The size and shape of Stone of Destiny helps make sense of this account, in case it really is this stone of Jacob. First, it is in fact about the size and shape of a big pillow, being about 26 x 16 x 10 inches. It was apparently already a stone which had been cut into a rectangular building shape when Jacob found it. It was probably rejected by the builders because it has a crack in it, so it had been discarded before being finished. If the Stone of Destiny really is Jacob's stone, then it is easy to see how he could stand it up on its end to be a "pillar." Actually, it might have been difficult because it weighs over 300 pounds. Checking the meaning of the word translated "pillar," we see that it means a "stone marker," which often were very large pillars. Most likely this one served mostly as a marker, so that he could find the location when he returned.Two decades and a dozen children later, Jacob was commanded to return to Bethel. After Jacob returned, and had built and anointed a more permanent altar, God appeared to him there and announced that his name would be changed to Israel, adding "a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins" (Gen. 35:11). This is most likely the time when Jacob decided to bring the original stone with him, though we are not explicitly told that detail. Note that the announcement that kings would descend from him occurred there. It would not be surprising if he was also given to know the future relation that his stone might have to those kings.

The Stone of Destiny has two rings which have clearly been used for transporting the stone by sliding a pole through both rings. There is a groove worn between the two rings which testifies of having been gradually eroded by such transport for an extended period. The stone would have been taken not only to Egypt with Israel, but then also with them at the Exodus and the forty years in the wilderness. Presumably it stayed in Jerusalem from the time of David until the fall of that city in 587 B.C.

3.2 The Stone of Israel Symbolized Christ

There is evidence in the Bible the it might well have been this stone which was specifically indicated to have been the "stone of Israel" which symbolized Jesus Christ. During the blessing of Jacob to Joseph, he inserted parenthetically, "from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel" (Gen. 49:24, compare D&C 50:44).Although I couldn't find any place where the Bible states explicitly that the stone of Jacob accompanied the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt,[17] Paul seems to imply it. He compares physical things such as the manna, water, and a rock which "followed" them to their spiritual counterparts which all symbolize Jesus Christ:

MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 

And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

Thus, the Rock of Salvation (Psalms 95:1) which shepherded the Israelites, apparently referred to the physical Stone of Jacob. Of course, as Paul explained, it was symbolic of Jesus Christ, who also identified himself as the Good Shepherd of Israel (John 10:11).

If the identification with the Stone of Scone is correct, then it is a very plain looking piece of calcareous sandstone[18], so ordinary that in preparing this article I noticed that several web pages describing the Stone of Scone were scoffing at how plain it is for the royalty to make such a fuss about. Thus, it has "no form nor comeliness" and "no beauty" that is should be desired, which is exactly how the Savior is described (Isa. 53:2). That led to it being "despised and rejected of men" (Isa. 53:3).

3.3 Rejected by the Builders

It may not only have been the original builders who discarded the stone. There is a also a tradition that when it came time to build the temple of Solomon, that the stone of Jacob, which was associated with the house of God from the beginning, should be included. But the builders rejected it because of the crack in it. There seemed to be no way that it could be a cornerstone to a temple.[19] Nor did it seem to the Jews who saw the Savior that there was any way that he could be the Messiah, the cornerstone of their religion. Thus, both were despised and rejected. David prophesied that the stone would be rejected (Psa. 118:22), and Jesus identified himself as fulfilling that prophecy. He explained that the "stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner" (Mat. 21:42, compare Acts 4:11). Knowning the Jesus Christ is the Rock of Israel (2 Sam. 23:3), we have long understood that scripture in the spiritual sense. But now that we learn about the Stone of Jacob, we see that the prophecy might well have been fulfilled in the physical sense also.

Is the Stone of Scone indeed the Stone of Jacob, which Jeremiah brought to Ireland, and on which British royalty has been coronated for so many centuries? Is there any way to verify these traditions, or will such ancient claims remain forever impossible to verify?

4. Geological Evidence

In the age of modern scholarship, it has become fashionable to demote all ancient history and tradition to the realm of legend, myth and fantasy. In many cases, that is like throwing out the baby with the bath water because there is usually a core of truth handed down in legend. In preparing this article, browsing the web for the "Stone of Scone" led to more articles ridiculing the traditions than those giving them any credence at all. Modern writers have assumed the Stone of Scone must have originated from a local quarry.

