Chapter III: Ephod with Breastplate Folded and Attached (1)

_G, G_, rings through which pass bands of Breastplate; _H, H_, bands of Ephod. From Johann Braun’s “Vestitus Sacerdotum Hebræorum,” Amsterdam, 1680.]

In his commentary on Exodus xxviii, Cornelius à Lapide (Cornelius Van den Steen) discusses the question of the diamond in the high-priest’s breastplate. In the first place, he notes that the diamond was very costly, and that a large stone would have been needed to bear the name of Judah or that of any other tribe. He considers that a stone of the requisite size would have cost a hundred thousand gold crowns, and he asks, “Whence could the poor Hebrews have obtained such a sum of money, and where could they have found such a diamond?” He proceeds to give still another reason for doubting that the diamond was in the breastplate,—namely, that it would have marked too great a distinction between the tribes, the result being that the tribe to which the diamond was assigned would have been puffed up with pride, while the others would have been filled with hatred and envy, “for the diamond is the Queen Gem of all the gems.”[414]

The use of the breastplate to reveal the guilt of an offender is testified to in a Samaritan version of the book of Joshua, which has been discovered by Dr. Moses Gaster, chief rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in England. According to this version, Achan steals a golden image from a heathen temple in Jericho. The high-priest’s breastplate reveals his guilt, for the stones lose their light and grow dim when his name is pronounced.

Many conjectures have been made as to the origin of the breastplate with the mystic Urim and Thummim enclosed within it. That an Egyptian origin should be sought seems most probable. A breast-ornament worn by the high-priest of Memphis, as figured in an Egyptian relief, consists of twelve small balls, or crosses, intended to represent Egyptian hieroglyphics. As it cannot be determined that these figures were cut from precious stones, the only definite connection with the Hebrew ornament is the number of the figures; this suggests, but fails to prove, a common origin. The monuments show that the high-priest of Memphis wore this ornament as early as the fourth Dynasty, or, approximately, 4000 B.C.[415]

Of the Urim and Thummim, the mysterious oracle of the ancient Hebrews, St. Augustine (354-450 A.D.), after acknowledging the great difficulty of interpreting the meaning of the words and the character of the oracle, adds that some believed the words to signify a single stone which changed color according as the answer was favorable or unfavorable, while the priest was entering the sanctuary; still he thought it possible that merely the letters of the words Urim and Thummin were inscribed upon the breastplate.[416]

After the capture of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., the treasures of the temple were carried off to Rome, and we learn from Josephus that the breastplate was deposited in the Temple of Concord, which had been erected by Vespasian. Here it is believed to have been at the time of the sacking of Rome by the Vandals under Genseric, in 455, although Rev. C. W. King thinks it is not improbable that Alaric, king of the Visigoths, when he sacked Rome in 410 A.D., might have secured this treasure.[417] However, the express statement of Procopius that “the vessels of the Jews” were carried through the streets of Constantinople, on the occasion of the Vandalic triumph of Belisarius, in 534, may be taken as a confirmation of the conjecture that the Vandals had secured possession of the breastplate and its jewels.[418]

It must, however, be carefully noted that Procopius nowhere mentions the breastplate and that it need not have been included among “the vessels of the Jews.” It appears that this part of the spoils of Belisarius was placed by Justinian (483-565) in the sacristy of the church of St. Sophia. Some time later, the emperor is said to have heard of the saying of a certain Jew to the effect that, until the treasures of the Temple were restored to Jerusalem, they would bring misfortune upon any place where they might be kept.[419] If this story be true, Justinian may have felt that the fate of Rome was a lesson for him, and that Constantinople must be saved from a like disaster. Moved by such considerations, he is said to have sent the “sacred vessels” to Jerusalem, and they were placed in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

This brings us to the last two events which can be even plausibly connected with the mystic twelve gems,—namely, the capture and sack of Jerusalem by the Sassanian Persian king, Khusrau II, in 615, and the overthrow of the Sassanian Empire by the Mohammedan Arabs, and the capture and sack of Ctesiphon, in 637.[420] If we admit that Khusrau took the sacred relics of the Temple with him to Persia, we may be reasonably sure that they were included among the spoils secured by the Arab conquerors, although King, who has ingeniously endeavored to trace out the history of the breastplate jewels after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., believes that they may be still “buried in some unknown treasure-chamber of one of the old Persian capitals.”

A fact which has generally been overlooked by those who have embarked on the sea of conjecture relative to the fate of the breastplate stones is that a large Jewish contingent, numbering some twenty-six thousand men, formed part of the force with which the Sassanian Persians captured Jerusalem, and they might well lay claim to any Jewish vessels or jewels that may have been secured by the conquerors. In this case, however, it is still probable that these precious objects fell into the hands of the Mohammedans who captured Jerusalem in the same year in which they took Ctesiphon.

One circumstance which may have contributed to the preservation of these gems in their original form after they fell into the hands of the Romans is the fact that each one was engraved with the name of one of the Jewish tribes, the inscription being probably in the older form of Hebrew writing, which was used in the coinage even as late as the last revolt in 137 A.D. Hence, recutting would have been necessary to fit them for use as ornaments, a process not easily accomplished, and involving a great loss of size. We must also bear in mind that the intrinsic value of the gems may not have been so great as many suppose, since all of them were probably of the less perfect forms of the precious and semi-precious varieties. It is very likely that the enthusiastic statements of Josephus in this connection were dictated by national pride, or arose from the tendency to exaggeration so common among the Oriental writers. Certainly, if the breastplate known to Josephus was made not long after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity, their financial resources at the time of its fabrication were quite restricted.

