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 λόγιον 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 δήλωσις 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 λόγιον (oracle) of Josephus has become the δήλωσις (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.”
[Illustration: THE HEBREW HIGH-PRIEST ATTIRED WITH HIS VESTMENTS.
(From Johann Braun’s “Vestitus Sacerdotum Hebræorum,” Amsterdam, 1680,
opp. p. 822.)]
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.
[Illustration: I, II, THE BREASTPLATE UNFOLDED.
_A_, lower fold; _B, B, B, B_, rings for attachment to Ephod; _C_,
the twelve gems in their settings; _D, D_, hooks for attachment to
shoulder; _E, E_, bands to pass through rings in Ephod.
III. EPHOD WITH BREASTPLATE FOLDED AND ATTACHED.
_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.
[Illustration: SILVER CROSS WITH QUARTZ CAT’S EYE.
Russian, sixteenth century. Collection of Mrs. Henry Draper.]
[Illustration: SPECIMENS OF CHIASTOLITE (LAPIS CRUCIFER). (See page
271.)
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.
[Illustration: TITLE PAGE OF THE EDITION OF MARBODUS ON PRECIOUS
STONES, PUBLISHED IN COLOGNE, 1539.
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.
[Illustration: CROSS, ATTACHED AS PENDANT TO THE CROWN OF THE GOTHIC
KING RECCESVINTHUS (649-672 A.D.).