AD 73, according to Josephus, one of the last remaining Jews at Masada during the Roman siege of the site, a small group of men hiding in a cave cast lots to determine which ten men would commit suicide rather than be killed by the Romans: “After the men had chosen by lot ten of their number who would be their butchers, and when they had laid down beside and thrown their arms around their wives and children who lay waiting, they offered themselves up for the slaughter” (War 7.395). Compare The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Auburn and Buffalo: John E. Beardsley, 1895), 320, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0148. The lots used in this final, desperate act may have been found archaeologically, though certain questions remain. See Eric D. Huntsman, “And They Cast Lots: Divination, Democracy, and Josephus,” BYU Studies Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1996–97): 365–77.

[6] “Nowhere in ancient or primitive cosmology,” affirms Gerda Reith, “do we find systematic consideration of chance as a phenomenon in its own right. Instead, its occurrence was consistently conflated with notions of destiny and the will of the gods.” The Age of Chance: Gambling in Western Culture (London: Taylor and Francis, 2005), 17.

[7] Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have also fallen victim to a lack of understanding of the role of lot-casting in ancient Israel. For example, Claude Heater criticizes this episode in 1 Nephi 3:11: “For this important decision it should have been a matter of prayer,” implying lot-casting here argues against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. Fatal Flaws of the Most Correct Book on Earth (Xulon Press, 2007), 41. Instead, Heater shows himself to be utterly unfamiliar with Near Eastern divinatory processes such as lot-casting, which did commonly include prayer (see 1 Samuel 10:19–22). In fact, Daniel H. Ludlow had published on the cultural appropriateness of lot-casting in the Book of Mormon nearly thirty years earlier in A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 95. As James Strong and John McClintock confirm, lot-casting “was used by the Hebrews in matters of extreme importance, and always with solemnity and religious preparation.” Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1894), 828.

[8] Jeff W. Childers notes, “Lot divination repeatedly features an apparently acceptable practice, given the right conditions,” in the Bible. Divining Gospel: Oracles of Interpretation in a Syriac Manuscript of John (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020), 32.

[9] For a thorough examination of biblical lot-casting, see Johannes Lindblom, “Lot-Casting in the Old Testament,” Vetus Testamentum 12, no. 2 (1962): 164–78.

[10] There are eighty occurrences of the Heb. gôrāl “lot(s)” in the Old Testament. According to Claus Westermann, nearly all usages of gôrāl “can be describe[d] as theological.” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 1:311. The notion of “fate” as one’s “lot” is found attested early on in the Sumerian proverb giš.šub ús.sa.ab, “accept your lot.” See I/J:22 of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CAD), Chicago, 1956–, https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/assyrian-dictionary-oriental-institute-university-chicago-cad.

[11] M. R. James, trans., The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917), 147–48.

[12] Anne Marie Kitz notes that the Hebrew term baḥêq commonly translated as “lap” in this context means “chest,” “breast,” or “pocket,” the latter meaning likely relating to the pouch behind the “breastplate of judgment” that held the Urim and Thummim worn by the high priest (see Exodus 28:30). “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62, no. 2 (April 2000): 207–14.

[13] Similarly, in the Coptic Gospel of the Lots of Mary, oracle 32 states, “The matter is appointed for you by God.” AnneMarie Luijendijk, Forbidden Oracles? The Gospel of the Lots of Mary, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 89:2.

[14] See Lance Jenott, introduction to My Lots Are in Thy Hands: Sortilege and its Practitioners in Late Antiquity, ed. AnneMarie Luijendijk, William E. Klingshirn, and Lance Jenott (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 12.

[15] Compare Heb. gôrāl in Jeremiah 13:25.

[16] Bailis Yamlikha Shamun, English-Assyrian-Arabic Dictionary (self-pub., 2014), s.v. “ḥlqa.” See Alexander Joseph Oraham, Oraham’s Dictionary of the Stabilized and Enriched Assyrian Language and English (Chicago: Consolidated, 1943). For a detailed discussion of the Semitic root ḥlq, see note 93 below.

[17] As Frederick H. Cryer notes, the fact that lot-casting so often appears in “references to sacrifice and temple service show[s] that casting the gôrāl took place under divine auspices.” Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-historical Investigation, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 142 (Sheffield, England, 1994), 277.

