Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.blogspot.com.
 |
Stone From Priestly Breatplate(?) Goes On Market
Source: See Ancient-Origens.net link below. |
… The owner’s family tradition explains that the sardonyx(?) was given to her ancestor, named Croiz Arneet deTarn Auret, from the High Priest around 1189 in gratitude for helping free Jerusalem. The Daily Mail adds to the story that “it was given to a Knight Templar and handed down through that family from one generation to the next.” ...
| ||
(Source: https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/has-legendary-gem-sacred-jewish-breastplate-been-rediscovered-006658).
Two legendary treasures that are often discussed, much of the time in fiction such as in an Indiana Jones movie are the ark of the covenant and the Holy grail. The first is associated with the tabernacle or temple, while the second, of course, is associated with last supper of Christ.
The priestly breastplate (illustrated below) is not mentioned as often as those, yet would make an amazing find.
The Bible describes the breastplate of Aaron beginning in Exodus 28:15.
15“Fashion a breastpiece for making decisions—the work of skilled hands. Make it like the ephod: of gold, and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and of finely twisted linen.
16It is to be square—a span
a
long and a span wide—and folded double.
17Then mount four rows of precious stones on it. The first row shall be carnelian, chrysolite and beryl;
18the second row shall be turquoise, lapis lazuli and emerald;
19the third row shall be jacinth, agate and amethyst;
20the fourth row shall be topaz, onyx and jasper.
b
Mount them in gold filigree settings.
21There are to be twelve stones, one for each of the names of the sons of Israel, each engraved like a seal with the name of one of the twelve tribes.
22“For the breastpiece make braided chains of pure gold, like a rope.
23Make two gold rings for it and fasten them to two corners of the breastpiece.
24Fasten the two gold chains to the rings at the corners of the breastpiece,
25and the other ends of the chains to the two settings, attaching them to the shoulder pieces of the ephod at the front.
26Make two gold rings and attach them to the other two corners of the breastpiece on the inside edge next to the ephod.
27Make two more gold rings and attach them to the bottom of the shoulder pieces on the front of the ephod, close to the seam just above the waistband of the ephod.
28The rings of the breastpiece are to be tied to the rings of the ephod with blue cord, connecting it to the waistband, so that the breastpiece will not swing out from the ephod.
Two other mysterious stones in addition to the four rows of three that are associated with the breastplate are the Urim and Thummin, which were used in some manner by the priest to answer questions. They are often illustrated as one of them being white and the other black.
|
Here is more of what Ancient Origens says about the stone shown at the top of the post.
After being lost from the pages of history for about a thousand years, a legendary gemstone may find its way back home. An anonymous owner of what may be a very important religious artifact is ready to relinquish a cherished family heirloom and return it to its homeland. The artifact is said to have had an exciting history and, if it is indeed real, it has a strong significance in the Jewish faith as well...
I don't feel like that is very likely. Aaron's breastplate would be from around 1300 BCE, and Solomon's temple was destroyed around 586 BCE, and Herod's temple was destroyed in 70 CE, not to mention other difficulties.
After being lost from the pages of history for about a thousand years, a legendary gemstone may find its way back home. An anonymous owner of what may be a very important religious artifact is ready to relinquish a cherished family heirloom and return it to its homeland. The artifact is said to have had an exciting history and, if it is indeed real, it has a strong significance in the Jewish faith as well...
I don't feel like that is very likely. Aaron's breastplate would be from around 1300 BCE, and Solomon's temple was destroyed around 586 BCE, and Herod's temple was destroyed in 70 CE, not to mention other difficulties.
Judge for yourself.
---
If you are a history buff, you might enjoy reading the analysis of the decision making process that resulted in big events of the 20th century. One thing that played a roll in many of the mistakes, according to a variety of analysts, is groupthink.
According to Briannica.com, groupthink is a mode of thinking in which individual members of small cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal. Groupthink reduces the efficiency of collective problem solving within such groups... (https://www.britannica.com/science/groupthink)
In short, groupthink occurs when groups do not encourage divergent opinions. The phenonomon has been discussed as leading to some big public policy failures, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion. As I recently mentioned, you can hardly read a social science textbook without reading about how groupthink contributed to JFK's decision to invade Cuba.
Below is a bit about that from Yale Alumni Magazine.
According to Briannica.com, groupthink is a mode of thinking in which individual members of small cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal. Groupthink reduces the efficiency of collective problem solving within such groups... (https://www.britannica.com/science/groupthink)
In short, groupthink occurs when groups do not encourage divergent opinions. The phenonomon has been discussed as leading to some big public policy failures, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion. As I recently mentioned, you can hardly read a social science textbook without reading about how groupthink contributed to JFK's decision to invade Cuba.
