Cf. Shәmot 28.17-20; Yәsha·yâh′ u 54.11-12.
In the first century, ancients classified gems differently than we do today. While gems are classified scientifically today according to their composition, in the first century gems were classified solely according to visual appearance and inspection. The primary determinant was color, though hardness was sometimes considered when it could be determined (using a touchstone).
The gems listed below are those that were familiar to first century Jews, as contrasted with modern lapidaries. I have listed them in the order that they would be seen in the wall, the twelfth level at the top of the wall and the first level being the lowest foundation layer.
In deference to a great deal of work that was done in this area in articles in the 1968.12 issue of The Lapidary Journal by Gilmore and Davis, there are some considerations of ancient Judaic perspective which merit departures from their conclusions.
First, the layman of that day might see a stone such as a white sapphire and call it a diamond, much as a layman might mistake one for the other today.
Our study focuses on 12 specific stones, not categories in general.
While Gilmore's conclusions may be relevant to ancient precious stones generally, they are incorrect in the case of these 12 specific stones.
There are more reliable sources for these 12 stones than those Gilmore relied upon in his article; namely LXX Greek correlating directly to the MT Hebrew, written by Jews who were intimately familiar with these 12 stones as found in ancient Israel, and many of whom may well have seen these specific stones with their own eyes.
Further, they knew the Hebrew names and were translating that particular passage for those particular stones.
The next best source after MT and LXX Greek is Josephus, for many of the same reasons.
The passages from Shәm·ot′ 28:17-21 and 39:10-14 (36:17-21 in LXX) and from Josephus (Ant. III, VII, 5) are almost entirely in agreement.
Beryl and sardonyx were juxtapositioned in LXX. However, since Hebrew is read right to left and Greek left to right, such mistakes are not uncommon.
It can also be seen from this table that the gems in The Unveiling are very likely the same as those in Josephus and the Jewish Bible.
After correlating these stones, our conclusions are in harmony with the Aramaic Pәshitәtâ′ for the most part (though this is not the original language of the Bible, as erroneously stated by Gilmore; only a small portion of the Bible, Dâ·ni·eil′ , is – or was originally – in Aramaic).
Just as the layman today might well confuse a white sapphire with a diamond, Josephus and the translators of LXX diverge slightly regarding the distinction between the sard, the sard-onyx, and the onyx.
It is very likely that this same explanation holds for the relatively minor divergence between the jacinth and the anthrax (garnet) , as well as between the chalcedony (a general term) and the more specific agate chalcedony.
The only stone which doesn't readily correlate in The Unveiling is the chrysoprase. The only stone not correlated in LXX is the ligure. No one has any real idea of what it was (possible identifications being based on analyses such as this and Gilmore's).
The translators of LXX, as well as Josephus, and Yo·khân·ân′ , were intimately knowledgeable with these 12 specific stones. Many had seen them. All had heard them described in vivid detail. Yo·khân·ân′ is describing the same 12 stones based on the ready correlation of 11 of them. The ligure/לשם is similar in appearance to the chrysoprase, to the extent that a layman could easily confuse them. In the Bën-Yәhud′ âh Hebrew-English dictionary, לשם is defined as the turquoise or opal, a stone that a layman could easily confuse with the chrysoprase.
LXX says topaz in Greek, while the Masoretic describes the stone as yellow in Hebrew. This does not describe a peridot. Whether topaz referred to the peridot in other places we don't treat here. This analysis treats only the single specific stone described in these passages, which was a yellow topaz.
The iaspis, a jasper-colored stone transparent like a crystal, describes either a ruby or a stone which the layman might mistake for a ruby. Because of the inclusion of the term "crystal" in the description, many translators have misidentified this stone as a diamond.
The green and blue gems are identified, respectively, as lapis lazuli and malachite (rather than blue sapphire and emerald). Since the peridot is chrysolite, we find no difficulty in accepting this identification.
We are also in agreement with Gilmore's conclusions identifying the garnet as the jacinth.
Colors and descriptions: The amethyst is a transparent violet stone; the garnet a very dark fiery-red transparent stone; the turquoise an ocean-blue-green opaque stone; the topaz a yellow transparent stone; the aquamarine an ocean-green opaque stone; the peridot an apple green transparent stone; the sard a flesh red opaque stone; the sard-onyx a layered stone of sard and white; the malachite an emerald green opaque stone; the agate a layered opaque stone of whites, blues, browns, and sometimes sard (a chalcedony) ; the lapis lazuli is an opaque blue stone with gold-colored flecks; and the ruby is a deep rosy-red transparent stone.
 |
|
 |