Talk:Cleromancy

This article is rated Start-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Occult Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: BEN PHILPOTT (JANUARY 4, 2018). "What Happens When An Election Is Tied In Texas?". Houston Public Media. You may be wondering what it means to "cast lots." According to Wik.ipedia.Pro, it's a form of cleromancy. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The first source cited, Tacitus, refers to continental Germanic tribes, not Scandinavians. This type of mistake is made a lot because the continental Germanic religion of the time is mostly known trough Scandinavian branches that survived several century's longer then the continental ones. In addition, Tacitus does not mention runes in the discribtion of throwing lots, this is an much later interpetation and one that is, to my knowledge, not considered the academic standart. I don't know the second source, can someone who does confirm wether or not that source mentiones runes by name? 80.65.103.177 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction was quite bizarre. Cleromancy is a form of divination using random selection. Drawing straws is not a form of divintaiton it is a form of selection that can, e.g. be used to make a fair choice without any divine intervention! I'm not at all sure "casting lots" as I originally checked should come here at all, but neither should it point to allotment for exactly the opposite reason that allotment is primarily not a form of divination. Life is too short to work out what should happen, so I've left a note with a link to allotment.

--Mike 11:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a choice on "casting lots" and "sortilege", I'll put a note on allotment pointing to cleromancy. --Mike 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In this case, the casting of lots was implicitly looked down upon by the biblical authors." I think this is unsubstantiated speculation. I think it would be best if this sentence were removed. The "biblical authors" later used casting lots as a means of selecting a "replacement Apostle" after the suicide of Judas (Iscariot). (Acts 1:23-26) --Imhavoc 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the second point is correct about Saul being selected by lot. Check 1 Samuel 15:42 It descrbes a lot between Saul and his son Jonathan. Saul's kingship is declared by Samuel without lot mentioned

Essentially, in the Old Testament, the use of lots, aka cleromancy, was a means of inquiring of God, usually with "yes" or "no" answers, but always with a limited number of possible outcomes. Divination, which, strictly speaking, is seeking information considered secret, usually regarding the future, is only one use of cleromancy, and as such, the prohibition of divination in the Old Testament limits the use of cleromancy to certain types of inquiries, but does not forbid it completely. Regarding Saul's kingship, it was, in fact, confirmed by lot. Regarding the casting of lots upon Jesus' clothing, there is no reason to believe that it was frowned upon by the apostles since it was not divination, per se; rather, it was common sortilege. On just one further note, in the Jewish mentality, as well as the majority of Orthodox Christian mentality, God has absolute control over all occurences and events, even in the natural world; therefore, even simple sortilege (i.e. drawing straws) is considered by them to be a means of finding out God's will; in other words, simply drawing straws reveals God's choice, so to speak. Djspiegel3 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit too much editorialising and speculation. I've trimmed this; hopefully the texts are clear enough by themselves. Pdch 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the time of the events cited from the Old Testament, they would have been more exactly yet retrospectively be regarded as Near Eastern culture. DFH 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub type.

you have labeled the stub as an occolt stub. this is not true. divinatiuon by no means is secretive or contains no hidden secrets. also why are you using the wicca/wiccan pentacross as the symbol for occult. wiccans are not occultist they are just as open about their religion as any christian, jew or muslim.

Quote from article (my bolding):

In the Old Testament, there are four cases where casting lots was invoked as a means of determining God's wishes:

Should we write "at least four cases" instead - I'm not aware of any sources outside Wik.ipedia.Pro listing the four cases we've found. As far as I recall, this part of the article began with a list of three cases that I'd collected over the years, without reading the Bible from beginning to end, and then someone added a fourth case. I'm not sure the list is complete now.

Also, in the four cases cited, it's not the really the whishes of this god that are revealed (except in the case about Saul); it's rather his knowledge. So could we write "God's mind" instead - or something?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's done. Someone got a better way of putting it than "God's mind"?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, user:Lambiam changed

Cleromancy is a form of divination using sortilege, casting lots or casting bones in which an outcome is determined by random means, such as the rolling of dice.

into

Cleromancy is a form of divination using sortition, casting of lots, or casting bones, in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but that are believed to reveal the will of God or other supernatural entities.