[18] Lot-casting was a religious activity in various cultures of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Of the Romans, Tacitus wrote: “Augury and divination by lot no people practise more diligently. . . . In public questions the priest of the particular state, in private the father of the family, invokes the gods, and, with his eyes towards heaven.” Complete Works of Tacitus, trans. Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb, and Lisa Cerrato (New York: Random House, reprinted 1942), chap. 10, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi1351.phi002.perseus-eng1:10. A medieval “Book of Fate” known as Sortes XII Pariarcharum states that before using the sortes (“lots”), one should fast and pray for two days and one night. T. C. Skeat, “An Early Medieval ‘Book of Fate’: The Sortes XII Patriarcharum,” Medieval and Renaissance Studies 3 (1954): 41–54). See M. Meerson, “Book Is a Territory: A Hebrew Book of Fortune in Context,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 13, no. 4 (2006): 393n18.

[19] Lindblom, “Lot-Casting in the Old Testament,” 173. For a fuller discussion of the religious and ceremonial aspects of lot-casting and other forms of divination in antiquity, see Luijendijk, Forbidden Oracles?, 59.

[20] There was by no means a simple distinction among “religion,” “magic,” and “sorcery” in ancient Israel. See Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, trans. John Sturdy (Philadelphia: Westminster), 1974. Frankfurter argues that social constructs such as “sorcery,” “magic,” or “witchcraft” are essentially different forms of ritual behavior. D. Frankfurter, “Dynamics of Ritual Expertise in Antiquity and Beyond: Towards a New Taxonomy of ‘Magicians,’” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. Paul Allan Mirecki and Marvin W. Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 159. As Claude Lévi-Strauss stated, “There is no religion without magic any more than there is magic without at least a trace of religion.” The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 221.

[21] James Orr, “Augury,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (n.p.: Howard-Severance, 1915), 861.

[22] Sorcery, divining, and charming have been argued to be later introductions into ancient Israelite tradition, possibly from Assyrian or Babylonian foreign influence. See Brian B. Schmidt, “Canaanite Magic vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy 18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo,” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. Paul Allan Mirecki and Marvin W. Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 254.

[23] For the various forms of divination under the rubric of qesem, see Karel van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 2 (1990): 214.

[24] Note the positive connotation of qesem in the list of admirable traits and roles in Isaiah 3:2: “the mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent [qesem], and the ancient.”

[25] See Eryl W. Davies, “The Meaning of qesem in Prv 16:10,” Biblica 61, no. 4 (1980): 554–56. See also Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “The Expression ûqsāmîm b^eyādām (Numbers 22:7) in Light of Divinatory Practices from Mari,” Hebrew Studies 33 (1992): 5–15; and W. R. Smith, “On the Forms of Divination and Magic Enumerated in Deut. xviii. 10, 11. Part I,” Journal of Philology 13, no. 26 (1885): 273.

[26] In material divination by lot, qesem would likely have used arrows, entrails, rods, or other objects.

[27] Jeffers has argued that while qōsēm qĕsāmîm started out as a referent to lot-casting, its semantics broadened over time to include other oracular methods. Ann Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 98.

[28] The Syriac version of the Acts of Thomas (ca. AD 200) records that the apostles met in Jerusalem and “divided the countries among them” where each would preach, but when “India fell by lot and division to Judas Thomas the Apostle . . . he was not willing to go, saying: “I have not strength enough for this, because I am weak. And I am a Hebrew: how can I teach the Indians?” W. Wright, ed., Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (London: Williams and Norgate, 1871), 2:146. The Acts of Andrew and Matthias similarly states, “About that time all the apostles had come together to the same place, and shared among themselves the countries, casting lots, in order that each might go away into the part that had fallen to him.” Philip Schaff, The Forgotten Bible (Ingersoll, Ontario: Devoted, 2017), 289. Remarkably, in the Coptic Preaching of Philip, it is Jesus himself who urges the apostles to “cast lots among each other, and divide the world into twelve parts.” István Czachesz, Commission Narratives: A Comparative Study of the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts, Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha (Peeters, 2007), 8:227.

[29] Use of the term lots at Qumran, however, led Everett Ferguson to interpret this passage differently, as a metaphorical referent rather than a literal use of lots. “Qumran and Codex D,” Revue De Qumrân 8, no. 29 (June 1972): 76–79.

[30] Bede, Super Act. Apost. i, as cited by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, II-II EN Qu.95 a.7.

[31] Bede, Super Act. Apost. i. Thomas Aquinas held a comparable view that casting lots was not needed to choose officers in the church after the Holy Ghost was fully manifest in the world. Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, book 1, lecture 4, ad Eph. 1:11.

[32] It is not known what type of lots the Roman soldiers cast, but it likely was not dice, as is often depicted in artistic renderings of the scene, since they were prohibited under the Lex Titia el Publicia et Cornelia. See Theodore C. Foote, “The Ephod,” Journal of Biblical Literature 21, no. 1 (1902): 25.

