(17-19) Set in it settings of stones . . . There is always considerable difficulty in identifying ancient with modern gems, the etymologies of the words being frequently uncertain, the names (where they have survived) having sometimes changed their meaning, and the opinions of early commentators, who might seem to speak with some authority, being discrepant. In the present case, scarcely one of the twelve stones can be said to be determined with certainty. 1. The odem, identified by the LXX. and the Vulg. With the "sard," has been regarded as the ruby, the carbuncle, and the carnelian. Etymologically the word means "red," or "the red stone." The ruby is certainly wrong, since ancient engravers could not cut it. Either "sard" or "carnelian" is probably intended, both being common in Egypt. 2. The pitdah is certainly not the topaz, which could no more be cut than the ruby. If the word is derived, as supposed, from a root meaning "pale," the chrysolite, which resembles a pale topaz, but is far softer, may be meant. 3. The bar?keth is rendered smaragdus, "emerald," by the LXX. and Vulg.; but neither could the emerald be cut by the ancient engravers. The word means "brightly flashing," which tells us next to nothing. "Beryl" and "a kind of corundum" have been suggested; but neither is particularly sparkling. 4. The nophek, translated ?????? by the LXX. and Josehus, may well be the "carbuncle," as is now generally supposed. It cannot, any more than the odem, be the ruby. 5. The sappir one might have supposed by its name to be certainly the "sapphire;" but this, again, is a gem which ancient engravers could not cut. It would seem that here we have one of the cases where the name has been transferred from one stone to another, the modern "lapis lazuli" being the gem which was called "sapphire" by the ancients. 6. The yah?lom is certainly not the "diamond," which is the hardest of all gems. The LXX. and Vulg. translate by "jasper" (??????, jaspis); but this seems really to have been the twelfth stone. Other renderings are mere conjectures, and the yah?lom must be regarded as unknown. 7. The leshem, rendered "ligure" by the LXX., the Vulgate, Josephus, and our translators, is probably the stone known to the ancients as lapis ligurius, but what that stone was is a matter of great uncertainty. It has been regarded as amber, as jacinth, and as tourmaline; but amber does not admit of engraving, while jacinth and tourmaline are pure conjectures. This stone, then, must also be regarded as unknown. 8. The shevo, rendered achates, "agate," by the LXX. and the Vulg., is generally allowed to have been that stone, which was well known to the ancients, and widely used for engraving. 9. The akhlamah was regarded as the amethyst by the LXX., the Vulgate, and Josephus; but it has been suggested that it may have been "malachite" (Knobel); and there is no disproving the suggestion. Still the amethyst, which is easily engraved, and was well known in Egypt, should find a place in the present list, and may well have been intended by the akhlamah. 10. The tarshish, by its name, should be a stone brought from Tarshish, which is either Tarsus or Tartessus. Some suppose it to have been the beryl, some the chrysolite, others the turquoise. There are really no sufficient grounds for identifying it with any known gem. 11. The shoham has been already discussed (see Note on Exodus 28:9), and identified with the onyx, or the sardonyx. 12. The yash'peh should, by its name, be the "jasper," which was one of the stones most used in Egypt, and which could scarcely have been absent from the present list. The LXX., however, translate "onyx," Josephus and the Vulgate "beryl;" so that here again there is uncertainty. The views of the present writer may be best presented to the reader by means of a table:--

1st Row of Gems . . .

2nd Row . . .

3rd Row . . .

4th Row . . .

Odern

(the Sard)

Nophck

(the Carbuncle)

Leshem

(uncertain)

Tarshish

(uncertain)

Pitdah

(the Chrysolite)

Sappir

(the Lapis Lazuli)

Shevo

(the Agate)

Shoham

(the Onyx or the

Sardonyx)

Bar?tketh

(uncertain)

Yuhalom

(uncertain)

Akhlamah

(the Amethyst)

Yush'peh

(the Jasper)

Verse 17. - Settings of stones. These were similar to those of the two shoulder stones - i.e. of filagree or cloisonne work - as appears from Exodus 39:13. The first row of the stones is said to have been composed of a sardius, or sard, a topaz, and a carbuncle. Of these names the first only would seem to be tolerably certain. The second cannot be right, since the topaz was too hard a stone to be engraved by the ancient engravers. We may conjecture that the chrysolite, a pale stone not unlike the topaz, but far less hard, was the Genesis intended. The "carbuncle" is also thought to be wrong; and the "beryl" is suggested by some; by others "a sort of precious corundum." Emerald, to which the "smaragdus" of the LXX. and Josephus would seem to point, cannot be right, since that stone is fully as hard as the topaz.

