Home › The High Priest's Breastplate › The High Priest's Breastplate: Cornelius

The High Priest's Breastplate: Cornelius

In his commentary on Exodus xxviii, Cornelius a 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." (See Gimma, "Della storia naturale delle gemme," Napoli, 1730.) 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. (Hommel, "Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung,"sqq.; Erman, "Aegypten," Tubingen, 1885.) 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. (Aureli Augustini, "Opera Omnia," vol. iii, Part I, col. 637; Patrologiae Latinae, ed. Migne, vol. xxxviii, Paris, 1864.) 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. ("Natural History of Precious Stones," London, 1870.) 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. (Procopius, ed. Dindorf, Bonnae. 1833; "De bello Vandalico," lib. ii, cap. 9.) 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. (Procopius, ed. Dindorf, Bonnae, 1833; "De bello Vandalico," lib. ii, cap. 9.) 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. (For an account of the immense booty taken by the Arabs, under Sa'ad, on this occasion, see Rawlinson, "Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy," London, 1876. The total value has been placed as high as $125,000,000.) 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 treasurechamber of one of the old Persian capitals."