Speculation: What if the Ark of the Covenant were discovered?

[rfgdxm]

This idea occurred to me when reading the thread about Israel rebuilding the Temple. This is just a thought experiment. Let's assume that the following happens:

#1) The Ark of the Covenenant is found. In this hypothetical, wherever and however it is discovered is not particularly politically controversial. IOW, its discovery doesn't involve something like Israel razing the Dome of the Rock and searching for it. THAT could very well result in WWIII, and if it happened none of us might be around to debate it. :eek: I'm thinking here something like its discovery is similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were happened upon by accident by some young Bedouin shepherds in a cave. Or maybe some archaelogists happens to figure out where it is, etc.

#2) The Ark exhibits no apparent magical or divine properties at this point. From my understanding, based on holy texts which hold that it once did hold a presence of God, that presence may have left it long ago. Thus its lack of such properties wouldn't necessarily invalidate any religious faith.

#3) Based on the totality of the evidence, it is quite convincing that the object discovered is indeed the Ark the Jews carried around long ago. This wouldn't necessarily be hard to do. What the true Ark looked like is fairly well described in the ancient Hebrew texts. By various means, including science, the Ark that was found could be dated to the appropriate time period. And, there just isn't any good reason to think anyone way back then was making bogus copies of the Ark. Particularly with gold being part of the construction. IOW, it isn't like the situation where phony pieces of the "true cross Christ was crucified on" were sold to naive suckers by con men. And those pieces of the "true cross Christ was crucified on" amounted to enough wood to have been used in the crucifiction of hundreds of men. ;)

When considering this hypothetical, note these points. It could be discovered in a place where Jews rule, Muslims rule, or Christians now rule. It is quite reasonable if the Ark still exists, wherever it is now could be in many possible places. I'm assuming here that the Ark did once actually exist. Ignore for a moment this issue of the alleged contents, or if those contents were something of a divine nature. It seems historically plausible to me that the Jews long ago carried around a box that was generally presumed to contain sacred items. And that long ago they hid it somewhere to avoid desecration. The Ark if found would be considered a sacred object by 3 different faiths, 2 of them quite prominent in the world today. That it currently was in possession by people of one of these faiths could be quite upsetting to some members of the other 2.

Comments?

[HPL]

Well, I was going to answer, but #2 prevents me from saying that Nazis faces would melt off.

[BrainGlutton]

The obvious and sensible thing would be to put in a museum in Jerusalem. Really, unless the Jews are going to rebuild the Temple -- which will not happen -- what other use could anyone make of the Ark?

[rfgdxm]

Well, I was going to answer, but #2 prevents me from saying that Nazis faces would melt off.

There just ain't as many Nazi's today as there used to be. ;)

[Magiver]

There just ain't as many Nazi's today as there used to be. ;)
mmmmmm..... melty Nazis.

How would anyone know if they found such a mystical item? It would have to have a certificate of authenticity in it.

It would certainly end up inside a newly created church.

[Valgard]

I don't see that it would have any big impact beyond being an "important religious artifact". Per your conditions it doesn't DO anything magical nor would the discovery settle any staggering debates or change our view of the world.

By this I don't mean to take anything away from the obvious important symbolism to people of faith, it might be very affirming to many of them, but to me it'd "only" be a fascinating historical find, like the discovery of the tomb of a long-lost pharoah. Cool, neat, an amazing piece of history but not life-altering. I'd certainly stand in line to see it :-)

[Darkhold]

I don't see that it would have any big impact beyond being an "important religious artifact". Per your conditions it doesn't DO anything magical nor would the discovery settle any staggering debates or change our view of the world.Well maybe not YOUR view of the world but if something as major as the ark was discovered there would be raging debates, hysterical conversions, people losing their faith (when it didn't do anything magical), and roughly 1 million fundamentalists somehow tying the finding of the ark with the end times. Really I hope they don't unearth anything that major in my lifetime.

[dropzone]

...and roughly 1 million fundamentalists somehow tying the finding of the ark with the end times.Yeah, but they're doing much the same thing tying Britney Spears's career slide with the end times. Most folks don't pay them much attention.

