The Biblical (and Post-Biblical) Blues

I apologize for missing a newsletter last week. Besides for the amount of research which went into this newsletter, I created a collection of carrot-themed greeting cards, called "Unexpected Delights" (inspired by my newsletter about carrots) and sold them at the Andersonville Sidewalk Sale last weekend.

Each greeting card actually had a little pack of multicolored carrot seeds inside, which meant that you would have no idea what color carrots would grow. You can see the collection at the new ezrabutlerart.com.

If you are a paying subscriber, and would like a few complimentary postcards with some carrot drawings, as an apology for missing a newsletter, please respond to this email with a mailing address.

As a historian of things associated with color, I try to balance several contradictory concepts at the same time. 

1. The obvious goal is an attempt at the objective truth about what a color was, when it was originally written in a book. However, unless someone contemporaneous explicitly explained what the color was referring to, it could be quite difficult.

2. The next goal I have is to understand what writers in the subsequent centuries and millennia perceived the original color to be, and why.

3. And finally, I try to understand how translators of those subjective writers understood their perceptions to be. Very often translators, like we saw with Aristotle and the rainbow last month, decide to translate the text with their own biased perceptions, not how the earlier writer understood the color to be.

Biblical colors seem to be the prime example of this phenomenon, namely, through the ages, there has not been a consensus about practically every single color word used in the bible.

While most of this newsletter will be focused on how tekhelet, a frequent mentioned biblical color, has been perceived through the ages, including: the source of the dye, the perceived hue of the dyed material, and the symbolism of the dye, I will also cast doubt on another biblical color, argaman, which generally was listed alongside tekhelet is collections of dyes.

Contemporary Perceptions of Tekhelet and Argaman

Tekhelet is a biblical color we see in multiple places, but mainly in Numbers 15:38, with commandment to wear fringes dyed in the color. We also see the color in relation to the construction of tabernacle after the exodus from Egypt.

In his eponymous dictionary, Marcus Jastrow translates tekhelet as “purple-shell, a bluish or cerulean dye, purple-blue wool, esp. the purple-blue thread used for the show-fringes."

If you ask the average (knowledge) person today to describe the color, they would likely say it was blue or sky-blue. If you were to look at Jewish text resource Sefaria’s subject page on tekhelet it seems to be a foregone conclusion that the color is blue.

On tekhelet’s wikipedia page, we see a similar translation:

Tekhelet (Hebrew: תְּכֵלֶת təḵēleṯ; alternative spellings include tekheleth, t'chelet, techelet, and techeiles) is a highly valued dye described as either "sky blue" (Hebrew: תּכוֹל, romanized: tāk̲ol, lit. ‘azure'), or "light blue" (Hebrew: כחול בהיר, romanized: kāḥol bāhîr, lit. 'light 'navy blue'', see Arabic kohl), that held great significance in ancient Mediterranean civilizations. In the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition, tekhelet was used to colour the clothing of the High Priest of Israel, the tapestries in the Tabernacle, and the tzitzit (fringes) attached to the corners of four-cornered garments, including the tallit.[4] The mention of tekhelet is particularly notable in the third paragraph of the Shema, referencing Numbers 15:37–41.

Similarly, I’ve generally translated argaman as a Tyrian purple. 

As I wrote in a newsletter six months ago which ranks highly on my most regrettable paragraphs in Colorphilia:

Meaningful Colors of Luxury

There are historical sources of blue and purple dyes which became brighter with sunlight, namely the biologicals of the Murex rock snails. The Murex trunculus was used to create argaman more commonly known as Tyrian purple, named after the city Tyre in Lebanon. The Hexaplex trunculus was probably the snail from which they created the blue dye called tekhelet.  

Purple was considered to be a royal color, with the phrase Porphyrogenitus, commonly translated as “born in the purple”, which was both metaphorical, and in some cases, like the birthing suite in the Great Palace of Constantinople, taken quite literally. Purple was one of the first sumptuary laws about forbidden colors for commoners to wear, and even the elite were only allowed to wear color sparingly. Only the caesars and kings were permitted to fully wear the color.

