Charles Ellicott Commentary Exodus 28:17-19

"And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, four rows of stones: a row of sardius, topaz, and carbuncle shall be the first row; and the second row an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond; and the third row a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst;" — Exodus 28:17-19 (ASV)

Set in it settings of stones ... There is always considerable difficulty in identifying ancient with modern gems. The etymologies of the words are frequently uncertain; the names (where they have survived) have sometimes changed their meaning; and the opinions of early commentators, who might seem to speak with some authority, are differing. In the present case, hardly any of the twelve stones can be said to be determined with certainty.

1. The ôdem, identified by the Septuagint and the Vulgate 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 also not be cut, any more than the ruby. If the word is derived, as is supposed, from a root meaning “pale,” the chrysolite, which resembles a pale topaz but is far softer, may be meant.
3. The bârěketh is rendered smaragdus, “emerald,” by the Septuagint and Vulgate; but the emerald also could not be cut by the ancient engravers. The word means “brightly flashing,” which tells us very little. “Beryl” and “a kind of corundum” have been suggested, but neither is particularly sparkling.
4. The nôphek, translated ἄνθραξ by the Septuagint and Josephus, may well be the “carbuncle,” as is now generally supposed. It cannot, any more than the ôdem, be the ruby.
5. The sappir, one might have supposed by its name, is certainly the “sapphire”; but this, again, is a gem that ancient engravers could not cut. It seems 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 that was called “sapphire” by the ancients.
6. The yahălôm is certainly not the “diamond,” which is the hardest of all gems. The Septuagint and Vulgate translate it as “jasper” (ἴασπις, jaspis); but this seems to have actually been the twelfth stone. Other renderings are mere conjectures, and the yahălôm must be regarded as unknown.
7. The leshem, rendered “ligure” by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Josephus, and our translators, is probably the stone known to the ancients as lapis ligurius. However, what that stone was is a matter of great uncertainty. It has been regarded as amber, jacinth, and 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 Septuagint and the Vulgate, is generally agreed to have been that stone, which was well known to the ancients and widely used for engraving.
9. The akhlâmâh was regarded as the amethyst by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and Josephus. However, it has been suggested that it may have been “malachite” (Knobel), and there is no disproving this 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 akhlâmâh.
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, and others the turquoise. There are really no sufficient grounds for identifying it with any known gem.
11. The shôham has already been discussed (see Note on Exodus 28:9) and identified with the onyx or the sardonyx.
12. The yâsh’peh should, by its name, be the “jasper,” which was one of the stones most used in Egypt and could hardly have been absent from the present list. The Septuagint, however, translates it as “onyx,” and Josephus and the Vulgate as “beryl,” so that here again there is uncertainty.

The views of the present writer are best presented to the reader by means of a table:—

Row	Hebrew Name	Traditional Identification
1st	ôdem	The Sard
1st	nôphek	The Carbuncle
1st	leshem	Uncertain
1st	tarshish	Uncertain
2nd	pitdah	The Chrysolite
2nd	sappir	The Lapis Lazuli
2nd	shevo	The Agate
2nd	shôham	The Onyx or the Sardonyx
3rd	bârěketh	Uncertain
3rd	yahălôm	Uncertain
3rd	akhlâmâh	The Amethyst
3rd	yâsh’peh	The Jasper