Admitting as a possibility that the Arabs may have secured possession of the breastplate, how would they have regarded it? The heroes of the Old Testament, and especially Moses, were such sacred personalities in the eyes of Mohammedans that this relic would have been as precious for them as for us. However, the victorious Arabs who overran the Sassanian Empire, although filled with religious zeal, were no students of archæology, and would have been quite unable to decipher the strange characters engraved on the stones. They would most probably have supposed them to be Persian characters, and would, therefore, have valued these stones no higher than others in the Persian treasure. This can serve as an explanation of the fact that no allusion to the breastplate with its adornment can be found in the works of those Mohammedan writers, such as Tabari, who treat of the overthrow of the Sassanian Empire. We may be sure that the Persians themselves would have accorded no special honor to objects connected with the Hebrew religion, since their own Zoroastrian faith had no connection with it.

In 628, not long before the date of the Arab invasion, the most precious relic of Christendom, the cross discovered by Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, and believed to be the very cross on which Christ died, was surrendered to the Greek Emperor Heraclius by Kobad II, son of Khusrau II, on the conclusion of a treaty of peace between the Eastern and Sassanian Empires. This cross was one of the sacred objects borne away to Persia from Jerusalem by Khusrau in 615 A.D. It is said to have been guarded carefully through the influence of Sira, Khusrau’s Christian wife. There is a bare possibility that other objects of religious veneration, taken from Jerusalem, may have been given up by the Persians at the same time, and that the unique character of the most important relic so overshadowed all others that historians have failed to note the fact. The cross was restored to Jerusalem by Heraclius in 629, only to fall into the hands of the Mohammedans when that city was taken by the Arabs under Omar, in 637. Hence, if the jewelled breastplate had also been surrendered by Kobad, it would probably have shared the same fate.

Russian, sixteenth century. Collection of Mrs. Henry Draper.]

From the “Metallotheca Vaticana” of Mercatus, Rome, 1719, p. 238. In the author’s library.]

We have here a wide field for conjecture,—but, unfortunately, nothing more. Still, in the absence of any definite and trustworthy information, there is a kind of romantic interest in viewing the various possible relations of the mystery surrounding the fate of the most precious gems, historically at least, that have ever existed. More especially is this interest justified in the case of all who are disposed to prize gems and jewels for their symbolic significance, for, as we have shown, this significance, as far as concerns natal stones and the spiritual interpretation of the qualities of the heart and soul symbolized by the color and character of the principal precious and semi-precious stones, has its root in the veneration felt by early Christian writers, beginning with the author of the Apocalypse, for the unforgotten and unforgettable gems that were worn by the Hebrew high-priest.

A rather ingenious utilization of the reputed powers of Aaron’s breastplate comes to us in a book printed in Portland, Maine.[421] The writer assumes that the Urim and Thummim enclosed in the folds of the breastplate consisted of twelve stones, duplicates of those engraved with the names of the tribes, and so disposed that, when they were shaken to and fro and then allowed to come to rest, three of them would become visible through an aperture in the ephod just beneath the rows of set stones. The signification of the oracle is given by the various combinations of color offered by the three stones that reveal themselves; to each combination a prearranged meaning is given. That anything of the kind could have been true of the original Urim and Thummim is scarcely worthy the trouble of refutation, but the practical result of this modern experiment is a clever oracle which will probably enjoy a certain vogue.

For those who, with the late lamented Lieutenant Totten, see in the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim the Anglo-Saxons of England and the United States, and who look upon George V as the king who sits upon the throne of David, these symbolical stones of the breastplate acquire an added significance. While not pretending to be able to follow all the intricate and certainly most ingenious and interesting speculations of this school of Biblical exegesis, we cannot help expressing some astonishment that Ephraim should be thought to prefigure England and Manasseh the United States, instead of _vice versa_. In Gen. xlviii, 17-20, the text more especially referred to in these speculations, Jacob’s blessing is bestowed upon Ephraim, in spite of Joseph’s protest that it should go to the _eldest_ son, Manasseh. To this protest Jacob answers: “I know it, my son, I know it: he also [Manasseh] shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Certainly the very composite population of the United States perfectly merits this description. As a general rule, the Hebrews, when using the names Ephraim and Manasseh as tribal designations, maintained the twelve-fold division of the people, by substituting these tribes for Joseph and by dropping the name of Levi from the list, the tribe of Levi being assigned as priests to the care of the sanctuary, and not participating in the division of the Land of Promise.