Another vote for "Most archeologists and historians who gave the matter any thought figured it probably existed at one time so finding it doesn't go much beyond 'way cool' but some of the devout will try to make more of it than there is but if no nazi faces start melting 'toot sweet' it'll slide off the front page by the second edition."

[Dewey Finn]

Completely wild speculation: Fundamentalist Christians in the US believed that the Ark was in Iraq, so they conspired to cause the Iraqi invasion. Thus, the search for WMDs and Saddam Hussein was just a cover for the real target; the Ark itself.

[CurtC]

One thing that would happen is that archaeologists would empty their bookshelves into the dumpster, because it's been pretty well decided for a long time that the Israelites were indigenous to the Isreal area, and a mass exodus from Egypt never occurred. And they'd have a lot of explaining to do, of how they got the story so wrong.

[Bryan Ekers]

It would certainly end up inside a newly created church.

Or an unidentified government warehouse.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Well maybe not YOUR view of the world but if something as major as the ark was discovered there would be raging debates, hysterical conversions, people losing their faith (when it didn't do anything magical), and roughly 1 million fundamentalists somehow tying the finding of the ark with the end times.

Oh please.

Jesus raised the dead* in front of eyewitnesses who still refused to believe He was who He said He was. The discovery of a big wooden box with gold isn't going to change anybody's mind.

Let's pretend for a minute that they do find the ark and it really is the ark. Ok, cool. Those that already believed will go "Great! More archaeological confirmation! Yay God!" Those who don't believe (and are determined to never believe) will create some alternate theory to explain it away. The rest of the world will go about its business, not paying attention as usual.


*Plus a bunch of other stuff

[Sam Stone]

I don't see what the big deal would be, unless the ark exhibited some supernatural properties or something. The existence of an ark does not prove the existence of God. All it does is suggest that the story of the Ark in the bible was derived the existence of an object that the ancient people thought was holy. Perhaps the ark was an ancient Babylonian burial chamber that the Jews discovered and built the story around it.

I don't see that it would have to have any more significance than discovering Tutankahman's tomb, other than that I suppose some religious people might fight over it. But then, religious people who want to fight with each other always seem to find a reason.

For that matter, I don't know how you could ever prove that it was THE ark. Maybe several copies were made. Maybe it was made to the specification of the story in the bible shortly after the original text was written. How could you tell?

[WeRSauron]

Even with the conditions placed, we'd be looking at an extremely volatile and dangerous situation.

First of all, whether Israel wanted to or not, rumors would fly everywhere of an impending razing of the Temple Mount so that the Jews can build their Temple.

Second, the reaction amongst Jews might become very divisive in itself. Some would see this as a signal to begin rebuilding the Temple. Some would see this as a sign that the Messiah's advent is nigh (but the Messiah will build or bring the Temple - no Temple may be constructed before his advent). Secular Jews would want nothing radically religious done - put it in a museum or something. Whether the Ark had magical properties or not would be irrelevant, really. After all, the belief is that G-d's presence has left the Ark, no? Why else would G-d allow His Temple to be destroyed and plundered, with His Ark in hiding, if not for displeasure and withdrawal from the Community of Israel? The return of the Ark might signal G-d's return to Israel. The Jews would look forward to some point in time, maybe the consecration of the new Temple, when the Shekhinah would return.

The Christian reaction would be interesting. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are usually on the side of the Palestinians when it comes to the Near East conflict. Protestant (specially Evangelical) Churches tend to support Israel. The theological impact of this would be minimal, really. After all, what value does an ancient artifact have when God Himself descended to earth and became human? Besides, the Ark represents the old covenant, including the law of the old covenant, which Jesus abrogated, as it were, with the proclamation of His new gospel and covenant. Political sides would determine who would support what action. The Catholics and Orthodox would oppose anything radical, including the rebuilding of the Temple. Evangelicals would support it. Some may even clamor for it.