[33] The verb used in the synoptic Gospels is διαμερίζω (diamerízo), which means “cleave asunder” or “cut in pieces” and, secondarily, “to distribute.” In the synoptic Gospels this verb is always in the middle voice—an aorist middle passive in Matthew 27:35 (διεμερίσαντο, diemerísanto), a present indicative middle (διαμερίζονται, diamerízontai) in Mark 15:24, and a present participle middle (διαμεριζόμενοι, diamerizómenoi) in Luke 23:34. The middle voice lends itself to interpreting these verses with the secondary meaning of “dividing among them.” John 19:24, on the other hand, uses a different verb, σχίσωμεν (schísōmen), “let us rip asunder,” the first person plural aorist subjunctive active of the verb σχίζω (schízō; compare English schism), meaning “rend,” “split,” or “divide asunder.” The action of “tearing” is therefore explicit in John, whereas the meaning of “dividing up” is arguably more appropriate in the synoptic Gospels. Psalm 22:18—the verse cited by Matthew and John as being fulfilled in this episode before the cross—uses the Hebrew verb חָלַק (ḥâlaq), which is much more aligned with the notion of “share, divide, apportion, distribute” and not the action of tearing per se (compare Genesis 49:27, New American Standard Bible 20, “he divides the spoil,” or Numbers 26:55, “shall be divided by lot”).

[34] The tunic (χιτών, chitōn) of Jesus was seamless and was “in one piece” (διʼ ὅλου, di holou, John 19:23 NIV), suggesting a garment of high quality (compare Exodus 28:39), perhaps a Jewish talit and possibly akin in some way to the robe worn by high priests. See Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII–XXI, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 29:903. Of this seamless, priestly robe the first-century Jewish historian Josephus recorded, “Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck” (Ant. 3.161). There seems to be meaningful symbolism in Jesus being the “great high priest” (Hebrews 4:14) and wearing this seamless robe on the day he carries out the Atonement. This is similar to the temple high priest’s robe being seamless—the very robe worn when entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16).

[35] This quotation from Psalm 22:18 is not included in some critical texts of Matthew.

[36] For a fuller discussion of the Messianic interpretations of Psalm 22 in the early church, see Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6, no. 1 (1998): 37–58.

[37] The robe was not the purple robe (ἱμάτιον, himátion) that Jesus was clothed with before Pilate (see John 19:2) since it was removed from him and replaced with his own “clothing” (himátion) before he was led to be crucified (see Mark 15:20). It was this himátion that was torn into four pieces by the soldiers at the cross. The portion of his clothing that they did not want to rip into pieces but rather cast lots over was his χιτών (chitón). A chitón was a garment often worn under the himátion (hence the NIV translates himátion in John 19:23 as “undergarment”). In the Hebrew Bible, the original prophecy in Psalm 22:18 uses two general words for the individual garments, beged (apparel, clothing, garment, raiment, robe) and lᵉbûwsh (apparel, clothing, garment, raiment, vestment). The LXX uses two terms for the portions of clothing, ἱμάτιά (himátiá) and its close cognate ἱματισμός (himatismós) (compare Latin Vulgate vestimenta and vestimentum).

[38] A footnote in the NIV indicates that several late manuscripts add “that the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled.” The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1984), Matthew 27:35. Tertullian (AD 160–230) also included the phrase “but that the Scriptures from the mouth of the Prophets might be fulfilled” in discussing this episode, indicating it was part of an early Latin (and therefore an even earlier Greek) text.

[39] See Nahum 3:10; Joel 4:3; Obadiah 1:11. Compare Assyrian isqu, “lot,” which can also mean portion of booty that is divided up (CAD I/J:199).

[40] See Charles Erdman, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1922), 161.

[41] See William Hamblin and Daniel Peterson, “The Casting of Lots in Ancient Israel,” Deseret News, October 2, 2015. Note that Roman tradition commonly dictated that important lot-casting take place at a “templum.” For example, the comitia tributta cast votes at a place specifically designated as a templum. See Nathan Rosenstein, “Sorting Out the Lot in Republican Rome,” American Journal of Philology 116, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 57–58, 52n, 64n.

[42] Josephus notes that the Jews “said that from time immemorial the high priesthood had been conferred by lot” (War 4.3.7–8, 152–157).

[43] At Tel Arad in southern Israel, the excavator of the site, Yohanan Aharoni, discovered ostraca with names written on them that he believed were priestly lots used in the temple. See Yohanan Aharoni, “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple,” Biblical Archaeologist 31, no. 1 (1968): 11.

[44] See Luijendijk, Forbidden Oracles?, 29.

[45] There is also a possible metaphorical link to Mary and the temple in relation to lot-casting. Lily C. Vuong notes that there is a “connection between Joseph and Aaron” in that “both Aaron and Joseph are chosen by lot by means of a rod to care for and protect the temple and Mary (the symbolic temple), respectively. . . . [Mary] is now depicted as a temple herself.” The Protevangelium of James (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2019), 72.

