KADKOD (1'2.1Z). This word occurs Is. liv.
: 12, and Ezek. xxvii. 16 ; in both of which places it is rendered in the A. V. by agate, with the mar ginal note on the latter passage, Heb. chryso prase.' The LXX. has in the former passage racrrw, jasper, whilst in the latter the translator bas retained the original word, which he seems to have read iZ1: ; Gr. Xopxap, and to have taken for the name of a place. The Vulg. also retains the original word here, reading it Chodchod; but in the other passage it follows the LXX., and gives jaspidem. Thc Targ. gives in both places pear's; the Syr. in Is. has ,C,Lartil?, ofjasisers, and in Ezek. which is ren dered in the London Polyglott, acupietum. lt is evident that great uncertainty prevailed' as to the real meanin, of the original word ; and, indeed, Jerome conf'esses that he has not been able to find what the word means (` quid significat usque in priesentiam invenire non potui'). Rosemniiller argues that, from its being used by Isaiah as mate rial for 71:1.11(10WS, it must be a stone of a. chrystal line character ; but the force of this is greatly destroyed by the uncertainty attachin, to the meaning of the word rn,nr, Shemash'oth, used by Isaiah, and which the more recent interpreters generally prefer to take in the sense of battlenzents (Sept. brdNcts) to that of windows. The prevailing
opinion is, that the Kadkod was a species of ruby ; but this rests solely on the resemblance to the Arabic word L',61;,5', Eadzkadzat, which signifies, according to the Kamus, vivid redness, and cannot be accepted as conclusive. The Hebrew root from which 1:12 is said to be derived is the obso lete 11D, signifying, it is said, to strzhe fire, so that Kadkod would convey the idea of a sparkling gem ; but this tells us nothing as to the kind of gem it denoted, and besides, like various other such etymologies in Hebrew lexicons, the reason ing is wholly in a circle, the meaning assigned to the verb being derived from the noun, and that assigned to the noun being derived from the verb. The Targ. Jon. on Exod. xxxix. 1, gives 1411:12, Kadkna'in, as the equivalent of the Hebrew 6m, Yahalom, and as this was a stone of the flint family, and as the agate belongs to the same family, the A. V. is probably not far wrong in its rendering.—W. L. A.