WRS - Velirushalayim irekha barachamim tashuv, vetishkon betokhah kaasher dibarta, uvnei otah baqarov beyameinu binyan olam, vekhissei David avdekha meheirah letokhah takhin. Barukh atah H', bonei yerushalayim. (Amein.) Retzei H' elo(q)einu beamekha yisraeil velitfillatam she'ei, vehasheiv et haavoda lidivir beitekha. Ve'ishei yisraeil, utfillatam meheira baahava teqabeil beratzon, ut'hi leratzon tamid avodat yisraeil amekha. Vetechezena eineinu beshuvekha laratzon barachamin. Barukh atah H', hammachazir shekhinato letziyon. (Amein.)

[Marley23]

Those who don't believe (and are determined to never believe) will create some alternate theory to explain it away.
You've got me pegged. :rolleyes:

[Dunderman]

By various means, including science, the Ark that was found could be dated to the appropriate time period.
Just out of curiosity: what means, other than science, would be used to date the Ark? I can't think of any, you see.

[rfgdxm]

Just out of curiosity: what means, other than science, would be used to date the Ark? I can't think of any, you see.
Well, if it were found in a cave in Michigan, and the evidence was it was there for quite a long time, THAT would raise some interesting questions. ;)

And, going back to my original post, I did write "It could be discovered in a place where Jews rule, Muslims rule, or Christians now rule. It is quite reasonable if the Ark still exists, wherever it is now could be in many possible places." A quick Google search indicates some believe it even ended up in Ethiopia. It would make sense that if devout Jews hid it so it wouldn't be desecrated, they'd take it as far away as possible. Best place to hide something isn't where people are likely to be looking for it. Given that, what if it were found in Iran or Saudi Arabia? Unlikely these countries would want to relocate it to Jerusalem, so long as Jerusalem was under the control of Israel. Of course, Israel wouldn't be thrilled that this Jewish relic was in the hands of Muslims. Consider the implications...

[Darkhold]

Oh please.

Jesus raised the dead* in front of eyewitnesses who still refused to believe He was who He said He was. The discovery of a big wooden box with gold isn't going to change anybody's mind.

Let's pretend for a minute that they do find the ark and it really is the ark. Ok, cool. Those that already believed will go "Great! More archaeological confirmation! Yay God!" Those who don't believe (and are determined to never believe) will create some alternate theory to explain it away. The rest of the world will go about its business, not paying attention as usual.


*Plus a bunch of other stuff
I saw two men get into a fist fight when the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated to the wrong century. (One was of the opinion that Jesus’ soul screwed up the dating when it passed through the cloth the other was of the opinion it was all a Jewish conspiracy to discredit the shroud)

I've seen two churches sever contact with each other (one always rented the other's halls for their big events and they stopped doing that and started writing hostile letters to the editor in our local paper) when one church said the inscription on some tomb was "Here lies John brother of Jesus" or some such was a fake that Jesus had no brothers of sisters.

Considering how passionate and hateful I've seen people get over very old arguments it disturbs me to the core to wonder how much upset could be caused over unearthing the Ark.

[BrainGlutton]

. . . and roughly 1 million fundamentalists somehow tying the finding of the ark with the end times.

Yeah, but they're doing much the same thing tying Britney Spears's career slide with the end times. Most folks don't pay them much attention.

I wish! Unfortunately there are a lot more than a million fundamentalists, in the U.S. alone, and others have to pay attention to them because they won't shut up.

One thing that would happen is that archaeologists would empty their bookshelves into the dumpster, because it's been pretty well decided for a long time that the Israelites were indigenous to the Isreal area, and a mass exodus from Egypt never occurred. And they'd have a lot of explaining to do, of how they got the story so wrong.

Why? Even if you found something you could definitely prove was the Ark, how could you prove it was ever carried from Sinai to Canaan?

I've seen two churches sever contact with each other (one always rented the other's halls for their big events and they stopped doing that and started writing hostile letters to the editor in our local paper) when one church said the inscription on some tomb was "Here lies John brother of Jesus" or some such was a fake that Jesus had no brothers of sisters.

If you're talking about the so-called "James Ossuary," yes, it has been proven a fake: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030616/jesusfake.html, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james-bone-box.html. OTOH, the Gospels do name several brothers of Jesus. Some Christians get around this by saying either that the word translated as "brothers" could mean "cousins" or "kinsmen," or that Mary was Joseph's second wife and the "brothers" were from his first marriage. We've discussed all this in a couple of recent threads about St. Mary and Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy.