[46] Vuong, Protevangelium of James, 72. This narrative is also found in the Qurʾan (Q. 3:44).

[47] See Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 67.

[48] The Midrash Rabbah (Bem.R. 21.9) on Numbers adds that Eleazar simultaneously used the Urim and Thummim at this lot-casting event:

Miraculous events happened in connection with the lot. Eleazar the son of Aaron was invested with the Urim and Thummim, while the urn for the lots stood before Joshua; as it says, And I will cast lots for you here before the Lord (Josh xviii, 6). Before ever the lot came up Eleazar would say, inspired by the Holy Spirit: “The lot of such-and-such a tribe is coming up and indicates that he shall receive his territory in such-and-such a place.” Joshua would put out his hand and the said lot would come up.

Eleazar would predict the lot correctly before it came up, thereby confirming the hand of the divine in both the casting of lots and in the use of the Urim and Thummim. See D. D. Bookman, “The Urim and Thummim in Relation to the Old Testament Theocracy” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2001), 29–30.

[49] Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac and Co., 1903), 1162.

[50] Elaine H. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (London: Pan Macmillan, 2005), 93–94.

[51] Determining leadership through lots is an ancient practice in the Near East. The Assyrian isqu “lot” was used to choose numerous professions (CAD I/J: 201). At a Hittite festival known as EZEN pulaš, or “festival of the lot,” a new priest was elected and inaugurated. See Ada Taggar-Cohen, “The Casting of Lots among the Hittites in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 29, no. 1 (2002): 99. Lots could also be used in deciding who would join religious communities; those desiring to enter the Qumran community went through two years of testing, but the final decision on whether they should be included or excluded was determined by lot-casting (1QS 6:13–23). See Kåre Sigvald Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 341.

[52] In fact, the Greek κλήρος (klḗros) “lot” is the etymological antecedent of the English word clergy precisely because lots became one of the methods for choosing new church leadership. Clement of Alexandria was the first to use κλήρος with this specific sense in the early church. See P. Mordaunt Barnard and J. Armitage Robinson, eds., Clement of Alexandria: Quis Dives Salvetur, The Text and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004), 5:24. By the third century AD, the expression “κλήρος τοῦ Θεοῦ” (klēros toû theoû), lit. “lot of God” or “inheritance of God,” had come to mean those “consecrated to God’s service,” that is, the clergy such as the Levites in the Old Testament. See August Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church during the Three First Centuries, 2nd ed. (London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1842), 198. For other mentions of κλήρος τοῦ Θεοῦ, see Irene of Chrysobalanton (no. 57) in Jan Olof Rosenqvist, The Life of Saint Irene Abbess of Chrysobalanton: A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, Notes and Indices (Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, 1986).

[53] Apostolic Tradition III, 5; compare Gregory Dix and Henry Chadwick, eds., The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 1992), 5. See also Everett Ferguson, The Early Church at Work and Worship, vol. 1, Ministry, Ordination, Covenant, and Canon (Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth, 2014), 140.

[54] Arthur Philip Perceval, A Collection of Papers Connected with the Theological Movement of 1833 (London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1842), 163. Compare Joseph Bingham, Origines Ecclesiasticae, Or, The Antiquities of the Christian Church: And Other Works (London: William Straker and J. H. Parker, 1840), 426, 457. See also Joseph Bingham, Of Cemeteries, or Burying-places; With an Inquiry, How and When the Custom of Burying in Churches First Came In (London: Reeves and Turner, 1878), 1:129. For a similar practice among the Syrian Church, see J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, III (1), (Rome, 1725), 200–202.

[55] See W. A. Silverman, “Gnosis and Random Allotment,” Controlled Clinical Trials 2, no. 2 (June 1981): 161–64.

[56] There were certainly others in the Christian tradition, however, who had a negative view of instruments used in divination. A work ascribed to John Chrysostom in the fifth century states: “And [pagans] need instruments, places, and proper times, and speak for money. God is free of these things.” William E. Klingshirn, “The Instruments of Lot Divination,” in Sortilege and Its Practitioners in Late Antiquity: My Lots Are in Thy Hands, ed. AnneMarie Luijendijk and William E. Klingshirn (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 66.

[57] Klingshirn, “Instruments of Lot Divination,” 76.

[58] S. Augustini Enarrat. in Psal. xxx. Serm. ii. 3 13.

[59] For a discussion on the evolving views of Augustine on divination, see William E. Klingshirn, “Divination and the Disciplines of Knowledge according to Augustine,” in Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, ed. Karla Pollmann and Mark Vessey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 113–40.