According to various sources, the dye was exceedingly expensive due to its origin, both in the source of the dye, how many snails were required for a single ounce, and the highly specialized knowledge required to create the dye.

Timeline for Tekhelet

250 BCE

The Septuagint translates it as hyacinth.

“καὶ αὐτοὶ λήμψονται τὸ χρυσίον (gold) καὶ τὴν ὑάκινθον (hyacinth) καὶ τὴν πορφύραν (purple) καὶ τὸ κόκκινον (kermes) καὶ τὴν βύσσον”
Exodus 28:5

1st century 

Following the Septuagint, Josephus translated Tekhelet as hyacinth (ὑακίνθῳ). Not only that, he described the dye as made of flowers.

It should be stated that Josephus had visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and had come from a priestly family, so there would be an understanding that he had probably seen the vestments of the High Priest which included the use of the miter which was made of tekhelet. Whatever that meant for the biblical / historical usage of the tekhelet dye, it is at least a testament to how they made it at that period of time.

some of them dyed of [hyacinth] (ὑακίνθῳ), and some of a [phoenix color] (φοίνικι); some brought the [purple flower] (πορφύρας ἄνθος), and others for white, with wool dyed by the flowers aforementioned;
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, adapted from translation by William Whiston, III, 6, 1

In his History of the Jews, he explicitly compared the color of the tekhelet mitre to the color of the sky, which would remind someone of heaven:

The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the sea, because that color is dyed by the blood of a sea shell-fish; the [hyacinth] is fit to signify the air… Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder… And for the mitre, which was of a [hyacinth] color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it?
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, translation by William Whiston, III, 7, 7

Today, we would associate hyacinth with a more purple hue, but we don’t know exactly what the color of the flower in antiquity.

But the fact that Josephus mentions a purple flower for the argaman seems to contradict the commonly understood perception that it was all made from Tyrian purple as well as the following source which links the purple color to the blood of the Murex. 

There is nothing in Josephus which indicates in any way whatsoever that tekhelet comes from anything but a floral source.

One of the things that I’ve learned in the six months since I previously wrote about these colors is that they did, in fact, use metaphoric language to describe colors, and weren’t necessarily always writing specifically about the literal source of the dye. 

One great example of that is phoenix-colored (φοίνικι), which I wrote about with relation to the colors of the rainbow. Moreover, I’ve read articles about how the both Egyptian and early Greek sources would use euphemistic words for ingredients in different recipes and potions, partially to make it more difficult for outsiders to understand.

2nd - 3rd century

In the first chapter of the first book of the Mishnah we learn that there there is a similarity between tekhelet and the color of a leek (karti). This section is discussing the correct earliest timing for the recitation of the Shema prayer in the morning. In essence, it is discussion about exactly when it is considered to be “morning”, or more specifically, when is considered to be “dawn”. 

How much light does there need to be to be considered dawn? The first anonymous opinion is that any light whatsoever is considered to be dawn. The second opinion is that there was to be a somewhat significant amount of light present.

From when does one recite Shema in the morning? From when he can can distinguish between tekhelet and white. Rabbi Eliezer says: between tekhelet and karti (leek-green).
Mishnah Berakhot 1:2

While several species tend to be translated as “leek” in Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic, when they are referring to the color, it’s usually referred to as “karti” and when it is dealing with the physical edible vegetable, it is referred to as “kraisha” or other things.

What is important to note is that this sounds like a very functional instructive section. People were well acquainted with these colors and between both of them, there is a very functional difference in the amount of light needed for each argument. Identifying the difference between white and any color requires much less light (and therefore much earlier in the morning) than needing to differentiate between two very similar colors.

Moreover, there is also the green vegetable eaten at the Passover seder “karpas”. Karpas is also a hapax legomenon (a word used a single time in the bible) in the Book of Esther as a color word, alongside tekhelet. It is commonly translated as as “cotton” or “linen”, but it makes a lot more sense for it to be the name of an expensive green dye.

While this is obviously not the place to muse on greenery, “karat” was the word for “cut”, so it would make sense that many green cuttings would share a kr- prefix. Regardless of what specific shade of green karti was referring to, it was clear that it was green.