[Bryan Ekers]

Just out of curiosity: what means, other than science, would be used to date the Ark? I can't think of any, you see.

Finding Moses' driver's license inside would held.

[Bryan Ekers]

Aaagh! "help", "help", Aaagh!

[BrainGlutton]

Well, if it were found in a cave in Michigan, and the evidence was it was there for quite a long time, THAT would raise some interesting questions. ;)


Paging Brigham Young!

[BrainGlutton]

WRS - Velirushalayim irekha barachamim tashuv, vetishkon betokhah kaasher dibarta, uvnei otah baqarov beyameinu binyan olam, vekhissei David avdekha meheirah letokhah takhin. Barukh atah H', bonei yerushalayim. (Amein.) Retzei H' elo(q)einu beamekha yisraeil velitfillatam she'ei, vehasheiv et haavoda lidivir beitekha. Ve'ishei yisraeil, utfillatam meheira baahava teqabeil beratzon, ut'hi leratzon tamid avodat yisraeil amekha. Vetechezena eineinu beshuvekha laratzon barachamin. Barukh atah H', hammachazir shekhinato letziyon. (Amein.)

Sez you!

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, unless the dingus can melt NAZIs or shoot laser beams, even if it could be proven genuine, it wouldn't mean anything. That ancient Hebrews had a revered box into which they put revered stuff doesn't exactly stir my atheist heart. Heck, I could sort-of buy all the non-miraculous aspects of the Book of Exodus re Moses (or some similar philosopher King) codifying Hebrew belief some 3400 years ago without dwelling on some larger meaning. I'm guessing a lot of people will be a little gladdened that hard evidence exists, but I don't expect them to change their lives because of it.

But as soon as one NAZI melts, all bets are off.

[rfgdxm]

For that matter, I don't know how you could ever prove that it was THE ark. Maybe several copies were made. Maybe it was made to the specification of the story in the bible shortly after the original text was written. How could you tell?
Thinking about the above, it just doesn't parse. If the author of the early Jewish writings wrote about a box which included a lot of gold in the construction, would not his contemporaries just scoff at him with "Hey dude, there just ain't such an object. If there were, wouldn't some of us have seen it?" rather than construct a box immediately to try and make the story true? After all, the text states that this box was publicly displayed.

And back to my original post, I never meant to suggest that if the Ark were found, athiests en masse would start believing in God, and lot of Hindus, Sikhs, whatever would change faiths. They'd just say "Oh, so someone actually found that box mentioned in the early Hebrew scriptures. Interesting. However, since this box exhibits no miraculous properties today, it is just a relic of Jewish folklore." My point was:

"The Ark if found would be considered a sacred object by 3 different faiths, 2 of them quite prominent in the world today. That it currently was in possession by people of one of these faiths could be quite upsetting to some members of the other 2."

The sticky part of the discovery would be how Jews/Christians/Muslims felt about it. Particularly in the sense some of those of the faith that didn't possess it would find this troubling.

[BrainGlutton]

If you can endure a slight hijack -- do modern Catholics, or any other Christians, still attach a lot of importance to holy relics? You know, saints' bones, Christ's foreskin, pieces of the True Cross?

[rfgdxm]

I saw two men get into a fist fight when the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated to the wrong century. (One was of the opinion that Jesus’ soul screwed up the dating when it passed through the cloth the other was of the opinion it was all a Jewish conspiracy to discredit the shroud)

I've seen two churches sever contact with each other (one always rented the other's halls for their big events and they stopped doing that and started writing hostile letters to the editor in our local paper) when one church said the inscription on some tomb was "Here lies John brother of Jesus" or some such was a fake that Jesus had no brothers of sisters.

Considering how passionate and hateful I've seen people get over very old arguments it disturbs me to the core to wonder how much upset could be caused over unearthing the Ark.
Yep. Your example of the guys getting into a fist fight over the Shroud of Turin is an excellent example. There was never any particularly good reason for anyone to think it was real. First, there is no Biblical mention of such a shroud ever existing. If it had been seen at the time, one would expect that it would be notable enough to be worth writing about. Second, the shroud happens to pop up in the Middle Ages, at a time that trafficking in phony relics was well documented. Where is the record of people who had seen something as unusual as this in the many centuries before? And even the Roman Catholic Church never presented it as being 100% absolutely an authentic relic. They just thought of it as an interesting curiousity. People didn't abandon Roman Catholicism in large numbers when it was proved a fake.