[60] Isidore of Seville (ca. AD 560–636), who wrote what could be called the first western Christian taxonomy of magicians and diviners, similarly wrote disparagingly of Christians who practice lot-based “divination” (sortes): “Lot diviners (sortilegi) are those who under the label of what pretends to be religion profess a knowledge of divination through the kinds of lots they call saints’ lots, or who predict future events by looking into any kind of writings whatever.” See William E. Klingshirn, “Isidore of Seville’s Taxonomy of Magicians and Diviners,” Traditio 58 (2003): 88. For further discussions on sortes, see Jacqueline Champeaux, “Fortuna. Recherches sur le culte de la fortune à Rome et dans le monde romain, des origines à la mort de César. I: Fortuna dans la religion archaïque,” Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome Roma 64, no. 1 (1982). On the political implications of sorte, see Rosenstein, “Sorting Out the Lot in Republican Rome.” On Christian uses of sortes, see Pieter W. van der Horst, “Sortes: Sacred Books as Instant Oracles in Late Antiquity,” in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, ed. L. V. Rutgers et al. (Peeters, 1998), 143–73. See also William E. Klingshirn, “Defining the Sortes Sanctorum: Gibbon, Du Cange, and Early Christian Lot Divination,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 10, no. 1 (2002): 77–130; and Jacqueline Champeaux, “‘Sorts’ et divination inspirée. Pour une préhistoire des oracles italiques,” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 102, no. 2 (1990): 801–28.

[61] S. Augustini Enarrat. In Psal. XCI 10.

[62] Similarly, in the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225–1274) described how “casting lots” was a method used in secular disputes over the allotting of inheritances in his day. See Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, book 1, lecture 4, ad Eph. 1:11.

[63] P. A. G. Clark, “Lots,” in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916), 1:710–13.

[64] Cited in Thomas Aquinas, De Sortibus (Lots), trans. Peter Bartholomew Carey (Dover, MA: Dominican House of Philosophy, 1963), chap. 5.

[65] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: Second Part of the Second Part (Ingersoll, Ontario: Devoted, 2018), 402.

[66] Works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol. 5, ed. John. B. Emory and N. Y. Wagh, (New York: J. Collord, 1831), 316.

[67] See F. N. David, Games, Gods and Gambling (New York: Hafner, 1962).

[68] See Adam Fischer, Amish to Christian: Addiction-Conviction-Faith-Power (Grand Rapids, MI: WestBow, 2012), 40–41. See also D. B. Kraybill, Concise Encyclopedia of Amish, Brethren, Hutterites, and Mennonites (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), 160. Compare D. B Kraybill, K. M. Johnson-Weiner, and S. M. Nolt, The Amish (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013). However, many Mennonite congregations today are abandoning lot-casting as a means of selecting their clergy. See p. 93 of David Weaver-Zercher, “Putting the Amish to Work: Mennonites and the Amish Culture Market, 1950–1975,” Church History 68, no. 1 (1999): 87–117.

[69] The practice of lot-casting in the Coptic church is ancient. In the tenth century AD, Severus recorded that after the death of the Mark the Evangelist—founder of the Church in Alexandria, Egypt—Annianus (AD 62–85) and then Avilius (AD 85–98) were chosen to sit on the throne of Mark in the Coptic church. Their next leader, Cerdo (AD 98–109), however, was chosen by lots: “Then they assembled at Alexandria, and took counsel together with the orthodox laity of that city, and cast lots, that they might know who was worthy to sit upon the throne of Saint Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the Lord Christ, in succession to the Father Avilius; and their choice fell with one consent, by the inspiration of the Lord Christ, our Master, upon an elect man, who feared God, and whose name was Cerdo.” B. Evetts, ed. and trans., History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1910), 149–50 (a translation from the Arabic text of Severus of Al’Ashmunein (Hermopolis), Patrologia Orientalis, pt. 1, “St. Mark–Theonas (300 AD).” For more on the history of methods used in choosing leaders in the Coptic church, see Saad Michael Saad, Nardine Saad Riegels, and Donald A. Westbrook, “Traditions of Selecting Coptic Patriarchs over Two Millennia,” Journal of Coptic Studies 16 (2014): 139–53.

[70] William DeLoss Love, Future Probation Examined (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1888), 21.