This does not negate that tekhelet could be a shade of blue, which would still be difficult to differentiate from green in low light.

3rd-5th century

On the same Mishnah, the Jerusalem (or Palestinian) Talmud concludes that the color of tekhelet is similar to the color of the sea. 

This tells that tĕkhelet is similar to the sea. But the sea is similar to grasses, grasses are similar to the sky, the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, and the Throne is similar to sapphire, as it is written (Ez. 10:1): “I saw, and here by the spread that was on top of the Cherubim like sapphire stone, the looks of the form of the Throne.”
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 1:2

You will see that this is a unique progression, as the slightly later Babylonian Talmud skips out on the relationship to grasses.

4th-6th century

In the Babylonian Talmud, which was written in a slightly different dialect of Judeo-Aramaic, and outside the land of Israel. Generally when the term “the Talmud” is used, this is the one it is referring to. It is a mix of laws, stories, arguments, interpretations, and so much more.

• In bSotah 17a, the Talmud explains that “tekhelet is similar to the color of the sea, the sea is similar to the heavens, and the heavens are similar to the [God’s] seat of glory.”
• In bBaba Metziah 61b and bMenahot 43a , the Talmud indicates that the hue of tekhelet nearly indistinguishable from the hue of the dye from the kala ilan (translated by some as indigo).
• Separately, the Talmud in bMenahot 44a explains a very unique origin of the expensive tekhelet dye, is extracted from. from a sea creature, the ḥilazon, which resembles like a fish and only rises once every 70 years. 

What is clear that whereas in the 3rd century Mishnah, which was written in the Land of Israel, they were familiar with the dye of tekhelet, by the time they were living in Mesopotamia (Modern-day Iraq), they were no longer intimately familiar with the dye. In fact, one of the cases where they write about testing it for its authenticity is prefaced with “a story is told”. 

11th century

There was a late 11th century French biblical exegete and talmudic commentator who was known by his initials Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (or in Latin, Salomon Isaacides). 

Rashi takes the similarity with the leek to be literal, as he understood the color of 

• In bBrachot 57b, the Talmud writes that “all colors are good (auspicious) for a dream, besides for tekhelet.” In Rashi’s commentary on the page, he explains: “tekhelet. it is green and green is associated with being sick.” 
• In his talmudic commentary on bGittin 31b, he states that “tekhelet is the color of leek.”
• On the above referenced source of bSotah 17b, Rashi notes explicitly there that tekhelet is not similar to the color of the heavens.

I would suggest that Rashi assumed that tekhelet was a green color. This may be partially because in his commentary on Numbers 15:38, Rashi explicitly declares that “tekhelet: the green color of the ḥilazon”.

Yet, in their translation of Rashi on Numbers 15:38, M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, (London, 1929-1934) write:

BLUE PURPLE — It is the blue dye of (obtained from) the blood of the Chilazon (a kind of shell-fish).

Regardless of Rosenbaum and Silbermann’s attempt at accurately identifying the hue of tekhelet, they chose to explicitly mistranslate Rashi’s words to fit their own worldview.

12th century

The 12th century Midrash of Numbers Rabbah 14 writes:

It is because the tekhelet is like grass, grass is like the sea, the sea is like the firmament, the firmament is like the rainbow, the rainbow is like the cloud, the cloud is like the Throne, and the Throne is like the Glory, as it is stated: “Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud…” (Ezekiel 1:28)

However, the anonymous translator of the Sefaria Midrash Rabba (2022) (from which I adapted this translation) actually wrote a note:

It is because the sky-blue dye [tekhelet] is like grass, *While tekhelet is usually translated as “sky-blue,” tekhelet can also encompass the color green. 

We translate things the way we think they ought to be, not how the source we are translating does. What’s more is that tekhelet is always compared to the sea or grass, yet, people actively translate it as “sky-blue”.

Similarly, the 12th century Spanish Jewish polymath, known as the Ibn Ezra, wrote in his commentary on Exodus 25:4 that the rabbis considered tekhelet to be green, as opposed to a certain Karaite scholar who thought it to be black.