Now as for the Ark, both Jews, Christians and Muslims hold as a matter of the faith it did exist. If the Ark were found, and could be proven to be of the correct age for the true Ark, THAT would be a mighty sacred relic.

[dropzone]

The lovely Northern Gothic Jesus doesn't help sell its genuineness, either.

[FriarTed]

Completely wild speculation: Fundamentalist Christians in the US believed that the Ark was in Iraq, so they conspired to cause the Iraqi invasion. Thus, the search for WMDs and Saddam Hussein was just a cover for the real target; the Ark itself.


Naw, it's the Babylonian Stargate to Nibiru that Bush is trying to access for Skull & Bones to establish contact with our Annunaki overlords!

DUH! :D

[David Simmons]

This idea occurred to me when reading the thread about Israel rebuilding the Temple. This is just a thought experiment. Let's assume that the following happens:

#1) The Ark of the Covenenant is found. In this hypothetical, wherever and however it is discovered is not particularly politically controversial. IOW, its discovery doesn't involve something like Israel razing the Dome of the Rock and searching for it. THAT could very well result in WWIII, and if it happened none of us might be around to debate it. :eek: I'm thinking here something like its discovery is similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were happened upon by accident by some young Bedouin shepherds in a cave. Or maybe some archaelogists happens to figure out where it is, etc.

#2) The Ark exhibits no apparent magical or divine properties at this point. From my understanding, based on holy texts which hold that it once did hold a presence of God, that presence may have left it long ago. Thus its lack of such properties wouldn't necessarily invalidate any religious faith.

#3) Based on the totality of the evidence, it is quite convincing that the object discovered is indeed the Ark the Jews carried around long ago. This wouldn't necessarily be hard to do. What the true Ark looked like is fairly well described in the ancient Hebrew texts. By various means, including science, the Ark that was found could be dated to the appropriate time period. And, there just isn't any good reason to think anyone way back then was making bogus copies of the Ark. Particularly with gold being part of the construction. IOW, it isn't like the situation where phony pieces of the "true cross Christ was crucified on" were sold to naive suckers by con men. And those pieces of the "true cross Christ was crucified on" amounted to enough wood to have been used in the crucifiction of hundreds of men. ;)

When considering this hypothetical, note these points. It could be discovered in a place where Jews rule, Muslims rule, or Christians now rule. It is quite reasonable if the Ark still exists, wherever it is now could be in many possible places. I'm assuming here that the Ark did once actually exist. Ignore for a moment this issue of the alleged contents, or if those contents were something of a divine nature. It seems historically plausible to me that the Jews long ago carried around a box that was generally presumed to contain sacred items. And that long ago they hid it somewhere to avoid desecration. The Ark if found would be considered a sacred object by 3 different faiths, 2 of them quite prominent in the world today. That it currently was in possession by people of one of these faiths could be quite upsetting to some members of the other 2.

Comments?

At least 500 lb. of fragments from the Ark would appear in churches worldwide alongside the 2 tons of fragments and 4025 nails from the True Cross.

[JRDelirious]

One thing that would happen is that archaeologists would empty their bookshelves into the dumpster, because it's been pretty well decided for a long time that the Israelites were indigenous to the Isreal area, and a mass exodus from Egypt never occurred. That does not preclude the existence of a sacred object, made by the Levite tribe in their pre-urban phase, winding up in the Temple when the Israelites become a unified kingdom, and then inserted into the national "origin story" about the mass exodus. It does not even prevent the ark, or the tabernacle, or the tablets, from being things that did travel across Sinai: it could be the case that though the bulk of the Israelite volk was autochtonous to the Jordan valley region (or as autochtonous as any ethnicity can be in that location), some group influential in their socioreligious development did embark on a migration from the general direction of Egypt -- that was later on magnified and boostered into a Great Exodus when they got around to writing it.

[msmith537]

It Belongs In A Museum!!!!