In the Midrash Bemidbar, the Rabbinical commentary on Numbers, the tribes are given in their order, with the stone appropriate to each and the color of the tribal standard pitched in the desert camp, this color corresponding in each, case with that of the tribal stone. This list represents a tradition dating back to at least the twelfth century and possibly much earlier than that; hence its value should not be underestimated, although we may not accept it without some reserves.[422]

Odem Reuben Red
Pitdah Simeon Green
Bareketh Levi White, black and red
Jophek Judah Sky-blue
Sappir Issachar Black (like stibium)
Yahalom Zebulun White
Leshem Dan Sapphire-color
Shebo Gad Gray
Ahlamah Naphtali Wine-color
Tarshish Assher Pearl-color (?)
Shoham Joseph Very black
Yashpheh Benjamin Colors of all the stones

In the attempt to determine the identity of the stones enumerated in Exodus xxviii and xxxix, as adorning the breastplate of the high-priest, we must bear in mind that this “breastplate of Aaron” and the one described by Josephus, and brought by Titus to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., are in all probability entirely distinct objects. The former, if it ever existed, except in the ideal world of the authors of the Priestly Codex, must have been composed of the stones known to and used by the Egyptians of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, B.C., some of them being, perhaps, set in the “jewels of gold and jewels of silver” borrowed by the Israelites from the Egyptians just before the Exodus; on the other hand, the most trustworthy indications regarding the stones of the breastplate of the Second Temple, made perhaps in the fifth century B.C., should be sought in the early Greek and Latin versions of the Old Testament, and in the treatise on precious stones by Theophrastus, who wrote about 300 B.C. The Natural History of Pliny, that great storehouse of ancient knowledge, and other early writers, may also be used with profit.

Shows the figure of the High-priest and the names and tribal attributions of twelve stones of the Breastplate.]

I. Odem. [אֹדֶם.] The etymology of this word clearly indicates that we have to do with a red stone, most probably the carnelian. We know that in ancient Egypt hieroglyphic texts from the Book of the Dead were engraved upon amulets made from this stone, and it was also used for early Babylonian cylinders. Fine specimens of carnelian were obtained from Arabia. The Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, as well as Josephus, in the “Wars of the Jews” (V, 5, 7), and Epiphanius, all translate _sardius_, the ancient designation of carnelian; in his “Antiquities,” however, Josephus renders _odem_ by “sardonyx.” The Egyptian word _chenem_ was used to designate red stones, and seems to have been applied indifferently to red jasper and red feldspar as well as to carnelian; indeed, the first-named material was more freely used in early Egyptian work than the carnelian. It is, therefore, probable that in Mosaic times _odem_ signified red jasper, while for the fifth century B.C. “carnelian” would be the better rendering. This modern name of the _sardius_, signifying the “flesh-colored” stone, first appears in the Latin translation of a treatise by Luca ben Costa, who wrote in the tenth century A.D. The name of Reuben is said to have been engraved on the _odem_ stone, which occupied the first place on the breastplate.

II. Piṭdah. [פַּטְדָה.] There seems to be little doubt that this is the _topazius_ of ancient writers, which usually signified our chrysolite, or peridot, not our topaz; for Pliny and his successors describe the topazius as a stone of a greenish hue. A legend related by Pliny gives as the place of origin an island in the Red Sea, called Topazos, from _topazein_, “to conjecture,” because it was difficult to find. However, the Hebrew _piṭdah_ appears to have been derived from the Sanskrit _piṭa_, “yellow,” and should, therefore, have originally signified a yellow stone, perhaps our topaz. W. M. Flinders Petrie, probably influenced by this Sanskrit etymology, sees in it the yellow serpentine used in ancient Egypt. If, nevertheless, we admit that a light green stone occupied the second place on the Mosaic breastplate, it was perhaps the light green serpentine. This was called _meh_ in Egyptian, and was often used for amulets. In the case of the later breastplate we may substitute the peridot. On this second stone was engraved the name Simeon.

III. Bareketh. [בָּרֶקֶת.] Here the Septuagint, Josephus, and the Vulgate agree in translating _smaragdus_, and as we know that emerald mines were worked at Mount Zabarah, in Nubia, before the beginning of our era, and that the emerald was known and used in Egypt, there does not seem to be any reason for rejecting the usual translation “emerald.” Still it must be admitted that _smaragdus_ often designates other green stones than the emerald. The suggestion has been made (by Myers and Petrie) that the passage in Revelation iv, 3, where the rainbow is likened to the _smaragdus_, indicates that the writer used this name for rock-crystal; but this conjecture is scarcely satisfactory, since it confuses the prismatic effects of light which has traversed the crystal with the crystal itself. There can be little doubt that a stone of brilliant coloration, like the emerald, not a colorless one, like rock-crystal, would be used as a simile of the rainbow. Whether the Mosaic breastplate already contained the emerald is another question, and it seems rather more likely that green feldspar, freely used in ancient Egypt for amulets, and known as _uat_, was the third stone of the proto-breastplate. The Authorized Version makes “the carbuncle” the third instead of the fourth stone. Upon the _bereketh_ was engraved the name Levi.

IV. Nophek. [נֹפֶךּ.] This name is rendered ἄνθραξ by the Septuagint and Josephus, and “carbunculus” by the Vulgate. This designation, signifying literally “a glowing coal,” was used for certain stones distinguished by their peculiarly brilliant red color, such as the ruby and certain fine garnets. While it is quite possible that the Oriental ruby may have been in the breastplate seen by Josephus, it is almost certain that it could not have been in the original breastplate of Mosaic times, since there is absolutely no proof that this stone was known in ancient Egypt. Hence we are inclined to believe that in the thirteenth century B.C. the name _nophek_ designated the almandine garnet, or some similar variety of that stone. The Authorized Version has “emerald” here instead of in the third place. On this fourth stone of the breastplate was engraved the tribal name of Judah.