[71] The Latin term sortes means “lots,” “portion,” or “destiny” and is standardly used by Jerome and other early authors to translate the Hebrew gôrāl and the Greek klēros. The famous fifth-century work known as Sortes Sanctorum (changed to Sortes Apostolorum around the seventh century) contained fifty-six Christian oracles in Latin, with some Coptic and French manuscripts and one early Greek version. See Kevin W. Wilkinson, “A Greek Ancestor of the ‘Sortes Sanctorum,’” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 196 (2015): 94–102. See also C. Chabaneau, “Les Sorts des Apotres,” Revue des langues romanes (1880): 17–18. For a Coptic portion, see Arn van Lantschoot, “Une collection sahidique de ‘Sortes sanctorum,’” Le Museón 69 (Papyrus Vatican copte 1) (1956): 35–52.

[72] In Old Testament times, the eschatological use of lot is also found repeatedly in the Book of Enoch, a first- or second-century-BC work: “They shall bless Him for the mercy in accordance with which He has assigned them (their lot)” (27:4–5); “according to the good pleasure of the Lord of Spirits by whom the lot of eternal life has been given to me” (37:4–5); blessed are ye, ye righteous and elect, for glorious shall be your lot” (58:2). See R. H. Charles, “The Book of Enoch,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 1:163–277.

[73] Acts 26:18: λαμβάνειν . . . τόν κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις.

[74] Colossians 1:12 RSV: εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ πατρὶ τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί.

[75] See, e.g., Matthew 5:5 (New King James Version): “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit (κληρονομήσουσιν, klēronomēsousin) the earth”; Luke 18:18 (NKJV): “Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit (κληρονομήσω, klēronomēsō) eternal life?”; Revelations 21:7 (NKJV), “He who overcomes shall inherit (κληρονομήσει, klēronomēsei) all things.”

[76] See William A. Beardslee, “The Casting of Lots at Qumran and in the Book of Acts,” Novum Testamentum 4, fasc. 4 (1960): 245–52. See also Ferguson, “Qumran and Codex D.”

[77] Alan Goff similarly suggested that “Laman must fail at leadership in the plates of brass story and Nephi succeed (3:11–14; 4:1–33) to foreshadow the future leadership roles [of] Nephi.” “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts: Historicism, Revisionism, Positivism, and the Bible and Book of Mormon” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1989), https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4719.

[78] For a detailed discussion on how Nephi organized 1 Nephi to justify his receiving the right to rule, see Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephi’s Political Testament,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 220–29.

[79] Torleif Elgvin, “‘4Q474’—A Joseph Apocryphon?,” Revue de Qumrân 18, no. 1 (69) (April 1997): 99n. See also Jubilees 2:20.

[80] See Bradford A. Anderson, “The Inversion of the Birth Order and the Title of the Firstborn,” Vetus Testamentum 60, no. 4 (2010): 657.

[81] See Val Larsen, “Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 26–41, 84–85.

[82] Nephi also hints that this bestowal may have been recorded on his “other plates.” On those other plates he wrote more of the time when both he and Lehi spoke many things to Laman and Lemuel that caused them to be “angry with [Nephi] because of the admonitions of the Lord” just days after Lehi died (see 2 Nephi 4:13–14), possibly in reference to the formalization of the birthright transference.

[83] The Greek verb κληρονομέω (klēronoméo), which means to “receive, gain possession of, inherit” (from klēros, “lot,” “inheritance”), can have the specific connotation of being “that which is received on condition of obedience.” William Edwy Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: With Topical Index, ed. Merrill F. Unger and William White Jr. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 325. Moses swore to Caleb that his inheritance came “because you have followed the Lord my God wholeheartedly” (Joshua 14:9 NIV). Conversely, when the angel tells the brothers that Nephi would rule over them, he specifically tells them this would take place “because of [their] iniquities” (1 Nephi 3:29).

[84] In Hebrew, the verb תּוֹתַר means “to excel, show preeminence.” Just prior to casting lots, the Lord informed Nephi that he would be “favored of the Lord” for not having murmured as Laman and Lemuel had done (1 Nephi 3:5–6). I suggest this directly relates to the promise of Nephi’s future “preeminence” (see Anderson, “Inversion of the Birth Order,” 656), and the fact that God can show favor to one sibling over another because of additional obedience; see Moses 5:16–23.

[85] While Laman’s assertion of primacy was correct, that was nullified when the birthright was reassigned, making this charge unfounded.

[86] The legalistic language in Alma 54 describing the Lamanite claim to rulership is reminiscent of the Hebrew term naḥălâ (see note 92), which “more appropriately refers to a ‘possession’ to which one has received the legal claim.” Vine, Expository Dictionary, 121.

[87] See Beardslee, “Casting of Lots,” 264.