[cmkeller]

Well, if history is any indication, if it's placed in a museum with artifacts from idolatrous religions, it'll cause them to fall down and be dismembered, and the curators will develop hemmorhoids until it's returned to its rightful place.

[rfgdxm]

Well, if history is any indication, if it's placed in a museum with artifacts from idolatrous religions, it'll cause them to fall down and be dismembered, and the curators will develop hemmorhoids until it's returned to its rightful place.
I would think if the Ark were found it would be thought a museum just to house it would justified. It is just where this museum would located that would be politically controversial. How would Israel react if the Ark was found in Jordan, and was that museum was located in Jordan?

[rfgdxm]

...until it's returned to its rightful place.
BTW, what today would be the rightful place? Assume that I am an archaeologist, and manage to find the Ark. And, that it is my desire to take the Ark to its rightful place. I can't very well take it to the Temple in Jerusalem and leave it in the Holy of Holies, as the Temple is no longer there. What should I do with the thing?

[BobLibDem]

I thought it was not lost- that a church in Ethiopia has it. As I recall, one person in that church is the safekeeper of it and the only person allowed to actually see it.

[rwjefferson]

There just ain't as many Nazi's today as there used to be. ;)
Of course there are. They are just called Islamic Militants now.
rwj

[cmkeller]

rfgdxm:

BTW, what today would be the rightful place? Assume that I am an archaeologist, and manage to find the Ark. And, that it is my desire to take the Ark to its rightful place. I can't very well take it to the Temple in Jerusalem and leave it in the Holy of Holies, as the Temple is no longer there. What should I do with the thing?

Once again going with Biblical history as a guide, it could be placed on a cart drawn by two oxen and let the oxen free to pull it without human guidance.

Otherwise, I suppose that some sort of tent could be set up in Jerusalem as an interim home for it (e.g., the dedicated museum you mentioned - but treated with respect due a sacred object rather than as a historical artifact for every curious person to lay eyes on) until a new Temple can be rebuilt. That's what King David did.

[clairobscur]

I thought it was not lost- that a church in Ethiopia has it. As I recall, one person in that church is the safekeeper of it and the only person allowed to actually see it.


True. Actually, I believe the safekeeper lives alone and can't leave the place. He's a sort of hermit.


But since, as you mentionned, nobody is allowed to approach the thing, it's not like this claim is taken very seriously. There's probably *something* in this church, but probably as real as the relics found all over Europe. At least, with the shroud of Turin, people can see it from time to time.

[APB]

Just out of curiosity: what means, other than science, would be used to date the Ark? I can't think of any, you see.

Art historical analysis of its style, which few would consider 'science' but which can, in some cases, be at least as accurate as scientific dating methods. In this particular case, they might be a problem about finding suitable objects for comparison...

I thought it was not lost- that a church in Ethiopia has it. As I recall, one person in that church is the safekeeper of it and the only person allowed to actually see it.

Er, the clergy at Axum may claim that they have it, but the fact that no outsiders are allowed to see it means that all we have is their word for it. That might be enough to convince Graham Hancock; the rest of us would prefer a bit more evidence. And, as Roderick Grierson and Stuart Munro-Hay (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0297841432/qid=1093272087/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_10_3/026-4496878-8560411) have argued, what evidence we do have is far from straightforward or unambiguous. It is not even obvious that the clergy at Axum do claim that they have it.

[AHunter3]

I see no reason to believe that the ark survived the destruction of the first temple, when it probably occupied a small area called the tabernacle within the temple that was itself a replica of the desert tent-thingie.

But I also assume that both tabernacle and ark actually existed as physical artifacts that were sacred to the people of Judah and which they had with them for a long time.

[BobLibDem]

I have a couple cool links on the Ark-

National Geographic (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/07/01/html/ft_20010701.6.html) has a brief article on the Ethiopian church that claims it.

And here is a link of links (http://www.shortcuts.com/arklinks.html) for those that really want to read.

[AHunter3]

MeI see no reason to believe that the ark survived the destruction of the first temple, when it probably occupied a small area called the tabernacle within the temple that was itself a replica of the desert tent-thingie.

