13

Revelation 21:19-20 (NIV) lists twelve kinds of precious stones that make up the city walls of the New Jerusalem: Jasper, Sapphire, Agate, Emerald, Onyx, Carnelian, Chrysolite, Beryl, Topaz, Chrysoprase, Jacinth, and Amethyst.

According to some Christian articles like The 12 Foundation Stones in New Jerusalem, these are all anisotropic gems.

I'm no expert in precious stones and a definitive list seems hard to find, but according to the article, 16 of 28 common gemstones are anisotropic, but that these weren't known until the last Century, around 1900 years after Revelation was written.

I think the naive odds that they would all be anisotropic are (16 choose 12) / (28 choose 12) which is about 1/16715. (The article suggests that the omission of common isotropic gems such as diamonds, makes it less likely than this.)

So, as best I can tell, if the facts are all correct, this either suggests:

  • The person who conceived of the city knew more about properties of precious stones than should have been possible in the 1st Century AD.

  • The author of Revelation "got lucky" (perhaps partly due to confirmation bias or other statistical fallacies).

  • There are perhaps more obvious properties that these gems have in common, that were known about at the time.

How good a case is there that the list of gemstones was revealed without information that was possible to know at the time?

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
mwfearnley
  • 281
  • 2
  • 6
  • 37
    I would be wary of naive probability. For once, among the many properties that a gem can hold, why is anisotropy special? So what should be computed is "if I choose 12 stones out of 28, what is the probability that they all share a common property?" Depending on the size of the set of properties, this probability can be very high. Also, your computation assumes that gemstones were equally likely to be picked, which is not obvious. – Taladris Nov 24 '22 at 01:55
  • 3
    Finally, the probability of choosing 12 stones that are all anisotropic among 28 stones is (16 choose 12)/(28 choose 12) (assuming every choice is equally likely). – Taladris Nov 24 '22 at 02:01
  • 6
    I believe the odds of choosing a set of 12 anisotropic gems from a set of 28 gems, 16 of which are anisotropic, should be (16 choose 12) ∕ (28 choose 12). In other words, there are (16 choose 12) sets of 12 anisotropic gemstones out of (28 choose 12) total sets of 12 gemstones. This comes out to about 1 ∕ 16715. Edit: Looks like @Taladris beat me to it. – Vaelus Nov 24 '22 at 02:03
  • 3
    Even if we didn't know how or why they used gems that share some property, it's still a huge leap to go from that to *an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving being exists outside of space and time and wants a personal relationship with us*. Sticking to "we don't know" would've been the most reasonable conclusion if we didn't have another explanation for why some people picked some rocks. Unlikely or not, it seems very arbitrary and "coincidences" are inevitable given enough data. – NotThatGuy Nov 24 '22 at 09:17
  • 4
    My very amateurish attempt to understand the term anisotropic as it applies to gems leaves me with the impression, roughly, "crystals that grow in one direction, like a tree branch". It's not at all clear why that's significant to the New Jerusalem or whether the author even knew this about these gems, but it seems clear to me that this concept could be observed with the naked eye. So, when confronted with this fact, I'd say, "sure, but so what?" I can't fathom a theological reason for this, so, coincidence seems more likely. –  Nov 24 '22 at 19:45
  • 3
    Since nobody mentioned it so far, I think it's worth adding that a very similar (depending on the translation, could even be the same) list of precious stones already appears in [Exodus 17-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2028%3A17-21&version=NIV). – molnarm Nov 25 '22 at 07:20

3 Answers3

66

It doesn't require advanced scientific knowledge to preferentially select optically anisotropic gems

True, a modern definition of optical anisotropy (more specifically known as "birefringence") relies on polarized light to make for a clear distinction, but most of these gems produce visually noticeable effects that require no real scientific knowledge of polarized light. For the more transparent/translucent birefringent materials like calcite, if you lay a large polished piece of them over text, you'll see two copies of the text through the crystal.

All birefringent gems behave this way; light entering them takes more than one path, and one of those paths is insensitive to the angle at which light enters, while the other path is sensitive to the angle; as the gem rotates relative to the light source, the paths collapse and split apart again, an effect visible to the naked eye in most cases, and obvious to anyone who works with gems. You don't need modern science to say "these gems share certain behaviors as the angle changes"; you might not know why, and you can't measure the change in polarization precisely without modern science, but the difference is visible, and would tend to produce non-random selections if you're intentionally selecting for gems that would produce the most impressive effects (in terms of changing colors) as you move around them.

As an additional note, there's multiple types of optical anisotropy (uniaxial negative, uniaxial positive, and biaxial), and the gems in question do not fall into any single one of these categories (e.g. topaz is biaxial, jasper [a type of quartz] is uniaxial positive).