Homophones are hard

This may also be connected to the Arabic word “kohl”, which is a dark-blue, almost black color used as makeup. In his 13th century legal codex (Yad, Shekhita 7:19), the Spanish Jewish polymath Maimonides describes “kāḥol” to be be black, not a word connected to tekhelet, even if in modern Hebrew, the same word means “blue”.

There is a phrase used often in the Bible, keḥol ha-yam, which literally means like the “sand of the sea”, meaning innumerate or impossible to count. It is outside of the the realm of this newsletter to figure out if that added to the misunderstanding of the color of the water, or if I’m just oversensitive to homophones.

What about argaman?

I mentioned in the beginning, I also intended to cast some doubt on the source of argaman. 

In addition to Josephus’ remark above regarding the “purple flowers” for argaman, there is a very curious translation in the First Book of Maccabees, a book which was not included in the Jewish biblical canon, and is considered to be part of the Apocrypha.

It seemed to have been written in Hebrew, which was lost, but not before being translated to (and being preserved in Greek), and then translated back to Hebrew about a century ago.

While argaman is used extensively in the Bible, there is a particular phrase used in that source: argaman-yam, or “sea argaman”. 

It is curious why they would feel the need to explicitly not the sea source of the dye, unless, it was during a time of transition where they understood regular argaman to be floral, and that the Murex-sourced argaman was a more recent invention.

Rethinking Dyeing

Personally, I think that a floral source for both tekhelet and argaman is more logical for the sheer amount that both where used across biblical and post-biblical sources. The connection with argaman with Tyrian purple feels like it was a post-hoc association with the relatively newer concept of the royal purple, especially for the argaman in Exodus and Numbers.

There is no direct association that indicates any non-floral source for either dye in the text itself, and if we have learned anything from medieval and early modern dyes, dyes like indigo and woad (for blue), madder (for red), and dyer’s weed (for yellow) were extremely expensive and in short supply.

Woad (Isatis tinctoria) has its roots in ancient Egypt, and is a different plant than indigo (Indigofera tinctoria). The indigo plant produces more blue dye than woad, even though they look very similar, which is why Europeans were excited to import indigo. 

The Talmud, with all of its talk of counterfeit tekhelet, sounds a lot more logical if they considered woad to be the authentic tekhelet, and indigo to be an imposter.

The narrative of the mythical sea creature of the ḥilazon predated the references and connections to tekhelet. Conflating that with the source of Tyrian purple added an extra sense of mystique.

It’s all about access

It also explains why the medieval European scholars like Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the author of the  Midrash would associate tekhelet with green, even though the Talmud doesn’t really say that. 

• Europe
  • Access to woad, but not indigo. May have not been aware of existence of indigo at that point. Likely conflated the two in translations of earlier sources.
    Therefore, they didn’t feel comfortable to announce that their local dye was the correct one. They couldn’t believe that their local dye was the same dye source that was written about millennia earlier.
    It was easier to connect tekhelet with green, so people use woad (which had more of a blue hue).
• Mesopotamia (Babylonian Talmud)
  • The Mesopotamian scholars may have had access to indigo and not woad, and they knew that two different dyes existed. They never explicitly call tekhelet green, because they know that it is similar to indigo. They created the fantastical narrative about the source of the dye they didn't have.
• Roman Palestine
  • Likely had access to both woad and indigo, and were very careful about attempts to counterfeit woad by using indigo. That's why you had to only purchase woad from reliable sources.

Bottom line

Tekhelet was nearly certainly a blue color from a floral source, as we can see from Josephus. Argaman was originally a purple color from a floral source as well, but that likely changed in the late or post-biblical period.

I'm unsure if Josephus' (and the Septuagint's) "hyacinth" translation was more in line with how we would describe color today, as in "it's a hue that looks similar to the hyacinth flower." Part of the reason to think this may be correct is that the woad plant doesn't actually look like the dye. It needs to be processed.

The hues of woad (and indigo) are similar enough to the color of the sea for the Jerusalem Talmud to associate it with the sea. I'm still not quite sure why they would need to connect it with the color of grass.

That said, when translating the medieval scholars, it is correct to translate tekhelet as green, because they thought, in fact, that the color of tekhelet was green.