28:15-30 The chief ornament of the high priest, was the breastplate, a rich piece of cloth, curiously worked. The name of each tribe was graven in a precious stone, fixed in the breastplate, to signify how precious, in God's sight, believers are, and how honourable. How small and poor soever the tribe was, it was as a precious stone in the breastplate of the high priest; thus are all the saints dear to Christ, however men esteem them. The high priest had the names of the tribes, both on his shoulders and on his breast, which reminds us of the power and the love with which our Lord Jesus pleads for those that are his. He not only bears them up in his arms with almighty strength, but he carries them in his bosom with tender affection. What comfort is this to us in all our addresses to God! The Urim and Thummim, by which the will of God was made known in doubtful cases, were put in this breastplate. Urim and Thummim signify light and integrity. There are many conjectures what these were; the most probable opinion seems to be, that they were the twelve precious stones in the high priest's breastplate. Now, Christ is our Oracle. By him God, in these last days, makes known himself and his mind to us, Heb 1:1,2; Joh 1:18. He is the true Light, the faithful Witness, the Truth itself, and from him we receive the Spirit of Truth, who leads into all truth.And thou shalt set in it settings of stones,.... Or "fill in it fillings of stones" (d); which shows that there were in it ouches, or sockets of gold, the hollows of which were to be filled up with precious stones:

even four rows of stones; making a four square, and so filling up the measure of the breastplate:

the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle; about these stones, and those that follow, there is a great variety of interpretations of them, both among Jews and Christians; and they seem to be little known: our translators upon the whole seem to be as right as any in giving the names of them; the first of these, the "sardius", is a red stone of a blood colour, as the "cornelian" or "ruby", and which some have thought is here meant, and has its name either from the place where it has been found, Sardis or Sardinia; or rather from its red colour; for "sered" signifies red in Ezekiel 28:13 as Braunius (e) has observed from Kimchi; and so Odem, which is the word here used, signifies, and undoubtedly intends a stone of such a colour; and it is highly probable that this is the Demium of Pliny (f), which is one of the three kinds of sardius in India; and the red is so called from its redness, as the same Braunius observes. The second stone, the "topaz", had its name, according to Pliny (g), from an island in Arabia, in the Red sea, called Topazos; and the best topaz is the topaz of Cush or Arabia, as in Job 28:19. The topaz of the ancients was of a green colour; and so the three Targums call this stone Jarken or Jarketha, which signifies green; hence some have taken this to be the emerald, which is of a fine green colour: the third stone is the "carbuncle", as we render it; whatever stone is meant, it must be a bright and glittering one, like lightning, as the word signifies; wherefore some have taken it to be the emerald, so the Septuagint and Braunius (h); it being a very radiant and glittering stone, of a grass green, and very refreshing to the sight; but Danaeus (i) says, that the carbuncle is that species of the ruby, which of all is most beautiful and excellent, and darts out light like lightning to those that look at it at a distance, and shines in the middle of the night and darkness, so that it enlightens places near it, as if it were a sun:

this shall be the first row; now upon these three stones were engraven the names of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, as both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem agree.

(d) "et implebis in eo plenitudinem lapidis", Montanus; "vel eum impletione lapidis", Pagninus; "implebis in eo impletione lapidis", Drusius. (e) De Vestitu Sacerd. Heb. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 10. p. 639. (f) Nat. Hist. l. 37. c. 7. (g) Ibid. l. 6. c. 29. (h) Ut supra, (De Vestitu Sacerd. Heb. l. 2.) c. 10. sect. 4. p. 653. (i) Apud De Dieu in loc.