Below is a bit about that from Yale Alumni Magazine.
Thirty-five years ago, Yale psychologist Irving Janis published an essay in the Yale Alumni Magazine explaining how a group of intelligent people working together to solve a problem can sometimes arrive at the worst possible answer. He called his radical new theory "groupthink"; it changed the way we think about decision making. The idea remains so influential, says Yale political scientist Donald Green, that "the term 'groupthink' must come up once a day in common conversation." Janis's essay is still the alumni magazine's most requested reprint. His book on the subject went into a second edition that is still in print as a college textbook. (Janis died in 1990.)
Janis came up with the idea of groupthink during a Yale seminar on the psychology of small groups. His reading about the Bay of Pigs fiasco had led him to wonder how intelligent people like John F. Kennedy and his advisers could have been "taken in by such a stupid, patchwork plan as the one presented to them by the CIA representatives." During his seminar, he found himself suggesting that what had happened in the White House might be similar to what happened among ordinary citizens in the groups he studied for his research: they often developed a "pattern of concurrence-seeking . . . when a 'we' feeling of solidarity is running high."...
---
Another topic you might find relevant is Milton Rokeach's Open and Closed Mind, a book on dogmatism and authoritarianism.
Years before I got into metal detecting, I published an article in The Journal of Rational Living in which one of the variables was dogmatism. Funny how some things circle around and keep coming back every so many years.
My first conference presentation was before that and was on the conditioning of a psychophysiological response.
I tell you that only because those types of studies are indicative to my approach to metal detecting and help to explain who I am and what I do here. I approach things very much the same way here as I did in the research lab, although not with the same rigor or attention to detail. I believe in being very cautious about conclusions, observation, operational definitions, data and evidence, considering every alternative to the first tempting conclusion, and testing rather than assuming.
Just yesterday when I talked about the heel bone with a hole in it I said, "As any scientific analysis would, this study considered possible causes of the wound other than crucifixion, one of which was the practice of nailing corpses stationary in a coffin, but there was no coffin used in this case."
I cautioned against the danger of reaching conclusions without consideration of alternative explanations. In my experience and opinion, a scientist or anyone hoping to reach a correct conclusion must examine all alternative explanations. Many times I've pointed out that danger as it relates to identifying dug artifacts.
Personally, that is the type of thing that keeps metal detecting interesting for me, and I use the same techniques and discipline, whether I am studying beach dynamics or effective search strategies.
When presenting my conclusion, I'll always give evidence to support it, resources that the reader can consult, often my confidence level or other things like that, and I trust the reader to take whatever of that he might find useful and do what he will with it. I don't expect or encourage you to accept my conclusion without testing it out or reasoning it out for yourself.
---
It is hot. I just did a very little detecting in a trash hole and was sweating heavy. Not used to that kind of heat yet.
Happy hunting,
Treasureguide@comcast.net
Another topic you might find relevant is Milton Rokeach's Open and Closed Mind, a book on dogmatism and authoritarianism.
Years before I got into metal detecting, I published an article in The Journal of Rational Living in which one of the variables was dogmatism. Funny how some things circle around and keep coming back every so many years.
My first conference presentation was before that and was on the conditioning of a psychophysiological response.
I tell you that only because those types of studies are indicative to my approach to metal detecting and help to explain who I am and what I do here. I approach things very much the same way here as I did in the research lab, although not with the same rigor or attention to detail. I believe in being very cautious about conclusions, observation, operational definitions, data and evidence, considering every alternative to the first tempting conclusion, and testing rather than assuming.
Just yesterday when I talked about the heel bone with a hole in it I said, "As any scientific analysis would, this study considered possible causes of the wound other than crucifixion, one of which was the practice of nailing corpses stationary in a coffin, but there was no coffin used in this case."
I cautioned against the danger of reaching conclusions without consideration of alternative explanations. In my experience and opinion, a scientist or anyone hoping to reach a correct conclusion must examine all alternative explanations. Many times I've pointed out that danger as it relates to identifying dug artifacts.
Personally, that is the type of thing that keeps metal detecting interesting for me, and I use the same techniques and discipline, whether I am studying beach dynamics or effective search strategies.
When presenting my conclusion, I'll always give evidence to support it, resources that the reader can consult, often my confidence level or other things like that, and I trust the reader to take whatever of that he might find useful and do what he will with it. I don't expect or encourage you to accept my conclusion without testing it out or reasoning it out for yourself.
---
It is hot. I just did a very little detecting in a trash hole and was sweating heavy. Not used to that kind of heat yet.
Happy hunting,
Treasureguide@comcast.net