Forming part of the treasure discovered in 1858 at Guarrazar in Spain. Now in Musée de Cluny, Paris. The cross proper is set with fine sapphires cut en cabochon and eight large pearls. Natural size.]

V. Sappir. [סַפִּיר] This is rendered _sapphirus_ in all the old versions.[423] The stone cannot have been our sapphire, for both Theophrastus and Pliny describe the _sapphirus_ as a stone with golden spots, thus showing that they meant the lapis-lazuli, which is often spotted with particles of pyrites having a golden sheen. This stone was named _chesbet_ by the Egyptians, and was highly prized by them, a quantity of lapis-lazuli often appearing as an important item in the lists of tribute paid to Egypt and among the gifts sent by Babylonia to the Egyptian monarchs, and obtained from the oldest mines in the world. These were worked at a period 4000 B.C. and still are worked to this day. From this material amulets and figures were made, many of which have been preserved for us, and the Egyptian high-priest is said to have worn, suspended from his neck, an image of Mat, the Goddess of Truth, made of lapis-lazuli. The name is composed of the Latin _lapis_, “a stone,” and _lajuward_, the name of the stone in Persian. From this latter word is also derived our “azure.” In ancient times the lapis-lazuli was the blue stone _par excellence_, because of its beautiful color and the valuable ultramarine dye derived from it. Although Pliny writes (xxxvii, 39) that this stone was too soft for engraving, this fact need not have prevented its use in the breastplate, since the stones set therein were not intended for use as seals and hence were not subjected to any wear. In this connection, however, it is somewhat strange that the Hebrew word _sappir_ appears to indicate a stone especially adapted to receive inscriptions. The fact that the lapis-lazuli was greatly esteemed in ancient Egypt, and was still much used as an ornamental stone in Greek and Roman times, renders it probable that it was set not only in the original breastplate, but also in that of a later age. Upon this fifth stone the name Issachar was inscribed.

VI. Yahalom. [יַהֲלֹם] The sixth stone of the Septuagint version and of Josephus is the ἴασπις, probably green jasper, or jade, and this has been assumed to show that in the original Hebrew text _yashpheh_ was the sixth stone, in place of _yahalom_. The twelfth stone of the Greek version is the ὀνύχιον or “onyx,” and this seems to be the most probable equivalent of the Hebrew _yahalom_. Some Hebrew sources, however, render it “diamond,” and Luther in his German version of the Bible, as well as our own Authorized Version, translates it thus. This rendering is based upon the derivation of the word _yahalom_ from a verb meaning “to smite,” thus making the name of the stone signify “the smiter,” a designation not inappropriate for the diamond, which, because of its extreme hardness, has the power to cut, or “smite,” all other stones. However, for this purpose the emery corundum, or smiris-point _shamir_, mentioned in Zechariah, was most likely used. The diamond was certainly not used in this way in very early times, although it is possible that the stone was employed in engraving in the fifth century B.C. These considerations induce us to prefer the traditional interpretation of _yahalom_, and translate it “onyx.” In this case “the smiter” could be explained as denoting the use of the engraved onyx for sealing, as the engraved figure or letters were struck upon some soft material to make an impression. Zebulun was the tribal name inscribed on the _yahalom_.

VII. Leshem. [לֶשֶׁם] No stone in the breastplate is more difficult to determine than this one. The Septuagint, Josephus, and the Vulgate all translate _ligurius_, an appellation sometimes applied to amber, a substance quite unfitted for use in the breastplate among the other engraved stones. Probably the original significance of _ligurius_ was amber, this name being used because Liguria, in northern Italy, was the chief source of supply for Greece and the Orient; amber which had been gathered on the shores of the Baltic being brought by traders to Liguria and forwarded thence to other lands. As, however, the Greeks had another name for amber, _electron_, the name _ligurion_ appears to have been applied later to a variety of the jacinth somewhat resembling amber in color, and then to other varieties of the same stone. The original form of the name was evidently _ligurion_, which was later changed to _lyncurion_, and was then explained as meaning the urine of the lynx (from λύγξ, and οὖρον, urine). This fanciful etymology gave rise to the story that the _ligurios_, or rather _lyncurius_, was the solidified urine of the lynx. The term _lyncurion_, as used by Theophrastus, may possibly have included the sapphire as well as the jacinth, since he lays especial stress upon the coldness of this substance, a quality characteristic of the sapphire, and also of the still denser jacinth. Hence, it appears that we have, even in the name _ligurius_, some justification for accepting the rendering _hyacinthus_, suggested by the list of foundation stones in Revelation xxi, 20, and already proposed by Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, about 400 A.D. Whether _hyacinthus_ should be rendered “sapphire” or “jacinth” is not easy to determine, as this name seems to have been used indifferently for both stones; with the Arabs, under the form _yakut_, it became a generic term for all the varieties of the corundum gems. The sapphire was engraved in Greek and Roman times and is, perhaps, the _leshem_ stone of the Second Temple. For the Mosaic breastplate we are forced to seek for some stone known in ancient Egypt, where the sapphire does not seem to have been introduced at an early date. If we could accept the suggestion of Brugsch that the Egyptian _neshem_ stone, reputed to have wonderful magic virtues, was the same as the Hebrew _leshem_, a brown agate would have been the seventh stone in the original breastplate, as Wendel gives very strong reasons for rendering _neshem_ in this way. The color designations were very freely used in Egyptian, and therefore a reddish or a yellowish brown agate may have been used. The _leshem_ bore the tribal name Joseph.