Beyond that, you don't even need to be aware of the optical properties to do a decent job of separating optically isotropic gems from the others; optically isotropic gems are generally either:

  1. Amorphous gems (e.g. amber, opal)
  2. Cubic gems (e.g. diamond, garnet)

Basically, if you selected for "Naturally forms regular crystals, but not ones which naturally form cubic crystals", you'd also end up with a set of optically anisotropic crystals. Why they'd prefer non-cubic crystals I can't begin to speculate on, but it's another way in which a non-random selection for optical anisotropy could occur without understanding polarized light.

ShadowRanger
  • 1,343
  • 10
  • 11
  • 1
    So, for a non-scientist, the gems they chose all behave kind of alike if you hold them to the light? – Grimm The Opiner Nov 25 '22 at 09:25
  • 1
    @GrimmTheOpiner: Well, as you twist them in your hand and hold them to the light. If you hold them to the light without moving them (or yourself, or the light source), you might not notice. – ShadowRanger Nov 25 '22 at 11:08
  • Just to add: Polarized light is naturally occurring. The reflection of sunlight off water is polarized, with the amount of polarization depending on the angle of the reflection. Anyone who looked at sunlight reflecting off water through these gems would probably notice it. – isaacg Nov 30 '22 at 21:39
39

There are a lot of extremely shaky claims here:

  1. The article quotes a single English translation (the New International Version from 1978) of a Greek text written nearly two thousand years ago. A collection of translators' commentaries on the passage reveals that identifying the gems is not necessarily easy. For instance

    Chrysolite (χρυσόλιθος)
    From χρυσός gold and λίθος stone. Lit., gold-stone.
    Identified by some with our topaz, by others with amber. Pliny describes it as "translucent with golden luster."

  2. The reference to "28 stones that are normally regarded as gemstones" is not expanded upon, and I can find no such consensus list. The International Gem Society's "Gem Encyclopedia" lists 304. Not all of these would have been known to the author two thousand years ago, but without a contemporary source it's hard to say which would be.
  3. As the article states, statistical probability is only useful to compare against choosing completely at random. However, there's no good reason to take this as the null hypothesis, as people rarely choose things completely at random. It makes more sense to assume that the author of the Book of Revelation chose them for some aesthetic, symbolic, or poetic reason, in which case it's less surprising for them to have something in common.
  4. As pointed out in ShadowRanger's answer the choices may be directly related to the optic properties of the gem without any scientific theory, since the effects of optical anisotropy are easily visible to the naked eye.
  5. There are many properties by which gems could be categorised; if we accept the claimed probability despite all of the above, the author could simply have kept trying different properties until they found a good result.
IMSoP
  • 8,040
  • 5
  • 38
  • 38
  • 1
    I think the claim in "some Christian articles", and this one in particular, is that the author *did not* select randomly. Random selection is just a null hypothesis, which the argument attempts to rule out with the 16 of 28 stuff. So naturally there is no evidence presented that the author chose at random, since the argument is that it's not what happened. The reason for ruling it out, is that someone who doesn't realise that optical anisotropy can be observed visually, might say "it's just a coincidence", so anyone claiming it's intentional needs to dismiss that objection first. – Steve Jessop Nov 23 '22 at 18:44
  • 2
    Interesting. "Chrysolite" is damn close to the "Crystite" that was of one of the resources you mined for in [M.U.L.E.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E.). I wonder if Dani Buten did that on purpose? – T.E.D. Nov 24 '22 at 00:50
  • Gold stone could be something more obnoxious; other parts of the Bible when describing Heaven have gold being pure enough to be transparent or translucent; so why not here? I'm left wondering if you actually made a crystal out of gold atoms (good luck with that; it's not going to be easy) if it would be transparent. – Joshua Nov 24 '22 at 03:25
  • 1
    @T.E.D. [Danielle Bunten Berry](https://wiki2.org/en/Danielle_Bunten_Berry+Brights) RIP – Russell McMahon Nov 24 '22 at 08:41
  • @SteveJessop You're right, but choosing a reasonable null hypothesis is an important part of the scientific method - that's why designing the control arm of placebo-controlled studies is so important. So I guess what I was trying to say is that "the author of the passage chose gems at random" is a poor choice of null hypothesis; I've edited the answer to say that more specifically. – IMSoP Nov 24 '22 at 08:52
  • And then there's the little factor of availability. Is there any indication that the chosen stones were more plentiful in the area in question in Biblical times than others not on the list? This fact alone might explain the selection, regardless the reason for them being more plentiful. – jwenting Nov 24 '22 at 13:40
  • @jwenting Good point; even before we think about the author choosing, we've got to consider what list they would be choosing from. I've added a note to that effect under point 2. – IMSoP Nov 24 '22 at 15:11
  • 3
    @Joshua Making gold that is _not_ crystalline is the tricky thing. The gold in your ring is already crystallized. (If you want to make a single crystal, that _will_ be trickier). The only way to make gold transparent, is to make it very, very, thin. Solid gold is opaque because it is a conductor of electricity. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Nov 25 '22 at 09:37
31

ShadowRanger pulls apart the details of the claim. I'd like to make a note about the dangers of applying modern meaning to the words in the Bible. As noted in the footnotes for Rev 21:19-20, "the precise identification of some of these precious stones is uncertain."