[88] In Akkadian, the term pūru, borrowed from the Sumerian BUR (“bowl”), shares the same semantic range, meaning a “lot,” the dice used for lot-casting, and any piece of lot acquired through an allotment. See p. 18 of Shmuel Aḥituv, “Land and Justice,” in Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence, ed. W. Vogels, H.G. Reventlow, and Y. Hoffman (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 11–28. Compare Aramaic pūr, pūrā. This is the same term noted in Esther 3:7 in the Hebrew Bible: “they cast Pur, that is, the lot (gôrāl), before Haman,” which marks the origin of the Jewish festival Purim in 475 BC. Taggar-Cohen, in “Casting of Lots among the Hittites,” 99, suggests that the Akkadian pūru was more of a peripheral term, whereas isqu was likely the standard Akkadian word for “lot.” In Old Babylonian the term isqu(m) meant “lot” or “portion.”

[89] See Anne Marie Kitz, “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua,” Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 4 (Winter 2000): 603, 610–11. Another Sumerian text states, in.ba.e.eš giš.šub.ba.ta, “they have distributed [the inheritance] by lot.” Kitz, “Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua,” 617.

[90] Kitz, “Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting,” 212.

[91] Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 113 (London: A&C Black, 1991), 17.

[92] Naḥălâ in Hebrew means “possession” and “inheritance.” Note that the Greek κλήρος (klḗros) is used with both of these meanings (see Exodus 6:8 [LXX] and Acts 26:18).

[93] The Hebrew verbal root ḥlq comes from the West Semitic root √ḥlq (< PWS *ḫlḳ; see Leonid Kogan, Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses [Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015], 118) and is closely connected to casting lots. It means both (1) “to be smooth” (i.e., smooth stones used in lot-casting) in qal (adj. ḥālāq, “smooth”; compare Ugaritic ḥlq, “smooth”; see Wilfred G. E. Watson, “From Hair to Heel: Ugaritic Terms for Parts of the Body,” Folia Orientalia LII [2015]: 342) and Arabic ḫalaqa) as well as (2) “to apportion, deal, distribute, divide” in the qal stem. See D. J. Kamhi, “The Root Ḥlq in the Bible,” Vetus Testamentum 23, fasc. 2 (April 1973): 235–39. See also A. Luc. “qlx,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2:160–61. On previous interpretations of ḥlq (“smooth”) and ḥlq (“portion”) as separate roots, see Nicholas J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 11–12. See also p. 66 of Robert H. Pfeiffer, “On Babylonian-Assyrian Feudalism,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 39, no. 1 (1923): 66–68. The Hebrew ḥēleq (< *ḫilq-), meaning “section, part,” is a derived noun from a transitive verb. Compare Ben Sira (44.23). The Assyrian cognate ilḳu means “portion” and a general plot of land. Pfeiffer, “On Babylonian-Assyrian Feudalism,” 66. In Aramaic, ḥlq similarly means “portion” and “share” (Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit Van der Kooij, eds., Aramaic Texts from Deir ʻAlla [Leiden: Brill, 1976], 234) and “to allocate” as a rare verbal root. Compare the Arabic root ḫlq, “to measure, to proportion” (E. W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon [London: Williams and Norgate, 1867], 799), and Syriac ḥlqa, “lot, portion” (Shamun, English-Assyrian-Arabic Dictionary, s.v. “ḥlqa”). A Sabaic cognate associated with lots appears on a text from the Temple of Allat (AD 137): mḥdʾ dy kspʾl-ḥlq, “a basin of silver for (casting) lots.” See Samuel N. C. Lieu, comp., Fontes Historiae Palmyrenae (Tadmorenae)—Sources on the History of Palmyra (Tadmor) (Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust, 2020), 24, lines 12–13, http://www.uai-iua.org/content/files/38104811967071629.pdf. See also Robert G. Hoyland, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam (London: Routledge, 2001), 156. The notion of “casting lots” is likely linked to the term ḥlq (“throw,” werfen) in the now extinct Neo-Aramaic language of Mlaḥsô. See Otto Jastrow, Glossar zu Kinderib (Anatolisches Arabisch) (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 2005), 39. Compare Minaic ḫlq (“decision”) M 355 RES 3610. See also Albert W. F. Jamme, “The So-called Thamudic Divine Name wt = wtn,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 24 (1967): 279–88. In Isaiah 57:6 there is a poetic association among “smooth [stones]” (ḥallĕqê) and “portion” (ḥēleq) and “lot” (gôrāl). But for an alternative reading of the ḥallĕqê in this verse as “perished,” see Nicholas Wyatt, “After Death Has Us Parted: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in the Ancient Semitic World,” in The Perfumes of Seven Tamarisks: Studies in Honour of Wilfred G. E. Watson, ed. Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Jordi Vidal, and Nicolas Wyatt (Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 280.