Of course, Lambiam's got a point. On the other hand, in some cases, the supernatural intervention in cleromancy may be thought to enter through the process of interpretation rather than trough the randomization. Could the text be tweaked either to mention this possibility, or (better, in the absense of source), not to rule it out?--Noe (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the new text rules out the possibility of interpreters being needed for explaining the divine will, as revealed in the outcome of the process, to laypeople – just as in many scripture-based religions one has priests to explain the divine will as revealed in sacred scripture.  --Lambiam 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section In Judeo-Christian culture, there's a paragraph on the Book of Mormon. In my view of things, this is not notable, certainly not on a par with material from the Old Testament that (as far as I understand) is common to three major World religions. So, should the Mormon stuff be removed?--Noe (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, there once was a mention of I Ching is this article (perhaps I worte that), and I guess it was edited out in connection with the talk posts by user Mike in the first section of this talk page. I Ching uses two kinds of randomizers: three coins (counting heads and tails), and division of a bunch yarrow stalks. The coins are just as much randomizers as dice are; the more traditional yarrow stalk division is arguably not random, though for practical puposes, I think it is (you divide a bunch of about 50 stalks in two roughly equal piles, and use the count of one pile modulo 4). All in all, I clearly think I Ching belongs in this article.--Nø (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nø (sorry I'm just stalking you for a moment). I'd like to note a few distinctions which, even if you disagree with me, might be used to sharpen the article. As I understand it, cleromancy entails (as the article currently states) the casting of lots. That is, the mere use of lots (e.g. drawing lots) isn't sufficient; they must be cast. If this is correct then, paradoxically, I Ching divination with coins is cleromancy, but with yarrow sticks it is not. (Presumably it would then be rhabdomancy or sortilege -- which, incredibly, disambiguates 3 ways, none of which is "divination by lots", surely its primary definition!) Of course, it may have a better claim to bibliomancy (as is indicated in the navbox) since you can have I Ching without the lots, but not without the book... but I think to force a choice would be pedantic. By my definition, qiúqiān (mentioned in the article) could be cleromancy (just!), but omikuji would not. Other note: It seems to me false to say that "Cleromancy is a form of sortition..." as, at least in Wikepedia, sortition is defined strictly as a "random voting" mechanism. Possibly sortition is a form of cleromancy... but this would give a supernatural tone to a randomization process that is apparently quite secular. Probably what was intended was "Cleromancy is a form of sortilege..." but (as I noted) Wik.ipedia.Pro does not currently seem to have a germane article on "sortilege". Why not "Cleromancy is a form of divination by the casting of lots..."? Phil wink (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil. Stalking is OK (in this case). I think "casting of lots" is idiomatic English, not to be taken that literally. But I'm neither a linguist, nor a native English speaker.--Nø (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you and I drew straws or picked a pebble from a vase or chose what's in the right or left hand to see who takes out the garbage, I don't think any English speakers would call this "casting lots", but "drawing lots" would be acceptable. I only think "cleromancy" participates in this distinction because I feel I'm seeing this distinction in actual definitions:

Reference	Cleromancy	Sortilege
merriam-webster.com	"divination by means of casting lots" [1]	"divination by lots" [2]
collinsdictionary.com	"a divination involving dice-throwing or lot-casting" [3]	"the act or practice of divination by drawing lots" [4]
Wiktionary	"1. Divination by casting lots (sortilege). 2. Divination by throwing dice or any such marked objects, like beans, pebbles, or bone." [5]	"Witchcraft, magic, especially as a means of making decisions or predictions." [6]

All these are similar, but in each case, "cleromancy" definitely suggests throwing, whereas "sortilege" does not. (The Wiktionary definitions seem deficient to me, but I'm including them since they're the home team.) I thought I'd have a decent glossary of divination types to hand, but I guess I don't, and I don't know offhand which websites would be trustworthy on this topic. Phil wink (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disbelieve that this is how things work, and that this has a rich tradition, but can we get a citation for this? 2:47 20 April 2020

The present article begins

Cleromancy is a form of sortition (casting of lots)

but the article Sortition begins

In governance, sortition [...] is the selection of political officials as a random sample

and never gets around to define what "sortition" might mean outside of governance. (It has a "See also" link to Cleromancy, though.)

The paren "(casting of lots)" partly saves the situation, but should we avoid calling it sortition, or should the article Sortition define the concept more broadly (say, "Sortition is reaching decisions by casting of lots. In particular, in governance, ..."?--Nø (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a serious omission in the current version of this article, which prevents it from being properly encyclopedic: how exactly did the Hebrews cast lots (i.e., what sorts of objects did they throw)? If dice didn't yet exist, did they throw pebbles or some other objects? No indication is given. Can we please improve this article by adding this information? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good question, but the answer seems to be unknown -- a few random google results:

• [7] "nothing is known about the actual lots themselves. They could have been sticks of various lengths, flat stones like coins, or some kind of dice; but their exact nature is unknown. The closest modern practice to casting lots is likely flipping a coin."
• [8] "What were those “lots” in those times? We know the Romans had dice, so that was a way of determining. Some other means were: two arrows with one marked with a line as the correct one and the other not marked; a black pebble which was not the correct one and a white pebble which was; a long stick and a smaller stick and the smaller stick would be the one chosen."
• [9] "The exact process by which lots were cast in ancient Israel is not always clear; there were probably several different methods. One way was by using different colored or marked stones, producing binary outcomes — yes or no, good or bad, selected or rejected. Pieces of broken pottery (“ostraca”) could have names or marks written on them as well, thereby offering a wider array of possible outcomes."
• [10] "A variety of objects were used to cast a lot, depending on the place and local customs, such as coins, polished sticks, cards, dice, and so on. We today carry out a form of this ancient custom whenever we throw a dice or flip a coin."
• [11] "Lots could be sticks with markings, stones with symbols, etc., which were thrown into a small area, and then the result was interpreted."

I do not know if any of these sources are reliable enough to allow us to add something like the following to the article:

The exact methods of casting lots used in biblical times are not known.

In most cases, I think a method that would work would be to mark one of a set of otherwise identical objects, and having the "contenders" (often people or tribes) draw one object each. However, phrases about "casting the lots into the lap ..." do not seem to be in agreement with such a method. Nø (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We say:

(Note that the Greek word for "lot" (kleros) serves as the etymological root for English words like "cleric" and "clergy" as well as for "cleromancy".)

In context, this may suggest that clergy are called thus because their functions at one point were assigned by drawing lots. However, Clergy (which by the way perhaps should be wikilinked here) suggests a different story: It was the lot - meaning inheritance, not a lottery - of the tribe of Levi to be clergy for Israel. Can we somehow qualify or clarify this parenthetical statement (though it isn't in itself incorrect)? Nø (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]