Sapphiric God: - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

Tarshish/Tartessus is unsound. 75 The most we can state with confidence is that “The location of Tarshish is
uncertain, since the biblical references are vague and apparently contradictory.” 76
On the other hand, strong arguments have been advanced suggesting that taršîš has the meaning “sea-
like.” The Targums (Onqelos, Jonathan) often translate the term by “sea,” and Jerome informs us in his
commentary on Isaiah 2:16 that he had been told by his Jewish teachers that the Hebrew word for “sea”
was taršîš. While Sidney Hoenig understood the term “throughout the entire Bible” as a general expression
for ‘sea,’ 77 Cyrus Gordon notes that, when designating the jewel, it signifies the color of the sea in
particular, as already perceived by Tg. Ong. (Exod. 28:20; 39:13). 78 Gordon argued that the term is from a
qaãlîl formation of the denominative root trš, “wine” or “wine-dark,” signifying the wine-dark sea. 79 This
seems correct, but the association of this term with the sea suggests a dark blue, not a dark red as Gordon
supposes. 80 It is therefore more likely that taršîš refers to the sea-blue beryl. 81
That this interpretation of our Shi#ur Qomah passage is correct is confirmed by lines from certain
‘Avodah piyyutîm (sing. piyyut), liturgical poems written (mainly) between the fourth and seventh
centuries. These poets show some knowledge of Shi#ur Qomah tradition. Thus, in the anonymous piyyut
called Attah Konanta ‘Olam me-Rosh, “You established the world from the Beginning,” we find a
description of the high priest in his blue robe that exactly parallels our Shi#ur Qomah passage:
His likeness is like taršîš,
Like the look of the firmament
When he puts on the blue robe,
Woven like a honeycomb. (line 103) 82
75
Arcadio del Castillo, “Tarshish in the Esarhaddon Inscription and the Book of Genesis,” Bibbia E Oriente 222 (2004): 193-206;
Gösta W.Ahlström, “The Nora Inscription and Tarshish,” MAARAV 7 (1991): 41-49, esp. 45-49. The Tarshish–as-Tartessus theory
was already refuted in 1894 by P. Le Page Renouf, “Where was Tarshish?” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16
(1894): 104-108, 138-141.
76
Encyclopedia Judaica 15:825.
77
Sidney B. Hoenig, “Tarshish,” JQR 69 (1979): 181-182; See also The Jewish Encyclopedia (12 vols.; New York and London: Funk
and Wagnalls Company1901-) 11:65, s.v. “Tarshish,” by M. Sel.
78
Gordon, “The Wine-Dark Sea,” 51: “That the taršîš gem is translated ‘color of the sea’ indicates that taršîš literally designates a
color.”
79
Gordon (52) challenges W.F. Albright’s derivation of the term from a taqãîl form of ràà “to smelt.”
80
Gordon understands the term to signify a “wine-red” hue (“The Wine-Dark Sea,” 52), but this is unsupported and unnecessary. A
“wine-blue” is likely intended here. A reference to “wine of Khl” chiseled on an early wine decanter possibly from Judah may be a
reference to the color of such wine. A. Demsky argued (“‘Dark Wine’ from Judah,” Israel Exploration Journal 22 [1972]: 233-234)
that the לחכ here is a reference to the wine’s color. In late Hebrew לוחכ means “blue” and in rabbinic sources a dark shade inclining
to black (see e.g. Num. R. 2:7). While these are late sources, there is no a priori reason to assume that the color connotation has
shifted. The association of the wine color with the sea further confirms that dark blue is the intended color.
81
Athalya Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1982) 166-67; Hoenig, “Tarshish,” 182.
Christopher Rowland’s description of the angel’s body (Dan. 10:6) as “yellow-coloured brightness” should therefore be replaced with
“blue-black brightness,” an apparent contradiction to be encountered in rabbinic tradition. Rowland, Open Heaven, 466 n. 54.
82
See discussion of this passage in Michael D. Swartz, “The Semiotics of the Priestly Vestments in Ancient Judaism,” in Albert I.
Baumgarten (ed.), Sacrifice in Religious Experience (SHR 93; Boston: Brill, 2002) 77. On piyyutîm and Shi#ur Qomah tradition v.
Martin Samuel Cohen, Shi‘ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy 61-65. On the history of the ‘Avodah piyyutîm v. Ismar Elbogen, Jewish
15