VIII. Shebo. [שְׁבוֹ.] This is uniformly rendered in the ancient versions and in Josephus by “agate,” a composite stone highly esteemed in very ancient times, and hence worthy of a place among the stones of the breastplate; at a later period, as Pliny notes (xxxvii, 54), it became so common that it was but little regarded. Nevertheless the fact that the various kinds of agates were believed to have many talismanic and therapeutic virtues, the great variety of coloration observable in these stones, and the curious figures and markings displayed by many of them, served to make them favorite objects. The etymology of the word _shebo_ suggests that it designated more especially a banded agate, and that set in the proto-breastplate was most probably one with gray and white bands, as this variety often appears in Egyptian work. There would have been no lack of contrast between this stone and the reddish or yellowish-brown agate, of uniform color, which may have occupied the seventh place. For the later breastplate we may choose any one of the many kinds of banded agate. This stone had engraved upon it the name Benjamin.

IX. Aḥlamah. [אַחְלָמָה.] As to this stone also, all the authorities are in agreement, and render _aḥlamah_ by “amethyst.” This was not, however, the Oriental amethyst, a variety of corundum, but a dark blue or purple variety of quartz. Both Arabia and Syria furnished a supply of amethysts. The Hebrew name shows that this stone was believed to possess the virtue of inducing dreams and visions (cf. _halom_—“dream”), while, as is well known, the Greek name characterizes it as an enemy or preventive of inebriety. The amethyst was known in ancient Egypt and probably was named _hemag_. In the Book of the Dead a heart made of _hemag_ is mentioned, and two such heart-shaped amulets of amethyst are preserved in the Boulaq Museum. As the amethyst retained its repute as a stone of beauty and power through the Greek and Roman periods, we may safely assert that it was set in both the first and second breastplates. Upon the _aḥlamah_ was engraved the name Dan.

X. Tarshish. [תַרשִׁישׁ.] The Septuagint renders this word “chrysolite,” where it is used in the description of the breastplate, as does Josephus also. In the Authorized Version, “beryl” is the rendering. We have already stated that the topaz of the ancients was usually our chrysolite, or peridot, and the name “chrysolite” appears to have been used to designate our topaz. This is indeed indicated by the literal meaning of the word, “golden-stone.” The _tarshish_ received its name from Tartessus, in Spain, an important commercial station of the Phœnicians. The stone derived from this source was not, of course, our Oriental topaz, a variety of corundum, nor was it the true topaz; neither is it at all likely that the name _tarshish_ signified, at least originally, the genuine topaz; most probably it denoted a variety of quartz which occurs in Spain. This is originally black, but is decolorized by heating to a deep brown, and if the heating be prolonged the stone becomes paler and eventually entirely transparent. The ancients were familiar with this property. In ancient Egyptian records a stone called _thehen_ is frequently mentioned as a material from which amulets were made. This Egyptian name signified primarily a “yellow stone,” and might designate either the topaz or the yellow jasper, known and used in Egypt at a very early date; the topaz was probably not known there earlier than 500 or 600 B.C. Hence, in spite of the unquestionable difficulty offered by the geographical name _tarshish_, which might seem to confine us to a Spanish origin for the stone, the probabilities favor the selection of the yellow jasper as the tenth gem in Aaron’s breastplate. For that made with pious zeal by those who labored to renew the glories of the Old Jerusalem, we choose the topaz,—possibly, indeed, a fine specimen of the genuine topaz,—for whatever the quality of the yellow stone originally brought from Tartessus, the name may well have been applied to the genuine topaz when that stone became known to the Jews, either in Babylonia, or after their return to Palestine. The _tarshish_ was engraved with the name Naphtali.

XI. Shoham. [שֹׁהַם.] The Septuagint translates “beryl,” but in our Authorized Version and in that used by Roman Catholics, the so-called Douai Version, the word is invariably rendered “onyx.” Diodorus Siculus and Dionysius Periegetes, writing in the first century B.C., are the first classical authors who use the name beryl. While this name does not appear in the treatise of Theophrastus, he evidently includes the beryl among his _smaragdi_; indeed, the true emerald is simply a variety of the beryl, and owes its beautiful coloration to a slight admixture of chromium. The finest beryls were brought from India. Besides the specimen set in the breastplate, the high-priest wore on his shoulders two _shoham_ stones, each engraved with the names of six of the tribes. After carefully weighing the evidence, we believe that the stones worn by the high-priest of the Second Temple were aquamarines (beryls). In our endeavor to determine the _shoham_ stones used in Mosaic times, we have no very definite information to guide us; on the whole, the conjecture of J. L. Myers, that they were malachites, seems to have much in its favor, for this material was known to the ancient Egyptians and appears to have been often used for amulets. The Egyptian name for malachite, as well as for other green stones, was _mafek_, and a ring of _mafek_ is mentioned in an Egyptian text; undoubtedly, at a later period in Egyptian history, _mafek_ may also have denoted the beryl. In view of the fact that the turquoise was unquestionably known to the Egyptians at a very early date, the supply being derived from mines in the Sinai Peninsula, which were rediscovered by Macdonald, we might be tempted to suggest that the _shoham_ stones were turquoises. The light blue or blue-green of the specimens of this stone found on Mt. Sinai would make an even better contrast with the neighboring jade than would the bright green malachite. On the shoham of the breastplate the name Gad was engraved.