"that was itself a replica of the desert tent-thingie" should be understood to be a phrase that modifies "the tabernacle", not "the temple".

[Cervaise]

Or an unidentified government warehouse.Apropos of nothing, one of the weirdest bits of ridiculous minutiae lodged in my trivia-clogged head is the number stenciled on the side of the crate. I sometimes deploy this tidbit when a thermonuclear trivia weapon is called for.

Oh, and calling it a 'dingus' is cracking me up. :)

[Voyager]

Since it is likely the first temple existed, and it is not too improbable that a holy item like the Ark would be in it, I don't know that finding the Ark would be particularly earth-shattering. It not doing any tricks might actually help knock down the mythology. I agree that it being found does not imply it wandered all over the Sinai, unless there were some good evidence (like pollen or something) that it had been to other places.

It would be cool to have found an artifact that old, and it would probably merit its own museum.

[Cluricaun]

True. Actually, I believe the safekeeper lives alone and can't leave the place. He's a sort of hermit.


But since, as you mentionned, nobody is allowed to approach the thing, it's not like this claim is taken very seriously. There's probably *something* in this church, but probably as real as the relics found all over Europe. At least, with the shroud of Turin, people can see it from time to time.

Careful with this one friends. This theory is mainly propagated by one Graham Hancock in his book "The Sign and the Seal" wherein he uses all sorts of nifty logic (including deciphering hidden meanings in the statuary at the cathedral at Chartres) to reach this conclusion. Noteworthy as well is that despite all 2000 pages of the book, it sums up quite quickly when the priest at the church in Ethiopia will not let Hancock see the "tabot". Careful reading suggests that Hancock is, while way below the Von Daniken standard, a bit of a nutter.

[Cluricaun]

Apropos of nothing, one of the weirdest bits of ridiculous minutiae lodged in my trivia-clogged head is the number stenciled on the side of the crate. I sometimes deploy this tidbit when a thermonuclear trivia weapon is called for.

Oh, and calling it a 'dingus' is cracking me up. :)



9906753

[rfgdxm]

Once again going with Biblical history as a guide, it could be placed on a cart drawn by two oxen and let the oxen free to pull it without human guidance.

Otherwise, I suppose that some sort of tent could be set up in Jerusalem as an interim home for it (e.g., the dedicated museum you mentioned - but treated with respect due a sacred object rather than as a historical artifact for every curious person to lay eyes on) until a new Temple can be rebuilt. That's what King David did.
Hmm...consider the political implications of housing this thing in Jerusalem? To start, that tent had better well damn be within a fortress. :( Only thing going for the idea is that the Ark would be considered a sacred object by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

[foolsguinea]

Would Jews, Xtians, & Muslims all see it as sacred? Wouldn't some Muslims see it as a vestige of offensive Jewish claims to specialness? And Xtians have a "New Covenant," after all. What does the Quran say about it?

Personally, I suspect the following: Since it incorporated graven images, it got tossed by that king who removed the idols from the temple. It may have been irreparably compromised by the previous regime's idolatry. It was probably burned/melted down before a restorationist got hold of it. Sorry!

[rfgdxm]

Would Jews, Xtians, & Muslims all see it as sacred? Wouldn't some Muslims see it as a vestige of offensive Jewish claims to specialness? And Xtians have a "New Covenant," after all. What does the Quran say about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

In the Qur'an
There is only a brief mention of the Ark of the Covenant in the Qur'an:

Their prophet said to them, "The sign of his kingship is that the Ark of the Covenant will be restored to you, bringing assurances from your Lord, and relics left by the people of Moses and the people of Aaron. It will be carried by the angels. This should be a convincing sign for you, if you are really believers." 002:248

According to some Muslim scholars, the Ark of the Covenant does not have a religious basis in Islam and Islam does not give it any special significance while others believe that it will be found by Mahdi near the end of times and inside there will be relics left by the people of Moses and the people of Aaron. They might be the sceptres of Moses and Aaron, plates of Torah and Aaron's turban.
--------
It is mentioned in the Qur'an. Certainly from what the Prophet said a Muslim shouldn't want to destroy it.

[Cervaise]

9906753Look again. (The number actually onscreen is not the same as the number in the book, script, etc.)