I am only aware of two scientific attempts to determine the origin of the stone. The first was by Professor Totten of Yale University. In response to suggestions that it had come from a local quarry, he issued the statement:, "The analysis of the stone shows that there are absolutely no quarries in Scone or Iona wherefrom a block so constituted could possibly have come, nor yet from Tara."[20]

The second study was done by Professor Odlum, who was a geologist and professor of theology at Ontario University. He made microscopic examinations of the stone, comparing it to quarries in both Scotland and Ireland, and found it dissimilar to stones from those areas. He became intrigued with the idea of that it might really be the stone of Jacob. That hypothesis could be tested scientifically by searching to see if a similar type of rock is found near Bethel, where Jacob found his stone. After considerable searching he found some strata rather high near a cliff that had exactly the type of composition he was looking for. He chipped off a piece and later performed microscopic tests. He concluded that his sample "matched perfectly" with the coronation stone.[21]

Desirous for even better proof he sought to get a little piece the size of a pea from the coronation stone, on which he could perform chemical tests. When he petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury for such a piece, the reply was that it would take an act of Parliament signed by the King, and even then he wouldn't provide it.

To the best of my knowledge that was the end of a really fine scientific experiment which could at least partially validate the claim that the stone might have come from Bethel. This is an excellent example of how science can indeed be used to validate historical traditions. They cannot provide proof, but can greatly add to the credibility of a story. What is needed now is a really thorough scientific study of the stone to verify its authenticity.

5. Conclusion

Preliminary geological studies have indicated that the Stone of Destiny, upon which British monarchs have been crowned for centuries might indeed be the stone of Jacob as tradition asserts, because it matches a formation near Bethel, the Biblical location of the stone the prophet Jacob found. Further scientific testing is now required, such as a thorough chemical composition comparison, and even that can only confirm the possibility that the stone is authentic. In any case, on this fiftieth anniversary of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, we can pause to pay respect to what very well might be the continuation of the unbroken line of succession of kings reigning over the children of Israel, from King David, over three thousand years ago.

Notes

• 1. See www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page2333.asp for a complete summary of events.

  2. E. Raymond Capt has written several books which summarize much of the evidence. Most of the information in this article was taken from his book Jacob's Pillar, Muskogee OK, Artisan Publishers, 1977. The author wishes to thank Colette Thomas Smith and William L. Walker, Jr., who pointed out to him several of the books on the subject, many of which are available from those publishers.

  3. One son of Zedekiah named Mulek avoided being killed, and came to America and became king of the Mulekites. His seed continued as kings until the time of Zarahemla about 120 B.C., when the Mulekites merged with the Nephites whose kings descended from Joseph through Lehi (Helaman 6:10, 8:21; Mosiah 25:2; Omni 1:19; Alma 10:3).

  4. The lower branch must refer to Zerah, son of Judah, whose kingdoms in Great Britain would go on to surpass that of the Kingdom of Judah, which was ruled by the higher branch of Pharez.

  5. Argos and Athens, the early culture centers in Greece which helped establish its culture and laws, were founded by the Danai (named for Dan). Muller, in Fragmenta Historicorum II:385 summarizes: "Hecataeus [of Abdera, a fouth-century B.C. Greek historian], therefore, tells us that the Egyptians, formerly being troubled by calamities, in order that the divine wrath might be averted, expelled all the aliens gathered together in Egypt. Of these, some, under their leaders Danus and Cadmus, migrated to Greece." (Capt, p. 25). Another ancient historian, Diodorus, adds "Now the Egyptians say that also after these events a great number of colonies were spread from Egypt all over the inhabited world . . . They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city in Greece, Argos . . . Even the Athenians, they say, are colonists from Sais in Egypt." (G.H. Oldfather, Diodorus of Sicily, 1933, vol 1, I:1-II:34, pg. 91, quoted in Capt, p. 26). The Danai became associated with the Phoenicians, and gave them their alphabet (the Phoenician alphabet is same as ancient Hebrew), upon which the Greek alphabet was also based. The Bible mentions how Dan made ships during the period of the Judges (about 1300 B.C., Judges 5:17). Homer refers to all of Greece as Argos, and calls them Argives or Danai, but most Greeks are descended from Javan, son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2). The Argives apparently later became the Macedonians. See Gawler, J. C., Dan, Pioneer of Israel (London, 1880) reprinted by Artisan Publishers, 1984, pp 11-16. This was clearly part of how all the world would be blessed by the children of Abraham.