XII. Yashpheh. [יָשְׁפֶה.] If, as appears almost certain, this name originally occupied the sixth place in the original Hebrew text, all the ancient versions agree in translating it “jasper.” An Assyrian form of the name was _yashpu_, as is shown by the Tell el Amarna letters in the cuneiform writing dating from not long before the Exodus. Of all the so-called jaspers none were so highly valued as those of a green color. The talismanic and therapeutic qualities of the “green jaspers” are often noted by ancient writers, and, according to Galen, these stones were recommended for remedial use by Egyptian writers on medicine. Abel Remusat, the great French Orientalist, writing in 1820, was one of the first to see in the _yashpheh_ of the Hebrews and in the green jasper of the Greeks and Romans, the material jade (nephrite or jadeite), the Chinese _yu_-stone. These minerals were used both in the Old and the New World, and were everywhere believed to possess wonderful virtues. Very likely the powers supposed to characterize jade were later attributed to green jasper, but there is every reason to suppose that the true jade was always more highly prized than its jasper substitute, for it was much rarer, and was easily distinguishable, by its translucency, from jasper of a similar color. Until quite recently only Turkestan, Burma and New Zealand have supplied jade and most of that used in other lands came from prehistoric relics or from sources unknown to us. It seems highly probable that the _yashpheh_ which adorned the breastplate made for Aaron was a piece of nephrite or jadeite; possibly in the later breastplate green jasper may have been employed. This stone was inscribed with the tribal name Assher.

In the following lists of the precious and semi-precious stones contained in the earlier and later breastplates, the writer does not claim to have finally solved the problem presented by the Hebrew accounts of the high-priest’s adornment, but he hopes that the distinction established here between the Mosaic breastplate and that of the Second Temple, separated from each other by an interval of eight centuries, may serve to clear up some of the difficulties encountered in the treatment of this subject.

The Breastplate of Aaron. The Breastplate of the Second Temple.

I Red jasper Carnelian
II Light-green serpentine Peridot
III Green feldspar Emerald
IV Almandine garnet Ruby
V Lapis-lazuli Lapis-lazuli
VI Onyx Onyx
VII Brown agate Sapphire or jacinth
VIII Banded agate Banded agate
IX Amethyst Amethyst
X Yellow jasper Topaz
XI Malachite Beryl
XII Green jasper, or jade Green jasper, or jade

The following lists show the variations of the different ancient authorities in regard to the names of the gems in the breastplate:

Septuagint. Josephus Vulgate Authorized Revised
Hebrew. (Greek) (Greek) (Latin) Version Version
About About About 1611 A.D. 1884 A.D.
250 B.C. 90 A.D. 400 A.D.

1 Odem Sardion Sardonyx Sardius Sardius Sardius
(or Ruby)

2 Piṭdah Topazion Topazos Topazius Topaz Topaz

3 Bareḳeth Smaragdos Smaragdos Smaragdus Carbuncle Carbuncle
(or Emerald)

4 Nophak Anthrax Anthrax Carbunculus Emerald Emerald
(or Carbuncle)

5 Sappir Sappheiros Iaspis Sapphirius Sapphire Sapphire

6 Yahalom Iaspis Sappheiros Jaspis Diamond Diamond
(or Sardonyx)

7 Leshem Ligurion Liguros Ligurius Ligure Jacinth
(or Amber)

8 Shebo Achatês Amethystos Achatês Agate Agate

9 Aḥlamah Amethystos Achatês Amethystus Amethyst Amethyst

10 Tarshish Chrysolithos Chrysolithos Chrysolithus Beryl Beryl
(or Chalcedony)

11 Shoham Bêryllion Onyx Onychinus Onyx Onyx
(or Beryl)

12 Yashpheh Onychion Bêryllos Bêryllus Jasper Jasper

The high-priest’s breastplate, as described in Hebrew tradition, was regarded by the Jews with peculiar reverence, and the stones set in it were believed to be emblematic of many things. It is, therefore, quite natural that these stones are described in the book of Revelation as the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem. The names are in some cases not identical with those given in Exodus, but this may arise from various renderings of the Hebrew names in the Targums or in the Greek versions.

The text in Revelation (xxi, 9-21) is as follows:

And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife:

And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper-stone, clear as crystal;

And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

On the east, three gates; on the north, three gates; on the south, three gates; and on the west, three gates.

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.

And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.

And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.

And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

It is easy to trace in this description the substitution of the twelve apostles for the twelve tribes in connection with the precious stones enumerated, and, besides this, we also have the twelve angels, associated at a later date with the months and the signs of the zodiac.

Of the twelve foundation stones the Revelation of St. John expressly states that they had “in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” The assignment of each stone to the respective apostle was made in later times according to the order given in the lists of the apostles contained in the so-called Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These lists are not quite identical—Andrew, for instance, being placed second in Matthew and Luke, but fourth in Mark—and the same stone was not always assigned to a given apostle. Frequently the list was modified by the addition of the apostle Paul, really the thirteenth apostle. In this case he was usually given the second place immediately after St. Peter, and to the brothers James and John, the “Sons of Thunder,” was assigned a single stone; in some later arrangements St. Paul occupies the last place, after St. Matthias, who was chosen to take the place of Judas Iscariot, and whose name as an apostle first appears in the Acts.

LISTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Gospel of Gospel of Gospel of
St. Matthew St. Mark St. Luke
x, 2-4. iii, 16-19. vi, 14-16.

Peter Peter Peter
Andrew James Andrew
James John James
John Andrew John
Philip Philip Philip
Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew
Thomas Matthew Matthew
Matthew Thomas Thomas
James the Less James the Less James the Less
Thaddeus Thaddeus Simon Zelotes
Simon Zelotes Simon Zelotes Judas
Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot

The passage in Revelation xxi, 19, 20, is not the only one in that book treating of precious stones, for we read in chapter iv, 2, 3:

And immediately I was in the Spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and _one_ sat on the throne.

And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and _there was_ a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

The commentators, both ancient and modern, have given many different explanations of the symbolic meaning of the similes employed here. Some have seen in the two stones a type of the two judgments of the world, by fire and by water; others find that they signify the holiness of God and his justice. Of the rainbow “like unto an emerald,” Alford says we should not think it strange that the bow is green, instead of prismatic: “the _form_ is that of the covenant bow, the color even more refreshing and more directly symbolizing grace and mercy.”[424]

The significance of the twelve Apocalyptic gems is given by Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (786-856), in the following words:[425]

In the jasper is figured the truth of faith; in the sapphire, the height of celestial hope; in the chalcedony, the flame of inner charity. In the emerald is expressed the strength of faith in adversity; in the sardonyx, the humility of the saints in spite of their virtues; in the sard, the venerable blood of the martyrs. In the chrysolite, indeed, is shown true spiritual preaching accompanied by miracles; in the beryl, the perfect operation of prophecy; in the topaz, the ardent contemplation of the prophecies. Lastly, in the chrysoprase is demonstrated the work of the blessed martyrs and their reward; in the hyacinth, the celestial rapture of the learned in their high thoughts and their humble descent to human things out of regard for the weak; in the amethyst, the constant thought of the heavenly kingdom in humble souls.

The origin of the foundation stones named in Revelation xxi, 19, 20, may be found in the text, Isaiah liv, 11, 12, where we read:

O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, _and_ not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.

And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.

As we see, only three stones are mentioned by name: the sapphire, the carbuncle, and “agates.” This last rendering is quite doubtful, as the Hebrew word (_kodkodim_) signifies shining or gleaming stones, and their use for windows indicates that they must have been transparent. It is easy to understand that in later times the twelve stones of the breastplate, dedicated to the twelve tribes of Israel, were used to fill out and complete the picture, following the indication given by the general terms “stones with fair colours” and “pleasant stones.”

In commenting on this text Rabbi Johanan is quoted in the Babylonian Talmud as saying that God would bring jewels and pearls thirty ells square (twenty ells in height and ten in width) and would place them on the gates of Jerusalem. There may be in this some reminiscence of the Apocalyptic foundation stones. A sceptical disciple said to the Rabbi, “We do not ever find a jewel as large as the egg of a dove.” But not long afterward, when this same disciple was sailing in a boat on the sea, he saw angels sawing stones as immense as those described by Rabbi Johanan, and when he asked for what they were designed, the reply was, “The Holy One, blessed be He, will place them on the gates of Jerusalem.”[426]

IX

Birth-Stones

The origin of the belief that to each month of the year a special stone was dedicated, and that the stone of the month was endowed with a peculiar virtue for those born in that month and was their natal stone, may be traced back to the writings of Josephus, in the first century of our era, and to those of St. Jerome, in the early part of the fifth century. Both these authors distinctly proclaim the connection between the twelve stones of the high-priest’s breastplate and the twelve months of the year, as well as the twelve zodiacal signs. Strange to say, however, in spite of this early testimony, we have no instance of the usage of wearing such stones as natal stones until a comparatively late date; indeed, it appears that this custom originated in Poland some time during the eighteenth century. The reason for this seems to have been that the virtues attributed to each particular stone, more especially the therapeutic virtues, rendered it necessary to recommend the wearing of one or the other, according to the disease from which the person was suffering, for his natal stone might not have the power to cure his particular ailment, or might not bring about the fulfilment of his dearest wish. In other words, the belief in the special virtues of the stone was paramount, and it was long before the mystic bond between the stone of the month and the person born in that month was fully realized.

The order in which the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem are given in the book of Revelation determined the succession of natal stones for the months. The first stone was assigned to St. Peter and to the month of March, to the leader of the apostles and to the month of the spring equinox; the second to the month of April; the third to May, etc. When, however, many centuries later,—probably in Poland, as we have stated,—with the aid of the rabbis or the Hebrew gem traders, the wearing of natal stones became usual, certain changes had been made in this order and some stones not mentioned among those of the breastplate, or of the New Jerusalem, were substituted for certain of these,—notably the turquoise for the month of December, the ruby for July, and the diamond for April. In modern times the turquoise has become the stone for July while the ruby has been assigned to December.