When interpreting the Bible literally, you have to watch out for translation issues. There are no original copies of the Book of Revelation, and what we have is largely translated from Greek.

Novum Testamentum Graece provides this...

19 οἱ θεμέλιοι τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ κεκοσμημένοι· ὁ θεμέλιος ὁ πρῶτος ἴασπις, ὁ δεύτερος σάπφιρος, ὁ τρίτος χαλκηδών, ὁ τέταρτος σμάραγδος,

20 ὁ πέμπτος σαρδόνυξ, ὁ ἕκτος σάρδιον, ὁ ἕβδομος χρυσόλιθος, ὁ ὄγδοος βήρυλλος, ὁ ἔνατος τοπάζιον, ὁ δέκατος χρυσόπρασος, ὁ ἑνδέκατος ὑάκινθος, ὁ δωδέκατος ἀμέθυστος,

While the names of the gems are often the same as we use now, their definitions would not have been as precise as the modern definitions. They could mean any gem of a particular color, gems from a particular location, or even a completely different gem. This uncertainty makes any claim about their shared properties dubious.

"Jasper" ἴασπις

Possibly any translucent, green stone including nephrite, chalcedony, or chrysoprase.

"Sapphire" σάπφιρος

While the literal translation is "sapphire", the contemporary meaning refers to any blue precious stone, likely lapis lazuli. Modern sapphire may be "hyakinthos".

"Agate" χαλκηδών

The literal translation is "chalcedony", which the article uses. Agate is chalcedony and quartz.

"Emerald" σμάραγδος

"Smáragdos" which can describe any transparent, precious green stone.

"Onyx" σαρδόνυξ

Literally "sardonyx", which the article uses, a red onyx.

"Ruby" σάρδιον

"Sardius", which the article uses, which could be two stones: carnelian or sard. Both are red.

"Chrysolite" χρυσόλιθος

Possibly peridot.

"Beryl" βήρυλλος

A precious blue-green/sea-water stone.

"Topaz" τοπάζιον

Probably peridot. Literally "topázion", named for Topazios or modern Zabargad Island from where peridot was mined.

"Turquoise" χρυσόπρασος

"Chrysoprasus", which the article uses, a precious stone of golden-green color.

"Jacinth" ὑάκινθος

"Hyacinth", a precious stone of the same color as the flower.

"Amethyst" ἀμέθυστος

Seems correct. The Greeks thought it could keep you from getting drunk.

Schwern
  • 17,034
  • 7
  • 63
  • 66
  • 4
    `I'd like to make a note about the dangers of applying modern meaning to the words in the Bible.` And to prove this with an example that is extremely difficult to disagree with: Suppose that the bible uses the phrase "mirror image". Think about what kind of inaccurate mirrors that existed thousands of years ago. Those where far away from our modern mirrors that just flips the view but othervise presents a perfect representation. – hlovdal Nov 24 '22 at 13:04
  • 4
    I don't know if you intended this, @hlovdal, but the phrase "we see as through a glass, darkly" comes from 1 Corinthians, in reference to mirrors. – Patrick Stevens Nov 24 '22 at 13:30
  • 5
    This answer demonstrates a proper hermeneutic, which is where skepticism of such claims should start. There's no evidence the author was trying to select for these stones, and it's dubious the stones explicitly mentioned in the claim were the ones the author intended, and it's further questionable the author was even aware of them. –  Nov 24 '22 at 20:18
  • 1
    "thaough a glass darkly" it was not a mirror. perhaps a hand-made window pane. glass mirrors were unknown before the industrial revolution and the invention of float glass. – Jasen Nov 25 '22 at 09:59
  • 3
    @Jasen The Greek was "ἐσόπτρου" ("esoptron", see https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-12.htm#lexicon), otherwise used in the Bible one other time (https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2072.htm), where in context it *clearly* means "mirror" (https://biblehub.com/text/james/1-23.htm). The Vulgate translates it as "speculum" (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1+Corinthians%3Achapter%3D13%3Averse%3D12), also clearly "mirror". "Glass" is merely a translation into the analogous object in modern English, not a judgement on the material of construction. – Patrick Stevens Nov 25 '22 at 18:05
  • *"There are no original copies of the Book of Revelation, and what we have is largely translated from Greek"* is a slightly odd thing to say. It was originally written in Greek and we have Greek copies of copies make near the time it was written. It is more likely that the modern understanding of the name of a gemstone may have changed than that the words written would have been miscopied. – Henry Nov 25 '22 at 18:20
  • @Henry While a transcription error is always a possibility, and embellishments by the transcriber, what I'm expressing is about translating literally vs conveying the author's meaning to a modern reader. For example, if you translate "that takes the cake" literally one could conclude there was thievery of baked goods. – Schwern Nov 25 '22 at 18:50