  6. The Milesians were said also to called Gadelians, but the latter were probably a group that came later from the same area, because they were said to have remained in "Gothland" for a century and a half before coming to Ireland (Gawler, p. 31). I cannot help but notice the similarity of the name "Gadelian" and the name "Goth" to "Gad," one of the twelve tribes of Israel. I've never read of anyone else making that connection, so it might be merely a coincidence. Keatinge, in hisHistory of Ireland p. 72 states, "The most ancient Irish chronicles assert that the Gadelians in general were called Scots because they came out of Scythia." (Gawler, p. 41). The original source seems to be Annals of Ireland, by the Four Masters, "The Milesians, according to our old annalists, were originally a colony from Scythia, near to the Euxine and Caspian Seas, on the borders of Europe and Asia, and about the country now called Crimea. From these people, called the Scoti or Scots, Ireland got the name of Scotia." (Gawler, p. 31).

  7. Zerah is the usual spelling for this name (Gen. 46:12, 1 Chron. 2:4, etc.). The only time it is spelled Zarah is in the one verse describing his birth (Gen. 38:30).

  8. David's promise of continually reigning descendants appears to be an extension of the same promise given to Judah. This article discusses the continuity of the regal line after David, but what about from Judah to David? Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:1-2), and before that Israel was ruled by judges from various tribes. Where were the kings from Judah at that time? A manuscript from the Archives of Constantinople, which might well be the last chapter of the Book of Acts, states that the apostle Paul visited the British Isles, and that "certain of the Druids came unto Paul privately, and showed by their rites and ceremonies they were descended from the Jews which escaped from bondage in the land of Egypt, and the Apostle believed these things" (E. Raymond Capt, The Lost Chapter of Acts of the Apostles, Artisan Publishers, Muskogee, OK, 1982, p. 6). If some Israelites escaped from Egypt as the bondage began, then Judah's descendants could have a continual reign beginning with Judah himself.

  9. The Greek tradition is that Cecrops was the founder and first king of Athens, and that his brother Darda was the founder of Troy. Both were said to have come from Egypt. Some researchers have concluded that they were none other than Calcol and Dara, sons of Zerah (1 Chron. 2:6; Capt, Jacob's Pillar, p. 26). If so, it would mean that those cities were founded earlier than thought and that the founders left before, rather than after, the Egyptian bondage.

  10. The Scottish tradition is that his people were officially named "Scots" in honor of his wife, although they also say the name came from Scotia, their former home (Scythia): "the ancestor of the Scots was 'ane Greyk callit Gathelus (father of Eochaidh ...) son (descendant) of Cecrops of Athens, untherways of Argus, King of Argives' who came to Egypt when 'in this tyme rang (reigned) in Egypt Pharo ye scurge of ye pepill of Israel.' Gathelus gained a great victory for Pharo against 'the Moris and Pepil of Yned' and 'King Pharo gaif him his dochter, callit Scota, in marriage' It explicitly states that after they moved to Lusitana (Portugal) and built the city of Brigance, that he 'callit his subdittis (subjects) Scottis in honour and affeccioun of his wyiff.'" (The Chronicles of Scotland, by John Bellenden, 1531, vol. I, pgs. 21-27, quoted in Pillar of Jacob, p. 30).

  11. Capt, Jacob's Pillar, pp. 31-32.

  12. Another regal line in England descending from David comes from Joseph of Arimathaea, who went to England shortly after the Crucifixion of Christ, and from whom King Arthur descended.

  13. According to Capt (p. 26), after the fall of Troy, about 1200 B.C., Aeneas, the last of the royal blood of Zerah, took what was left of his nation and moved to Italy. He married the daughter of Latinus, king of the Latins, and founded the Roman Empire. His son (or grandson) Brutus with a large party of Trojans, removed to England. He arrived about 1103 B.C. and made a contract with his kindred in Britian. He built his new capital called Caer Troia ("New Troy"). The Romans later called it "Londinium" and today it is known as London.

  14. See the CNN coverage of the return of the Stone of Scone.

  15. The Companion Bible, quoted in Jacob's Pillar, p. 12.

  16. Bethel was located within a few miles of what is now Ramallah, which is Yasser Arafat's headquarters.

  17. Some possibilities are Ex. 17:6, Num. 20:8, Deut. 8:15, Psalms 114:8 in light of 1 Cor. 10:4.

  18. But didn't Gathelus say it his chair was marble? The word marble at that time could refer to any calcareous stone which could be polished (Jacob's Pillar, p. 31).

  19. This tradition comes through the Masons (Jacob's Pillar, p. 11).

  20. Jacob's Pillar, p. 59.

  21. Jacob's Pillar, p. 60.