VERY early, and very naturally, the religious nature of man led to the use of precious stones in connection with worship—the most valuable and elegant objects being chosen for sacred purposes. Of this mode of thought, we have a striking instance in the accounts given, in the book of Exodus, of the breastplate of the High-priest, and the gems contributed for the tabernacle by the Israelites in the wilderness. Another religious association of such objects is their use to symbolize ideas of the Divine glory, as illustrated in the visions of the prophet Ezekiel and in the description of the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation. Apart from such legitimate uses, however, gems have become associated with all manner of religious fancies and superstitions, traces of which appear in the Talmud, the Koran, and similar writings; they have also been dedicated to various heathen deities. Even in modern times, some trace of the same ideas remains in the ecclesiastical jewelry and its supposed symbolism.

In the vision of Ezekiel i, 26, and in a brief allusion to the similar appearance of the God of Israel in Exodus xxiv, the throne of Jehovah, or the pavement beneath his feet, is compared to a sapphire, and the Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes the Great White Throne as surrounded by a rainbow like an emerald.

The Rabbinical writings, instead of the simple grandeur of these biblical comparisons, give us many fanciful ideas. The stones of the breastplate are here represented as sacred to twelve mighty angels who guard the gates of Paradise, and wondrous tales are told of the luminous gems in the tent of Abraham and the ark of Noah. Mohammedan legend represents the different heavens as composed of different precious stones, and in the Middle Ages these religious ideas became interwoven with a host of astrological, alchemistic, and medical superstitions.

The following is the description of the breastplate given in Exodus (xxviii, 15-30):

And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen shalt thou make it.

Foursquare it shall be being doubled; a span shall be the length thereof, and a span shall be the breadth thereof.

And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row.

And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond.

And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst.

And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper; they shall be set in gold in their enclosings.

And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes.

And thou shalt make upon the breastplate chains at the ends of wreathen work of pure gold.

And thou shalt make upon the breastplate two rings of gold, and shalt put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate.

And thou shalt put the two wreathen chains of gold in the two rings which are on the ends of the breastplate.

And the other two ends of the two wreathen chains thou shalt fasten in the two ouches, and put them on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod before it.

And thou shalt make two rings of gold, and thou shalt put them upon the two ends of the breastplate in the border thereof, which is in the side of the ephod inward.

And two other rings of gold thou shalt make, and shalt put them on the two sides of the ephod underneath, toward the forepart thereof, over against the other coupling thereof, above the curious girdle of the ephod.

And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and that the breastplate be not loosed from the ephod.

And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the Lord continually.

And thou shalt put in the breastplate of Judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the Lord: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually.

Of the miraculous quality of the stones worn by the high-priest, the Jewish historian Josephus (37-95 A.D.) says:409

From the stones which the high-priest wore (these were sardonyxes, and I hold it superfluous to describe their nature, since it is known to all), there emanated a light, as often as God was present at the sacrifices; that which was worn on the right shoulder instead of a clasp emitting a radiance sufficient to give light even to those far away, although the stone previously lacked this splendor. And certainly this in itself merits the wonder of all those who do not, out of contempt for religion, allow themselves to be led away by a pretence of wisdom. However, I am about to relate something still more wonderful, namely, that God announced victory in battle by means of the twelve stones worn by the high-priest on his breast, set in the pectoral. For such a splendor shone from them when the army was not yet in motion, that all the people knew that God himself was present to aid them. For this reason the Greeks who reverence our solemnities, since they could not deny this, called the pectoral ?????? or oracle. However, the pectoral and the onyxes ceased to emit this radiance two hundred years before the time when I write this, because God was displeased at the transgressions of the Law.

This writer, who must have seen the high-priest wearing his elaborate vestments, says that the breastplate was adorned “with twelve stones of exceptional size and beauty, a decoration not easily to be acquired, on account of its enormous value.”410 However these gems were not merely rare and costly; they also possessed wonderful and miraculous powers. Writing about 400 A.D., St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, tells of a marvellous adamas which was worn on the breast of the high-priest, who showed himself to the people, arrayed in all his gorgeous vestments, at the feasts of Pascha, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. This adamas was termed the d???s?? or “Declaration,” because, by its appearance, it announced to the people the fate that God had in store for them. If the people were sinful and disobedient, the stone assumed a dusky hue, which portended death by disease, or else it became the color of blood, signifying that the people would be slain by the sword. If, however, the stone shone like the driven snow, then the people recognized that they had not sinned, and hastened to celebrate the festival.411

There seems to be little doubt that this account is nothing more than an elaboration and modification of the passage in Josephus. Evidently the ?????? (oracle) of Josephus has become the d???s?? (declaration).

When Moses wished to engrave on the stones of the breastplate the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, he is said to have had recourse to the miraculous shamir. The names were first traced in ink on the stones, and the shamir was then passed over them, the result being that the traced inscriptions became graven on the stones. In proof of the magical character of this operation, no particles of the gems were removed in the process.412 The name really designates “emery.”

An argument against the use of especially rare and costly stones in the decoration of the breastplate has been found in its probable size.413 We are told that when folded it measured a span in each direction, and this would indicate that its length and breadth were each from eight to nine inches. In this case the stones themselves might have measured two by two and a half inches, and, in view of the number of characters required to express some of the tribal names, these dimensions do not seem excessive. It is highly improbable that in the time of Moses precious stones like the ruby, the emerald, or the sapphire would have been available in these dimensions. The difficulty of engraving very hard stones with the appliances at the command of the Hebrews of this period must also be taken into consideration. As we shall see, however, there is good reason to believe that after the Babylonian Captivity a new breastplate was made, and at that time it may have been easier to secure and work precious stones of great value and a high degree of hardness. We must also bear in mind that in those periods perfection was not so great a requisite as rich color.

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.

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

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.

I. Odem. [?????.] 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. Pi?dah. [????????.] 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 pi?dah appears to have been derived from the Sanskrit pi?a, “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. [????????.] 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. [??????.] This name is rendered ????a? 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.

V. Sappir. [???????] 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. [???????] The sixth stone of the Septuagint version and of Josephus is the ?asp??, 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 ??????? 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. [??????] 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 ????, and ?????, 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. [??????.] 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. A?lamah. [?????????.] As to this stone also, all the authorities are in agreement, and render a?lamah 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 a?lamah was engraved the name Dan.

X. Tarshish. [?????????.] 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 Phoenicians. 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. [??????.] 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. [????????.] 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 following lists show the variations of the different ancient authorities in regard to the names of the gems in the breastplate:

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.

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