There is some evidence in favor of the theory that at the outset all twelve stones were acquired by the same person and worn in turn, each one during the respective month to which it was assigned, or during the ascendancy of its zodiacal sign. The stone of the month was believed to exercise its therapeutic or talismanic virtue to the fullest extent at that period. Perhaps the fact that this entailed a monthly change of ornaments may rather have been a recommendation of the usage than the reverse.[427]

It seems highly probable that the development of the belief in natal stones that took place in Poland was due to the influence of the Jews who settled in that country shortly before we have historic notice of the use of the twelve stones for those born in the respective months. The lively interest always felt by the Jews regarding the gems of the breastplate, the many and various commentaries their learned men have written upon this subject, and the fact that the well-to-do among the chosen people have always carried with them in their wanderings many precious stones, all this seems to make it likely that to the Jews should be attributed the fashion of wearing natal stones.

However, whether this conjecture be correct or erroneous, the fashion once started became soon quite general and has as many votaries to-day as ever before. There can be no doubt that the owner of a ring or ornament set with a natal stone is impressed with the idea of possessing something more intimately associated with his or her personality than any other stone, however beautiful or costly it may be. If it be objected that this is nothing but imagination due to sentiment, we must bear in mind that imagination is one of the most potent factors in our life; indeed, the great Napoleon is quoted as saying that it ruled the world.

Probably the very earliest text we have in which the stones of the breastplate are positively associated with the months of the year is to be found in the “Antiquities of the Jews,” by Flavius Josephus.[428] This runs as follows:

Moreover, the vestments of the high-priest being made of linen signifies the earth, the blue denotes the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and resembling thunder in the noise of the bells. And as for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four elements, and as for the gold interwoven in it, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are to be enlightened. He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod to resemble the earth, for that occupies the middle place in the world; and the girdle, which encompassed the high priest about, signifies the ocean, for that goes about everything. And the two sardonyxes that were in the clasps on the high-priest’s shoulders, indicate to us the sun and the moon. And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or the twelve signs of what the Greeks call the zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the cap, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven, for otherwise the name of God would not have been inscribed upon it. That it was also adorned with a crown, and that of gold also, is because of the splendor with which God is pleased.

This passage was adapted by St. Jerome, three hundred years later, in his letter to Fabiola,[429] and undoubtedly laid the foundation for the later custom of wearing one of these stones as a natal or birth-stone for a person born in a given month, or for an astral or zodiacal stone for one born under a given zodiacal sign. As we see, both uses are indicated by the passage of Josephus. In the later centuries, as the book of Revelation, which was generally less favored at the outset than the other parts of the New Testament, became a subject of devout study, and a mine of mystical suggestions, the twelve foundation stones (Rev. xxi, 19) of the New Jerusalem largely took the place of the stones of the breastplate. While this list of foundation stones is unquestionably based upon the much earlier list of the stones adorning Aaron’s breastplate, the ordering differs considerably and there are some changes in the material; possibly many, if not all, of these differences may be due to textual errors or to a transcription from memory.

That the foundation stones were inscribed with the names of the apostles is expressly stated (Rev. xxi, 14), but it was not until the eighth or ninth century that the commentators on Revelation busied themselves with finding analogies between these stones and the apostles. At the outset, the symbolism of the stones was looked upon from a purely religious standpoint. Few of the early fathers—we may except Epiphanius—thought or cared much for the stones themselves, or knew much of them; but, in time, their natural beauty became more and more highly developed as the lapidarian art demanded better cut and choicer material, their supposed virtues came to the fore, and the symbolism was strengthened and emphasized by a reference to their innate qualities and also to their peculiar powers. The fact that this part of the tradition was rather of pagan than of Christian origin probably contributed to render it less attractive to the early Christians, so that it was not until Christianity had become practically universal in the Greek and Roman world and the opposition to pagan traditions, as such, was weakened and, indeed, largely forgotten, that the virtues of the stones were made prominent, and certain parts of these superstitions were retained, as were some of the pagan ceremonies in the Christian religion.

One of the earliest writers to associate directly with the apostles the symbolism of the gems given as foundation stones of the New Jerusalem by St. John in Revelation xxi, 19, is Andreas, bishop of Cæsarea. This author was at one time assigned by critics to the fifth century A.D.,[430] but more recent investigation has shown that he probably belonged to the last half of the tenth century. His exposition reads as follows:[431]

The jasper, which like the emerald is of a greenish hue, probably signifies St. Peter, chief of the apostles, as one who so bore Christ’s death in his inmost nature that his love for Him was always vigorous and fresh. By his fervent faith he has become our shepherd and leader.

As the sapphire is likened to the heavens (from this stone is made a color popularly called lazur), I conceive it to mean St. Paul, since he was caught up to the third heaven, where his soul was firmly fixed. Thither he seeks to draw all those who may be obedient to him.

The chalcedony was not inserted in the high-priest’s breastplate, but instead the carbuncle, of which no mention is made here. It may well be, however, that the author designated the carbuncle by the name chalcedony. Andrew, then, can be likened to the carbuncle, since he was splendidly illumined by the fire of the Spirit.

The emerald, which is of a green color, is nourished with oil, that its transparency and beauty may not change; we conceive this stone to signify John the Evangelist. He, indeed, soothed the souls dejected by sin with a divine oil, and by the grace of his excellent doctrine lends constant strength to our faith.

By the sardonyx, showing with a certain transparency and purity the color of the human nail, we believe that James is denoted, seeing that he bore death for Christ before all others. This the nail by its color indicates, for it may be cut off without any sensible pain.