[94] The Hebrew term yrš (“to inherit”) likely underlies the name of the land of Jershon in the Book of Mormon, which was given, quite appropriately, to the people of Ammon “for an inheritance.” See Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes, “The Hebrew Origin of Some Book of Mormon Place Names,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 2 (1997): 255–59; see also Stephen D. Ricks, “A Nickname and a Slam Dunk: Notes on the Book of Mormon Names Zeezrom and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 8 (2014): 191–94. For more on the root yrš, see Greg Schmidt Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 97.

[95] God likewise refers to his people as a ḥebel, which can refer to a “measuring-cord,” “line,” or “lot,” as in Deuteronomy 32:9: “For the Lord’s portion (ḥēleq) is his people; Jacob is the lot (ḥebel) of his inheritance” (see also 1 Chronicles 16:18; Joshua 17:14; Micah 2:5). The underlying concept is one of shared or inherited land determined by lot or measuring cord, which is metaphorically applied to Israel as God’s inalienable possession and inheritance.

[96] Land and inheritance were likewise dominant themes from the very beginnings of the Book of Mormon. Lehi was informed that he too would obtain “a land of promise” through covenant that would be “a land for the inheritance of [his] seed” (2 Nephi 1:5). He likewise explained to his son Joseph that the Lord consecrated parts of the New World “for thine inheritance and the inheritance of thy seed with thy brethren” (3:2). The land of Nephi in particular was known as the land of “first inheritance” (Mosiah 9:1; 10:13; Alma 22:28; 54:12), one that would replace their previous land of inheritance, Manasseh (see 1 Nephi 5:2; for the Jaredites, see Ether 6:12; 7:16).

[97] Divination, according to Adam T. Smith and Jeffrey F. Leon, represents “a potent potential instrument of authority” that can affect “foundations for sovereignty.” “Divination and Sovereignty: The Late Bronze Age Shrines at Gegharot, Armenia,” American Journal of Archaeology 118, no. 4 (2014): 550.

[98] The lot offered Laman the opportunity to assert and deserve his birthright. However, his failings underscored perhaps an unworthiness that permitted the reassignment.

[99] As one scholar notes, “forms of divination associated with the prophets” such as lot-casting “began to supplant the priestly oracular functions in the course of the ninth century B.C.” J. R. Porter, “Ancient Israel,” in Divination and Oracles (London: Allen and Unwin, 1981), 194. Compare J. J. Mulligan, The Christian Experience (New York: Alba House, 1973), 60. Furthermore, another reason for the expanded use of sortilege in the centuries before Nephi was that it was done by priests and prophets but also by commoners—being one of the few forms of divination that did not require technical training. Compare Jongsu Park, “Priestly Divination in Ancient Israel: Its Characteristics and Roles” (PhD diss., Drew University, 1993), 82, 85–86n22. In Jewish culture, over time lot-casting went from an elite activity into folk culture and simultaneously from a prognosticatory function to one of individual decision-making by the medieval period. See Matthias Heiduk, Klause Herbers, and Hans-Christian Lehner, eds., Prognostication in the Medieval World: A Handbook (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020), 463. Additionally, the low cost of lot-casting also made it readily available to people of lower status (see Klingshirn, “Instruments of Lot Divination,” 64), all of which contributed to an increase in the popularity of the practice.

[100] Roland de Vaux notes that “after the reign of David, there is no evidence that the ephod, with the Urim and Thummim, was ever used for oracles.” Ancient Israel: Its Life and Instructions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 353. According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sota, 48), however, the Urim and Thummim disappeared around the time of the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 586 BC. Josephus was of the opinion that the Urim and Thummim stopped working around the Maccabean period (167–37 BC) (see Ant. 3:218). Josephus wrote that the Urim and Thummim had “left off shining two hundred years before I composed this book, God having been displeased at the transgressions of his laws,” which would indicate its last use around the time of John Hyrcanus of the Maccabees (see Ant. 3.8.9.). For Josephus, however, placing the demise of the Urim and Thummim at this late date could have been more political propaganda than actual history. See Bookman, “Urim and Thummim,” 305–6.

[101] Jerry MacGregor and Bruce K. Waltke also link the Urim and Thummim’s demise after the Babylonian exile to the institution of the prophetic office in ancient Israel: “Apparently Prophets who revealed God’s word to the king replaced the Urim and Thummim, through which he revealed His mind to the priest.” Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 46. See also J. Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” in Studies on Prophecy, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, ed. G. W. Anderson et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 26:141. Compare Aelred Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 115.

[102] There is no indication that Laman resisted the ocular message delivered through the lots. Biblical Antiquities records that after the death of Kenaz, lots were cast to choose a new ruler in Israel, and it fell upon Elkana. However, the text states that he “contendeth against the lot” and turned down the responsibility. See James, Biblical Antiquities, 213.

[103] Gardner, Second Witness, 1:105.